alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017205EN.01005301.xml

| 29.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/53

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

28 June 2017

(2017/C 205/04)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1375 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 127,53 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4366 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88525 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,7780 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0913 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,6020 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,326 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,54 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2375 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5510 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,0079 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4986 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4888 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8759 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5648 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5752 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 300,61 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,8080 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7348 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4128 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 160,03 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8922 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,518 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 67,9014 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,675 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,7632 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,4344 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 73,4345 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1375

JPY

Japanese yen

127,53

DKK

Danish krone

7,4366

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88525

SEK

Swedish krona

9,7780

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0913

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,6020

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,326

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,54

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2375

RON

Romanian leu

4,5510

TRY

Turkish lira

4,0079

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4986

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4888

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8759

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5648

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5752

KRW

South Korean won

1 300,61

ZAR

South African rand

14,8080

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7348

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4128

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 160,03

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8922

PHP

Philippine peso

57,518

RUB

Russian rouble

67,9014

THB

Thai baht

38,675

BRL

Brazilian real

3,7632

MXN

Mexican peso

20,4344

INR

Indian rupee

73,4345

---

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

1

Source

---
| | A
review of NSTAC issues addressed prior to

NSTAC
XXI

*
* *

PREFACE
TABLE 
          OF CONTENTS
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# C_2016432EN.01000101.xml

| 23.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 432/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8217 — CPPIB/Hammerson/Grand Central)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 432/01)

On 17 November 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8217. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8217. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 12 C 5598

)

CAPITAL REALTY & DEVELOPMENT )

LLC and RICHARD P. TURASKY, JR., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This Court has just received a notice in U.S. Bank National Association v. RT Ventures, 

LP, et al., Case No. 14 C 256, providing for the presentment at 9:15 a.m. May 20, 2014 of 

plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to effect service of process on the defendants in that 

action. As that motion reflects, the key defendant in both that action and this one is Richard 

Turasky ("Turasky"), who is portrayed in the motion as ducking service of process. Although 

Turasky's counsel of record in this action, Craig Donnelly and Roberts McGivney Zagotta LLC, 

are not of course counsel of record for the defendants in Case No. 14 C 256 (given what has been 

said earlier as to Turasky's avoidance of service of process in that case), this Court orders 

Donnelly or some other member of the Roberts McGivney law firm to appear in person at the 

designated May 20 presentment date for the motion referred to in this memorandum order.

__________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Date: May 16, 2014 Senior United States District Judge
The Immediate Office of the General Counsel staff provides overall direction, coordination and leadership to the Office of the General Counsel, handles special assignments and provides support services for the Office of the General Counsel.

### **Senior Staff of the Immediate Office**

The Immediate Office of the General Counsel includes three Deputy General Counsels (Deputy General Counsel for Program Service, Deputy General Counsel for Departmental Law and Postsecondary Education, and Deputy General Counsel for Ethics, Legislative, and Regulatory Services) who assist the General Counsel and head the three legal practice areas of the Office. The Immediate Office also includes  other senior staff who handle special assignments and collectively assist the General Counsel in the overall direction, coordination, and leadership for the Office of the General Counsel.
#### 2822.406 Administration and enforcement.
Exhibit 10.28



Michael Wise

(Revised 2/16/99)



	•	 	Starting base salary: $125,000 per year. Performance appraisal within six
months in position. Performance and salary reviewed on your anniversary
date thereafter.
	 
	•	 	Bonus: You have the opportunity to earn up to 30% of your base salary. This
bonus is based on the company achieving its financial objectives and you
achieving mutually agreed upon personal goals. The bonus period runs from
January 1 through December 31 and is paid 45 days after the fiscal year-end
audit pro-rated for this fiscal year.
	 
	•	 	Stock Option — You will receive a grant of pre-I.P.O. stock options for
50,000 shares of NetRadio Common Stock which vests over a three year period
at 33 1/3% per year. This option price will be approximately $5.00 per
share and will vest 100% if employee is terminated without cause.
	 
	•	 	Employee medical insurance core plan through Medica with co-pays of $15.00
per office visit, $11.00 for pharmacy, and $50.00 for emergency room.
Hospitalization is covered at 80% of the first $750.00; 100% thereafter.
(Dependent coverage is available at employee’s expense.)




	 	 	 	NetRadio pays for 80% of the employee’s cost of medical insurance. The
employee’s contribution for coverage cost per pay period is:
Single-$13.49, Employee plus One-$103.38 and Family-$152.42. (A broader
medical plan is also available with a slight increase to the employee.)




	•	 	Company-paid employee dental insurance through Delta Dental, covering two
free cleanings per year and 80/20 payment for routine work. (Dependent
coverage is available at employee’s expense.)
	 
	•	 	Company-paid life insurance at 1 times salary (up to $50,000).
	 
	•	 	Company-paid short-term and long-term disability insurance.
	 
	•	 	401(k) plan program eligibility after six months of employment with April 1
and October 1 entry dates.
	 
	•	 	Tuition reimbursement up to $500/semester or quarter, paid based on grade
point.
	 
	•	 	Three weeks of vacation within first year through the tenth year of
employment, and 4 weeks after ten years.
	 
	•	 	Sick leave of six days annually. (Accrued at 1/2 day per month).
	 
	•	 	Nine paid holidays per year.
	 
	•	 	Underground parking in the Riverplace parking ramp will be paid for you by
NetRadio.
#### Patricia Dzus, Respondent-Appellant, v Theodore Dzus, Jr., Appellant-Respondent.

In an action for a separation, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, and the plaintiff wife cross-appeals, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered June 8, 1978, which, *inter alia,*(1) awarded alimony and child support, (2) provided for an upward adjustment of alimony and child support payments based upon a percentage of any future increases in the defendant’s net income, (3) awarded counsel fees, and (4) required the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff for certain antecedent debts. Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, by (1) deleting the provisions requiring the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff for certain antecedent debts, which have not been set forth as a separate cause of action (see *Schapiro v Schapiro,*27 AD2d 667); (2) deleting the provision providing for an upward adjustment of alimony and child support payments based upon a percentage of any future increases in the defendant’s net income (see *Roscini v Roscini,*41 AD2d 895); and (3) increasing the award for alimony to $100 per week while plaintiff and the children remain in the marital home, and further increasing the award of alimony to $150 per week and child support to $75 per week per child, if and when plaintiff and the children vacate the home for any reason. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. In our opinion in the light of all the facts disclosed in this record the weekly award of alimony and child support was inadequate to the extent indicated herein. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Cohalan and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
On September 28,  2012, OCR resolved a proactive Title IX athletics compliance review initiated  against Merrimack College (College) in Massachusetts.  The review determined that the College  discriminated against female students by denying them an equal opportunity to  participate in its intercollegiate athletics program and in awards of athletic  scholarships.  OCR found that the College’s female students were underrepresented  in its athletics program and that it was providing women with less than a  proportionate share of athletic financial assistance.  The College entered into an Agreement with  OCR which will ensure that its athletic participation rates by sex are substantially  proportional to student enrollment through the addition of six teams for female  athletes.  Further, the College will  develop a strategic plan that will provide significant additional aid to female  athletes and implement an improved system to track athletic financial  assistance.  Finally, the College will create  a Title IX Committee that will include the broader College community to monitor  its progress in achieving Title IX compliance.   OCR will also monitor the College’s implementation of the Agreement.

***Read  the Press Release | Read the Resolution Letter***PDF (265K)    | ***Read the Resolution Agreement***PDF (247K)

 

Top
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Philip Glasser, Deceased. Celia Cohen, Appellant; Elsie Gellers et al., Respondents.

Motion by respondents Gellers to dismiss appeal denied, on condition that appellant perfect the appeal and be ready to argue or submit it at the February Term, beginning January 30, 1961. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. The record and appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before January 16, 1961. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
Cherry

in this case. Even assuming the truth of appellant's assertion that he handed the petition to a prison official on November 4, 2013, he fails to demonstrate that the petition was actually received by the district court on November 5, 2013, the deadline for filing a timely petition. To the extent that appellant contends that the petition was timely because he handed it to a prison official within the one-year time period, this argument fails as this court does not recognize the "prison mailbox rule" for purposes of filing a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 

### See Gonzales v. State, 118 Nev. 590, 594-95, 53 P.3d 901, 903-04 (2002). Therefore, appellant fails to demonstrate good cause for the delay. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 1

Hardesty LiCtit_ v

ear eio J. Douglas

1 -The opening brief does not comply with the formatting requirements of NRAP 32(a)(4) because it does not have one-inch margins on all four sides. We caution appellant's counsel that future failure to comply with the applicable rules when filing briefs in this court may result in the imposition of sanctions.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A 454P149

### cc: Hon. David A. Hardy, District Judge The Williamson Law Office, PLLC Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 

### 3

(0) 1947A ce.
#### 252.236-7010 Overseas military construction—Preference for United States firms.

As prescribed in 236.570(c)(1), use the following provision:

# Overseas Military Construction—Preference for United States Firms (JAN 1997)

(a) *Definition.* “United States firm,” as used in this provision, means a firm incorporated in the United States that complies with the following:

(1) The corporate headquarters are in the United States;

(2) The firm has filed corporate and employment tax returns in the United States for a minimum of 2 years (if required), has filed State and Federal income tax returns (if required) for 2 years, and has paid any taxes due as a result of these filings; and

(3) The firm employs United States citizens in key management positions.

(b) *Evaluation.* Offers from firms that do not qualify as United States firms will be evaluated by adding 20 percent to the offer.

(c) *Status.* The offeror ______ is, ______ is not a United States firm.

(End of provision)

[62 FR 2857, Jan. 17, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 11549, Mar. 9, 1998]
(September 30, 1963)

#### Rosita Belardo, as Administratrix of the Estate of Bienvenido Belardo, Deceased, et al., Respondents, v. Thenry Inc., et al., Appellants.

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering, the defendants appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 18, 1962, as granted conditionally their motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of prosecution; as permitted plaintiffs to file a note of issue for a subsequent term of court; and as denied the motions upon compliance with said condition. Order modified on the facts and in the exercise of discretion by striking out its' two decretal paragraphs, and by substituting therefor a paragraph granting unconditionally defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint. As so modified, order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, under the circumstances here, the conditional granting of the motions constituted an improvident exercise of discretion. The plaintiffs failed to show a reasonable excuse for their delay in prosecuting the action. Plaintiffs also failed to make an adequate showing of merit with respect to the causes of action alleged. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 4.1


EXHIBIT 4.1

CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

TO

CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION FOR

CLASS "A" PREFERRED SHARES




The undersigned, being the President and Chief Executive Officer of New Leaf Brands, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Nevada (the "Company"), in accordance with the Nevada Revised Statutes does hereby certify:

FIRST: the Board of Directors of the Company, in accordance with the Company’s Articles of Incorporation, signed a unanimous written consent whereby resolutions were duly adopted setting forth a proposed amendment of the Certificate of Designation of “Class “A” Preferred Shares (the “Series A Preferred Stock”) in accordance with Section 78.1955 of the Nevada Revised Statues and have been consented to in writing by the holders of a majority of the issued and outstanding shares of the Series A Preferred Stock in accordance with Section 78.320 and written notice has been waived in accordance with Section 78.378.  The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as follows:




RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Designation for the Series A Preferred Stock of the Company, filed with the Nevada Secretary of State on July 18, 1997, shall be amended by changing the terms of conversion in Section 1 so that, as amended, the provision shall be and read as follows:




1.       Conversion.   On or after August 31, 2009, all Class A Preferred Shares issued and outstanding shall automatically convert into the number of shares of common stock of the Company determined by dividing the total number of Class A Preferred Shares held by the holder thereof by 20. In the event the foregoing conversion takes place on a date after August 31, 2009, the conversion shall be deemed effective on August 31, 2009.







[Signature Page Follows]











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Certificate of Amendment of the Certificate of Designation to be executed by its duly authorized officer as of October 20, 2009.




			
	 
	 
	 

	                                                                                

	NEW LEAF BRANDS, INC.


	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	By:

	/s/ Eric Skae


	 

	Name:

	Eric Skae


	 
	 
	President and Chief Executive Officer
l\{uNA =o1is }tw1 cO,"rcu<,J +L"IB

I\1 !*rna irT*'nrec X{y"E}^, {* eo.nrgfi*a"

Yo..r or rftt5s \q\5 ftR- N YrSqDd:r Tb h.sr).^)

I{ D*S Tt\(,"uFeEs Fx, .tus cRgBS 1\o,\-)-t!-oQ6)$-

ND .\'.\l-L\ -0(ogf6-. l.lb, \'. \I-C\ - bS l\L ,

,t\\r\

a\ 6na^s \u S€ $. NSur"rlOf:tn*$tts

\\oiiey B{$irsc" \dA,s,\ ?f<onr JIy AtCbr.hN,

lr1h"tU \u \*,y tfstr.. trF lLt up {{{E UToEJE crc6

1065.

FILED

I{AY 152018 1t

THOMAS G BRUTON

'1i4c'K 

yrr.,t

K,*rppr\uCr/

U.S, DISTRICTCOURT \r- \D["*

Case: 1:12-cv-05712 Document #: 307 Filed: 05/15/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:2648
-r_{ 

..

J1

--)I

-,'I 

/JJ

n 'J 

'--:)

.J

.-.>

r)

-x

- 

-^A

-4

-l--

trl,-l

- 

:\

-\

:-

:q! -\

\4,

--

aig

UJ rft) 

e

O, :, n-/

L \,- _f/

r^f1l

' 

t/) ')

'Yil L 

r:

Yr 

-*eo{

.r3(

r-,.{ =

-rba-

* "' 

\j

't^' I 

^ ,J 

; 

(J''

,.,t 

P/O4

) 

J

\P 

.r{.1

+)

.JC^ 5

\"\

e1

,;J ?

l.)I.

ffi

, 

t,,.t

,:.i.

....t

t.i.l

II

ri..t

ii

rjj

t...:

Case: 1:12-cv-05712 Document #: 3
1947Galilee Ct., Suite 103 • Davis, California95618
March 20, 2015 CaliforniaAirResources Board Carol Sutkus P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812 **~!l257-3650** • (800) 287-3650 • Fax (530)

**757-367~-**

SUBJECT: State Implementation Plan (SIP) SubmittalLetter
DearMs. Sutkus: Per your request, the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (District) is submitting this letter to request that the Air Resources Board (ARB) submit to US EPA Region 9 the following as revisions to the SIP: Amendments to Rule 2.26, Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations, adoptedby the District's Board ofDirectors on December 10, 2008. This rule will replace the existing Rule 2.26, adopted April 27, 1994, which is currently in the SIP (approved on April 30, 1996). The submittal package was sent to your staffvia electronic mail as confirmedby MonicaLewis onMarch 17, 2015. A.rnendments to Rule 2.34, Stationary Gas Turbines, adopted by the District's Board of Directors on November 12, 2014. This rule will replace the existing Rule 2.34, adopted July 13, 1994, which is currently in the SIP (approved on September 3, 1998). The submittal package was sentto your staffviaelectronic mail onNovember 18, 2014. Amendments to Rule 2.21, Organic Liquid Storage and Transfer, adopted by the District's Board ofDirectors on March 12,2014. This rule will replace the existing Rule 2.21, adopted September 14, 2005, which is currently in the SIP (approved on October 31, 2006). The submittal package was sent to your staffvia electronic mail on March 19, 2015. Amendments to Rule 2.22, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, adopted by the District's Board of Directors on January 14, 2015. This rule will replace the existing Rule 2.22, adopted June 12, 2002, which is currently inthe SIP (approved onJanuary 23, 2003). The submittal package was sentto your staffvia electronic mail onMarch 20, 2015.

F:\RULES\Development\SIP\Since 5-9912015 SIP subrnittal.docxThank you for your assistance in this matter. Ifyouhave questions concerningthis matter, please contactFrankDeMaris at (530) 757-3667. Sincerely,

MatEhrhardt, P.E. Air PollutionControl Officer

F:\RULES\Development\SIP\Since 5-99\2015 SIP submittal.docx
-------~----------~----~--~-. 

Swanson, Brian 

From: Wendy DeMane [wdemane@plattscsd.org] 


Sent: Sunday, February 28,20105:56 PM 


To: Devany, Dennis (OST); Swanson,-Srian (OST) 


Subject: Cape Air in Plattsburgh 


Dear Sirs: 


I am writing to you as a citizen of Clinton County, NY who uses the excellent sevices of cape Air. Their services are 


excellent in the following ways: the fares are affordable; the scehduled flights are numerous; the personnel are polite and 


efficient. I believe that our community will be best served if you award them the EAS contract for Plattsburgh 


International Airport. 


As a taxpaying citizen, I believe it is wrong to pay a higher subsidy to Colgan than to cape Air. The government MUST 


take every opportunity to reduce costs, and contracting with cape Air will.be aligned with this beholden duty. 


As a parent with a daughter in an expensive university, I know cape Air is a better choice for my family. If Colgan is 


awarded this contract, I will likely not be able to use their services due to their higher fares and their less flexible flight 


schedules. My daughter, at college in New England, is on an extremely tight budget. She can travel home only 


occasionally, and cape Air made that possible due to their numerous weekend flights and $69 fares. The higher Colgan 


fares and decreased weekend service will force us to choose other means of transportation (bus or personal auto.) 


I do not care what size the airplane is for the brief flight from Plattsburgh to Boston. 


Thank you for taking the time to consider my input. 


Respectfully, 


Wendy S. DeMane 


23 Crescent Dr. 


Plattsburgh, NY 12901 


518-563-6832 

1