alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the First Division,

December 5, 1949

No. 53775.

petitions 6696-R and 6707-R (New Orleans).

#### Fidelity Trading Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The petitions were dismissed.
Before the Third Division,

May 13, 1952

No. 56661.

protest 136922-K (Duluth).

#### Russell-Miller Milling Co. and Helen M. Majo *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise represented by the item marked with the letter *“A”*on the invoice in entry No. 435, which was limited to the quantity referred to in the stipulation under the title “Regulations complied with as to the following weights,” i. e., 46,506.32 bushels, is free of duty under Public Laws 211 and 272. The claim for free entry was sustained to this extent.
### Predicting future mangrove forest migration in the Everglades under rising sea level

By: Thomas W. Doyle**

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/fs03003

#### Links

- More information:  **Publisher Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Mangroves are highly productive ecosystems that provide valued habitat for fish and shorebirds. Mangrove forests are universally composed of relatively few tree species and a single overstory strata. Three species of true mangroves are common to intertidal zones of the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico Coast, namely, black mangrove (Avicennia germinans), white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa), and red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle). Mangrove forests occupy intertidal settings of the coastal margin of the Everglades along the southwest tip of the Florida peninsula (fig. 1). 

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Before the Third Division,

May 31, 1961

No. 65720.

#### Bluefries, New York, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 317312-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that had the complete file been before the collector during his 90-day period for review, the collector would have allowed free entry of the merchandise and following Abstract 57104, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 56662.

protest 180475-K (New York).

#### Alfred A. Mazer *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of live birds similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Alfred Mazer*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 67, C. D. 1265), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mesdrain MORFIN-MUNOZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-30393.

D.C. No. CR-02-00206-ALH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 7, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 5, 2005.

David L. Atkinson, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Harrison Stewart Latto, Law Office of Harrison S. Latto, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

ORDER and MEMORANDUM**

The petition for panel rehearing is denied as moot. The Memorandum Disposition filed February 22, 2005, is WITHDRAWN and replaced with the following Memorandum Disposition:

Because appellant did not challenge his sentence on Sixth Amendment grounds in the district court, we review his sentence for plain error. Pursuant to *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc), we remand the case *72for the district court to determine whether it would have sentenced appellant differently under an advisory Guidelines system.

REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.2



             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                           AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
               SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

          In connection with the Trinity Learning Corporation (the
"Company") Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December
31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Christine R. Larson, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date:     February 23, 2004

          /S/ Christine R. Larson
          ----------------------------
          Christine R. Larson
          Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Trinity Learning Corporation and will be retained by it
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           7


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000

<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           103,348,593
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            0
<EQUITIES>                                     52,500
<MORTGAGE>                                     0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 100,401,093
<CASH>                                         265,247
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             5,032,762
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         4,488,023
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 119,905,343
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                39,666,236
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            16,921,362
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 2,520,493
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,588,462
<OTHER-SE>                                     51,854,072
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   119,905,343
<PREMIUMS>                                     13,256,333
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            3,038,714
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 3,314,359
<BENEFITS>                                     9,690,427
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    4,106,567
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           4,175,627
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,636,785
<INCOME-TAX>                                   389,704
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,247,081
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,247,081
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.20
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                        0




</TABLE>
#### Collin & Gissel *v.*United States

No. 7439.

Invoice dated Mexico City, D. F., May 11, 1944.

Certified May 13, 1944.

Entered at Houston, Tex., June 12, 1944.

Entry No. 234-H.

(Decided November 19, 1947)

*Edward A. Kelly*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard H. Welsh,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Cline, Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement of cotton cloth imported from Mexico. At the trial counsel for the parties submitted the case on the following stipulation:

> Mr. Kelly: * * *

> *******

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the market value or price at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, plus, when not included in such price, the cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States, is as follows: 46 centavos Mexican money per meter, plus taxes, packing and containers, as invoiced.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher foreign value for the merchandise herein at the time of exportation.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

> Mr. Welsh: The Government agrees, and I make that agreement and concession upon the advice and with the consent of the appraiser, Mr. Bower, who is present in court.

*318On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value is 46 centavos Mexican money per meter, plus taxes, packing and containers, as invoiced.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.
Inthe Matter ofPhilip Putter 2013EA110075 Judge Not Assigned
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

# RE EIVED MAK 1

## 2 2015 

### HEARING DOCKET

Complainant, Federal Aviation Administration, hereby notifies the United States Department of Transportation, Office of Hearings, and the Respondent, pursuant to 14 C.P.R. §13.204(b), that it shall be represented in the above-stated action by the attorney listed below. All conununications, pleadings or documents are respectf<1lly requested to be forwarded as follows: Judith L. Vaughan Federal Aviation Administration Office ofRegional Counsel 1AviationPlaza Jamaica, NY 11434 Telephone: 718 553-3255 Facsimile: 718 995-5699 Respectfully submitted, Alfred R. Johnson, Jr. Regional Counsel 

# 3/;o/;
. ;- Dated: 1 / '._J --1----,/L..__ __CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certifY that onthis )/) 

## -i- day ofMarch, 2015, copies ofthe foregoing Notice ofAppearance has been served upon the following viaFederal Express:
ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY TO: Federal Aviation Administration Wilbur Wright Building -Suite 2Wl000 600 Independence Avenue, SW Washington DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 COPY TO: Lawrence R. DiGiansante (Attorney for Respondent) 984 Morris ParkAvenue Bronx, NY 10462

. Hooks legal Specialist Federal Aviation Administration Office ofRegional Counsel 1Aviation Plaza Jamaica, NY 11434

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1995, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                       1,036,973
<SECURITIES>                                 2,712,496
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,953,136
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,286,592
<PP&E>                                       5,671,421
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,121,368
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,116,063
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,654,023
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       153,175
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,503,793
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,116,063
<SALES>                                     11,595,216
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,595,216
<CGS>                                        7,382,051
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,382,051
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,463,036
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              67,417
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,200,895)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,200,895)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,200,895)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Trinity Learning Corporation (the "Company") Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas
D. Cole, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

Date: October 28, 2004

                                             /S/ DOUGLAS D. COLE
                                             -------------------
                                             Douglas D. Cole
                                             Chief Executive Officer



     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
     been provided to Trinity Learning Corporation and will be retained by it
     and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
     request.
No. 45174.

#### Protests 43238-K, etc., of Societa Prodotti Nazionali et al. (New York).

■Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 48284) it was held that an allowance of 2)4 percent should have been made in the weight of the cheese to compensate for the inedible coverings.
No. 49394.

#### Protests 926203-G, etc., of W. R. Grace & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2017006EN.01002001.xml

| 9.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern — Germany) — Hörmann Reisen GmbH v Stadt Augsburg, Landkreis Augsburg

(Case C-292/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Public passenger transport services by bus - Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Article 4(7) - Subcontracting - Requirement that the operator perform a major part of the public passenger transport services itself - Scope - Article 5(1) - Contract-award procedure - Award of the contract in accordance with Directive 2004/18/EC))

(2017/C 006/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Vergabekammer Südbayern

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hörmann Reisen GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Stadt Augsburg, Landkreis Augsburg

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a contract award procedure for public passenger transport services by bus, Article 4(7) of that regulation remains applicable to that contract; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a contract award procedure for public passenger transport services by bus, Article 4(7) of that regulation remains applicable to that contract;

| 2. | Article 4(7) of Regulation No 1370/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the contracting authority from setting at 70 % the proportion of self-provision by the operator responsible for the administration and performance of a contract for public passenger transport by bus, such as that at issue in the main proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 4(7) of Regulation No 1370/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the contracting authority from setting at 70 % the proportion of self-provision by the operator responsible for the administration and performance of a contract for public passenger transport by bus, such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

1

---
June 2, 2015

Mr. Nathan Progar EarthRes, Inc.

6912 Old Easton Road Pipersville, PA 18947

Dear Mr. Progar:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 6, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 1461), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
No. 48095.

#### Protests 4754-K, etc., of Eclipse Import Corp. et al. (New York).

*417Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following Abstract 47474 and in accordance with stipulation of counsel that the articles are in chief value of metal the claim at 45 percent under paragraph 397 was sustained.
Before the First Division,

May 13, 1952

No. 56648.

protests 176961-K, etc. (New York).

#### Bleyco Paper Corporation et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cellophane sheets similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Coughlin Mfg. Co.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 40, C. D. 1345) and *Gillette Safety Razor Co.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 44, C. D. 1346), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 35.4

Annual Statement as to Compliance For the Year Ended December 31, 2019

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc., Series 2016-GC37

Pursuant to Section 3.01 (32) of the Subservicing Agreement governing the referenced transaction (the “Servicing Agreement”), I hereby attest that:

|   | i. | A review of the activities and performance of Berkadia as Subservicer during the period has been made under my supervision. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | ii. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Berkadia as Subservicer has fulfilled, in all material respects, its obligations under this Subservicing Agreement throughout the period and no default by the Subservicer under the Subservicing Agreement has occurred and is continuing. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Berkadia,

Mark E. McCool President

February 10, 2020

Inv. 823 Lib. A