alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017255EN.01000901.xml

| 5.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/9

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

4 August 2017

(2017/C 255/11)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1868 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 130,67 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4388 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,90280 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,6053 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1494 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,3618 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,068 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 304,36 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2410 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5635 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,1903 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4888 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4920 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,2782 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5928 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6097 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 334,12 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,8267 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,9757 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4070 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 791,56 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0777 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,588 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 71,4691 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,455 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,6911 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,1344 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 75,5035 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1868

JPY

Japanese yen

130,67

DKK

Danish krone

7,4388

GBP

Pound sterling

0,90280

SEK

Swedish krona

9,6053

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1494

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,3618

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,068

HUF

Hungarian forint

304,36

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2410

RON

Romanian leu

4,5635

TRY

Turkish lira

4,1903

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4888

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4920

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,2782

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5928

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6097

KRW

South Korean won

1 334,12

ZAR

South African rand

15,8267

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,9757

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4070

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 791,56

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0777

PHP

Philippine peso

59,588

RUB

Russian rouble

71,4691

THB

Thai baht

39,455

BRL

Brazilian real

3,6911

MXN

Mexican peso

21,1344

INR

Indian rupee

75,5035

---

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

1

Source

---
**EXHIBIT 32.1****DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC.**This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350,and is filed with respect to the quarterly report onForm 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarterended June 18, 2005 of Dole Food Company, Inc. (the“Issuer”). I, David H. Murdock, Chairman of theBoard and Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer, certify that tothe best of my knowledge:     (i) the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements    of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities    Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and      (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Issuer.     /s/ David H. Murdock           David H. Murdock *Chairman and Chief Executive Officer*August 2, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Partnership's audited financial
statements for the year ended September 30, 1995 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         1,658
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,658
<PP&E>                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,658
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             38
<BONDS>                                            0
<COMMON>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (439)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,658
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 106
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    313
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,182
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (1,389)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (1,389)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,389)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (39.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (39.37)
        


</TABLE>
exv10wxcy






Exhibit 10(c)




AMENDMENT NUMBER SEVEN

TO THE

HARRIS CORPORATION RETIREMENT PLAN




     WHEREAS, Harris Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), heretofore
has adopted and maintains the Harris Corporation Retirement Plan, as amended and restated effective
July 1, 2007 (the “Plan”);



     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.1 of the Plan, the Management Development and Compensation
Committee of the Corporation’s Board of Directors (the “Compensation Committee”)
has the authority to amend the Plan;



     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13.3 of the Plan, the Compensation Committee has delegated to the
Employee Benefits Committee of the Corporation (the “Employee Benefits Committee”) the
authority to adopt non-material amendments to the Plan;



     WHEREAS, the Employee Benefits Committee desires to amend the Plan to reflect the merger of
the Crucial Security, Inc. 401(k) Plan with and into the Plan; and



     WHEREAS, the Employee Benefits Committee has determined that the above-described amendment is
non-material.



     NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Schedule A to the Plan — “Special Rules Applying to
Transfer Contributions and Transferred Employees” hereby is amended to add the following new
Section 5 thereto, effective August 28, 2009:



     5. Crucial Security, Inc. 401(k) Plan




     Crucial Security, Inc. (“Crucial”) maintains the Crucial Security, Inc. 401(k)
Plan (the “Crucial Plan”), which plan was frozen as to new participants and new
contributions effective April 15, 2009. Effective April 16, 2009, Crucial became an
Employer under this Plan. The Crucial Plan shall be merged with and into this Plan
effective August 28, 2009.



     APPROVED by the HARRIS CORPORATION EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE on this 6th day of August,
2009.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/ Ronald A. Wyse
 	 
	 	Ronald A. Wyse, Chairman
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William Pelligrino Masselli, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the County Court, Orange County, dated December 13, 1962, which denied without a hearing his second (the present) application to vacate a judgment of said court, rendered March 24, 1958 on his plea of guilty, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, unarmed, and imposing sentence. Order reversed on the law and matter remitted to the County Court, Orange County, for a hearing and for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. No questions of fact were considered. The instant petition sufficiently alleges that the District Attorney in a conversation with defendant induced him to plead guilty on the promise that other pending warrants would be “ dropped,” and that they were not *“*dropped.” The opposing papers contain no explanation or denial of this transaction. Hence, an issue of fact is raised as to whether the plea was procured by false promises of leniency made by representatives of the State (see *People*v. *Picciotti,*4 N Y 2d 340; *People*v. *Emmons,*17 A D 2d 1029; *People*v. *Hughes,*8 A D 2d 302; cf. *People*v. *Bichetti,*302 N. Y. 290). That issue was not passed upon in the prior application for *coram nobis*(16 A D 2d 704 [motion for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals denied by Fuld, J.]). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
Phone Numbers Mobile Help Email

Delaware.gov | Text Only Governor | General Assembly | Courts | Elected Officials | State Agencies

 Your Search... Submit

Query

Delaware General Assembly

Home

Bill Tracking

Senate

Agenda

Ready List

Meeting Notices

Nominations

Roll Call

House

Agenda

Ready List

Meeting Notices

Journal

Roll Call

All Legislation

Current Day's Action

Recent Legislation

Signed Legislation

Calendar

Reports:

By Sponsor

By Status

By Date Introduced

By Date Signed

Activity Report

Agenda Report

Archives

Contact Info

House

Joint Committees

Legislative Divisions

Legislative Info

Meeting Schedules

Online Publications

Press Releases

Regulations

Schedule

Senate

Virtual Tour

Who's my Legislator

Bill Search:

OR

 

Back

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Committee Report

Legislation: HCR 7

Sponsor: Oberle

Long Title: A RESOLUTION URGING THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TO REQUIRE ALL FACILITIES THAT

OPERATE IN DELAWARE WATERS AND UTILIZE COOLING WATER

INTAKE STRUCTURES TO IMPLEMENT "CLOSED-CYCLE" COOLING

SYSTEMS, AND URGING THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TO DECLARE THAT "CLOSED CYCLE"

COOLING SYSTEMS CONSTITUTE THE BEST TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE

FOR WATER INTAKE STRUCTURES.

Committee: NATURAL RESOURCES

Number of

Committee

Members:

13

Date of Report: 05/07/2009

Committee Vote: Favorable: On Its Merits: Unfavorable:

26 0

Purpose of the Bill : The resolution urges the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental

Control to require all facilities that operate in Delaware waters to implement “Closed-cycle” cooling

systems. Further, the resolution acknowledges that “Closed-cycle” cooling systems are generally

regarded as the “best technology available” for water cooling intake and urges the Department of

Natural Resources and Environmental Control to adopt the cooling systems as quickly as possible.

Committee Findings: After lengthy discussions and testimonies, the committee found that passing the

resolution was an effective way to urge the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental

Control to adopt “Closed-cycle” cooling systems at all facilities that operate on Delaware waters. The

committee believed the resolution was a good way to help protect the economic and ecological

integrity of Delaware waters.

www.legis.delaware.gov - Official web site of First State Legislature http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/LIS145.NSF/d81ce478bd9ae57285256873...

1 of 2
Register Login

Subscribe/Manage

site map | about this site | contact us | translate | delaware.gov

www.legis.delaware.gov - Official web site of First State Legislature http://legis.delaware.gov/LIS/LIS145.NSF/d81ce478bd9ae57285256873...

2 of 2
IIA 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 46 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing 

the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the 

United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 14, 2017 

Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. HELLER, Mr. 

HATCH, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. ISAKSON, and Mr. RUBIO) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical 

desecration of the flag of the United States. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 


rfrederick on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 46 IS 

1 States within 7 years after the date of its submission by 

2 the Congress: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

4 ‘‘The Congress shall have power to prohibit the phys5 ical desecration of the flag of the United States.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
Order Form (01/2008)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois ee
fal ign e Sitting Judge if Othe
ven Magisate Judge Suzanne B. Conlon han Asigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 12 C 3485 DATE 1/2/2012
CASE KEVIN PHILLIPS v. JOSE DURAN et al.
TITLE
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Defendants’ motion for leave to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of receiving documentation
pursuant to subpoenas issued before the close of discovery [15] is granted in part and denied in part. The
court previously quashed as untimely defendants’ subpoenas dated December 3, 2012 and December 6, 2012
because they called for the production of documents after the close of discovery. See Dkt. No. 14. On
December 20, 2012, defendants moved to reopen discovery, claiming the documents received in response to
the subpoenas reveal plaintiff's injuries were self-inflicted. Defendants claim the documents contradict
plaintiffs deposition testimony from November 7, 2012 regarding the reason for plaintiff's hospital visit and
his interrogatory response dated November 5, 2012 that he did not ingest drugs within 24 hours of his arrest.
Although courts have broad discretion to reopen discovery, see Winters v. Fru-Con, Inc., 498 F.3d 734, 743
(7th Cir. 2007), this relief is not warranted here. Defendants claim they did not learn the names of plaintiff's
physicians until plaintiffs deposition, but they did not issue their subpoenas until nearly one month after the
deposition or otherwise move for an extension of time to complete discovery. Plaintiff's conduct was not
above reproach, however. His delinquent interrogatory responses, completed two days before his deposition,
failed to name the hospital where he was treated following his arrest, even though he provided the name of
the hospital at his deposition. Plaintiff is reminded of his continuing duty to supplement initial disclosures
and discovery responses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1). Accordingly, defendants’ alternative relief will be
granted in part. Defendants shall not be permitted to call the treating physicians as witnesses at trial, but they
may introduce plaintiff's medical records for the limited purpose of impeaching plaintiff. Plaintiff is unlikely
to suffer undue prejudice from the use of the medical records for impeachment purposes; he presumably has
knowledge of medical treatment he received and can obtain copies of his own medical records, The motion
will not be heard on January 8, 2013 as noticed. ALL PREVIOUSLY SET DEADLINES STAND. The case

remains on the February trial calendar. S B 1

Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

lemeg Ig
wag ioe ‘Gg

S527
Tee Ad en NWF Eig Courtroom Deputy MG

Initials:

12 C 3485 KEVIN PHILLIPS v. JOSE DURAN et al. Page 1 of 1
Transport Airplane Directorate

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W.

Renton, Washington 98057

- 3356

July 2 4 , 2015

Mr. Donald Wren

Director of Certification

Jamco America, Inc.

1018 80 th Street SW

Everett, WA 9 8 203

Dear Mr. Wren :

We have received your June 2 3 , 2015

, petition to amend the operational limitations in E xemption

No. 10899. That exemption provides relief from the requirements of Title 14

, Code of Federal

Regulations (14 CFR) 25.785(d), 25.807(c)(1), 25.807(c)(5), 25.809(f)(1), 25.813(b), 25.857(e),

25.1447(c)(1)

, and 25.1447(c)( 3 ) to allow carriage of 15 non

- crewmember s (commonly referred

to as supernumeraries) in a compartment behind the flight deck on Boeing Model 747

- 400F

airplanes.

The current petition posted on July 9, 2015, to the Department of Transportation’s Federa l

Docket Management System in Docket No. FAA

- 2013

- 0 680 where Exemption No. 10899 is

documented.

Because granting your petition would not set a precedent, we have determined that we should not

delay action on it by pub lishing it for public comment. Therefore, we have waived the

requirement for Federal Regi ster publication. Even though we have waived this requirement, you

should not construe this action t o be approval of your request. We will consider fully the facts

and circumstances contained in your petition and will process it accordingly

.

We will advise you of the agency's final decision on your p etition as soon as possible. If you have any questions or c oncerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please contact

Alan Sinclair by phone at 425

- 227

- 2 19 5 or by e

- mail at alan.sinclair @faa .gov.

Sincerely,

/s/

Theresa White

Transport Airplane Directorate

Aircraft Certification Service
#### 223.7302 [Reserved]
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

237) ll-K- (I) -50 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:56 AM Sheet 237 of 325 
P.2 

'A\ Pl 

H-K-(I)-50 

INDIVIDUAL ANNUALIZED NEW INDUSTRIAL BOILER COSTS, 

1985. 

EEA, Inc. 

March 12, 1980. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(I)-50
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAFAEL GONZALEZ-OVANDO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-72406

Agency No. A098-034-017

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 13, 2014** 

Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Rafael Gonzalez-Ovando, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his

appeal from a decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his application for

cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

FILED

MAY 29 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
review de novo due process claims. Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109

(9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Gonzalez-Ovando’s due process challenge to the IJ’s exclusion of his wife’s

corroborative testimony fails because Gonzalez-Ovando did not establish that the

testimony would have altered the BIA’s determination that his own version of

events, when accepted as true, did not demonstrate the good moral character

necessary for cancellation of removal. See id. (“In order to prevail on [a due

process] claim, the alien . . . must show prejudice, ‘which means that the outcome

of the proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation.’” (citation

omitted)); see also Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1192 (9th Cir. 2011)

(rejecting a due process claim for lack of prejudice upon identifying “no

connection between” an IJ’s refusal to hear corroborative testimony “and the

outcome of the proceeding,” where the IJ’s acceptance of the petitioner’s version

of the facts made corroboration “not necessary”).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that

Gonzalez-Ovando failed to demonstrate the requisite good moral character, see

Lopez-Castellanos v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir. 2006), and he raises no

colorable question of law that would invoke our jurisdiction in this regard, see

2 12-72406
Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009) (“To be colorable in

this context, . . . the [question of law] must have some possible validity.”).

Finally, because the BIA denied Gonzalez-Ovando’s cancellation request

due solely to his lack of good moral character, we may not review GonzalezOvando’s contentions regarding hardship. See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181,

1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we

consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

3 12-72406
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 383 

Expressing support for the designation of a ‘‘Women’s Health Research 

Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 25, 2018 

Ms. DUCKWORTH (for herself, Ms. HARRIS, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. WARREN, Mr. DURBIN, Ms. HEITKAMP, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. 

STABENOW, Ms. HASSAN, Mr. KING, Mr. BROWN, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. 

BLUMENTHAL, Mr. MARKEY, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Ms. HIRONO, Mrs. MURRAY, and Mr. NELSON) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of a ‘‘Women’s 

Health Research Day’’. 

Whereas women constitute 50.4 percent of people in the 

United States; 

Whereas women of different race, ethnicity, socioeconomic 

status, and age experience many diseases and disorders 

differently than men experience diseases and disorders; 

Whereas those different experiences are reflected in the incidence, prevalence, symptomology, and severity of the disease or disorder; 


ebenthall on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 383 IS 

Whereas the risks and benefits of medical therapies vary 

based on the race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and 

age of a woman; 

Whereas women and men have fundamental biological differences; 

Whereas, for many years, women of different race, ethnicity, 

socioeconomic status, and age were underrepresented in 

biomedical and clinical research; 

Whereas the improvement of the health of women relies on 

sex- and gender-based biomedical and clinical research; 

Whereas the promise of individualized medicine cannot be realized without sex- and gender-based parity in research; 

Whereas, on January 25, 2016, the National Institutes of 

Health implemented a policy requiring federally funded 

investigators to consider sex as a biological variable in 

preclinical research; and 

Whereas that policy ushered in a new era of inclusivity and 

parity in research relating to the health of women: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, that the Senate— 

2 (1) expresses support for the designation of a 

3 ‘‘Women’s Health Research Day’’; and 

4 (2) supports efforts to— 

5 (A) recognize the importance of biomedical 

6 and clinical research to the health and well7 being of women; 

8 (B) increase awareness of the value of sex9 and gender-based biomedical research; and 


ebenthall on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 383 IS 

1 (C) encourage individuals, including re2 searchers and patients, to advocate on behalf of 

3 sex- and gender-inclusive research for women of 

4 different race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, 

5 and age. 

Æ 


ebenthall on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS