alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Stern & Stern Textile Importers, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6755.

Entry Nos. 751599; 748460.

Invoices dated Nottingham, England, March 26, 1946, etc.

Certified March 27, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 10, 1946, etc.

(Decided January 14, 1947)

*Fred Bennett*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Tilson, Judge:

In submitting for decision the two appeals listed above, • counsel for the respective parties have agreed that the issues involved in this case are similar in all material respects to the issues involved in *United States*v. *Pitcairn,*C. A. D. 334, and the record therein has been admitted in evidence in this case.

*301Accepting this agreement as a statement of fact, and following the cited authority, I find and hold the proper dutiable export values of the merchandise •covered by these appeals to be the values found by the appraiser, less any addi- » tions made on entry by the importer to meet advances made by the appraiser in ■similar cases then pending on appeal. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.25

                   AMENDMENT TO THE SOFTWARE SUPPORT AGREEMENT
                               DATED APRIL 19,1999

BETWEEN: CYBEROAD.COM (ISLE OF MAN) LIMITED, and Isle of Man corporation
        ("Cyberoad IOM"); and

BETWEEN: CALVEX INTERNATIONAL INC., a British Columbia corporation ("Calvex");

WHEREAS this Amendment acknowledges that:

     a)    The parties hereto agree that the Software Support Agreement, between
           the parties hereto, bears an effective date of May 1, 1999;

EXECUTION IN COUNTERPART

This instrument may be signed in counterpart, in as many counterparts as is
necessary, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and each of which
shall constitute one and the same instrument, and shall bear the date first
written above.

ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED TO THIS 18th DAY OF OCTOBER, 1999 BY:

CYBEROAD.COM (ISLE OF MAN) LIMITED        CALVEX INTERNATIONAL INC.

    /s/  JOHN COFFEY                          /s/  KRISTA M. WILSON
----------------------------------        --------------------------------------
John Coffey,                              Krista M. Wilson,
Director                                  Corporate Secretary
# C_2016156EN.01003901.xml

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2016 — Hydrex v Commission

(Case T-45/15) (1)

1

((Grant agreement relating to a project concerning a financial instrument for the environment - Recovery order - Enforceable decision within the meaning of Article 299 TFEU - Obligation to state reasons - Errors of assessment - Force majeure))

(2016/C 156/51)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hydrex NV (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Van Eysendeyk, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Lejeune and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C (2015) 103 final of 12 January 2015 relating to recovery order No 3241405101 issued against the applicant and involving an amount of EUR 540 721,10.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hydrex NV to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to the interim proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hydrex NV to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to the interim proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 96, 23.3.2015.

1

---
(logo) BERKADIA ®

 

 

Annual Statement asto Compliance For the Year Ended December 31, 2019

 

*CitigroupCommercial Mortgage Trust,*

*Series 2016-GC36*

 

Pursuantto Section 3.06 of the Subservicing Agreement governing the referencedtransaction (the “Servicing Agreement”), I hereby attest that:

 

 i.       Areview of the activities and performance of Berkadia as Subservicer during theReporting Period has been made under my supervision.

 

ii.      To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, Berkadia as Subservicer hasfulfilled, in all material respects, its obligations under this SubservicingAgreement throughout the Reporting Period and no default by the Subservicerunder the Subservicing Agreement has occurred and is continuing.

 

 

Berkadia, 

 

 

/s/ Mark E Cool

Mark E. McCool

President

February 10, 2020
No. 49855.

#### Petition 6440-R of Strohmeyer & Arpe Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It appeared from the record that the result was due to ■an honest difference of opinion, the importer believing that the drums should be -entered at the value of used drums, whereas the Government believed the value of new drums should apply. A reappraisement was called for, but it was later decided to export products made with the use of imported oil and obtain drawback thereon, and in order to facilitate the payment of such drawback instructions were issued to abandon the appeal. The court was satisfied that entry was made *322without intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts. The petition was therefore granted.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 22, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00009

- CV

Ernest BUSTOS, Appellant

v.

ENCINO PARK HOMEOWNERS

,

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- CI

- 18828 Larry Noll , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

T he clerk’s record and reporter’s record in this appeal are past due

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

35.1. The trial court clerk responsible for preparing the clerk’s record has filed a notification of late record, stating that appellant has failed to (1) request preparation of the clerk’s record and (2) pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

35.3 ( a )

.

W e therefore ORDER appellant to file written proof in this court no later than ten (10) days after the date of this order showing t hat : (1) he has requested that the trial court clerk prepare the clerk’s record and that the official court reporter prepare t he reporter’s re cord in compliance with Texas Rule s of Appellate Procedure 34.5 and 34.6 , respectively; and (2) either

the clerk’s and court reporter’s fees for preparation of the clerk’s record and reporter’s record have been paid or payment arrangements have been made, or appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the fees

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34. 5, 34.6 ; 20.1(a); T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 145

.

If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed

. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3

._________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 22nd day of June, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 31.1 

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, William R. Reed, Jr., certify that: 

 

(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of National Commerce Financial 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 necessaryto 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 materialrespects 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 ActRules 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 consolidatedsubsidiaries, 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 theeffectiveness 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 the report any change in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

(5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon 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 oroperation 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
No. 48071.

#### Protest 900598-G of S. A. Haram (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

Following *Haram*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 159, C. D. 390) the claim under paragraph 720(a), as amended, was sustained.
U.S. Geological   Survey   Miscellaneous Field Studies MF 2337, Online Version 1.0

***By***

**M.   C. Blake Jr., R.W. Graymer, and D.L. Jones**

**Digital   Database by**

**Adam   Soule and R.W. Graymer**

 

Introduction

This publication describes   the evolution and distribution of geologic materials and structures in most   of Marin and San Francisco Counties and surrounding areas, part of the San Francisco   metropolitan area. The publication includes a geologic map and a pamphlet which   discusses the geologic history, stratigraphy, and geologic structures of the   area, including parts of the San Andreas Fault system. The discussion includes   the development of Franciscan mélange, the source of serpentinite within Franciscan   terranes, the development of the structural stacking of terranes within the   Franciscan complex, and new estimates for Neogene offset on the Hayward Fault   Zone. The publication also includes Arc-Info format map database (GIS) files   that enable rapid manipulation and analysis of the geologic information. 

Revision   List(4 Kb)

**Contents**

| **View         a Digital Map** |
|---------------------------------|
| File         Name              | File         Type and Description | File Size |
| mf2337h.jpg                     | Browse graphic of           the map (JPEG file) as shown in thumbnail image to right

  |  | 824         Kb |
| mf2337f.pdf                     | PDF file       of map sheet, screen optimized | 4.6         MB |
| mf2337g.pdf                     | PDF file       of map pamphlet, screen optimized | 140         Kb |

 

| **Download****the Map for Plotting** |
|--------------------------------------|
| File         Name                   | File         Type and Description | File         Size |
| **As         a Package**            |
| mf2337a.tgz                          | PostScript files of       map sheet and pamphlet       (as a gzip compressed tar file) | 5.3         MB |
| mf2337b.tgz                          | PDF plotfiles of map       and pamplet      (as a gzip compressed tar file) | 4.8         MB |
| **As         Individual Files**     |
| mf2337i.pdf                          | PDF file of map sheet,       plotter optimized | 4.6         MB |
| mf2337j.pdf                          | PDF file of pamphlet,       plotter optimized | 240         Kb |

********

| **Download         the Database** |
|------------------------------------|
| File         Name                 | File         Type and Description | File Size |
| ReadMe.txt                         | ASCII text file, Read       me | 36         Kb |
| mf2337d.met                        | ASCII text file, FGDC-compliant       metadata | 196         Kb |
| mf2337c.tgz                        | Arc Info Export (.e00)       and supporting files      (as a gzip compressed tar file) | 3         MB |

 

Visit the San   Francisco Bay Region Project website

Back to Geopubs   main page

----

URL of this page:   https://pubs.usgs.gov/mf/2000/2337/  Maintained by: Michael Diggles  Created: March 14, 2000  Last modified: May 25, 2005 (mfd)
(Reap. Dec. 8312)

#### International Products Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 537-H.

(Decided May 20, 1954)

*Philip) Stein*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard M. Kozinn,*trial attorney), for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

At the trial of this appeal for reappraisement, it was submitted upon the following oral agreed statement of facts:

> Mr. Stein: I offer to stipulate that the proper dutiable value of the merchandise involved herein * * * that the merchandise should indicate a value of .0728 for duty purposes on the Quebracho extract involved therein, net weight packed on 237,658 pounds gross, less 3,850 pounds tare.

> We submit on that basis.

> Mr. Kozinn: After consultation with Appraiser Daniel, the Government so stipulates.

> The Government submits.

On the agreed statement of facts, I find that the export value of the merchandise, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise at issue, and that such value is U. S. $0.0728 per pound.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
(logo) TORCHLIGHT

 

 

**ANNUAL COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

  

CERTIFICATION

  

GS Mortgage Securities Trust2016-GS, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates,Series 2016-GS2 (the “Trust”)

  

I, Jacob Baron, on behalf ofTorchlight Loan Services, LLC, as General Special Servicer (the“Certifying Servicer”), certify to GS Mortgage SecuritiesCorporation II and each Other Depositor and their respective officers,directors and affiliates, and with the knowledge and intent that they will relyupon this certification, that:

 

1. I (or Servicing Officersunder my supervision) have reviewed the Certifying Servicer’s activitiesduring the preceding calendar year and the Certifying Servicer’sperformance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement; and

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Certifying Servicer has fulfilled all ofits obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all materialrespects throughout such year. 

 

Capitalized terms used but notdefined herein have the meanings set forth in the Pooling and ServicingAgreement.

 

 

Date:       March 7, 2017

 

TORCHLIGHT LOAN SERVICES, LLC,as General

Special Servicer

  

 

By: /s/ Jacob Baron

Name: Jacob Baron

Title: AuthorizedSignatory
No. 56649.

protest 174052-K (New York).

#### Gerhard & Hey Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

*475Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 8314)

#### United States *v.*R. W. Smith

Entry No. 1411-H.

(Decided May 27, 1954)

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard M. Kozinn,*trial attorney), for the plaintiff.

*Philip Stein*for the defendant.

Johnson, Judge:

This appeal for a reappraisement was filed by the collector against the entered and appraised value of certain steel bars, angles, etc. The merchandise was invoiced at U. S. $90.40 per metric ton, including inland freight, ocean freight and insurance, and buying commission of $23.27 per metric ton. It was entered and appraised at the same price, less the foregoing charges.

At the trial, it was stipulated and agreed between counsel for both sides that the broker made an obvious error in entering the steel, and it was agreed that the price at the time of exportation of the involved merchandise to the United States, at which such merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of *647France, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, was $90 per metric ton, f. o. b. Antwerp. It was further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher foreign value and that the basis of appraisement used is the export value.

In view of the agreed statement of facts, judgment will be entered in favor of the Government, and I find that the export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise, and that such value is U. S. $90 per metric ton, f. o. b. Antwerp.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# C_2016314EN.01003503.xml

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/35

---

Order of the General Court of 16 June 2016 — Golparvar v Council

(Case T-176/15) (1)

1

(2016/C 314/49)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 6.7.2015.

1

---
January 4, 1939

No. 40358.

#### Protest 748154-G of Bullocks, Inc.

Abstract 39870. Application by Government for rehearing denied.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v LEONARD R. FLEMING, Basic Airman, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

8 USCMA 474, 24 CMR 284

*475No. 10,095

Decided December 13, 1957

*Captain John H. Leonard*argued the cause for Appellant, Accused.1 With him on the brief was *Lieutenant Colonel Ellis L. Gottlieb.*

*Major Fred C. Voiuell*argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief was *Lieutenant Colonel Robert W. Michels.*

Opinion of the Court

ROBERT E. Quinn, Chief Judge:

At the accused’s trial for desertion, in violation of Article 85, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 885, the law officer instructed the court-martial, in part, as follows:

> *“. . .*If you find that the accused was absent without proper authority, and that such absence was as a matter of fact much prolonged, and if you further find there is nothing in the. entire case which explains such absence to your satisfaction, you will be justified in inferring from that alone an intent to remain absent permanently.”

The instruction is wrong. United States v Cothern, 8 USCMA 158, 23 GMR 382. Other parts of the instruction, which were patently prepared with care and good sense, clearly advise the court members that they must consider *all*the evidence in the case to determine “whether or not the accused possessed an intent to remain permanently absent.” The latter parts of the instruction, however, did not remove the incorrect instruction from the court-martial’s consideration. As a result,' the court was instructed both “rightly and wrongly on a material issue.” United States v Noe, 7 USCMA 408, 22 CMR 198. We cannot guess which instruction the court-martial followed in its deliberation on the accused’s guilt or innocence. Since it may have reached its findings on the basis of the incorrect instruction, reversal of the accused’s conviction is required. United States v Noe, supra.

The decision of the board of review is reversed and the findings of guilty and sentence are set aside. The record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force for resubmission to the board of review. In its discretion, the board of review can affirm a finding of guilty for an unauthorized absence, in violation of Article 86, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 886, as to which the accused entered a plea of guilty or it may order a rehearing.

Judge FERGUSON concurs.

Judge LATIMER dissents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JAN-25-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              APR-26-1997
<CASH>                                      1,269,539 
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                              28,499,325 
<ALLOWANCES>                                1,176,000 
<INVENTORY>                                18,201,667 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           89,304,320       
<PP&E>                                    166,526,922      
<DEPRECIATION>                             68,558,706    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            258,858,890      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      40,531,366    
<BONDS>                                   102,232,750  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<COMMON>                                       96,448 
<OTHER-SE>                                102,039,206       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              258,858,890         
<SALES>                                    14,878,907          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           68,909,980          
<CGS>                                      12,236,555          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              60,217,260          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          1,455,376       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             4,836,272       
<INCOME-TAX>                                1,837,000      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         2,999,272      
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0      
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                2,999,272 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.31 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.31 
        

</TABLE>
# C_2016270EN.01001402.xml

| 25.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/14

---

Appeal brought on 17 August 2015 by Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2015 in Case T-396/14: Best-Lock (Europe) v EUIPO

(Case C-452/15 P)

(2016/C 270/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd (represented by: J. Becker, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 14 April 2016 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---