alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Francis X. Zuffante *v.*United States

No. 6033.

Invoices dated Naples, Italy, May 14, 1936, etc.

Certified May 15, 1936, etc.

Entered at Boston, Mass., June 23, 1936, etc.

Entry No. 15889, etc.

(Decided June 22, 1944)

*Joseph F. Lockett*for the plaintiff.

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

Lawbence, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement cover certain peeled tomatoes in tins imported from Italy.

The uncontradicted evidence discloses:

1. That said tomatoes are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Luigi Vitelli Elvea, Inc., et al.,*Reap. Dec. 5941; that the issues in the two cases are the same; and that the record in the cited case has been incorporated herein.

2. That said tomatoes, at the time of the exportation thereof, were .freely offered for sale to all purchasers in Naples (one of the principal markets in Italy) in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade packed ready for shipment for exportation to the United States, at the following values, there being no higher foreign values:

> *Reap. No. Entry Per case of 24 tins of 1,200 grams each Per case of 48 tins of 600 grams each*

> 137262-A 15889. $2. 10 $2. 60

> 137263-A 16094. 2. 00 2. 60

> 137264-A 2217— 1. 90 2, 50

> All the foregoing less 2 per centum cash; less .65 lire per case loading charge; less cost of cartons (if of American manufacture and if included in each price).

I therefore find the proper basis of value for the involved -merchandise to be the export value as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such values are as set forth above.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# C_2017070EN.01001701.xml

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató v EUIPO — Hollandimpex Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató (Choco Love)

(Case T-325/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Choco Love - Earlier EU and national word and figurative marks CHOCOLATE, CSOKICSŐ and Chocolate Brown - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 070/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató kft (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Á. László, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: I. Moisescu and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Hollandimpex Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. (Budapest)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 March 2015 (Case R 1369/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató and Hollandimpex Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sun System Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.

1

---
No. 46350.

#### Protest 23927-K of Paul Hanson Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the tin boxes in question are similar to those the subject of Abstract 46175, the'protest was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------


                         CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906
                                     OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Unico American
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Lester A. Aaron, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby 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 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.



                    /s/  Lester A. Aaron
                    --------------------
           Name:    Lester A. Aaron
           Title:   Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
           Date:    November 8, 2004




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Unico American Corporation, and
will be retained by Unico American Corporation, and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2016402EN.01004602.xml

| 31.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/46

---

Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — POA v Commission

(Case T-584/15) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Application for registration of a protected designation of origin (‘Halloumi’ or ‘Hellim’) - Decision to publish in the Official Journal, C series, an application for registration of a protected designation of origin pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Preparatory measure - Measure not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 402/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Pagkyprios organismos ageladotrofon Dimosia Ltd (POA) (Latsia, Cyprus) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and J. Guillem Carrau, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s decision to publish in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2015 C 246, p. 9) application for registration No CY/PDO/0005/01243, introduced by the Republic of Cyprus, inasmuch as it found that that application met the conditions laid down by Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1), as referred to in Article 50(1) of that regulation.

Official Journal of the European Union

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Pagkyprios organismos ageladotrofon Dimosia Ltd (POA) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Pagkyprios organismos ageladotrofon Dimosia Ltd (POA) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.

1

---
# Patent

## Title
Coupling arrangement for optical waveguides and method of manufacturing

## Abstract

One end of a plastic optical fiber is attached to an LED by pressing a melted end of the optical fiber against the LED.

## Background
1. Field of the Invention

The present invention relates generally to attaching a plastic optical fiber to a light emitting diode (LED) by melting the end of the fiber.

2. Description of the Prior Art

Prior art interconnects between optical fibers and light emitting diodes have been reviewed in "Fiber Optics Growing Strong," by Ohr and Adlerstein, Electronic Design, Nov. 8, 1979. These techniques generally use epoxy or some type of mechanical attachment to align the fiber with the LED. However, since it is difficult to accurately align the fiber close to the LED without a third material, such as the epoxy, being placed between the fiber and the LED, or scratching an optical surface or damaging the wire bond typically coupled to the LED, efficient interconnects have been difficult to achieve in a production environment.

An optical fiber interconnect comprises an optical fiber having one end melted for attachment to the light emitting surface of an LED.

FIG. 1 is a cross section of an optical fiber attached to an LED by melting the end of the fiber.

FIG. 1 is a cross section of an optical fiber 10 attached to an LED 20 by melting the optical fiber 10, aligning it with the LED, pressing it against the LED, and cooling the LED/fiber combination. The melted fiber forms to the contours of the exposed surfaces of the LED and creates a strong mechanical coupling to the die and an efficient optical coupling to the emitting surface of the LED. In addition, the fiber encapsulates the wire bond 30 (anchored to an electrical conductor 50) which protects the wire and increases the strength of the mechanical bond.

Preferably the optical fiber is plastic and has a diameter of approximately 14 mils. The LED is attached to a substrate 40, is constructed from a semiconductor die, is square from the top and approximately 14 mils per side.

While the invention has been particularly taught and described with reference to the preferred embodiments, those versed in the art will appreciate that minor modifications in form and detail may be made without departing from the spirit and the scope of the invention. For example, the LED could be replaced by an optical detector such as a PIN diode. Accordingly, all such modifications are embodied within the scope of this patent as properly come within my contribution to the art and are particularly pointed out by the following claims.

## Claims

1. A fiber optical assembly comprising an optical fiber attached to an optical device by melting one end of the optical fiber, pressing the melted fiber against the optical device, and cooling the assembly.

2. A fiber optical assembly as in claim 1 wherein the optical fiber is plastic and the optical device is an LED.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 158 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 24, 2007 

Received 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a conditional adjournment of the House of 

Representatives and a conditional recess or adjournment 

of the Senate. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legisla3 tive day of Thursday, May 24, 2007, Friday, May 25, 

4 2007, or Saturday, May 26, 2007, on a motion offered 

5 pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority 

6 Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. 

7 on Tuesday, June 5, 2007, or until the time of any 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

HCON 158 RDS 

1 reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolu2 tion, whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate re3 cesses or adjourns on Friday, May 25, 2007, Saturday, 

4 May 26, 2007, or on any day from Monday, May 28, 2007, 

5 through Saturday, June 2, 2007, on a motion offered pur6 suant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader 

7 or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon 

8 on Monday, June 4, 2007, or such other time on that day 

9 as may be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee 

10 in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time of 

11 any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 

12 resolution, whichever occurs first. 

13 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority 

14 Leader of the Senate, or their respective designees, acting 

15 jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of the 

16 House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify 

17 the Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, 

18 to reassemble at such place and time as they may des19 ignate if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant 

20 it. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 24, 2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
# C_2015221EN.01002701.xml

| 6.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/27

---

Action brought on 18 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-44/15)

(2015/C 221/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Bellotti, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision to appoint a person other than the applicant as head of the unit C4 (‘Legal Advice’), the applicant having acted as head of that unit since the departure of the previous head of unit and having submitted an application in response to the vacancy notice for that post.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision, under the reference Ares (2015)43686, of 7 January 2015, dismissing the complaint brought on 30 September 2014 (No R/994/14) under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision, under the reference Ares (2015)43686, of 7 January 2015, dismissing the complaint brought on 30 September 2014 (No R/994/14) under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

| — | annul the decision of 30 June 2014 adopted by the Director General of OLAF, acting as the appointing authority, in relation to the appointment of the head of the unit OLAF.C4 (Legal Advice); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 30 June 2014 adopted by the Director General of OLAF, acting as the appointing authority, in relation to the appointment of the head of the unit OLAF.C4 (Legal Advice);

| — | declare that, by virtue of the annulment of the two abovementioned decisions, the procedure for the selection of the head of the unit OLAF.C4 (Legal Advice) is vitiated by illegality as of the time when the illegal act was found to have been committed; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by virtue of the annulment of the two abovementioned decisions, the procedure for the selection of the head of the unit OLAF.C4 (Legal Advice) is vitiated by illegality as of the time when the illegal act was found to have been committed;

| — | order the European Commission to pay compensation — to be assessed on equitable principles — in respect of the harm suffered by the applicant connected with the loss of an opportunity, of at least EUR 10  000; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay compensation — to be assessed on equitable principles — in respect of the harm suffered by the applicant connected with the loss of an opportunity, of at least EUR 10  000;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
Exhibit 35.8  LOGO Annual Statement as to Compliance For the Year Ended December 31, 2018 Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust, Series 2016-GC36 Pursuant to
Section 3.06 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,LOGOMark E. McCoolPresidentFebruary 10, 2019 Inv. 187 Lib. A
March 7, 1962

A.R.D. 143.

#### United States *v.*C. J. Tower & Sons,

reappraisement 275743-A, etc.

Rubber-Tipped Bobby Pins. Entered at Niagara Fails, N.Y. A.R.D. 139. Motion by appellee.
# C_2015236EN.01002601.xml

| 20.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 236/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 236/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 24 April 2015 — T.D. Rease, P. Wullems; other party: College bescherming persoonsgegevens

(Case C-192/15)

(2015/C 236/35)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: T.D. Rease, P. Wullems

Appellants:

Other party: College bescherming persoonsgegevens

Other party:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does an instruction to employ equipment for the processing of personal data within the territory of a Member State, issued outside the EU by a controller, within the meaning of Article 2(d) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31), to a detective agency established within the EU, come within the notion of ‘making use of equipment’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(c) of that directive? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does an instruction to employ equipment for the processing of personal data within the territory of a Member State, issued outside the EU by a controller, within the meaning of Article 2(d) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31), to a detective agency established within the EU, come within the notion of ‘making use of equipment’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(c) of that directive?

| 2. | Does Directive 95/46/EC, in particular Article 28(3) and (4) thereof, given the objective of that directive, allow the national authorities the latitude, when enforcing the protection of individuals by the supervisory authorities provided for in that directive, to set priorities which result in such enforcement not taking place in the case where only an individual or a small group of persons submits a complaint alleging a breach of that directive? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does Directive 95/46/EC, in particular Article 28(3) and (4) thereof, given the objective of that directive, allow the national authorities the latitude, when enforcing the protection of individuals by the supervisory authorities provided for in that directive, to set priorities which result in such enforcement not taking place in the case where only an individual or a small group of persons submits a complaint alleging a breach of that directive?

---
**Exhibit 34.2**

 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors

Citibank, N.A.:

 

We have examined management’s assessment, included in the accompanying Management’s Assessment of Compliance, that the Agency and Trust division of Citibank, N.A. (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) equipment loan-backed securities issued by CNH Equipment Trust, as listed in Appendix A of the accompanying Management’s Assessment of Compliance, for which the Company provides trustee and paying agent services (the “Platform”), except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(v), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi)-1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform, as of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2016. With respect to the Platform, servicing criterion 1122(d)(3)(ii) is applicable only as it relates to remittances. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assessment about the Company’s compliance based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assessment that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2016 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

/s/KPMG LLP

 

Chicago, Illinois

February 24, 2017

 

----