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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND CONDENSED STATEMENT OF OPERATION
FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      15,504,135
<SECURITIES>                                   681,794
<RECEIVABLES>                                  295,007
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,319,896
<PP&E>                                         681,794
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              35,773,112
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,606,307
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    46,908,724
<OTHER-SE>                                (18,743,061)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                35,773,112
<SALES>                                      1,053,601
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               434,844
<CGS>                                          314,622
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  314,622
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,497,740
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           (3,377,559)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (94,746)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,282,813)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,282,813)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,282,813)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.35)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          78,603
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,515
<ALLOWANCES>                                       507
<INVENTORY>                                     22,444
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               135,724
<PP&E>                                         152,275
<DEPRECIATION>                                  75,080
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 223,038
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,813
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           317
<OTHER-SE>                                     194,971
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   223,038
<SALES>                                        116,232
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               116,232
<CGS>                                           64,302
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,302
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (179)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  85
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,532)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       372
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,904)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,904)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)
        

</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 9844)

#### William Shaland et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 783090-1/2, etc.

*558(Decided November 17, 1960)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

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

La whence, Judge:

The proper dutiable value of certain metal articles covered by the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made part of the decision herein, is before the court for determination.

The parties hereto have entered into a stipulation of fact wherein it has been agreed 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 case be incorporated and made a part of the record herein.

> IT 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 cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

Upon the agreed facts before the court, I find and hold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(d)), is the proper basis of value for the articles in issue, and that said value is the appraised values of the merchandise, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
# C_2016392EN.01003201.xml

| 24.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Philip Morris v Commission

(Case T-18/15) (1)

1

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents drawn up in the context of the preparatory works leading to the adoption of the directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Rights of the defence - Overriding public interest))

(2016/C 392/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Philip Morris Ltd (Richmond, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Nordlander and M. Abenhaïm, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision Ares(2014) 3694540 of 6 November 2014, refusing access to certain documents relating to the adoption of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision Ares(2014) 3694540 of 6 November 2014, refusing access to certain documents relating to the adoption of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC, in so far as it refused access to the first three sentences of the third paragraph of Document No 6; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision Ares(2014) 3694540 of 6 November 2014, refusing access to certain documents relating to the adoption of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC, in so far as it refused access to the first three sentences of the third paragraph of Document No 6;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.

1

---
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1278 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax 

on indoor tanning services. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 23, 2011 

Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. 

BLUNT, and Mr. BARRASSO) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the excise tax on indoor tanning services. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF EXCISE TAX ON INDOOR TANNING 

4 SERVICES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle D of the Internal Rev6 enue Code of 1986 is amended by striking chapter 49 and 

7 by striking the item relating to such chapter in the table 

8 of chapters of such subtitle. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1278 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to services performed after the 

3 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Robert M. Primo, D.D.S.

June 18, 2015 Blake Hawthorne, Clerk Supreme Court of Texas 201 W. 14th Street, Room 104 Austin, Texas 78701

RE: Cause No. 15-0280

, Robert Primo v. Benito Y. Garza and Briar Green Condominium Association.

Dear Mr. Hawthorne,

Please be informed that I withdraw my Petition for Review in the above styled and
referenced matter.

Respectfully.

/s/ Robert M. Primo

Robert M. Primo, D.D.S.

Petitioner FILED
15-0280 6/18/2015 8:48:17 AM
tex-5723114 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERKCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 18th day of June, 2015, a true and correct copy of the foregoing letter has been served by e-f ile to all parties of record, in compliance with Tex.R.App.P. 9.5.

/s/ Robert M. Primo

Robert M. Primo, D.D.S.

Dennis A. McQueen
Texas Bar No. 00784581 Pagel, Davis & Hill, P.C. 1415 Louisiana St., 22nd Floor Houston, TX 77002-7360 Telephone: (713) 951-0160 Fax: (713) 951-0662 Email: dam@pdhlaw.com Attorney for Respondent Briar Green Condominium Association

Tim A. Womack
Texas Bar No. 24071799 600 Hedwig Rd. Houston, 77024 Telephone: (832) 444-0056 Email: timawomackpa@aol.com Attorney for Respondent Benito Y. Garza
No. 6210.

#### AMELIA HAMMOND, WIFE OF ARTHUR MEYRAN, vs. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

Syllabus.

Involves only issues of fact.

*83Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “B,” No. 105,430. Honorable F. D. King, Judge.

James 0 ’Connor, for plaintiff and appellee.

Howe, Fenner, Spencer *&*Cocke, for defendant and appellant.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and ■decree of the Court, as follows:

This is a suit upon two insurance policies upon the life of Margaret Meyran, the minor daughter of plaintiff, the one for $125, issued February 22nd, 1909, the other for $224, issued May 20th, 1912.

The assured died April 20th, 1913, of pulmonary tuberculosis.

Both policies contain amongst others these two clauses:

(1) That the policy should be void if before the date thereof the assured had any pulmonary disease. (2) That after two years the policy should be incontestable except for fraud.

Fraud is not to be presumed, and our examination of the record fails to convince us that the assured or the beneficiary had any knowledge that the former had pulmonary tuberculosis, even up to the time of her death. The first policy is therefore incontestable under the above quoted clause, No. 2.

The last policy, however, is void under the above quoted clause No. 1, unless the company’s agent “knew or might have ascertained with reasonable diligence the true condition of the applicant’s health,” as that policy appears to have been issued “without a medical examination of the assured by a physician.” Act 97 of 1908.

*84Opinion and decree, November 23rd, 1914.

Rehearing refused, December 21, 1914.

Writ granted, February 25, 1915.

But there is nothing in this record which shows that the .agent had any means of ascertaining the true condition of the assured except from the statements of- the assured herself and of the beneficiary, by whom the application was made. As they themselves were not aware of that condition the agent was not in a position to ascertain it for himself. The second policy is therefore void under its terms-

. It is therefore ordered that the judgment appealed from be amended by reducing the amount allowed plaintiff from $349 to one hundred and twenty-five dollars, $125, with interest and costs as stated therein; and that as thus amended the judgment be affirmed at the cost of the appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

(137 La., 137.)
| (logo)  **ncb**  National Cooperative Bank    | 2011  Crystal Drive  Suite, 8oo  Arlington, VA 22202 |
|----------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 **FORM OF ANNUAL COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

** **

CERTIFICATION

Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2016-C33, Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates, Series 2016-C33 (the “Trust”)

 

I,Karyn Mann, on behalf of National Cooperative Bank, N.A., as NCB MasterServicer (the “Certifying Servicer”), certify to Wells Fargo CommercialMortgage Securities, Inc. and its officers, directors and affiliates, and withthe knowledge and intent that they will rely upon this certification, that:

 

1.                I (or Servicing Officers undermy supervision) have reviewed theCertifying Servicer’s activities during the preceding calendar year betweenJanuary 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018 (the “ReportingPeriod”) and the Certifying Servicer’s performance under the Pooling andServicing Agreement; and

 

2.                To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Certifying Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement inall material respects during the Reporting Period.

 

 

Date: February 6, 2019

 

 

National Cooperative Bank, N.A., as NCB Master Servicer

By: /s/ Karyn Mann

Name: Karyn Mann

Title: Senior VicePresident
**Agricultural      Bank of China**

**Loan      Certificate (1)**

| Applicant                             |   | Shenzhen                BAK Battery Co., Ltd             |   | ID                card of the Applicant            |   |                                                |
|---------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
| Currency                              |   | RMB                                                      |   | Amount                                             |   | 20,000,000.00                                       |
| Loan                Term              |   | From                October 11, 2007 to January 25, 2008 |
| Usage                                 |   | Purchase                equipments and machines          |
| Annual                rate            |   | 7.65%                                                    |
| Reference                Contract No. |   | 81101200600001989                                        |   | Reference                Guaranty Contract No.     |   | 81901200600001462;                81902200600005528 |
| Stamp                of Applicant     |   |                                                     |   | Stamp                of Agricultural Bank of China |   |                                                |

----
# C_2017030EN.01004302.xml

| 30.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2016 — Printeos and Others v Commission

(Case T-95/15) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European stock/catalogue and special printed envelopes market - Decision establishing an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Coordination of sales prices and allocation of customers - Settlement procedure - Fines - Basic amount - Exceptional adjustment - Maximum of 10 % of total turnover - Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment))

(2017/C 030/47)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Printeos, SA (Alcalá de Henares, Spain), Tompla Sobre Exprés, SL (Alcalá de Henares), Tompla Scandinavia AB (Stockholm, Sweden), Tompla France SARL (Fleury-Mérogis, France), Tompla Druckerzeugnisse Vertriebs GmbH (Leonberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Brokelmann and P. Martínez-Lage Sobredo, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, F. Jimeno Fernández and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2014) 9295 final of 10 December 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article [101 TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.39780 — Envelopes) or, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 2(1)(e) of Commission Decision C(2014) 9295 final of 10 December 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article [101 TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.39780 — Envelopes).; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 2(1)(e) of Commission Decision C(2014) 9295 final of 10 December 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article [101 TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.39780 — Envelopes).;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6733

EMMANUEL FLEMMING, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL MOORE, Director; WILLIAM E. GUNN, Director; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-3351-0-06BD) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: August 28, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emmanuel Flemming, Appellant Pro Se. Shelton Sterling Laney, III, HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, COTHRAN, GUNN & BRADFORD, P.A., Spartanburg, South Carolina; Carl Norman Lundberg, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICES, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Flemming v. Moore , No. CA-96-3351-0-06BD (D.S.C. May 5, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### Surface water supply of Missouri River drainage, 1906

By: Robert FollansbeeR.I. MeekerJohn E. Stewart

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp208

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
No. 47581.

#### Protest 894181-G of W. X. Huber Co.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
No. 44254.

#### Protests 952746-G, etc., of Butler Bros. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of Rockingham earthenware the same as that passed upon in *Butler*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 303). The claim at 25 percent under paragraph 210 was therefore sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 9605)

#### Plywood & Door Northern Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. 11509.

(Decided February 25, 1960)

*James Wilson Young*for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

Counsel for the parties have submitted the above-enumerated appeal for reappraisement upon stipulation upon the basis of which I find foreign value, as defined in section 402(c), *576Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the plywood involved, and that such value is the appraised unit value, less 4 per centum, net, packed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.