alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-4638

_____________________________

WILLIAM DOUGLAS BURGIN JR,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

John F. Simon, Judge.

August 14, 2019

PER CURIAM.

We agree with appointed counsel that the record contains no 

reversible error and affirm Mr. Burgin’s judgment and sentence. 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We write only to correct

a scrivener’s error on the written judgment and sentence. See

Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 n.3 (Fla. 2003) (defining a

scrivener’s error as a written clerical error that is not “the result 

of a judicial determination or error”). After revoking Mr. Burgin’s 

probation, the trial court orally imposed $100 for the cost of 

prosecution and $150 for the cost of the public defender. However, 

the written judgment and sentence entered after his violation of 

probation does not include these costs. On remand, the trial court 

shall correct these errors. See Skinner v. State, 155 So. 3d 497, 497 

(Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (remanding for correction of scrivener’s error
2

in the order on fines and costs in an Anders appeal); Rivera v. 

State, 117 So. 3d 449-50 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (remanding for 

correction of the written sentence to reflect the oral 

pronouncement). 

Judgment AFFIRMED and cause REMANDED for correction of

scrivener’s errors.

RAY, C.J., and KELSEY and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, and Megan Long, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Re:         Annual Statement of Compliance for Well Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust2016-C33, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-C33

  

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of March 1, 2016 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., asCertificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies asfollows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "ReportingPeriod"):

 

(a)          A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of itsperformance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision;and

 

(b)          To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

 

/s/Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
Case No. 13,959.

#### THOMPSON et al. v. The JACHIN.

[N. Y. Times.

June 10, 1862.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

1862.

Admiralty Practice — Right of Agent to Sue— Competency as Witness — Discharge prom Record.

Motion to strike from the record a libelant.

This was a motion [by Samuel W. Thompson] to strike out the name of a party libel-ant. The action was brought to enforce a bottomry bond. The papers on the motion showed that the interest in the bond was really vested in other parties than the nominal obligee, who was only their agent.

HELD BY THE COURT:

That in admiralty an agent is recognized as a competent party to sue in his own name in behalf of others in whom the actual interest exists. That to avoid the rigor of the common-law rule, and also genrrally of its own course of practice, which interdicts a party to the record from being heard as a witness, the familiar practice of the admiralty, as well as of chancery, is to discharge a party from the record, in order to reintegrate his competency as a witness, when no further interest than such technical one exists with him, and also to relieve him of his obligation of suretyship tu the court for costs, on other surety being substituted. That there is, therefore, no foundation for the objections interposed on behalf of the respondent, as he does not allege that he will be deprived of any matter of defence by the means.

Motion granted, but, inasmuch as it does not rest on any equity, accruing since the suit was brought, it is granted on payment of costs of this hearing, and on condition that the defendant be allowed to add to the defence already interposed such as may be appropriate to or required by the change of parties in the action.
# C_2017277EN.01003402.xml

| 21.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 277/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2017 — Tayto Group v EUIPO — MIP Metro (real)

(Case T-287/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark real - Genuine use - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character - Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Use of the mark by a third party - Article 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Proof of genuine use - Article 15(1) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons))

(2017/C 277/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tayto Group Ltd (Corby, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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 Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2015 (Case R 2285/2013-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Tayto Group and MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tayto Group Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tayto Group Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.

1

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 16360]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07171]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

AGENCY: United States Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Briefing notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DATES: Date and Time: Monday, April 20, 2015; 9:00 a.m.-5:45 p.m. EST.

ADDRESSES: Place: John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 524 West 59th 
Street, New York, NY 10019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, Public 
Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the briefing and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela 
Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or at signlanguage@usccr.gov at least seven 
business days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This briefing is open to the public.

Topic: Police Practices and Use of Force

I. Introductory Remarks
II. Panel I. 9:10 a.m.-10:40 a.m.: Community Leaders, Civilian Review 
Boards, and Police Organizations
    Speakers' Remarks and Questions from Commissioners
III. Panel II. Law 10:40 a.m.-12:10 p.m.: Enforcement Officials and 
Experts on Police Accountability and Use of Force
    Speakers' Remarks and Questions from Commissioners
IV. LUNCH--12:10 p.m.-1:10 p.m.
V. Panel III. 1:15 p.m.-2:45 p.m.: Court Officials and Experts on 
Procedural Justice and Legal Reforms
    Speakers' Remarks and Questions from Commissioners
VI. Panel IV. 2:45 p.m.-4:15 p.m.: Federal Agencies and Federally-
funded Initiatives
    Speakers' Remarks and Questions from Commissioners
VII. Panel V. 4:15 p.m.-5:45 p.m.: Researchers and Data Collection 
Experts
    Speakers' Remarks and Questions from Commissioners
VIII. Adjourn Briefing--5:45 p.m.

    Dated: March 25, 2015.
David Mussatt,
Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
[FR Doc. 2015-07171 Filed 3-25-15; 4:30 pm]
 BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
(Reap. Dec. 8313)

#### Kersten Shipping Agency, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 8690.

(Decided May 27, 1954)

*John D. Bode*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> *646IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED subject to the approval of the Court, that at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein, polyvynil chloride, VIPLA — G H, the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Italy in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption in Italy, including the cost of all 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, was 26000 Italian lire per 100 kgs, plus 3 per centum, net weight, packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there was no higher export value for said merchandise at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was 26,000 Italian lire per 100 kilos, plus 3 per centum, net weight, packed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Case No. 9,221.

#### The MARY McRAE.

[Blatchf. Pr. Cas. 91.] 1

District Court, S. D. New York.

Dec., 1861.

Pkize — Enemy Property — Lieu por Outlays in Fitting — Relief prom Forpeiture.

1. Part of the vessel condemned, under the 6th section of the act of July 13, 1861 (12 Stat. 257), as belonging to a citizen of a state in insurrection. Part of vessel acquitted.

2. The claim of the owner of the acquitted part to a lien upon the condemned part for outlays in fitting the vessel was disallowed, and the claimant was referred to the power of the secretary of the treasury, under the 8th section of the act. to remit the ferfeiture.

In admiralty.

BETTS, District Judge.

This is a libel of information by the United States, demanding the forfeiture of the above-named brig, under the 6th section of the act of congress of July 13, 1861 (12 Stat. 257). It is ordered by the court that three fourth parts of said brig be adjudged forfeited to the libellants with costs, and that one fourth part, claimed by James Crocker, be acquitted. The claims of Crocker for outlays in fitting the vessel are no lien in law upon the remaining three fourth parts, and whether any portion of that forfeiture will be remitted to him rests in the discretion of the secretary of the treasury, under the 8th section of the act above named. Judgment accordingly.
# C_2016251EN.01002802.xml

| 11.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/28

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 May 2016 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Dyado Liben (Casale Fresco)

(Case T-254/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Casale Fresco - Earlier EU word mark FREZCO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 251/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Dyado Liben OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 March 2015 (Case R 1138/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Casale Fresco as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.

1

---
1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2008-CI-20084, styled Counsel Financial Services v. David

McQuade Leibowitz, PC, and David McQuade Leibowitz, pending in the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County,

Texas, the Honorable Peter Sakai presiding, and Cause No. 2008-CI-20085, pending in the 285th Judicial District Court,

Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Michael Peden presiding. However, the challenged orders were signed by the

Honorable John D. Gabriel, presiding judge of the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas.

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00081-CV

IN RE COUNSEL FINANCIAL SERVICES, L.L.C.

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 4, 2009

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

In this original mandamus proceeding, relator Counsel Financial Services, L.L.C. complains

of the trial court’s orders granting the motion for relief from the enforcement of the

foreign judgment. Also pending before this court are consolidated Cause Nos. 04-09-00079-CV and

04-09-00080-CV, which challenge the same order as relator challenges in this mandamus

proceeding. To be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must show the trial court clearly abused its

discretion and relator has no adequate remedy at law. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d
04-09-00081-CV

-2-

124, 135 (Tex. 2004); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992). The court has

considered relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought

because it has an adequate remedy by appeal. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus

is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 35.18



|     |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                                                                        
|---- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  |  |  |  |  | Corporate Trust Services 
MAC R1204-010 9062 Old
Annapolis Road Columbia, MD 21045 
Tel: 410 884 2000 Fax: 410 715 2380

Citibank, National Association

388 Greenwich Street

14th Floor

New York, New York 10013



|Re: | Annual Statement of Compliance for DBJPM 2016-C1 Mortgage Trust Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-C1
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2016 (the Agreement), the undersigned, a duly authorized
officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator (Wells Fargo), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the Reporting Period):

(a)    A review of Wells Fargos activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has
been made under such officers supervision; and

(b)    To the best of such officers knowledge, based on
such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

March 1,
2017



|              
|--------------
|LOGO          
|BRIAN SMITH   
|Vice President



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
# C_2019406EN.01001901.xml

| 2.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2019 — LL v Parliament

(Case T-615/15 RENV) (1)

(Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Limitation)

(2019/C 406/26)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: LL (represented by: J. Petrulionis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by G. Corstens and S. Toliušis, and subsequently by S. Toliušis, N. Lorenz and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of decision D(2014) 1553 of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 17 April 2014 concerning the recovery from the applicant of the sum of EUR 37 728 wrongfully paid as parliamentary assistance and of the debit note of 5 May 2014 relating thereto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders LL to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament in the initial proceedings before the General Court, in Case T-615/15, and in the present proceedings on referral, in Case T-615/15 RENV; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders LL to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament in the initial proceedings before the General Court, in Case T-615/15, and in the present proceedings on referral, in Case T-615/15 RENV;

| 3. | Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by LL in the appeal proceedings, in Case C-326/16 P. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by LL in the appeal proceedings, in Case C-326/16 P.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00096-CV

In re Office of the Attorney General

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Relator, the Office of the Attorney General of Texas, has filed a petition for writ 

of mandamus, along with an opposed emergency motion for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 52.1, 52.10(a). Relator seeks to stay a hearing scheduled for March 2, 2021, at which

Relator’s motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and/or Plaintiffs’ verified 

motion for temporary injunction will be heard. We partially grant the motion pending further 

order of this Court and temporarily stay any portion of the March 2, 2021 hearing concerning the

motion for temporary injunction. See id. 52.10(b). The Court otherwise denies the motion 

insofar as it seeks a stay of any portion of the hearing concerning Relator’s motion to dismiss. 

The Court orders the real party in interest to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus 

on or before Monday, March 8, 2021.
It is ordered on March 1, 2021.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Baker and Smith.
# C_2017437EN.01000401.xml

| 18.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 October 2017 — Romania v European Commission

(Case C-599/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Own resources of the European Union - Decision 2007/436/EC - Financial liability of the Member States - Loss of certain import duties - Obligation to pay the European Commission the amount corresponding to the loss - Actions for annulment - Admissibility - Letter from the European Commission - Concept of ‘actionable measure’))

(2017/C 437/05)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Romania (represented by: R.-H. Radu, M. Chicu and A. Wellman, acting as Agents)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G.-D. Balan, A. Caeiros and A. Tokár and by Z. Malůšková, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Interveners in support of the applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and T. Müller, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and K. Stranz, acting as Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

Interveners in support of the applicant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Romania to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Romania to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Slovak Republic to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany and the Slovak Republic to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.

1

---
# C_2018032EN.01003102.xml

| 29.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/31

---

Order of the General Court of 20 November 2017 — BikeWorld v Commission

(Case T-702/15) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party - Inadmissibility))

(2018/C 032/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: BikeWorld GmbH (Sankt Ingbert, Germany) (represented by: J. Jovy, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, B. Stromsky and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/151 of 1 October 2014 on the State aid SA.31550 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for Nürburgring (OJ 2016 L 34, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

| 2. | BikeWorld GmbH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

BikeWorld GmbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.

1

---
No. 53769.

protests 140803-K/12995 and 140733-K/12983 (New Orleans).

#### A. M. & J. Solari, Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

*219Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.