alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017313EN.01000101.xml

| 21.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

20 September 2017

(2017/C 313/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2007 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 133,63 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4412 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88680 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5335 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1532 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,3440 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,091 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 308,34 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2774 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5993 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,1642 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4891 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4701 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,3668 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6277 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6128 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 353,44 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,9058 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8948 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4828 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 945,90 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0339 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,117 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 69,4380 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,707 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,7579 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,3147 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 77,1965 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2007

JPY

Japanese yen

133,63

DKK

Danish krone

7,4412

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88680

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5335

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1532

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,3440

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,091

HUF

Hungarian forint

308,34

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2774

RON

Romanian leu

4,5993

TRY

Turkish lira

4,1642

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4891

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4701

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,3668

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6277

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6128

KRW

South Korean won

1 353,44

ZAR

South African rand

15,9058

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8948

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4828

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 945,90

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0339

PHP

Philippine peso

61,117

RUB

Russian rouble

69,4380

THB

Thai baht

39,707

BRL

Brazilian real

3,7579

MXN

Mexican peso

21,3147

INR

Indian rupee

77,1965

---

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

1

Source

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.1.1

Eastern Division

Nineva Oglesby

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−05338

Honorable Marvin E. Aspen

SSC Westchester Operating Company, LLC

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, February 7, 2013:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Marvin E. Aspen:Status hearing held on

2/7/2013. No one appears. This action is stricken from J. Aspen's calendar. Pursuant to

Magistrate Judge Martin's order of 2/9/13 (20), aa stipulation of dismissal is to be filed

within thirty days with the District Judge. Civil case terminated. Judicial staff mailed

notice(gl, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-05338 Document #: 21 Filed: 02/07/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:35
#### DUNFORD v. INTERURBAN ST. RY. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 18, 1903.)

1. Street Railways—Collision with Team—Action eor Injuries—Evidence —Appeal—Prejudicial Error.

In an action against a street railroad for injuries from a collision with plaintiff’s wagon, plaintiff testified that he was disabled for nine days, and then went to work; that while driving his horse ran away, and he jumped; (but there was no evidence that he was injured); that he worked the two following days. He then testified, under objection, as not having been shown to be the result of the accident, that he did no more work. The court charged that plaintiff could only recover for the “direct consequences” of the accident. *EeT&,*that defendant was not prejudiced by the admission of the testimony excepted to.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.

Action by John D unford -against the Inter urban Street Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Henry A. Robinson (J. Ralph Hilton and W. E. Weaver, of counsel), for appellant.

Burton W. Gibson, for respondent.

BLANCHARD, J.

The plaintiff seeks to recover for injuries received by him as the result of a collision between a wagon he was driving and one of the defendant’s cars. It appears that the plaintiff was disabled for a week and two days, and then went to work, and that while driving his horse the.horse became frightened and ran away, and the plaintiff jumped. The plaintiff then testified that he worked the two days following. He was then asked;

> “Q. And then did you do any work? Defendant’s Attorney: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, not having been shown to be the result of this accident. (Objection overruled. Exception taken.) A. No, sir.”

There is no proof that plaintiff was hurt as the result of his jumping from his wagon when his horse ran away, and the court charged the jury that the plaintiff could only recover for “the direct conse*866quences” of the accident. This being the only assignment of error, we do not consider that-the appellant has been prejudiced. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
ILND 450 (Rev. 10/13) Judgment in a Civil Action

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

FIFTH THIRD MORTGAGE COMPANY ,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

IRA KAUFMAN, CHICAGO TITLE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, TRADITIONAL 

TITLE COMPANY, LLC, ELIOT HIGUEROS 

d/b/a ENH SERVICES, INC., d/b/a E&H 

DISTRIBUTORS, INC., and d/b/a ENH 

SERVICES LLC, ZEAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, 

JOHN KELLY, RAZZAK KHADER, KRK

FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., d/b/a KRK 

INSURANCE SOLUTIONS, THEODORE 

THEODOSIADIS, 4725 S. MICHIGAN LLC, 

JEFFREY TOWNSEND, ATINUKE OKOYE, 

KEVIN BURNS, MICHAEL COYLE, and 

DANIEL G. BERRY ,

Defendant(s).

Case No. 12 C 4693

Judge Matthew F. Kennelly 

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

Judgment is hereby entered (check appropriate box):

in favor of plaintiff(s)

and against defendant(s)

in the amount of $ ,

which includes pre–judgment interest. 

does not include pre–judgment interest.

Post-judgment interest accrues on that amount at the rate provided by law from the date of this judgment. 

Plaintiff(s) shall recover costs from defendant(s).

in favor of defendant(s) 

and against plaintiff(s)

.

Defendant(s) shall recover costs from plaintiff(s).

other: Judgment entered in favor of plaintiff Fifth Third and against defendant Kaufman on 

counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of plaintiff's second amended complaint. The Court awards Fifth Third 

$1,570,482.52 in damages, as well as $763,659.32 in pre-judgment interest. The Court also finds in favor of 

Case: 1:12-cv-04693 Document #: 466 Filed: 07/25/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:8931
ILND 450 (Rev. 10/13) Judgment in a Civil Action

plaintiff Fifth Third and against defendant Traditional Title on counts 4 and 5 of plaintiff's second amended 

complaint. The Court awards Fifth Third $305,611.93 in damages, as well as $151,781.05 in pre-judgment 

interest. 

This action was (check one):

tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has rendered a verdict. 

tried by Judge Matthew F. Kennelly without a jury and the above decision was reached. 

decided by Judge on a motion

Date: 7/25/2017 Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court

Pamela J. Geringer, Deputy Clerk

Case: 1:12-cv-04693 Document #: 466 Filed: 07/25/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:8931
Case: 1:12-cv-03595 Document #: 24 Filed: 01/17/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:124
#### Rose Petrossi, Appellant, v. George H. Hitchens, Respondent.

Judgment and order unanimously reversed on the law and facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: The verdict is against the weight of evidence. (Appeal from judgment and order of Monroe Trial Term dismissing the complaint upon a jury verdict of no cause for action. The order denied plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict, in an automobile negligence action.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Halpern, MeGlusky and Henry, JJ.
- ig07012 Part One.pdf
- ig07012 Part Two.pdf
Eon. E. H. Thornton, Jr. Chair&+ Approprlatione~Comlttee House of Repreeentatlvee Austin,Texas Dear Sir: opinion No. o-496 Re: H.B. 259 In regardto the suspension

of all statutes fixing salaries

and the enabling

oft the Legislature to set the amountsof such salaries.
Your requestfor an Opinion, aa to whether or not H.B. 259 effectively suspends

all statutes

fixing salaries

and enables~the

Legislature

to set all ealarles

at amounte

which It deemsproper regardless of any other~statutory provlsione,

hae been received

by this office.
It le the opinionof this Department, after a carefulexamination of a copy of H.B; 259, that the bill operates to permit the Legislature to fix the salaryof all State officers and employees

named in the bill wlth.due regardto the exceptions embodied

therein,

and that other statutes fixing salaries are'suspended

exceptwhere euch statutes are merely repetition of conEtitutlonal

provisions. YOurs~very truly,

BY /8/ Ross Carlton

Ross Carlton As+k%nt RC:jm:lm APPROVED: Id Gerald c. Mann AmORNEY GENERALOFTEXAS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1878

WILLIAM RAY MILLER,

Debtor - Appellant,

and

DONNA MANNINO,

Claimant,

 versus

CIGNA INSURANCE COMPANY,

Creditor - Appellee,

JAMES R. WOOTON, Trustee; CHARLES R.

GOLDSTEIN, Trustee,

Trustees,

and

THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA;

CENTURY INDEMNITY COMPANY; CIGNA FIRE

UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY; CIGNA PROPERTY

AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; INDEMNITY

INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA; PACIFIC

EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY; BANKERS STANDARD

INSURANCE COMPANY,
- 2 -

Creditors.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-04-215-1-WDQ, CA-04-216-1-WDQ, BK-00-1758-6-JS)

Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 20, 2004

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James R. Schraf, LIPSHULTZ AND HONE, CHARTERED, Silver Spring,

Maryland, for Appellant. Carol L. Hoshall, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR &

PRESTON, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

William Ray Miller appeals from the district court’s

order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order determining that a

debt Miller owed to Cigna Insurance Company was not dischargeable

in his bankruptcy proceeding. Our review of the record and the

opinions below discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Miller v. Cigna

Ins. Co., Nos. CA-04-215-1-WDQ, CA-04-216-WDQ, BK-00-1758-6-JS (D.

Md. June 17, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 10(p)

                            TERM SHEET
                               for
                        J. PATRICK MULDOON
   VICE PRESIDENT, MARKETING & STRATEGY OF SEALRIGHT CO., INC.


1.   Position
      -    Vice President, Marketing & Strategy

2.   Cash Compensation
      -    $155,000 annual base salary

      -    $26,000 signing bonus (paid upon starting date)

      -    30% of base pay annual bonus
          1996 bonus guaranteed minimum of $31,000

3.   Stock Options/Stock Bonus
      -    15,000 shares granted at date of hire, 5 year equal
          vest, 10 year life

     
4.   Fringe Benefits
      -    Company car at Executive level

      -    Tax return preparation

      -    3 weeks vacation

      -    Annual Executive physical

      -    Country club membership - mid level

      -    Deferred Compensation Plan participation

      -    Standard relocation package

      -    Standard employee benefit plans participation


5.   Severance Agreement:
      -    Upon termination of employment by Company, except for
          cause, payment of 12 months' salary in lump sum.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Simon K Gill, Chief Executive Officer of Chaparral Resources, Inc. (the
"company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:

     1.   The company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
          ended September 30, 2005 ("Quarterly Report") fully complies with the
          requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

and

     2.   All of the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly
          presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result
          of operations of the company.



Date: November 9, 2005



/s/ Simon K. Gill
-----------------------------
Simon K. Gill
Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Elaine J. Schwartz, Respondent, v John E. Schwartz, Appellant.

— In an action in which the wife had been granted a judgment of divorce, the husband purports to appeal from so much of a decision of the Family Court, Putnam County, dated January 4, 1978, as denied his application for a downward modification of alimony and child support. Appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements. No order was entered in this case and no appeal lies from a decision. In any event, had we treated the appeal on the merits, we would have affirmed. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Rabin, JJ., concur.
## Legislation

- Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title VII, Part D   20 U.S.C. 1140-1140d

## Regulations

- There are no program-specific regulations for this program.
- Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR)  in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99

Institutional Service Home

  Last Modified: 01/25/2017
December 7, 2011

Mr. Christian Toro Chief Inspector/Director, Quality Control

Southwest Airlines Co.

2832 Shorecrest Drive Dallas, TX 75235

Dear Mr. Toro:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from § 121.139 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can’t process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can’t Process Your Request

We entered your November 11, 2011, exemption request on behalf of Southwest Airlines Co. into the public docket (No. FAA-2011-1281), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent doesn’t comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption wouldn’t adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

 The specific reasons why you need to exercise the privileges of your exemption outside the United States, if applicable.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we receive this required information from you. Please note that 14 CFR 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Don’t Hear From You

If we don’t hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/ Thuy H. Cooper Acting Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                          2,157,000
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                     702,000
<ALLOWANCES>                       49,000
<INVENTORY>                     3,129,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               17,456,000
<PP&E>                        194,112,000
<DEPRECIATION>                (81,087,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                316,646,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          32,875,000
<BONDS>                       257,329,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                               10
<OTHER-SE>                     11,939,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  316,646,000
<SALES>                       104,662,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              104,934,000
<CGS>                          31,369,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  91,035,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              5,713,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (2,267,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                   (1,148,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (1,119,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   940,000
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                   (2,059,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0
        


</TABLE>
### Clean Power Plan

Good Afternoon, my name is William Midcap. I live in Fort Morgan Colorado, about 80 miles northeast of Denver. I am a consumer of electricity and serve on a rural electric board of directors. Currently I am the president of Colorado Rural Electric Association. CREA represents the interests of a very diverse set of folks, and the coops in Colorado serve over 1.3m people. I work for Rocky Mountain Farmers Union in Denver; Rocky has 18,000 members in Colorado. Rocky Mountain Farmers Union represents family farms and ranches. Fort Morgan is like many communities in Colorado, communities that rely on agriculture. Agriculture depends on many resources including electricity made from coal, all of us in this room eat because of agriculture. Agriculture and the rural businesses that depend on agriculture cannot survive the rate increases that this proposed rule will need to initiate. The idea that we could be forced to shut down viable power plants that now supply much of our electricity and build combined cycle gas plants is just not economically sound. Some utility experts have said the rule forces Colorado to respond to a 30% reduction starting in 2018 and the 30% reduction taking place before 2020. The remaining 5% reduction would then happen over the next 10 years. I don't see this as a feasible option.
Coops in Colorado have initiated many energy efficiency projects. My home coop has recently developed a program in cooperation with our state energy office, to reduce the loads at many of the dairies that we serve. Remember I said that agriculture was the backbone of my community. Leprino makes cheese in my hometown and that factory employs over 400 people. Morgan County is home to over 40,000 cows milking. I don't know how many maids a milking are employed but I know it takes a lot of electricity to keep those cows productive and that plant going. We also process some 3500 head of cattle daily in Fort Morgan and we have a 100 year old tradition of making sugar from sugar beets. Like I said my community, like many others in Colorado, depend on agriculture. If you close the plants that supply our electricity prematurely and make us pay for those stranded resources and build additional plants to provide us with the electricity we need costs will go up. Food costs to feed this nation will go up. Family farmers will see very little return on investment and we will see more people moving off the land and
into the cities.
Recently White House advisor, John Podesta, was quoted saying additional actions will be added tovi*u the agriculture sector to make the U.S. food supply more resilient to climate change.
It has been reported that Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz will soon unveil a series of actions to
reduce methane emissions.
While all these measures to reduce greenhouse gases may be at the top of the list for the administration let's make sure this does not over burden America's most important sector— Agriculture.

Thank You
#### Chang Hyun Kim, Appellant, v Consolidated Edison, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[835 NYS2d 64]

*391Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R Silver, J.), entered February 28, 2006, which, in an action for personal injuries, denied plaintiffs motion to, inter alia, restore the action to the trial calendar, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff states that he did not appear in court on the date the trial was scheduled to commence because he was in South Korea visiting his elderly and “very ill” mother. Plaintiffs passport shows that he entered Korea one day before the scheduled trial date and returned to the United States about two weeks later. Plaintiffs affidavit, however, does not specify his mother’s illness or explain why the illness required that he be with her at precisely the time of the trial. Nor do his papers include any medical evidence substantiating his mother’s illness. Although plaintiffs attorney knew that plaintiff would not be appearing and so advised his adversary three days before the trial date, it does not appear that he made any attempt to inform the trial court beforehand. Under the circumstances presented, plaintiffs motion to restore was properly denied on the ground that he failed to show a reasonable excuse for his failure to appear. We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.