alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007018EN.01000101.xml

| 26.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 18/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 18/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

25 January 2007

(2007/C 18/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2978 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 156,88 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4541 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,65850 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0750 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6154 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 89,12 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2120 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5784 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,148 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 254,65 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6975 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8975 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,3926 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 35,178 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8403 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6639 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5287 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,1308 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8468 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9929 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 214,81 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,3114 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,0846 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3800 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 803,49 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5429 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,469 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,3940 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,320 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2978

JPY

Japanese yen

156,88

DKK

Danish krone

7,4541

GBP

Pound sterling

0,65850

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0750

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6154

ISK

Iceland króna

89,12

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2120

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5784

CZK

Czech koruna

28,148

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

254,65

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6975

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8975

RON

Romanian leu

3,3926

SKK

Slovak koruna

35,178

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8403

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6639

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5287

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,1308

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8468

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9929

KRW

South Korean won

1 214,81

ZAR

South African rand

9,3114

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,0846

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3800

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 803,49

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5429

PHP

Philippine peso

63,469

RUB

Russian rouble

34,3940

THB

Thai baht

44,320

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                          1,588,046
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   6,050,915
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                     4,207,824
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               12,108,453
<PP&E>                                            358,077
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13,006,485
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           2,526,049
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           7,342,163
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                      3,138,273
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   13,006,485
<SALES>                                        10,413,498
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               10,413,498
<CGS>                                           8,502,671
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   8,502,671
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                1,173,479
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 51,439
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   737,348
<INCOME-TAX>                                      294,449
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               442,899
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      442,899
<EPS-BASIC>                                         .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .08



</TABLE>
Exhibit 3.3

                         CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF
                         CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                      OF
                     DIAL THRU INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

 Dial Thru International, a corporation organized  and existing under and  by
 virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware,

      DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

      FIRST:   That at  a meeting  of the  Board of  Directors of  Dial  Thru
 International Corporation  resolutions were  duly  adopted setting  forth  a
 proposed amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation of said  corporation,
 declaring said  amendment to  be  advisable and  calling  a meeting  of  the
 stockholders of said corporation for consideration thereof.  The  resolution
 setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows:

      RESOLVED, That the Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation  be
 amended by changing  the first  paragraph of  the Sixth  Article thereof  so
 that, as amended said Article shall be and read as follows:

      "The aggregate  number of  shares of  all classes  of stock  which  the
      corporation shall have  authority to issue  is ninety-four million  one
      hundred sixty-nine thousand one hundred (94,169,100) shares  consisting
      of (A) eighty-four million one hundred sixty-nine thousand one  hundred
      (84,169,100) shares of common  stock, par value  $0.001 per share  (the
      "Common Stock"), and (B) ten  million (10,000,000) shares of  preferred
      stock, par value $0.0001 per share (the "Preferred Stock")."

      SECOND:  That thereafter, pursuant to resolution of its Board of
 Directors, an annual meeting of the stockholders of said corporation was
 duly called and held upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the
 General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, at which meeting the
 necessary number of shares as required by statute were voted in favor of the
 amendment.

      THIRD:  That  said amendment was  duly adopted in  accordance with  the
 provisions of Section  242 of the  General Corporation Law  of the State  of
 Delaware.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Dial Thru International Corporation has caused
 this certificate to be signed by John Jenkins, its Chief Executive  Officer,
 this 11th day of January, 2005.


                                    /s/ John Jenkins
                                    ___________________
                                    John Jenkins
                                    Chief Executive Officer
# C_2010179EN.01005601.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/56

---

Action brought on 20 May 2010 — Regione Puglia v Commission

(Case T-223/10)

(2010/C 179/95)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Regione Puglia (Bari, Italy) (represented by: F. Brunelli and A. Aloia, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Debit Note No 3241001630 of the European Commission of 26 February 2010. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Debit Note No 3241001630 of the European Commission of 26 February 2010.

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs, including a fixed amount for general costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs, including a fixed amount for general costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the debit note issued by the Commission on 26 February 2010 in implementation of Decision C(2009) 10350 of 22 December 2009 concerning the cancellation of part of the contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) allocated to the operational programme POR Puglia Obiettivo 1 2000-2006. That decision was challenged by the Regione Puglia and by Italy in Case T-84/10 (1) and Case T-117/10 (2) respectively.

In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward the following pleas:

| — | Decision C(2009) 10350 of 22 December 2009 is unlawful, on the basis of the pleas in law and main arguments already relied on in Case T-84/10. |
| --- | --- |

—

Decision C(2009) 10350 of 22 December 2009 is unlawful, on the basis of the pleas in law and main arguments already relied on in Case T-84/10.

| — | Infringement of Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 448/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the procedure for making financial corrections to assistance granted under the Structural Funds, (3) which provides for the application of a rate of interest of 1,5 % above the rate applied by the European Central Bank in its main refinancing operations, since the contested debit note provides that the rate of interest to be charged is that published in the OJEU on 1 April 2010, increased by 3,5 %. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 448/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the procedure for making financial corrections to assistance granted under the Structural Funds, (3) which provides for the application of a rate of interest of 1,5 % above the rate applied by the European Central Bank in its main refinancing operations, since the contested debit note provides that the rate of interest to be charged is that published in the OJEU on 1 April 2010, increased by 3,5 %.

---

(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.10, p. 58.

(2)  Not yet published in the OJ.

(3)  OJ L 64, 6.3.2001, p. 13.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mario Valdivia, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 897]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J., at suppres*370sion hearing; Charles H. Solomon, J., at plea and sentence), rendered June 14, 2005, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4 to 8 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see *People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.R, Friedman, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
The panel recommended that Boles be suspended from the 

practice of law for two years, with the conditions that Boles be (1) required 

to retake the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE) 

and attorney ethics portion of the Nevada Bar Examination prior to 

applying for reinstatement; (2) required to pay for the costs associated 

with the disciplinary proceeding pursuant to SCR 120; (3) within three 

days of the effective date of an order of suspension, required to 

demonstrate to bar counsel that he has notified all of his clients of his 

suspension; and (4) within fifteen days of an order of suspension, place all 

of his Nevada clients with other counsel, conclude representation, or, with 

the assistance of bar counsel, attempt to expeditiously aid any remaining 

clients in finding new counsel. 

The findings and recommendations of a disciplinary board 

hearing panel are persuasive; however, our automatic review of a panel 

decision recommending a suspension is conducted de novo, requiring the 

exercise of independent judgment by this court. SCR 105(3)(b); In re 

Stubff 108 Nev. 629, 633, 837 P.2d 853, 855 (1992). 

Having reviewed the briefs filed in this matter and the record 

of the disciplinary proceedings, we conclude that clear and convincing 

evidence supports the findings that Boles violated RPC 1.3 (diligence) and 

RPC 1.4 (communication). SCR 105(2)(e). We approve the panel's 

recommendation that Boles be suspended subject to conditions. However, 

we determine that a suspension of one year is appropriately tailored to the 

violations here. We therefore reject the recommended suspension term of 

two years and instead direct that Boles be suspended for one year. 

Accordingly, Boles is hereby suspended from the practice of 

law for one year, subject to the conditions set forth above. Boles shall pay 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 

2 
clesty 

, J 

Parraguirre 

Saitta 

, J. 

, J. 

I eikeil , C•J. 

Pickerin 

the costs of the disciplinary proceedings within 30 days of receipt of the 

Nevada State Bar's bill of costs. See SCR 120. Boles and the state bar 

shall comply with the applicable provisions of SCR 115 and SCR 121.1. 

It is so ORDERED. 

Gibbons 

cc: Thomas Susich, Chair, Southern Nevada Disciplinary Panel 

David Clark, Bar Counsel 

James Andre Boles, Esq. 

Kimberly Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada 

Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, U.S. Supreme Court 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3
1 United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 93-8534.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

William Phillip NICHOLS, Defendant-Appellant.

Aug. 25, 1994.

Appeal from t he United States District Court for the Western

District of Texas.

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge and DUHÉ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, William Nichols, appeals the district court's

denial of his motio ns to correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. §

2255 and for appointment of counsel under 18 U.S.C. §

3006A(a)(2)(B). We vacate and remand in part and affirm in part.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was convicted in February 1992 of three counts of

distributing crack cocaine within a thousand feet of a public

school in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 860(a). At

sentencing, the district court found Appellant a career felon based

on two state drug convictions. Accordingly, the district court

enhanced Appellant's sentence to 262 months imprisonment from a

sentencing range of 41 to 51 months.

On March 10, 1993, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals vacated

one of Appellant's state convictions on the ground that his guilty

plea was involu ntary because the state withheld exculpatory

evidence. Nichols then filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to2

vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence on the ground

that he could no longer be considered a career offender since his

state conviction had been vacated. Appellant also filed a motion

for appointment of counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). The

district court denied both motions, and Appellant appeals.

DISCUSSION

I.

Appellant first contends that § 22 55 relief is appropriate

when a state conviction that formed the basis of career offender

status is invalidated after the federal sentencing. In the recent

case, Custis v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 1732, 128

L.Ed.2d 517 (1994), the Supreme Court stated in dicta that a

defendant who was successful in attacking his state conviction in

state court may then apply for reopening of any federal sentence

enhanced by that state sentence. Id. at ----, 114 S.Ct. at 1739.

At oral argument, the Government conceded that, in light of Custis,

Appellant should get the benefit of the fact that he subsequently

had the previous state conviction overt urned. Accordingly, we

vacate and remand on the basis of the Government's concession.

II.

Appellant next argues that the district court abused its

discretion by refusing to appoint counsel. Whether to appoint

counsel to represent a defendant in a § 2255 proceeding is

committed to the sound discretion of the district court. Ford v.

United States, 363 F.2d 437 (5th Cir.1966). No evidentiary hearing

was necessary in this case, and at the time he requested counsel,3

Appellant merely alleged that "the interest of justice" r equired

that counsel be appointed. We conclude that the district court did

not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion to appoint

counsel.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE and REMAND in part and

AFFIRM in part.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                                    ARTHUR
                                   ANDERSEN



                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


          As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation of our report dated September 10, 1997 (except with respect to the
matter discussed in Note 10, as to which the date is December 9, 1997),
incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K/A, into the Company's previously
filed Registration Statement Files Nos. 33-90086, 33-90088, 33-90090 and 33-
90092 on Form S-8 and No. 333-16241 on Form S-3.



                                             /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
                                             Arthur Andersen LLP


Chicago, Illinois
December 9, 1997
To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: "Dick Sturm" <dsturm@wppienergy.org> 

Date: 07/15/2010 12:31PM 

Subject: Plant ID: 02569 - Policy Questions- Possible Extension Request 

Dear Jezebele, 

 

Policy Question #1: Part A - Question A1-11: Is the generation of electricity the primary purpose 

(i.e., the predominant source of revenue and principal reason for operation) of the plant? 

 

In 2004-2005 MU converted the River Street Electrical Generation Station to a Steam Facility/CoGeneration Facility with the primary purpose being the production of process steam to local paper

mills and electrical generation as a by product. The issue is further complicated by the fact that 

the facility went into financial default and ceased operation on October 9, 2009. We are currently 

passively marketing the facility as a co-generation facility. It is also clear that as the 

present owner MU is not likely to ever operate the plant again. 

 

Based on the above Menasha Utilities answer to Part A, Question A1-11 would be No, and we 

would not complete the remainder of the questionnaire. Do you agree with this 

reasoning? If you agree please disregard the request for an extension to complete the ICR. 

Please reply that our interpretation is correct. 

 

Policy Question #2: I have been unable to find a definition for the acronym BCI which appears as 

a preliminary question to each question. Would you please provide the definition for BCI. 

 

 

Request for an extension - if needed. 

 

Menasha Utilities, Plant ID: 02569 would by this email respectfully request a time extension to 

complete information collection request (ICR). Initially I intended and felt the 90 day completion 

could be met, however after beginning the ICR and recognizing the volume of information being 

requested I now realize that we can not meet that deadline. Menasha Utilities does not have a 

full time environmental person to devote the time needed to complete the ICR. In addition 

Menasha Utilities Steam Plant ceased operation on October 9, 2009 due to financial difficulties. 

The plant is now shuttered and in a moth-balled state with efforts being made to sell the 

plant. All Steam Plant employees including management have either been transferred or are 

on layoff status which further complicates the issue of completing the ICR within the 90 day 

period. 

 

Menasha Utilities respectfully is requesting an additional six months beyond the 90 days to 

complete the ICR. 

 

Sincerely, 

 

 

Dick Sturm 

Co-General Manager / Engineering and Operations 

Menasha Utilities 

P.O Box 340 

Menasha, WI 54952 

Phone (920) 967-3410 

Cell (920) 540-1125 

Fax (920) 967-3440 

NOTE: New E-Mail Address:

dsturm@wppienergy.org

Page 2 of 3

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C403C41DO... 8/24/2011
#### § 590.161 Termination of plant approval.

When inspection service is not performed at any plant for a period of at least 90 days, plant approval shall terminate upon notice by the Administrator without further proceedings; provided, however, that this section shall not apply to any plant where the Administrator determines that such a plant operates on a seasonal basis and the inspection service has not been used as a result of such seasonal operation, or where operations have ceased due to extraordinary circumstances determined by the Administrator as not warranting termination of plant approval.

[45 FR 23641, Apr. 8, 1980. Redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981]
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00184

- CR

James Thomas Jones, II

v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 221st District Court of Montgomery County , Texas Trial Cause No. 13

- 04

- 04212 CR (Count 2)

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, havi ng considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 19, 2015
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 20023
 
 
 I, Charles J. Zwebner, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the Annual Report of Spot Mobile International Ltd. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Spot Mobile International Ltd.
 
 Date: March 21, 2012

By:

/s/ Charles J. ZwebnerCharles J. ZwebnerChief Executive Officer