alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,346
<ALLOWANCES>                                       331
<INVENTORY>                                     17,457
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,083
<PP&E>                                          24,479
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,239
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  58,862
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,655
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,398
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,258
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    58,862
<SALES>                                         47,032
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,032
<CGS>                                           27,708
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,708
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,330
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    74
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 628
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,510
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,781
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,717
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,717
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.98
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v. FRED R. MENDIOLA, Prisoner, U. S. Army, Appellant

4 USCMA 403, 15 CMR 403

No. 3633

Decided June 11, 1954

*404Lt Col James C. Hamilton, U. S. Army, for Appellant.

Lt Col William R. Ward, U. S. Army, Maj Irvin M. Kent, U. S. Army, 1st Lt Benjamin C. Flannagan, U. S. Army, 1st Lt Martin Blackman, U. S. Army, for Appellee.

Opinion of the Court

George W. Latimer, Judge:

This accused, although filing a separate petition for review, was tried jointly with the petitioners in United States v. Duggan, 4 USCMA 396, 15 CMR 396, decided this day. The charge upon which he was tried was mutiny, in violation of Article 94, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 50 USC § 688. He pleaded not guilty, but was found guilty as charged and sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for twenty-five years. The convening authority approved only so much of the sentence as provided for confinement for twenty-five years, and the board of review reduced that period to five years, but otherwise approved the findings and sentence.

The charges upon which this conviction rests and the facts which support the finding of guilty are the same as in the Duggan case and they are set out in that opinion. The same record of trial is the basis for both appeals. However, it should be noted that while the identity of the several accused came from sources which were not identical, several witnesses testified this accused participated in the disturbance.

We granted accused’s petition for review on the issue of whether the law officer erred in failing to instruct that riot was a lesser included offense of mutiny. Our opinion in the Duggan case is controlling on that issue. There we held that a mutiny committed by violence, where alleged as a joint offense by several participants, would include riot as a lesser offense if the facts in the record raised it reasonably as an issue. We further held that the undisputed facts in this record did not require the law officer to submit that included offense to the court-martial members for consideration.

Other than a finding on the elements of the principal offense, the only matter upon which the court-martial members were required to deliberate was the defense of alibi which was placed in issue by the accused’s evidence. This defense was fully instructed upon by the law officer.

Accordingly, we dispose of the contentions in this appeal in the same manner we did in the companion case. The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Bros-man concur.
(Reap. Dec. 8978)

Entry No. 720523.

#### International Expediters, Inc., a/c A. T. Artistic Novelties *v.*United States

(Decided August 29, 1957)

*Tompkins & Tompkins*for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement is before me for decision on a written stipulation reading as follows:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, Defendant, that the “foreign value” as defined in Section 402 (c) Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, of the music boxes on the invoice covered by the above-named reappraisement appeal, that are marked with an “A” and initialed RDE by Examiner Russell D. Evans was $5.65 per carton (each containing 1 music box), plus proportionate part of cost of cases as invoiced, and that the “export value” as defined in Section 402 (d) of said Act, was not higher.

> The above named reappraisement appeal is submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the music boxes in question, as hereinabove identified, is statutory foreign value, and I hold that such value for these articles is $5.65 per carton (each carton containing one music box), plus proportionate part of cost of cases, as invoiced. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
#### Alberti Importing & Exporting Co. *v.*United States

No. 6034.

Invoices dated Naples, Italy, July 29, 1936, etc.

Certified July 30, 1936, etc.

Entered at Boston, Mass., August 22, 1936, etc.

Entry No. 2331, etc.

(Decided June 22, 1944)

*Joseph F. Lockett*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P.*Rao, Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel 1. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement cover certain peeled tomatoes in tins and tomato sauce, imported from Italy.

The uncontradicted evidence discloses:

1. That said tomatoes and tomato sauce 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 and tomato sauce, 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 Tomatoes per case of 24 tins of 1,200 grams each Tomatoes per case of 48 tins of 600 grams each Tomato sauce per case*

> 135142-A 2331__.$1. 90 $2. 50 _

> 135138-A 16088_ 2. 00 2. 60 _

> 135139-A 1024_ $4. 15

> 135140-A 1064_ 1. 90 2. 50 _

> 135141-A 1716_ 4. 15

> 135189-A 2206/1___ 1. 90 2. 50 _

> 135190-A 2206/3_ 4. 15

> 135143-A 3483_ 2. 00 2. 60 _

> 135145-A 4137_ _ 4.30

> 135146-A 6187_ 2. 05 2. 65 _

> 135144-A 3688/3_ 4. 30

> 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.
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
 SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In
connection with the quarterly report of United-Guardian, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the three-month period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Kenneth H.
Globus,  President 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:
 
 (i) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (ii) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and results of
operations of the Company for the periods presented.
 
 
 Date:  May
14,
2009                                                                                   By:
/s/ Kenneth H.
Globus
 Kenneth
H. Globus
Exhibit 35.7  LOGO

CommercialMortgageServicing D1050-084, 8th Fl
401 South Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334 ANNUAL
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE Reference is hereby made to that certain Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 6, 2016, by and
among CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Servicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee and CITIBANK, N.A., as
Certificate Administrator with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-225L (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement. Pursuant to Section 13.7 of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:  1.
A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018
(the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and  2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations
under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has
executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.  LOGO Leslie Hayton Managing
Director Wells Fargo Bank Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


LOGO
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 81 (Friday, April 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 21064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8111]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5762]


Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation Notice 
of Meeting

    Summary: The Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic 
Documentation will meet in the Department of State, 2201 ``C'' Street, 
NW., Washington, DC, June 4-5, 2007, in Conference Room 1107. Prior 
notification and a valid government-issued photo ID (such as driver's 
license, passport, U.S. government or military ID) are required for 
entrance into the building. Members of the public planning to attend 
must notify Chris Tudda, Office of the Historian (202-663-3054) no 
later than May 31, 2007 to provide date of birth, valid government-
issued photo identification number and type (such as driver's license 
number/state, passport number/country, or U.S. government ID number/
agency or military ID number/branch), and relevant telephone numbers. 
If you cannot provide one of the enumerated forms of ID, please consult 
with Chris Tudda for acceptable alternative forms of picture 
identification.
    The Committee will meet in open session from 1:30 p.m. through 3 
p.m. on Monday, June 4, 2007, in the Department of State, 2201 ``C'' 
Street NW., Washington, DC, in Conference Room 1107, to discuss 
declassification and transfer of Department of State records to the 
National Archives and Records Administration and the status of the 
Foreign Relations series. The remainder of the Committee's sessions 
from 3:15 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. on Monday, June 4, 2007, and 9 a.m. 
until 1 p.m. on Tuesday, June 5, 2007, will be closed in accordance 
with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463). The agenda calls for discussions of agency declassification 
decisions concerning the Foreign Relations series and other 
declassification issues. These are matters not subject to public 
disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and the public interest requires 
that such activities be withheld from disclosure. Questions concerning 
the meeting should be directed to Marc J. Susser, Executive Secretary, 
Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation, Department 
of State, Office of the Historian, Washington, DC 20520, telephone 
(202) 663-1123, (e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#30585943445f42497043445144551e575f46"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2d45445e59425f546d5e594c5948034a425b">[email protected]</span></a>).

    Dated: April 18, 2007.
Marc Susser,
Executive Secretary, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E7-8111 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-11-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 46928.

#### Protest 969976-G of Saji Trading Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the articles in question, are used chiefly in the kitchen or household or on the table for utilitarian purposes, the claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was sustained on the authority of Abstract 45228.
No. 54889.

#### American Veil & Novelty Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 150649-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the Federal Reserve bank certified dual rates of exchange for the currencies involved in the liquidation of the entries for the dates of exportation of the merchandise covered by the entries and *323that the circumstances relating to the liquidation of the said entries are similar in all material respects to those involved in Abstract 54732. In view of this stipulation and following the cited decision it was held that the currencies of the invoices covered by certain enumerated entries should have been converted in the manner directed by the judgment of this court in said Abstract 54732, in accordance with Bureau of Customs Circular Letter No. 2675, dated October 19, 1949.
# C_2016068EN.01002802.xml

| 22.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/28

---

Order of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Garcia Minguez v Commission

(Case T-357/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil Service - Recruitment - Commission internal competition open to the institution’s temporary staff - Non-admission to a member of the temporary staff of an executive agency - Article 29(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations - Equal treatment - Appeal manifestly devoid of any basis in law))

(2016/C 068/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Maria Luisa Garcia Minguez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco and Á. Givaja Sanz, lawyers)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall, G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, and subsquently by: G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 April 2015 in Garcia Minguez v Commission (F-72/14, ECR-SC, EU:F:2015:40), seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Ms Maria Luisa Garcia Minguez shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Maria Luisa Garcia Minguez shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015

1

---
No. 47579.

#### Protest 47996-K of Abercrombie & Fitch Co.

Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing denied.
# C_2015429EN.01000803.xml

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz (Germany) lodged on 22 September 2015 — Alphonse Eschenbrenner v Bundesagentur für Arbeit

(Case C-496/15)

(2015/C 429/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landessozialgericht Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alphonse Eschenbrenner

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesagentur für Arbeit

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it compatible with the rules of primary and/or secondary EU law (in particular Article 45 TFEU (formerly Article 39 EC) and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 (1)), in the case of an employee who pursues an occupational activity in Germany, who is resident in another Member State and not subject to income tax liability in Germany, and for whom insolvency benefit, under the provisions applicable to him, is not taxable, that, in the event of his employer’s insolvency, the remuneration from employment used to calculate his insolvency benefit is subject to the notional taxation that would be charged as a deduction on his remuneration from employment were he subject to income tax liability in Germany, if he no longer has the possibility of asserting a claim against his employer for his residual gross remuneration? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it compatible with the rules of primary and/or secondary EU law (in particular Article 45 TFEU (formerly Article 39 EC) and Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 (1)), in the case of an employee who pursues an occupational activity in Germany, who is resident in another Member State and not subject to income tax liability in Germany, and for whom insolvency benefit, under the provisions applicable to him, is not taxable, that, in the event of his employer’s insolvency, the remuneration from employment used to calculate his insolvency benefit is subject to the notional taxation that would be charged as a deduction on his remuneration from employment were he subject to income tax liability in Germany, if he no longer has the possibility of asserting a claim against his employer for his residual gross remuneration?

1

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative, can it be considered compatible with the rules of primary and/or secondary EU law if, in the circumstances described, the employee retains the possibility of asserting a claim against his employer for his residual gross remuneration? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative, can it be considered compatible with the rules of primary and/or secondary EU law if, in the circumstances described, the employee retains the possibility of asserting a claim against his employer for his residual gross remuneration?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union Text with EEA relevance, OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2017030EN.01004401.xml

| 30.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/44

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2016 — PAL-Bullermann v EUIPO — Symaga (PAL)

(Case T-397/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark PAL - Partial revocation - Genuine use of the mark - Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form differing from the registered mark - Rule 22(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

(2017/C 030/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: PAL-Bullermann GmbH (Friesoythe-Markhausen, Germany) (represented by: J. Eberhardt, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Symaga, SA (Villarta de San Juan, Spain) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

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 First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 May 2015 (Case R 1626/2014-1) relating to revocation proceedings between PAL-Bullermann and Symaga.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders PAL-Bullermann GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders PAL-Bullermann GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.

1

---
No. 46341.

#### Petitions 6093, etc., of F. G. Jackson (Laredo).

*269Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial petitioner testified that before entry he consulted with the appraiser as to the value and found that there was no other dependable source of information than the shipper because the consular office in Mexico was closed at the time of entry. He further testified that there had been previous shipments of the same merchandise at the same prices which at the time of shipment had been verified as correct by the Mexican consular office and verified by the mills as the market value of such merchandise. From these facts the court was of the opinion that the entry at the invoice prices was made in good faith and that the petitioner was without intention to deceive or misrepresent the facts. The petitions were therefore granted.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v. ANDREW T. GOODRUM, Airman Third Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

5 USCMA 832, 19 CMR 128

No. 6364

Decided May 27, 1955

Col A. W. Tolen, USAF, and Capt Lee G. Norris, USAF, for Appellant.

Lt Col Emanuel Lewis, USAF, and Maj Roger H. Miller, USAF, for Appellee.

Opinion of the Court

George W. Latimer, Judge:

The accused was convicted of six separate offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 50 USC § 551, et seq., none of which are material here. He was sentenced to dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and confinement at hard labor for three years. Following approval by the convening authority, a board of review in the office of The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force affirmed. Although the board was composed of three members, only two participated in the decision. We granted the petition for review because other cases were pending which involved the same issue, namely, whether a board of review with two members sitting possessed the power to act.

The principles set forth in United States v. Petroff-Tachomakoff, 5 USCMA 824, 19 CMR 120, decided this day, dispose of the only issue involved.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Bros-man concur.