alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016200EN.01002201.xml

| 6.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/22

---

Order of the General Court of 4 April 2016 — L'Oréal v EUIPO — LR Health & Beauty Systems (LR)

(Case T-475/15) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of the mark - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 200/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal SA (Paris, France) (represented by: R. Dissman, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Kusturovic, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH (Ahlen, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 May 2015 (Case R 1143/2014-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH and L’Oréal SA.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | L’Oréal SA is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

L’Oréal SA is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.

1

---
Exhibit 35.1



|     |  |                                                                                                          
|---- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | Commercial Mortgage Servicing
D1050-084, 8th Fl
401 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2016, by and among CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL
MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION OF PNC BANK, NATOIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Special Servicer, PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES, LLC, as Operating Advisor and
Asset Representations Reviewer, CITIBANK N.A., as Certificate Administrator and DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-GC37 (the Agreement). Capitalized
terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.08 of this
Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from April 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period
has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of
February 2017.



|                        
|------------------------
|LOGO                    
|Daniel Bober            
|Executive Vice President
|Wells Fargo Bank        



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
# C_2017283EN.01003302.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Diesel v EUIPO — Sprinter megacentros del deporte (Representation of a curved and angled line)

(Case T-521/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a curved and angled line - Earlier EU figurative mark representing a capital letter ‘D’ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 283/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Diesel SpA (Breganze, Italy) (represented by: A. Gaul, M. Frank, A. Parassina and K. Dani, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Sprinter megacentros del deporte, SL (Elche, Spain) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 June 2015 (Case R 3291/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Diesel and Sprinter megacentros del deporte.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 June 2015 (Case R 3291/2014-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 June 2015 (Case R 3291/2014-2);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Diesel SpA; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Diesel SpA;

| 3. | Orders Sprinter megacentros del deporte, SL to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Sprinter megacentros del deporte, SL to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.

1

---
#### S. Stern, Stiner & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6038.

Invoice dated Buenos Aires, Argentina, July 15, 1942.

Entered at New York, N. Y., August 14, 1942.

Entry No. 21152.

(Decided June 30, 1944)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel*/. *Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Walkee, Judge:

This is an appeal to reappraisement from a finding of value made by the appraiser at the port of New York on certain bitter orange oil imported from Argentina. The merchandise was invoiced at a price per kilo of 24 Argentine pesos, f. o. b. Buenos Aires, and was entered at that price less charges for consular invoice, carriage and porterage, and customs expenses. It was appraised at 24 Argentine pesos per kilo, net, packed.

The evidence offered on behalf of the plaintiff corporation consists in part of the oral evidence of the president thereof. The gist of his testimony is that the merchandise was purchased at 24 Argentine pesos per kilo, f. o. b. Buenos Aires, from a person who, in turn, purchased from the source of supply and who, presumably, made a profit on the transaction. A copy of the confirmation of purchase and documents relating to the letter of credit used in payment were offered .and received in support of the witness’ statements.

While it is true that the price paid for imported merchandise may constitute some evidence of its value, evidence of the price paid for the merchandise in question is not, standing alone, sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the finding of value made by the appraiser when that finding is not otherwise impeached.

On the record made I have no other course than to hold that the plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of proving that the value found by the appraiser was not the correct value of the merchandise (section 50Í, Tariff Act of 1930).

I therefore find that the value of the merchandise in issue was as returned by the appraiser, and judgment will issue accordingly.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has det ermined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

2 This was Rea’s s e cond motion to seek an extension of time to file an appeal in this

case. On January 3, 1996, the bankruptcy court granted Rea an extension because her attorney did

not receive notice of an earlier bankruptcy court order. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-10796

Summary Calendar

In the Matter of: BILLY RAY DELP, JR.

Debtor.

______________________________________________ LEONA REA,

Appellant,

VERSUS

MICHAEL HARRISON; HARVISON GROUP,

Apellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(4:96-CV-947)

January 16, 1998

Before WISDOM, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM: *

Leona Rea appeals the denial of her motion to extend time to file her appeal. Rea filed her

motion in the Bankruptcy Court on October 25, 1996 after learning that the bankruptcy court entered

an “Order Granting Moti on for Authority to Compromise Controversy” on October 11, 1996. 2 She3 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002 (a).

4 In re Moody , 41 F.3d 1024, 1026 (5th Cir. 1995).

5 See 9 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 8002.07 (1989); Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank , 987

F.2d 1199, 1202 (5th Cir. 1993).

2 argued that her failure to file a notice of appeal within 10 days was due to excusable neglect because

the clerk had not mailed a copy of the order to her attorney

. Billy Ray Delp, Jr., the debtor, filed a

similar motion to extend time to appeal. The district court affirmed the denial of the motio n wit h

respect to Rea, but remanded the case with respect to Delp. We have jurisdiction over Rea’s current

appeal. The district court’s order is final and co nclusive with respect to Rea, and the remaining

proceedings are unrelated to the issues raised in this appeal.

Bankruptcy Rule 8002(c) authorizes the bankruptcy court to grant a motion to extend time

to file an appeal after the expiration of the usual 10-day period to appeal 3 only in cases of “excusable

neglect”. 4 Rea has failed to meet this standard. Failure of the clerk to send notice to a party does

not, of itself, amount to excusable neglect 5 Rea’s only argument is that the clerk did not send notice

of the order. Rea received notice of the proposed findings of fact, and was on notice that an order

was to be issued. We will not excuse Rea’s failure to perfect a timely appeal in this instance.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
September 30, 201 4

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

New Chemicals Program (7405M)

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20460

Re: Withdrawal of PMN [ ] and resubmission with [ ]

Dear Sir/Madam:

Per our phone conversation on September 30 , 2014, we confirm that [ ] has been withdrawn in

CDX. We are resubmitting this updated PMN as TS [ ]

. Please note that a new payment ID has been

created in pay.gov. The original EPA PMN review identified potential concerns for risk to the aquatic

environment, based on an acute COC of 575 ppb and chronic C OC of 25 ppb, and releases associated

with the manu facture and use of the substance. In order to address the concerns raised by EPA, [ ]

undertook Sustainable Futures P2 Framework modeling to identify where the risk concerns arose in the

original submission and to support efforts to mitigate those c oncerns in the resubmission. Differences

between the withdrawn PMN and the resubmission are detailed below:

Original submission

- [ ] Resubmission [ ]

Type of notice Manufacture only Import only

Maximum first 12

month production

(kg/yr) 40,000 15,000

Maximum 12 month

production (kg/yr) 50,000 48,000

Industrial Sites

Controlled by the

Submitter [

] [ ]

Identified exposure Use Diagram included

Occupational

exposures • Sampling and analyzing

substance

• Cleaning reactor vessel

• Loading tank trucks/rail

cars Unloading totes

Environmental

release and disposal 4 releases identified No releases identified

Assessment Type Internal [ ] Calculations Sustainable Futures P2 Assessment

Studies submitted Read across justifications • Corrositex (OECD 435 )

• Activated Sludge (OECD 209)

• Acute Algae (OECD 201)

### Page 2

• Acute Fish (OECD 203)

• Acute Daphnia (OECD 202)

• Ready Biodeg (OECD 301B)

• Ames Assay (OECD 471)

• Chromosomal Aberration (OECD

473)

• Acute Dermal (OECD 402)

• Skin Irritation (OECD 404)

• Acute Oral Toxicity (OECD 423)

• Mouse Micronucleus (OECD 474)



### • LLNA (OECD 429)

Studies in progress • 28

- day repro screen (OECD 422)

• Daphnia Reproduction Study

(OECD 211)

• Fish Early Life Stage (OECD 210)

[ ] continue s to claim confidentiality of the information in the notification

and this letter. If you have any questions, [

]

Sincerely,

[ ]
EXHIBIT 31.2

I, Patrick R. Quinn, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Trinity Learning
Corporation;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:

     a)	designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
     disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
     to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
     its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
     entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
     prepared;

     b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
     and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
     of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c)  disclosed in this report any change in internal control over financial
     reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter
     that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
     affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;



5.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a)	all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
     operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
     reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
     process, summarize and report financial information; and

     b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
     over financial reporting.


Date:	May 22, 2006

	/S/ PATRICK R QUINN
	--------------------

	Patrick R. Quinn
	Chief Financial Officer
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44145

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

ALVARO OSEGUERA ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 201 7 Unpublished Opinion No. 410

Filed: March 21, 2017

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Bruce L. Pickett , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty

- five years, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years, for second degree kidnapping, affirmed

.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis , Deputy Appellate Public Defen der, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; MELANSON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Alvaro Oseguera pled guilty to second degree kidnapping . I.C. §§ 18

- 4501, 18

- 4503, and

18

- 204

. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court

sentenced Oseguera to a unified term of twenty

- five y ears, with a minimum period of
confinement of ten years

. Oseguera filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied.
Oseguera appeals.2 Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and
need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.
1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing
the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho
722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record
in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Oseguera ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
# C_2015320EN.01003101.xml

| 28.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/31

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 17 July 2015 — GSA and SGI v Parliament

(Case T-321/15 R)

((Application for interim measures - Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Fire security, assistance to persons and external surveillance at the European Parliament’s site in Brussels - Rejection of the bid made by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency))

(2015/C 320/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Gruppo Servizi Associati SpA (GSA) (Rome, Italy) and Security Guardian’s Institute (SGI) (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) (represented by: E. van Nuffel d’Heynsbroeck, avocat)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: P. López-Carceller and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, in essence, for suspension of operation, first, of the decision of 12 June 2015 in which the Parliament declared non-compliant the tender submitted by the applicants in respect of the tendering procedure for service contract EP/DGSAFE/UIB/SER/2014-014 for the provision of fire security, assistance to persons and external surveillance at the European Parliament’s site in Brussels, and, secondly, the decision by which that contract was awarded to the company Securitas.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is rejected.

| 2. | The order of 25 June 2015 in Case T-321/15 R is cancelled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The order of 25 June 2015 in Case T-321/15 R is cancelled.

| 3. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Costs are reserved.

---
# C_2015302EN.01007001.xml

| 14.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/70

---

Action brought on 9 July 2015 — ZZ v EEAS

(Case F-101/15)

(2015/C 302/86)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision of the EEAS not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 under the 2014 promotion procedure.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision of 29 October 2014 drawing up the list of officials promoted under the 2014 promotion procedure in so far as it does not include his name; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 29 October 2014 drawing up the list of officials promoted under the 2014 promotion procedure in so far as it does not include his name;

| — | order the EEAS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EEAS to pay the costs.

---
## SRC PhysProp Database ~age l of l



# Data From SRC PhysProp Database :
Abbreviations in the 'Type' field : EXP = Experimental Data, EST = Estimated Data, EXT = Extrapolated Data. Extrapolated data is based upon experimental measurement outside the temperature range of the reported value

. References below are abbreviated citations

. .. the full reference citations are NOT available here

. References for Estimated data generally refer to the method used to make the estimate

. . . most estimates were made using SRC software

.

CAS Number : 000075-05-8 Chem Name : ACETONITRILE Mol Formula : C2H3 N Mol Weight : 41 .05 Melting Pt : -43 .8 deg C Boiling Pt : 81 .6 deg C Water Solubility : Value : 1E+006 mg/L Temp : 25 deg C Type : EXP Ref : RIDDICK,JA ET AL . (1986) Log P (octanol-water) : Value : -0 .34 Type : EXP Ref : HANSCH,C ET AL . (1995) Vapor Pressure : Value : 88 .8 mm Hg Temp : 25 deg C Type : EXP Ref : BOUBLIK,T ET AL . (1984) pKa Dissociation Constant : Value : -4 .3 Temp Type : EXP Ref : PERRIN,DD (1965) Henry's Law Constant : Value : 3 .45E-005 atm-m3/mole Temp : 25 deg C Type : EXP Ref : GAFFNEY,JS ET AL . (1987) Atmospheric OH Rate Constant : Value : 2 .63E-014 cm3/molecule-sec Temp : 25 deg C Type : EX P Ref : ATKINSON,R (1994 )



## Back To PhysProp Demo Page

http ://esc.syrres .com/interkow/webprop .exe 6/15/2006
No. 53770.

protest 50771-K (Boston).

#### M. H. Garvey Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the issue herein is the same in all material respects as that presented in *Mamary Bros.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 135, C. D. 1142). In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoice should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on the entry. The protest was sustained to this extent.