alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7536

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.
HECTOR JOSE CARRANZA , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Catherine C. Eagles , District Judge. ( 1:20

- cr - 00203

- CCE

- 5 )

Submitted : February 17, 2022 Decided: February 23, 2022

Before AGEE and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Hector Jose Carranza , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Hector Jose Carranza appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and denying his motion for the appointment of counsel

. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did
not abuse its discretio n in denying Carranza’s motions. See United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because
the f acts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
#### Lost Lots Associates, Ltd., et al., Respondents, v Augustus H. Bruyn et al., Defendants, and Thaddeus Yuran et al., Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered June 5, 1978 in Ulster County, which denied defendants’ motion for leave to file an amended answer. In March of 1974, plaintiff Lost Lots Associates, Ltd. (hereinafter Lost Lots) commenced the present action, pursuant to article 15 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, to compel the determination of its claim to certain real property located in the Town of Woodstock, Ulster County. Subsequently, in February of 1978, defendants’ attorney allegedly discovered that Lost Lots was a corporation comprised of three attorneys, which acquired a deed to the real property in question from plaintiff Maynard Keefe who received no monetary consideration therefor. In return for the deed, Gerald Wapner, a practicing attorney and also an officer and stockholder of Lost Lots, allegedly entered into an agreement with plaintiff Keefe whereby Wapner’s law firm was to commence the present proceeding, pursuant to article 15 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, to establish title to the subject tract in Lost Lots. Additionally, the firm was to bear all costs of this litigation and share equally with plaintiff Keefe the net proceeds of any settlement of the action or from the subsequent sale of the realty if Lost Lots is unsuccessful in the lawsuit. Upon this alleged. state of facts, defendants moved in March of 1978, pursuant to CPLR 3025 (subd [b]), for leave to amend their answer in the proceeding to assert the affirmative defense of champerty and maintenance. Finding that the proposed affirmative defense was lacking in legal merit, Special Term denied their motion, and the instant appeal ensued. We hold that the order of Special Term should be affirmed. In New York champerty and maintenance is not a viable defense except as provided by statute *(Coopers & Lybrand v Levitt,*52 AD2d 493), and defendants moved at Special Term for permission to assert the defense upon the ground that the conduct of Lost Lots and its attorneys in acquiring the subject realty and commencing this proceeding was in violation of sections 488 and 489 of the Judiciary Law. As an examination of these statutes readily reveals, however, that they relate not to a transfer of an interest in real property, such as we have here, but rather to the purchase of choses in action, claims or demands (see *Fowler v Callan,*102 NY 395). Consequently, even accepting them as true, defendants’ factual allegations are insufficient to establish the defense of champerty and maintenance, and Special Term properly denied defendants’ motion for leave to assert such a defense *(Townshend v Fromer,*15 NY Civ Pro Rep 8; 7 NY Jur, Champerty and Maintenance, § 6; see, also, *Beck v Motler,*42 AD2d 1020). Order affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Staley, Jr., Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur. [95 Misc 2d 99.]
#### Dwayne-Michael Grimaldi, Respondent, v Manhattan Arms Hotel, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[833 NYS2d 97]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered on or about May 16, 2006, which denied defendants-appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants-appellants dismissing the complaint as against them.

Plaintiff claims that he was injured when a tenant living at a single room occupancy hotel owned and operated by appellants dropped an air conditioner onto the street as she was trying to remove it from the window. The tenant testified that no one at the hotel ever had anything to do with the air conditioner, she wanted to take the air conditioner out because it was winter and cold, and she requested the hotel staffs assistance but was told no one on staff was available at the time. She then at*299tempted to remove the air conditioner herself without informing the staff, but it slipped out of her hands and fell out the window. Appellants’ principal testified that tenants were not allowed to have air conditioners in their rooms, and that he was not aware that the tenant had one until he heard of the accident. Plaintiff does not allege, and there is no evidence, that the air conditioner was improperly installed or otherwise itself constituted a danger. Appellants moved for summary judgment, arguing that they never maintained the air conditioner and had no duty to control the tenant’s behavior. The motion was denied on the ground that issues of fact exist as to whether the tenant’s request for assistance made the accident foreseeable and whether appellants were negligent in failing to provide the requested assistance or “take other steps to protect passersby.” This was error. Even assuming that appellants were under a duty to help the tenant remove the air conditioner, that such duty gave rise to a corresponding duty of care to members of the public at large, and that the tenant’s attempt to remove the air conditioner without assistance rendered the accident foreseeable, there is no evidence that the hotel had reason to believe that the tenant would attempt to remove the air conditioner without assistance. Concur—Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Buckley and Kavanagh, JJ.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

STEPHEN TRESSEL,

Appellant,

v.

LUCIA GATTA,

Appellee.

No. 4D14-3048

[May 13, 2015]

Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth 

Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Amy L. Smith, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

213DR009852NB.

Bruce S. Rosenwater of Bruce S. Rosenwater & Associates, P.A., West 

Palm Beach, for appellant.

John T. Christiansen, Jr. of Law Offices of John T. Christiansen, P.L., 

West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order denying the former husband’s motion for contempt 

against the former wife for failure to pay his award of temporary attorney’s 

fees. Although the trial court at one point in the proceedings erroneously 

appeared to place the burden of proving an ability to pay on the husband, 

the husband did not object to the court’s statements. We also interpret 

those statements, not as requiring the husband to prove ability to pay but 

to identify a source from which the wife could pay a contempt order.

Moreover, the wife presented evidence of her inability to pay the purge 

amount, which was the entire amount of the temporary award, and this 

evidence was accepted and relied on by the trial court in denying the 

motion for contempt. Thus, based upon the court’s findings and 

determinations of credibility, the wife satisfied her burden of overcoming 

the presumption of ability to pay. See Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274, 

1278-79 (Fla. 1985); see also Perez v. Perez, 599 So. 2d 682, 683 (Fla. 3d 

DCA 2007). The fact that the court did not find the evidence sufficient to 

warrant contempt, however, does not preclude other relief. Our 

affirmance, therefore, is without prejudice to the husband securing a 
2

judgment in his favor for the unpaid temporary award in the final 

judgment of dissolution, or alternatively, by the filing of an amended 

motion for contempt requesting a purge amount within the wife’s present 

ability to pay.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and FORST, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**Program Office:**Institutional  Service

**CFDA Number:** 84.031A**Program Type:** Discretionary/Competitive Grants, Cooperative Agreements**Also Known As:**Title III, Part A

Program Description

The program helps eligible IHEs to become self-sufficient and expand their capacity to serve low-income students by providing funds to improve and strengthen the academic quality, institutional management, and fiscal stability of eligible institutions.

Types of Projects

(1) Purchase, rental, or lease of scientific or laboratory equipment for educational purposes, including instructional and research purposes. (2) Construction, maintenance, renovation, and improvement in classrooms, libraries, laboratories, and other instructional facilities, including the integration of computer technology into institutional facilities to create smart buildings.(3) Support of faculty exchanges, faculty development, and faculty fellowships to assist in attaining advanced degrees in the field of instruction of the faculty. (4) Development and improvement of academic programs. (5) Purchase of library books, periodicals, and other educational materials, including telecommunications program material. (6) Tutoring, counseling, and student service programs designed to improve academic success, including innovative, customized, instruction courses designed to help retain students and move the students rapidly into core courses and through program completion, which may include remedial education and English language instruction.  (7) Education or counseling services designed to improve the financial literacy and economic literacy of students or the students’ families. (8) Funds management, administrative management, and acquisition of equipment for use in strengthening funds management. (9) Joint use of facilities, such as laboratories and libraries. (10) Establishing or improving a development office to strengthen or improve contributions from alumni and the private sector. (11) Establishing or improving an endowment fund. (12) Creating or improving facilities for Internet or other distance education technologies, including purchase or rental of telecommunications technology equipment or services. (13) Other activities proposed in the application submitted pursuant to subsection (b) and section 1068 of this title that— 
(A) contribute to carrying out the purposes of the program assisted under this part; and (B) are approved by the Secretary as part of the review and acceptance of such application.

SIP Competitions

The Strengthening Institutions Program typically holds competitions every other year, on odd-numbered years (e.g., 2019, 2021, etc.).

In even-numbered years (e.g., 2020, 2022, etc.), the program funds down the previous year’s slate. 

Information on the most recent competition can be found under Applicant Info. 

A list of awardees and abstracts can be found under Awards. Requests for funded applications must be submitted via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) site at: www.foia.gov.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CHATTEM,
INC.'S UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                           7,075
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,670
<ALLOWANCES>                                       400
<INVENTORY>                                     10,358
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                49,244
<PP&E>                                          25,494
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,154
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 146,191
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,974
<BONDS>                                        128,322
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,836
<OTHER-SE>                                     (8,912)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   146,191
<SALES>                                         87,968
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                87,968
<CGS>                                           26,466
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   74,469
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,533
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,035
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,931
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,104
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (532)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,572
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.45
        

</TABLE>
## SERVE D JANUAR Y 13 , 201 0
U.S
. DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C 

### ^FPiOF~;-^,:€pRtAtiO N

I N TH E MATTE RO F 

### AMERICA N EAGL EAIRLINES , INC
. FA A DOCKE T NO
. CP09SW000 6 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DM S No
. FAA-2009-104 2 

### NOTIC EO FHEARIN GDATE S Paragrap h# 2 o f

th e Procedura l Orde r

b e an di s hereb y amende da s follows : ...O n o r before Marc h12 , 2010 , th e partie s shal l conclud e al l discovery including , bu t

no t limite dto , depositions , documen t production , response s t o productio n request s and/o r interrogatories
. I f

th e partie s canno t

resolv e adiscovery dispute the y shal l submi t

th e disput e t o th e undersigne dfo r resolutio n i n atimel y manner.. . NOTIC E I S HEREB Y GIVE N that testimon y an devidenc e wil l b e hear dan dconsidere d o n Marc h2 4 an d25,2010 , inclusive , i n th e Nationa l Transportatio n Safet y Boar d Hearing , Room , 62 4 Si x Flag s Drive , Suit e 150 , Arlington , Texas , 76011
. Hearing s wil l commenc e at

9:0 0 a.m . an dconclud e at 4:3 0 p.m . eac hday
. Th e partie s shoul d vacat e th e courthous e o n o r befor e 5:0 0 p.m . eac hday
. Settle dcase s wil l no t

b e remove dfro mth e docke t unti l th e Judg e receive s th e prope r pleading(s)
. Pleading s ma y b e forwarde db y fax , expres s mail , courie r o r posta l service
. S O ORDERED
.

5odwin U.S
. Administrativ e Law Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No
. CP09SW000 6 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L& ON E COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D.C
. 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1OOO '

ON ECOP Y American Eagl e Airlines , Inc. , Responden t ATTN : Pete r

Bowler , Presiden t 1700 W
. 20 * Street , M D 120 0 P.O
. Bo x 61252 7 DFWAirport , T X 75261-252 7 Franci s C
. Heil , Respondent' s Counse l American Airlines , Inc. , Lega l Departmen t P.O
. Bo x 619616 , Mai l Dro p 567 5 DF WAirport , T X 75261-961 6 TEL : 202-496-564 2 FAX : 202-496-566 0 Ren aM
. Price , Complainant' s Counse l Safet y Enforcemen t

Branch , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counse l Southwes t

Region , ASW-7E1 , RM P Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 260 1 MeachamBlvd. , Roo m66 3 Fort Worth , T X 76137-000 7 TEL : 817-222-506 8 FAX: 817-222-5945/509 2 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwin , Administrativ e la w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-213 9 Lega l Assistan t

202-366-512 1 FAX: 202-366-753 6

' Service wa

s b y U.S
. Mail
. Fo

r servic e in person o

r b y expeditedcourier , us e the following address : Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , DC 20591 ; Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk, AGC-430
.
Order entered February 27, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01586-CR

SYLVIA ROMERO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F01-16575-X

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the Dallas County District Clerk to file the clerk’s record in this 

appeal within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order.

We ORDER court reporter Debi Harris to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of 

this order, a supplemental record containing State’s Exhibit no. 9, a CD.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Debi 

Harris, Deputy Official Court Reporter; Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; the 

Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
# C_2017370EN.01000101.xml

| 31.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 370/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 370/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

30 October 2017

(2017/C 370/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1612 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 131,83 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4410 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87980 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,7090 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1603 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4840 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,645 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 311,01 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2432 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5990 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,3851 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5148 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4918 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,0581 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6944 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5836 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 306,01 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,3361 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7165 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5220 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 762,75 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9206 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,079 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 67,1203 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,598 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,7790 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,1764 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 75,3560 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1612

JPY

Japanese yen

131,83

DKK

Danish krone

7,4410

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87980

SEK

Swedish krona

9,7090

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1603

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4840

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,645

HUF

Hungarian forint

311,01

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2432

RON

Romanian leu

4,5990

TRY

Turkish lira

4,3851

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5148

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4918

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,0581

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6944

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5836

KRW

South Korean won

1 306,01

ZAR

South African rand

16,3361

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7165

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5220

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 762,75

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9206

PHP

Philippine peso

60,079

RUB

Russian rouble

67,1203

THB

Thai baht

38,598

BRL

Brazilian real

3,7790

MXN

Mexican peso

22,1764

INR

Indian rupee

75,3560

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-14-00373- CV

In re Weldon Cow an
ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM B URNET COUNTY
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Relator Weldon Cowan has f iled a pro se petition for writ of manda mus. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. Ba sed on this rec ord, his petition is denied. See W alker v. Pack

er , 8 2 7 S.W .2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (re lator has burden of providing court with sufficie nt rec ord to establish rig ht to mandamus relief ); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a) (1) (re lator must file with petition “a cer tified or sworn copy of ever y document that is materia l to the relator’s claim for r elief a

nd that was filed in a

ny underly ing pr ocee ding” ).

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Rose and Goodw in Filed: Jul y

9, 2014
## Legislation

- Title III, Part A, Sec. 317 of the Higher Education Act ( HEA ) of 1965, as amended ( 20 U.S.C. 1059d )
- Title III, Part F, Sec. 371 of the Higher Education Act, as amended ( 20 U.S.C. 1067q )

## Regulations

- Title 34 Part 607
- e-CFR --  Part 200—Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, And Audit Requirements For Federal Awards
- Education Department General Administrative Regulations  (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99

Institutional Service Home
# C_2018019EN.01000201.xml

| 19.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

18 January 2018

(2018/C 19/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2235 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,07 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4475 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88208 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,8305 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1748 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,6013 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,365 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 308,51 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1665 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6480 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,6374 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5311 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5229 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,5648 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6759 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6175 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 306,61 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,0035 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8582 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4409 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 325,38 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8396 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,068 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 69,2126 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,054 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,9321 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,8174 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 78,1210 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2235

JPY

Japanese yen

136,07

DKK

Danish krone

7,4475

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88208

SEK

Swedish krona

9,8305

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1748

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,6013

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,365

HUF

Hungarian forint

308,51

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1665

RON

Romanian leu

4,6480

TRY

Turkish lira

4,6374

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5311

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5229

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,5648

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6759

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6175

KRW

South Korean won

1 306,61

ZAR

South African rand

15,0035

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8582

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4409

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 325,38

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8396

PHP

Philippine peso

62,068

RUB

Russian rouble

69,2126

THB

Thai baht

39,054

BRL

Brazilian real

3,9321

MXN

Mexican peso

22,8174

INR

Indian rupee

78,1210

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---