alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Richard P. Maracina, Individually and Doing Business as Maracina, Lassin & Atlas, et al., Appellants, v Andrew C. Schirrmeister, Jr., Individually and Doing Business as Greystone Properties, et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol E. Huff, J.), entered May 4, 1989, which dismissed the complaint, after a jury was sworn to make an assessment of damages, but before any evidence was taken, unanimously reversed, on the law, the complaint reinstated, the order of this court dated November 29, 1984, granting partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on the issue of liability, reinstated, and the matter remanded again for an assessment of damages, before a different Justice, with costs.

By memorandum decision and order dated November 29, 1984, this court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and ordered an assessment of damages in Supreme Court (105 AD2d 672). Jury selection was completed on April 25, 1989, and the case was assigned for trial to Justice Carol E. Huff. On May 1, 1989, before there had been any opening statements, or other proceedings before the jury, the court orally granted a motion to dismiss the complaint. Three days later, on May 4, 1989, the court entered a written order, reading as follows: "Upon the Court’s own motion after trial, settle order/judgment *[sic]”.*As noted, no trial had ever taken place.

The respondent cites no authority, and indeed, none exists, to support the Trial Judge’s disregard of the earlier order of this court. Trial courts are without authority to vacate or *503modify orders of the Appellate Division, or to reverse holdings of this court. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ross, Asch, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.
# C_2018427EN.01005301.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/53

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2018 — Unipreus v EUIPO — Wallapop (wallapop)

(Case T-186/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark wallapop - Prior national figurative mark wala w - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Similarity of the services)

(2018/C 427/68)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Unipreus, SL (Lleida, Spain) (represented by: C. Rivadulla Oliva, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Bernabeu, D. Gája and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Wallpop, SL, (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: X. Fàbrega Sabaté and J. Sánchez Sánchez-Crespo, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2017 (Case R 2350/2015-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Unipreus and Wallapop.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2017, in so far as it found that the services at issue in Case R 2350/2015-5 were different; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2017, in so far as it found that the services at issue in Case R 2350/2015-5 were different;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Unipreus, SL; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Unipreus, SL;

| 4. | Orders Wallapop, SL, to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Wallapop, SL, to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.

---
CASE 1:21-MC-00102-AKH Filed 9/17/07 Page 1 of 2

ESCHEN, FRENKEL, WEISMAN & GORDON, LLP

20 West Main Street

Bay Shore, New York 11706

(631) 969-7777

Attorneys for Defendants

110 CHURCH, LLC 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------X

IN RE: Case No.: 1:21 MC 102(AKH)

 LOWER MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE

LITIGATION (21 MC 102)

---------------------------------------------------------X

EDWARD MOORE & NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF 

WIFE RUTH MOORE, ANSWER TO MASTER 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, ELECTRONICALLY FILED

-against1 WORLD FINANCIAL CENTER, et. al.,

Defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------X

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendants 110 CHURCH, LLC, by their

attorney, ESCHEN, FRENKEL, WEISMAN & GORDON, LLP as and for a their

Response to the allegations set forth in the Complaint by Adoption (Check-Off

Complaint) Related to the Master Complaint filed in the above-referenced action, hereby

adopt their Answer to Master Complaint dated July 31, 2007, which was filed in the

matter of In Re: World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC

102 (AKH).

WHEREFORE, the defendants 110 CHURCH, LLC demand judgment

Case 1:07-cv-05562-AKH Document 10 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 1 of 2
dismissing the above-captioned action as against them, together with their costs and

disbursements and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: Bay Shore, New York

September 14, 2007 Yours, etc.,

By:__________________________

Todd E. Weisman (TEW-0963)

ESCHEN, FRENKEL, WEISMAN

& GORDON, LLP

Attorneys for Defendants

110 CHURCH, LLC

20 West Main Street

Bay Shore, New York 11706

(631) 969-7777

File #: 9091-07

Case 1:07-cv-05562-AKH Document 10 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 2 of 2
DOCSNY-271428v01 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

 : 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

FLORA B DAVILA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 - against - 

1221 AVENUE HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

07-CV-04463-AKH 

APPEARANCE 

ELECTRONICALLY FILED 

----------------------------------------------------------------X 

To the Clerk of this Court and all parties of record: 

Enter my appearance as counsel in this case for: 

MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. 

I certify that I am admitted to practice in this court.

Dated: New York, New York 

 October 3, 2007 

 By:

DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP 

 /s/ Judith R. Cohen 

______________________________________ 

Judith R. Cohen (JC-8614) 

1177 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, New York 10036 

Phone: (212) 277-6500 

Fax: (212) 277-6501 

Attorney for Defendant 

MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. 

Case 1:07-cv-04463-AKH Document 20 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 1 of 1
(104 So. 918)

#### Emory SMITH v. STATE.

(6 Div. 314.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 7, 1925.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; William E. Fort, Judge. Robbery.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

All the Justices concur.
# C_2019305EN.01004201.xml

| 9.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2019 — Café del Mar and Others v EUIPO — Guiral Broto (Café del Mar)

(Case T-772/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Café del Mar - Absolute ground for refusal - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 305/50)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Café del Mar, SC (Sant Antoni de Portmany, Spain), José Les Viamonte (Sant Antoni de Portmany) and Carlos Andrea González (Sant Josep de sa Talaia, Spain) (represented by: F. Miazzetto and J. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain) (represented by: J. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2017 (Case R 1540/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Café del Mar, Mr Les Viamonte and Mr Andrea González and, on the other, Mr Guiral Broto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 September 2017 (Case R 1540/2015-5). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 September 2017 (Case R 1540/2015-5).

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Café del Mar SC, Mr José Les Viamonte and Mr Carlos Andrea González in the proceedings before the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Café del Mar SC, Mr José Les Viamonte and Mr Carlos Andrea González in the proceedings before the General Court.

| 3. | Orders Mr Ramón Guiral Broto to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by Café del Mar, Mr Les Viamonte and Mr Andrea González in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Mr Ramón Guiral Broto to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by Café del Mar, Mr Les Viamonte and Mr Andrea González in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.

---
Case 1:07-cv-04465-AKH Document 14-2 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 1 of 1
# C_2019103EN.01002402.xml

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2019 — EKETA v Commission

(Case T-166/17) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Sensation contract concluded within the context of the sixth framework programme - Eligible costs - Debit note issued by the defendant for the recovery of sums advanced - Reliability of the time records - Conflict of interests))

(2019/C 103/31)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, A. Katsimerou, O. Verheecke and J. Estrada de Solà, and subsequently A. Katsimerou, A. Kyratsou and O. Verheecke, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration, first, that the request made to the applicant by the Commission in debit note no 3241615291 of 29 November 2016 to reimburse to it the sum of EUR 197 799,52 of the payment received for a study on a research project called Sensation is, in the amount of EUR 179 101,35, unfounded, and, second, that the sum in dispute corresponds to eligible costs which the applicant is not required to reimburse.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders the European Commission to pay to Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA), first, the sum of EUR 19 522,57 corresponding to eligible staff costs, plus related indirect costs and delayed interest on that sum at the rate of 3,50 % from 12 May 2017 until full payment of that sum, second, delayed interest on the sum of EUR 2 950 at the rate of 3,50 % calculated from 12 May 2017 until 28 November 2017 and, third, delayed interest on the sum of EUR 8 988,21 at the rate of 3,50 % calculated from 12 May 2017 until the payment of that sum on 2 October 2017; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders the European Commission to pay to Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA), first, the sum of EUR 19 522,57 corresponding to eligible staff costs, plus related indirect costs and delayed interest on that sum at the rate of 3,50 % from 12 May 2017 until full payment of that sum, second, delayed interest on the sum of EUR 2 950 at the rate of 3,50 % calculated from 12 May 2017 until 28 November 2017 and, third, delayed interest on the sum of EUR 8 988,21 at the rate of 3,50 % calculated from 12 May 2017 until the payment of that sum on 2 October 2017;

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

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EKETA to bear its own costs and to pay nine tenths of the Commission’s costs, with the latter bearing one tenth of its costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EKETA to bear its own costs and to pay nine tenths of the Commission’s costs, with the latter bearing one tenth of its costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.

---
Case 1:07-cv-04520-AKH Document 33 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-04520-AKH Document 33 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Galacio CISNEROS-ALCANTAR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-6065.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2013.

Decided: April 30, 2013.

Galacio Cisneros-Alcantar, Appellant Pro Se. Ethan A. Ontjes, Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Galacio Cisneros-Alcantar seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

*185When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on February 23, 2009. The notice of appeal was filed on December 23, 2012.* Because Cisneros-Alcantar failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R.App. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
Delaware -

The First State

I, JEFFREY W. BULLOCK, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF
DELAWARE, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT "FORECASTEX LLC" IS DULY FORMED
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE AND IS IN GOOD STANDING AND
HAS A LEGAL EXISTENCE NOT HAVING BEEN CANCELLED OR REVOKED SO FAR
AS THE RECORDS OF THIS OFFICE SHOW AND IS DULY AUTHORIZED TO
TRANSACT BUSINESS.

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN FILED:

CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION, FILED THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF
NOVEMBER, A.D. 2021, AT 2:13 O'CLOCK P.M.

AND I DO HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE AFORESAID
CERTIFICATE IS THE ONLY PAPER OF RECORD, THE LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY IN QUESTION NOT HAVING FILED AN AMENDMENT NOR HAVING
MADE ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER IN THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE AS FILED.

AND I DO HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE ANNUAL TAXES HAVE

BEEN PAID TO DATE.

TER

yr" ‘Bullock, Secretary of Stale

Authentication: 202855456
Date: 03-08-22

6403457 8315
SR# 20220916598

You may verify this certificate online at corp.delaware.gov/authver.shtm!
January 20, 2023

Re: Weekly Notification of Rule 

Amendments – Updates to Risk 

Parameters Established by ICC Pursuant 

to Section 5c(c)(1) of the Commodity 

Exchange Act and Commission 

Regulation 40.6(d)

VIA ELECTRONIC PORTAL

Mr. Christopher Kirkpatrick

Secretary

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, D.C. 20581

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

ICE Clear Credit (“ICC”) hereby submits, pursuant to Section 5c(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange 

Act and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”) Regulation 40.6(d), a 

notification of changes to risk parameters established by ICC in consultation with the ICC Risk 

Committee, Trading Advisory Group and/or Risk Working Group. ICC is registered with the 

Commission as a derivatives clearing organization.

The purpose of this notification is to report any changes to the risk parameters established by 

ICC. During the week ending January 20, 2023, changes were made to the following parameters: 

• bid/offer widths for CDX and iTraxx credit indices and single name risk factors

• concentration charge thresholds for index and single name risk factors

• Kendall Tau rank-order correlations for NA, EU, Asia/Pacific (“AP”), and Emerging Market 

(“EM”) risk factors

• MAD estimates (inclusive of EWMA) for NA, EU, AP, and EM risk factors

• left and right tail parameters for NA, EU, AP, and EM risk factors

ICC has posted a copy of this submission on its website concurrent with this filling. 

ICC would be pleased to respond to any questions the Commission or the staff may have 

regarding this submission. Please direct any questions or requests for information to the attention 

of the undersigned at olivia.bazor@ice.com or (904) 855-5580

Sincerely,

Olivia Bazor

Staff Attorney

Olivia Bazor (Jan 20, 2023 13:28 EST)
#### Patrick McCARDELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REGENT PRIVATE CAPITAL, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12-31089

Summary Calendar.

No. 12-31089.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 7, 2013.

Richard Hobbs Barker, IV, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

John W. Waters, Jr., Esq., Attorney, Bienvenu, Foster, Ryan & O’Bannon, L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, Kristin Grace Jones, Bienvenu, Foster, Ryan & O’Ban-non, L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant Patrick McCardell and Defendant-Appellee Regent Private *260Capital, L.L.C. (Regent), signed a guaranty related to the sale of an airship (a “blimp”) owned by MeCardell; the guaranty contained an arbitration clause that provided that the parties “will submit any disputes regarding this contract” to arbitration. The purchaser of the airship later defaulted, and MeCardell sued Regent in Louisiana state court seeking a declaration that the guaranty had not terminated when the airship was returned to McCar-dell by the purchaser. Regent removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss. Rather than dismissing McCardell’s claim, the district court stayed the case pending arbitration. Although the court administratively closed the case “for statistical purposes,” its stay order explicitly retained jurisdiction and provided that “if circumstances change,” the case could “proceed to final disposition.”

Before turning to the merits of an appeal, “[t]his court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, if necessary.”1 The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), under which the guaranty falls,2 provides that “an interlocutory order granting a stay pending arbitration is not an appealable order.”3 The stay order here falls squarely within this rule. Though the district court administratively closed the case, this court has on an least three occasions held that such an order is *not*a final decision under the FAA and, in fact, precludes appellate review.4 We therefore do not have jurisdiction over McCardell’s appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

1

. *Mosley v. Cozby,*813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987) (per curiam).

2

. *See*9 U.S.C. § 2.

3

. *Ilva (USA), Inc. v. Alexander’s Daring M/V,*10 F.3d 255, 256 (5th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (citing *McDermott Int’l, Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyds,*981 F.2d 744, 747 (5th Cir.1993)); *see also*9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(1).

4

*.CitiFinancial Corp. v. Harrison,*453 F.3d 245, 250-51 (5th Cir.2006) (holding that an administrative dismissal is not a final decision under the FAA and therefore not appealable); *Mire v. Full Spectrum Lending Inc.,*389 F.3d 163, 167 (5th Cir.2004) (same with respect to an administrative closure); S. *La. Cement, Inc. v. Van Aalst Bulk Handling, B.V.,*383 F.3d 297, 302 (5th Cir.2004) (same).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1672

SEA-FONE, LIMITED,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION (COMSAT),

Defendant - Appellee,

versus

CATHERINE L. ROBINSON; CHARLES V. BAKER;

SOARTA, LIMITED,

Third Party Defendants.

No. 96-1673

SEA-FONE, LIMITED,

Plaintiff,

versus

COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION (COMSAT),

Defendant - Appellee,

versus
2

CHARLES V. BAKER; SOARTA, LIMITED,

Third Party Defendants - Appellants,

and

CATHERINE L. ROBINSON,

Third Party Defendant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-95-1224-A)

Argued: June 4, 1997 Decided: July 8, 1997

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Joseph Michael Alioto, ALIOTO LAW FIRM, San Francisco,

California; Thomas Richard Nedrich, THOMAS R. NEDRICH & ASSOCIATES,

Falls Church, Virginia, for Appellants. Mark Douglas Wegener,

HOWREY & SIMON, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Louis W.

Kershner, KERSHNER, HAWKINS & POLEN, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellants. Edward Han, Kirstin A. Mueller, HOWREY &

SIMON, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Sea-Fone, Limited appeals an order of the district court

granting summary judgment to Communications Satellite Corporation

(Comsat) on Sea-Fone's claims for antitrust violations, civil RICO,

violations of the Federal Communications Act, misappropriation of

trade secrets, fraud, tortious interference with contract, and

breach of contract. Sea-Fone's allegations stem from its frustration in attempting to compete with Comsat and others in the market

for the provision of low-cost ship-to-shore telephone service for

United States naval personnel.

After carefully examining the record and the parties'

briefs, and having had the benefit of oral argument, we conclude

that the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor

of Comsat. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED
- Page 4
- Page 5
- Page 6