alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015073EN.01004701.xml

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/47

---

Action brought on 8 January 2015 — Ice Mountain Ibiza/OHIM — Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club (ocean beach club ibiza)

(Case T-5/15)

(2015/C 073/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL (San Antonio, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Gracia Albero and F. Miazzetto, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club, SL (Puerto Banús, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ocean beach club ibiza’ — Application for registration No 10 610 491

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2014 in Case R 2292/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM dated 8 October 2014 in Case R 2292/2013-1 so as to reject the opposition filed by Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club, SL and grant the application for a Community trade mark No 10 610 491 ‘ocean beach club ibiza’ (mixed) in Class 41; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM dated 8 October 2014 in Case R 2292/2013-1 so as to reject the opposition filed by Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club, SL and grant the application for a Community trade mark No 10 610 491 ‘ocean beach club ibiza’ (mixed) in Class 41; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings as well as all those incurred to date in the earlier proceedings before the Opposition Division and the First Board of Appeal of OHIM that have led to the present application. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings as well as all those incurred to date in the earlier proceedings before the Opposition Division and the First Board of Appeal of OHIM that have led to the present application.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Exhibit 35.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AnnualStatementastoCompliance

FortheYear Ended December31,2021

 

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust,

Series2016-GC36

 

PursuanttoSection3.06oftheSubservicingAgreementgoverningthereferencedtransaction(the “Servicing Agreement”),Iherebyattest that:

 

|   | i. | A review of the activities and performance of Berkadia as Subservicer during theperiodhas been madeunder my supervision. |   |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

 

|   | ii. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Berkadia as Subservicer hasfulfilled, in all material respects, its obligations under this Subservicing Agreementthroughout the period and no default by the Subservicer under the SubservicingAgreementhas occurredand is continuing. |   |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

 

Berkadia,

 

 

Mark E. McCool

President

February10,2022

 

 

 

 

 

Inv.187Lib.A
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 85 (Thursday, May 3, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 24654]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8470]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5786]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Desiderio da Settignana: Sculptor of Renaissance 
Florence''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Desiderio da Settignana: Sculptor of 
Renaissance Florence'', imported from abroad for temporary exhibition 
within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are 
imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or 
custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the 
exhibit objects at the National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, from on 
or about July 1, 2007, until on or about October 8, 2007, and at 
possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in 
the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered 
to be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul Manning, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: (202) 
453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th 
Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Date: April 26, 2007.
C. Miller Crouch,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
 [FR Doc. E7-8470 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
H. Con. Res. 313 Agreed to March 11, 2008 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 

SECTION 1. USE OF ROTUNDA FOR CEREMONY HONORING THOSE 

SERVING IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ. 

(a) USE OF ROTUNDA.—The Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized 

to be used on March 13, 2008, for a ceremony to honor the 5 

years of service and sacrifice of our troops and their families in 

the war in Iraq and to remember those who are serving our Nation 

in Afghanistan and throughout the world. 

(b) PREPARATIONS.—Physical preparations for the ceremony 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be carried out in accordance 

with such conditions as the Architect of the Capitol may prescribe. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate.
(Reap. Dec. 8368)

#### J. J. Gavin & Co., Inc., a/c Florida Sponge & Chamois Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 828291.

(Decided December 16, 1954)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

*560Wilson, Judge:

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

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeal to reappraisement listed above are the same in all material respects as the issues in the case of *United States v. Schroeder & Tremayne, Inc., et al.,*Suit 4783 and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that the entered values of the merchandise involved in the case listed herein are equal to the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the Country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise was no higher.

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

On tbe agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the entered values.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 46933.

#### Protest 61564-K/90463 of Robbins, Inc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

At the trial counsel for the Government conceded that the importer’s claim for duty at 1]4 cents per pound under paragraph 720 (b), since the fish with their containers weighed more than 15 pounds, was well founded. The protest was sustained to this extent.
(Reap. Dec. 9833)

#### De Caire Import Co. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 782910, etc.

(Decided November 9, 1960)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs..

*George Cochran Dowd,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise and the issues in the Appeals to Reappraisement listed in the Schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and the issues decided in the case of *Paramount Import Co., Inc. et al.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 9697, and that the record in said ease be incorporated and made a part of the record herein.

> *548IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise covered by the Appeals to Reappraisements enumerated herein, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the Appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States 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, and that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

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

In the incorporated case, I held that a charge of 15 per centum paid by the American importer to a foreign commissionaire for services rendered in connection with the purchase of merchandise in the foreign market was a *tona fide*buying commission, and, as such, did not enter into the dutiable value of the merchandise.

On the agreed set of facts embodied in the stipulation of submission herein, and following my cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and hold that such statutory value therefor is the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
##### 



UGI UTILITIES INC.
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES  EXHIBIT 12.1
(Thousands of dollars)
 SixMonthsEndedMarch 31,
    
    
    Year Ended September 30,2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003Earnings:Earnings before income taxes
    
    $
    119,277
    
    
    $
    122,766
    
    
    $
    80,544
    
    
    $
    84,953
    
    
    $
    83,098
    
    
    $
    100,212Interest expense
    
    
    20,769
    
    
    
    42,327
    
    
    
    24,102
    
    
    
    18,079
    
    
    
    17,698
    
    
    
    17,412Amortization of debt discount and expense
    
    
    232
    
    
    
    462
    
    
    
    243
    
    
    
    247
    
    
    
    233
    
    
    
    244Estimated interest component of rental expense
    
    
    826
    
    
    
    1,506
    
    
    
    1,675
    
    
    
    1,568
    
    
    
    1,477
    
    
    
    1,434$
    141,104
    
    
    $
    167,061
    
    
    $
    106,564
    
    
    $
    104,847
    
    
    $
    102,506
    
    
    $
    119,302Fixed Charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    20,769
    
    
    $
    42,327
    
    
    $
    24,102
    
    
    $
    18,079
    
    
    $
    17,698
    
    
    $
    17,412Amortization of debt discount and expense
    
    
    232
    
    
    
    462
    
    
    
    243
    
    
    
    247
    
    
    
    233
    
    
    
    244Allowance for funds used during
construction (capitalized interest)
    
    
    81
    
    
    
    179
    
    
    
    85
    
    
    
    22
    
    
    
    11
    
    
    
    7Estimated interest component of rental expense
    
    
    826
    
    
    
    1,506
    
    
    
    1,675
    
    
    
    1,568
    
    
    
    1,477
    
    
    
    1,434$
    21,908
    
    
    $
    44,474
    
    
    $
    26,105
    
    
    $
    19,916
    
    
    $
    19,419
    
    
    $
    19,097Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    6.44
    
    
    
    3.76
    
    
    
    4.08
    
    
    
    5.26
    
    
    
    5.28
    
    
    
    6.25
# C_2017151EN.01003301.xml

| 15.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2017 — Regent University v EUIPO — Regent’s College (REGENT UNIVERSITY)

(Case T-538/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark REGENT UNIVERSITY - Earlier national figurative mark REGENT’S COLLEGE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 151/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Regent University (Virginia Beach, Virginia, United States) (represented by: E. Himsworth QC and D. Wilkinson, Solicitor)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Regent’s College (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC)

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 Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2015 (Case R 1859/2014-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Regent’s College and Regent University.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders the Regent University to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Regent University to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.

1

---
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 12

- 10746 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:07

- cr - 00033

- EAK

- EAJ

- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,
versus CHARLES MAROVSKIS, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (January 15, 2014) Before HULL , PRYOR and MARTIN , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Daniel M. Hernandez, appointed counsel for Charles Marovskis in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of Marovskis and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18

Case: 12-10746 Date Filed: 01/15/2014 Page: 1 of 22 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of t he entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and Marovskis’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED
.

Case: 12-10746 Date Filed: 01/15/2014 Page: 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 158 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  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.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Thursday, May 
24, 2007, Friday, May 25, 2007, or Saturday, May 26, 2007, on a motion 
offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader 
or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, June 5, 
2007, or until the time of any

              

 reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns 
on Friday, May 25, 2007, Saturday, May 26, 2007, or on any day from 
Monday, May 28, 2007, through Saturday, June 2, 2007, on a motion 
offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader 
or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on Monday, 
June 4, 2007, or such other time on that day as may be specified by its 
Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or 
until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this 
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2.  The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly after 
consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority 
Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House and the 
Senate, respectively, to reassemble at such place and time as they may 
designate if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 24, 2007.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
April 18, 1951

No. 55475.

Suit 4639.

#### United States *v.*Benziger Bros., Inc.

U. D. 1202 reversed February 27, 1951. C. A. D. 449.
(Reap. Dec. 9003)

Entry No. 798750.

#### Kaiser-Reismann Corporation *v.*United States

(Decided October 11, 1957)

*Eugene B. Pickrell*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Ford, Judge:

The appeal listed above has been submitted for decision upon a stipulation to the effect that the merchandise covered *669thereby consists of Perlón exported from Western Germany; that such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets in Western Germany; and that the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Western Germany, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including all costs, charges, and expenses specified in section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930, was $7.15 per kilo, plus 48 cents per kilo for dyeing, less a discount of 22% per centum.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, I find and hold the proper dutiable value of the merchandise marked “A” and checked HM on the invoice to be $7.15 per kilo, plus 48 cents per kilo for dyeing, less a discount of 22% per centum. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 48755.

#### Protests 828821-G, etc., of John Thallon Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar to that the subject of Abstract 48269. The protests were therefore sustained.
EX-31 Rule13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I, Anthony Sfarra,certify that:

 

1. I have reviewedthis report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed inrespect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the Wells FargoCommercial Mortgage Trust 2016-C34 (the "Exchange Act periodicreports");

 

2. Based on myknowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on myknowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is includedin the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4. Based on myknowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Actperiodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under theservicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. All of the reportson assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securitiesand their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance withservicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in thisreport in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except asotherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving thecertifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties:

 

LNR Partners, LLC, asSpecial Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, PentalphaSurveillance LLC, as Operating Advisor, CoreLogic Commercial Real EstateServices, Inc., as Servicing Function Participant, National Tax Search, LLC, asServicing Function Participant, C-III Asset Management LLC, as Special Servicerfor the Marriott Monterey Mortgage Loan, Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation, as Trustee for the Marriott Monterey Mortgage Loan, Citibank,N.A., as Certificate Administrator for the Marriott Monterey Mortgage Loan,Citibank, N.A., as Custodian for the Marriott Monterey Mortgage Loan, ParkBridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor for the Marriott MontereyMortgage Loan, CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as ServicingFunction Participant for the Marriott Monterey Mortgage Loan, and National TaxSearch, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant for the Marriott MontereyMortgage Loan.

 

 

 

Dated: March 19, 2018

 

 

/s/ Anthony Sfarra

 

 

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)