alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006283EN.01000101.xml

| 21.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

20 November 2006

(2006/C 283/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2841 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 151,57 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4578 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67680 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0823 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5928 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 90,61 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2620 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5777 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,005 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 258,78 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6980 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8093 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,4968 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,66 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 35,678 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8741 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6687 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4676 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,9993 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9225 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0005 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 201,21 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,3553 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,1110 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3681 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 754,01 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6870 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 64,000 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,2040 |
| THB | Thai baht | 47,000 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2841

JPY

Japanese yen

151,57

DKK

Danish krone

7,4578

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67680

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0823

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5928

ISK

Iceland króna

90,61

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2620

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5777

CZK

Czech koruna

28,005

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

258,78

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6980

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8093

RON

Romanian leu

3,4968

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,66

SKK

Slovak koruna

35,678

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8741

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6687

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4676

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,9993

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9225

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0005

KRW

South Korean won

1 201,21

ZAR

South African rand

9,3553

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,1110

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3681

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 754,01

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6870

PHP

Philippine peso

64,000

RUB

Russian rouble

34,2040

THB

Thai baht

47,000

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH , Appellant,

v.

SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY ,

a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 183

[ January 23, 2019 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Lisa S. Small , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2013

- CA

- 010144

- XXXX

- MB AH

.
Douglas N. Yeargin and Anthony M. Stella, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Sean Fahey of the Office of G eneral Counsel, SBPBC, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Steven L. Brannock of Brannock & Humphries, Tampa, for Amicus Curiae Florida Stormwater Association.

Susan M. Seigle of Alvarez Winthrop Thompson & Storey, P.A., Gainesville, and Walter Harvey of Miam i

- Dade County School Board, Miami, for Amicus Curiae Miami

- Dade County School Board.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed. See City o f Gainesville v. Fla. Dep’t of Transp. , 920 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2005); City of Key West v. Fl a

. Keys C mty

. College

, 81 So. 3d 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

C ONNER and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., and R OBY , W ILLIAM , L., Associate Judge,

concur.

* * *2 Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### § 518.11 Does a tribe that holds a certificate of self-regulation have a continuing duty to advise the Commission of any additional information?

Yes. A tribe that holds a certificate of self-regulation has a continuing duty to advise the Office of Self-Regulation within 10 business days of any changes in circumstances that are material to the approval criteria in § 518.5 and may reasonably cause the Commission to review and revoke the tribe's certificate of self-regulation. Failure to do so is grounds for revocation of a certificate of self-regulation. Such circumstances may include, but are not limited to, a change of primary regulatory official; financial instability; or any other factors that are material to the decision to grant a certificate of self-regulation.

[87 FR 62986, Oct. 18, 2022]
08/17/201 0 16:0 6 816329410 6 SA D PAG E 02/0 2 

# e U,S , Departmen t o f Transportatio n Federa l Aviatio n Admiriistrotio n Smal l Airplan e Direcwrar e 90 1 Locus

t Kansa s City , M O 54106 

### AU G 

## 1 7 20 0

Mr . WilliamD . Holder Park Count y Sheriff s Office - Searc h & Rescu e Dept . 131 1 11''^ Stree t Cocly,W Y 82414-353 6 Dea r Mr . Holder : ' • I I

— ) O

, -1- 1

.X 3 o O n Apri l 9 , 2010 , w e requeste dfurthe r informatio n fo

r your January 20,2010 , petitio n o n behal f o f th e Park Count y Sheriff s Offic e fo

r a n exemptio n fro

m§ 23.2 5 o f

Titl e 14 , Cod e o f Federa l Regulation s (1 4 CFR) , Thi s exemption , i f granted , woul dallo w th e Par k Count y Sheriff s Offic e t o operat e th e mode l Sk y International , Inc . mode l A-I B with amaximu m weight o f 220 0 pounds . W e opene dDocke t

No , FAA-2010-009 0 fo

r thi s project . Thi s lette r

i s t o infor myo u that

w e are closin g th e projec t

for your petitio n fo

r exemptio n unti l yo u sen du s th e infomiatio n w e requested . Onc e yo u sen du s th e informatio n that w e requested , w e wil l reope n th e project . I f yo u hav e an y questions , yo u may contac t Mr . Lesli e B . Taylo r

at (816 ) 329-4134 , emai l leslie.b.taylor@faa,gov . Sincerely . 

## vV John Coloray Actin g Manager , Smal l Airplan e Directorat e Aircraf t Certificatio n Servic e
# C_2006224EN.01004201.xml

| 16.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/42

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 July 2006 — Établissements Toulorge v Parliament and Council

(Case T-167/02) (1)

1

(Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Marketing of compound feedingstuffs for animals - Actual damage)

(2006/C 224/90)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Établissements Toulorge (Bricquebec, France) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck and D. Brinckman, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: C. Pennera and E. Waldherr) and Council of the European Union (represented by: initially I. Díez Parra and F. Ruggeri Laderchi, and subsequently I. Díez Parra and Z. Kupčová, Agents)

Defendants:

Intervening parties supporting the defendants: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma, Agents) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bordes, Agent)

Intervening parties supporting the defendants:

Re:

Application for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant owing to Directive 2002/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/357/EEC (OJ 2002 L 63, p. 23)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | The applicant shall pay its own costs and those of the Parliament and the Council. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall pay its own costs and those of the Parliament and the Council.

| 3. | The Federal Republic of Germany and the Commission shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Federal Republic of Germany and the Commission shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 180, 27.7.2002.

1

---
§ 522.11 Individually owned class II and class III gaming operations other than those operating on September 1, 1986. For licensing of individually owned gaming operations other than those operating on September 1, 1986 (addressed under § 522.12), a tribal ordinance shall require: ( a ) That the gaming operation be licensed and regulated under an ordinance or resolution approved by the Chair;
( b ) That income to the tribe from an individually owned gaming operation be used only for the purposes listed in § 522.4(b)(2);
( c ) That not less than 60 percent of the net revenues be income to the tribe;
( d ) That the owner pay an assessment to the Commission under § 514.1 of this chapter;
( e ) Licensing standards that are at least as restrictive as those established by State law governing similar gaming within the jurisdiction of the surrounding State; and
( f ) Denial of a license for any person or entity that would not be eligible to receive a State license to conduct the same activity within the jurisdiction of the surrounding State. State law standards shall apply with respect to purpose, entity, pot limits, and hours of operation.
Page 1

October 16, 2015 U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Amendment to Exemption No 13171 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-2140

Dear Madam, Sir,

On October 9, 2015, the FAA granted T Baker Smith, LLC a Section 333 rule exemption and a Small UAS Operations 200 feet and below for Commercial Purposes COA for the purposes of aerial data collection. This COA allows the use of the DJI Inspire 1 and SenseFly eBee UAS. The petitioner seeks an amendment to the existing 333 to allow, in addition to the UAS listed above, the use of a DJI S1000 Plus and SenseFly eXom.

The DJI S1000 Plus is similar in aerodynamics to the Inspire 1. Although slightly larger, it is still well under 55lbs, weighing only 20lbs with max payload. This UAS is operated exactly the same as the Inspire 1 and has the same safety features. The DJI S1000 Plus is a more professional UAS and has the ability to carry better cameras and sensors than the hobby targeted Inspire 1.

The eXom is also similar in many regards to the Inspire 1 in size, weight and aerodynamics. However, the eXom is designed mainly for the purpose of aerial mapping and infrastructure inspections such as bridges, cell phone towers, industrial complexes, etc. As explained in detail below, the eXom is far more technologically advanced than the Inspire 1 as it has many built in sensors to facilitate its tasks. It is also a much more expensive platform. Current cost of the eXom is around $45,000 as compared to the $3200 for the Inspire 1. The intended uses of the eXom will not require flight above 200 feet and all requirements of the existing COA will be complied with. The eXom is unique in today's UAS marketplace as it is the only available UAS built specifically for low altitude infrastructure inspection and mapping.

Exhibits: 1) S1000+ User Manual v1.2 2) eXom Extended User Manual v1.1Page 2

The name and address of the applicant is: T Baker Smith, LLC Attention: Eric Deroche PO Box 2266 Houma, LA 70361 412 South Van Ave Houma, LA 70363 Telephone: (985) 868-1050 Email: eric.deroche@tbsmith.com

Granting this amendment will allow this new technology to be used in many industries and provide significant safety improvements and cost savings to these businesses. "The public good will is well served by allowing this amendment to be issued. All operations of the additional UAS will be in full compliance with the terms of the existing exemption. This exemption amendment request is similar to the already issued in precedent, and this request should qualify for summary processing as the FAA has already provided public notice of and granted similar exemptions. Such exemptions are No. 11659 in Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–0545 for Fovea Aero Systems LLC,

a n d N o

. 1 1 3 7 3 A R e g u l a t o r y D o c k e t N o

. F A A

− 2 0 1 5

− 0 0 6 0

. P l e a s e f e e l f r e e t o c o n t a c t t h e undersigned should you have any question or concerns regarding this request for an amendment to the Exemption request.

Sincerely,

Eric Deroche Director of Office and Field Technology T Baker Smith, LLC
§ 31.0 Definitions. As used in this part: ( a ) *School district* means the local unit of school administration as defined by the laws of the State in which it is located.
( b ) *Cooperative school* means a school operated under a cooperative agreement between a school district and the Bureau of Indian Affairs in conformance with State and Federal school laws and regulations.
(35 Stat. 72, 25 U.S.C. 295)
[33 FR 6472, Apr. 27, 1968]
#### James Williams *et al. v.*Francis La Valle, Supervisor, etc.

*•TraDGirENT—whether final—orü&r granting a new trial.*An order granting a new trial in an action of ejectment, under the statute, is not a final judgment, and, therefore, can not he reviewed in the supreme court upon appeal or writ of error.

Writ op Error to the Circuit Court of St. Clair county; the Hon. Joseph Gillespie, Judge, presiding.

This was an action of ejectment, brought in the court below ■by LaYalle, supervisor of the village of Cahokia, against James Williams and Francis H. Cobb.

At the March term, 1868, a trial ivas had, resulting in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, from which the defendants prayed an appeal. At the October term following, the judgment was vacated and a new trial granted upon payment of costs, the defendants withdrawing their appeal.

At the October term, 1870, a second trial ivas had, resulting in a judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff thereupon moved for a new trial, which the court, at the March term,_ 1871, denied. The plaintiff then moved for a new trial under the statute, which ivas allowed upon the payment of costs within one year. Upon this application of the plaintiff it Avas proven that he had paid the costs of the second trial, but had not paid the costs of the first trial.

At the October term, 1871, the plaintiff dismissed his suit.

The defendants sued out a Avrit of error, and insist the court beloAV erred in granting to the plaintiff a neAV trial Avithout the payment of all the costs incurred in the suit.

Messrs. C. W. & E. L. Thomas, for the plaintiffs in error.

Messrs. G. *&*G. A. K cerner, for the defendant in error.

*111Per Curiam :

The order granting a new trial in this case, is not a final judgment. Hence, no appeal can be taken or writ of error prosecuted for its reversal. The writ of error must therefore be dismissed.

*Writ of error dismissed.*
#### § 581.3 How do I file a motion to intervene in appeals?

Motions to intervene in appeals before a presiding official are governed by § 584.5 of this subchapter. Motions to intervene in appeals before the Commission are governed by § 585.5 of this subchapter.
§ 37.123 How does a Tribe develop proposed geographic attendance boundaries or boundary changes? ( a ) The Tribal governing body establishes a process for developing proposed boundaries or boundary changes. This process may include consultation and coordination with all entities involved in student education.
( b ) The Tribal governing body may delegate the development of proposed boundaries to the relevant school boards. The boundaries set by the school boards must be approved by the Tribal governing body.
( c ) The Tribal governing body must send the proposed boundaries and a copy of its approval to the Secretary.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Digest of educationalstatistics.**
 
SuDoc Number: FS5.2: | FS 5.210: | HE 5.210: | HE 5.98: | HE 19.315:
Item Number:0460-A (online) | 0460-A-10(online)
CGP systemNumber:001047840
 
1962 | 1963 | 1964 | 1968 | 1969
1971 | 1972 | 1973 | 1974
 
March 6, 2018
### §2491b. Use of appropriated funds for operation of Armed Forces Recreation Center, Europe: limitation

(a) Limitation.—Except as provided in subsection (b), funds appropriated to the Department of Defense may not be used to operate the Armed Forces Recreation Center, Europe.

(b) Exception.—Subsection (a) does not apply to the use of funds for the payment of utilities, the maintenance, repair, or renovation of real property, and the transportation of products made in the United States.

(Added Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title III, §372(a), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2735, §2247; amended Pub. L. 105–85, div. A, title III, §375, Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1708; renumbered §2491b, Pub. L. 108–375, div. A, title VI, §651(d), Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 1972.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2004—Pub. L. 108–375 renumbered section 2247 of this title as this section.

1997—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 105–85 substituted "the maintenance, repair, or renovation of real property, and the transportation" for "real property maintenance, and transportation".
#### STATE v. HARRINGTON

No. 46PA90

Case below: 97 N.C.App. 143

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 5 April 1990.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE INDESCO INTERNATIONAL, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1999 ANS IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFENENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,748
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,336
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     11,864
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,883
<PP&E>                                          79,620
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,975
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 171,151
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,043
<BONDS>                                        167,851
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,062
<OTHER-SE>                                    (20,452)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   171,151
<SALES>                                         52,987
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,987
<CGS>                                           39,077
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,077
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,761
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,279
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,163)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        87
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,250)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
1

Gross, Ryan

From: Gross, Ryan

Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 9:06 AM

To: 'Morgan, Don'

Subject: RE: Concurrence on EPA permit for NSF Ice Pier

Don, 

Thanks for our response. I’ll amend the record to the file as you requested. See below. 

On February 20, 2013, I spoke with Don Morgan (703-358-2444, don_morgan@fws.gov) of the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Program, Division of Consultation. Mr. Morgan confirmed that Jonathan 

Amson (EPA) had contacted his office requesting concurrence with EPA’s finding of no effect on December 1, 

2010. At the time, Mr. Morgan assigned this request to a member of his office, who has since retired. The 

request was closed on December 10, 2010. To his recollection, Mr. Morgan said that his office agreed that there 

would be no effect to U.S. Fish and Wildlife listed species.

Ryan Gross, P.E.

Environmental Engineer

US Environmental Protection Agency

ph. 202‐566‐1810

From: Morgan, Don [mailto:don_morgan@fws.gov] 

Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 6:10 AM 

To: Gross, Ryan 

Cc: Rick Sayers; Patrice Ashfield 

Subject: Re: Concurrence on EPA permit for NSF Ice Pier 

Mr Gross, 

Although I have been unable to confirm the details of the discussion between Mr. Amson of your staff and Mr. 

Fay of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, I would be more comfortable stating that: "his office agreed that there 

would be no effect to U.S. Fish and Wildlife listed species."

Please let me know if you have nay questions.

Don

___________________________ 

Don R. Morgan 

Acting Chief, Division of Restoration and Recovery 

Ecological Services Program 

4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Room 434B 

Arlington, VA 22203 

Phone (703) 358-2444 

Fax (703) 358-1735 
2

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Gross, Ryan <Gross.Ryan@epa.gov> wrote: 

Mr. Morgan, 

 

Good morning. This is Ryan Gross from USEPA. I contacted you a few months ago regarding the permit 

renewal for the Ocean Disposal of National Science Foundation’s Ice Pier in Antarctica. I need to make a record 

of our conversation for the file, so I will describe it below. If you agree with this account, I would appreciate it 

if you respond back to this email saying so. 

 

On February 20, 2013, I spoke with Don Morgan (703-358-2444, don_morgan@fws.gov) of the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Program, Division of Consultation. Mr. Morgan confirmed that Jonathan 

Amson (EPA) had contacted his office requesting concurrence with EPA’s finding of no effect on December 1, 

2010. At the time, Mr. Morgan assigned this request to a member of his office, who has since retired. The 

request was closed on December 10, 2010. To his recollection, Mr. Morgan said that his office agreed that there 

would be no effect. 

 

Please feel free to make edits or give me a call if you want to discuss the matter. Again, thanks for your help. 

 

V/R, 

 

Ryan Gross, P.E.

Environmental Engineer 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

ph. 202-566-1810
#### § 1000.22 What are the consequences of having a material audit exception?

If a Tribe/Consortium has a material audit exception, the Tribe/Consortium is ineligible to participate in self-governance until the Tribe/Consortium meets the eligibility criteria in § 1000.16.