alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017198EN.01000201.xml

| 22.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

21 June 2017

(2017/C 198/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1147 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 124,21 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4403 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87810 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,7808 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0857 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,5158 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,266 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,13 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2368 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5900 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,9311 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4738 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4803 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6954 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5402 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5487 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 273,11 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,5255 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,6091 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4165 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 833,90 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7793 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,053 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 66,2425 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,900 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,7028 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,2564 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 71,9005 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1147

JPY

Japanese yen

124,21

DKK

Danish krone

7,4403

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87810

SEK

Swedish krona

9,7808

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0857

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,5158

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,266

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,13

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2368

RON

Romanian leu

4,5900

TRY

Turkish lira

3,9311

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4738

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4803

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6954

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5402

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5487

KRW

South Korean won

1 273,11

ZAR

South African rand

14,5255

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,6091

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4165

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 833,90

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7793

PHP

Philippine peso

56,053

RUB

Russian rouble

66,2425

THB

Thai baht

37,900

BRL

Brazilian real

3,7028

MXN

Mexican peso

20,2564

INR

Indian rupee

71,9005

---

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

1

Source

---
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Robert J. McCormack, President and ChiefExecutive Officer, certify, that:

 

1.        I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sun Bancorp,Inc.

 

2.        Based on my knowledge, theannual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report.

 

3.        Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this annual report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.

 

4.        The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

 

(a)      designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

(b)      evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)      disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5.        The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

(a)      all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)      any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  | 3/12/04 |   | By:                                     | /s/ Robert J. McCormack |   |
|--------|---------|--------|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |    |   | President & Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### 252.244-7000 Subcontracts for Commercial Products or Commercial Services.

As prescribed in 244.403, use the following clause:

Subcontracts for Commercial Products or Commercial Services (NOV 2023)

(a) The Contractor shall not include the terms of any Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause or Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) clause in subcontracts for commercial products or commercial services at any tier under this contract, unless—

(1) For DFARS clauses, it is so specified in the particular clause; or

(2) For FAR clauses, the clause is listed at FAR 12.301(d) or it is so specified in paragraph (e)(1) of the clause at FAR 52.212-5 or paragraph (b)(1) of the clause at FAR 52.244-6, as applicable. (Section 847(b)(1)(B), Pub. L. 114-328)

(b)(1) In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 3457(c), the Contractor shall treat as commercial products any items valued at less than $10,000 per item that were purchased by the Contractor for use in the performance of multiple contracts with the Department of Defense and other parties and are not identifiable to any particular contract when purchased.

(2) The Contractor shall ensure that any items to be used in performance of this contract, that are treated as commercial products pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this clause, meet all terms and conditions of this contract that are applicable to commercial products or commercial services in accordance with the clause at FAR 52.244-6 and paragraph (a) of this clause.

(c) *Subcontracts.* The Contractor shall include the terms of this clause, including this paragraph (c), in subcontracts awarded under this contract, including subcontracts for the acquisition of commercial products or commercial services.

(End of clause)

[88 FR 80465, Nov. 17, 2023]
07/30/2010 08:29 2022G75075 

~ ^^b75075 OFFICE OF RULEMAKING p^S^ g^ 

Grapevine Training Center 

July 29, 2010 

Docket Management. Facility 

US Department of rransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue. SE 

West Building Oround Floor 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Petition for exemption to 14 CFR Pxirl 61.58(cXI> 

Docket: FAA-2010-0423 

Dear Sir/Madame. 

In accordance with 14 CFR Part 11, General Rulemaking Procedures, PrestoSIM, Inc., certificate 

number X1GX058K, would like to redisrw the request for an Exemption from 14 CFR Part 

61.5g(eXl) of the Federal Aviation Regulations. Aeeording to our records this request is docket 

number FAA-2010-0423-

Tills request is being made (ifler receiving verbal confirmation, to be Followed by a latter, from 

our TCPM today thiU the FA A position in now that Pilot Proficiency Checks under 14 CFR Part 

61.58 may be completed entirely in a L^vel A simulator provided the applicant ba$ compleled the 

three lake offs and landings in the type of aircrafl: within the proceeding 90 days. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Ray Hoyde 

Vice President 

PrcstoSlM, Inc. 

1000 Nolcn Drive, Suite 400 

Grapevine. TX 76051-5622 

E-mail; i'hevde(S'.pre<!to.c;uTt.coiTi 

I-817-48MH70 

Sent via FAX to 1 -202-267^5075
EXHIBIT 99



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, E. James Collard, President and  Director and Chief Executive Officer of Thunder Mountain Gold, Inc. (the Registrant) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.

This Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of the Registrant for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.

The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

Date:  May 30, 2003

/s/ E. James Collard

E. James Collard, President and Director

Chief Executive  Officer
#### 2804.402 General.

Classified acquisitions or contracts, which require access to classified material, as defined in FAR 4.402, for their performance shall be subject to the policies, procedures, and instructions contained in departmental regulations and shall be processed in a manner consistent with those regulations. Contractors at all tiers are required to comply with all such policies, procedures, and instructions.
1 From: Brachtl, Megan

Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:20 PM

To: Szabo, Aaron

Cc: Lorang, Phil; Bruce Schillo

Subject: EPA responses to interagency comments on SSM SIP Call FRM draft package RIN 2060

‐ AR68

Hello Aaron

– Attached please find EPA’s responses to interagency comments on the SSM SIP Call draft final rulemaking.

The redline strike

‐ out version reflects the edits made in response to comments. The accompanying response document

clarifies where the responsive edits to each comment are located, and/or indicates which comments EPA did not

accept/make edits in response to.

Thank you for your help in managing the interagency review process for this package.

Best regards,

Megan

Megan V. Brachtl, Group Leader

State and Local Programs Group

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(919) 541

‐ 2648

brachtl.megan@epa.gov
###### Editorial Note on Part 2453

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2453 appear at 64 FR 46101, Aug. 23, 1999.

#### 2453.246 Quality Assurance.
# C_2017377EN.01001001.xml

| 9.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/10

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

(2017/C 377/10)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:

| | EPSO/AST-SC/06/17 — SECRETARIES/CLERKS (SC 1 & SC 2) |
| --- | --- |

EPSO/AST-SC/06/17 — SECRETARIES/CLERKS (SC 1 & SC 2)

The competition notice is published in 24 languages in
  Official Journal of the European Union C 377 A of 9 November 2017.

Official Journal of the European Union

Further information can be found on the EPSO website: https://epso.europa.eu/

---
E X H I B I T   2 3.1

        CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-5404) pertaining to the 1981 Incentive Stock Option Plan and The 1983
Non-Statutory Stock Option Plan of ALPNET, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report
dated March 15, 1996, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
ALPNET, Inc. and subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 1995.


                                              \s\ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Salt Lake City, Utah
March 22, 1996
3001.301-71 Effective date. Unless otherwise stated: ( a ) HSAR changes apply to solicitations issued on or after the effective date of the change;
( b ) Contracting officers may, at their discretion, amend solicitations issued before the effective date to include HSAR changes, provided award of the resulting contract(s) will occur on or after the effective date of the change; and
( c ) When required by law, contracting officers must modify existing contracts to include HSAR changes. Otherwise, and where feasible, contracting officers should consider using the Changes clause or other suitable authority, to modify existing contracts to include HSAR changes.
[71 FR 25767, May 2, 2006, as amended at 77 FR 50632, Aug. 22, 2012]
#### 2837.503 Agency-head responsibilities.

The HCA or designee or designee is the agency head for purposes of FAR 37.503.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JAN 22 2001

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JESUS JOHN HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

COLORADO MOTOR VEHICLE

DEALER BOARD; COLORADO

STATE DEPARTMENT OF

REVENUE; COLORADO

ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-1131

(D.C. No. 99-S-861)

(D. Colo)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BALDOCK , PORFILIO , and BRORBY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

Jesus John Hernandez appeals from the district court ’s grant of summary

judgment to defendants on his civil rights claims. In his complaint, appellant

alleged that defendants violated his constitutional rights in connection with the

denial of his application for a Motor Vehicle Salesperson License and a

subsequent representation to the United States Parole Commission that he had

falsified his application, resulting in the revocation of his parole and his

reincarceration. The magistrate judge recommended that defendants’ motion to

dismiss be construed as a motion for summary judgment and that it should be

granted. After appellant’s objections, which the district court reviewed de novo,

the court accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and entered judgment

for defendants. This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court ’s grant of summary judgment de

novo, applying the same standards as that court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 

See Simms v. Okla. ex rel. Dep’t of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs. ,

165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir.), cert. denied , 120 S. Ct. 53 (1999). 

On appeal, appellant contends that the district court 1) wrongly granted

summary judgment on the basis of defendant Clark’s affidavit and in light of

disputed issues of fact, 2) wrongly allowed late filing of Clark’s affidavit,

3) should have given him leave to amend his complaint, 4) wrongly rejected his

due process and equal protection claims, and 5) improperly concluded that Clark
-3-

was entitled to qualified immunity. After careful review of the entire record on

appeal together with the parties briefs in light of the applicable law, we conclude

that the district court correctly decided this case. Therefore, for substantially the

reasons stated in the district court ’s Memorandum Opinion and Order dated

February 18, 2000, the judgment of the United States District Court for the

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock

Circuit Judge
Pilot In Command & Visual Observer 

Training Procedures

Candidate Review
Overview

 Initial Qualifications Check

 Pilot’s License/Certificate, Medical, Valid Driver’s License? 

 In-Person Interview

 Mental Check

 Establish an understanding for the importance of both the PIC and VO Roles

 Discussion of the responsibilities assigned to each role

 PIC & VO – Training Seminar

 What is perception?

 Strategies of Observance

 Duties

 Classroom Training

 Introduction to the Role

 Responsibilities Review

 Terminology

 FAA Regulation Review for Applicable Airspace

 COA Provisions Review

 Flight Training

 Beginner Flight Training

 Real World Simulations 
Initial Qualifications Check

 Initial Qualifications Check

 Preliminary check to make sure PIC and VO meet qualification standards

 Pilot In Command

 AT LEAST - Pilot’s License/Certificate and a Valid Driver’s License

 Visual Observer

 AT LEAST - Valid Driver’s License
In-Person Interview

 Mental Check

 Establish an understanding of the importance of the roles

 Why are PIC’s & VO’s necessary?

 Why do they need training?

 PIC’s & VO’s are crewmembers

 Mission-Critical Responsibilities

 Assessment of airspace

 Air traffic

 Obstacles

 Flight Hazards

 Ensure the safety of sUAS flights

 Avoid manned aircraft

 Prevent accidents with obstacles
Visual Observance – Learning Seminar

 Learning Objectives

 Challenges to human perception 

 Limits of human visual perception 

 Describe best practices for coping with visual challenges
Classroom Training

 Classroom – PowerPoint and/or Video Training Module

 Introduction to the Role

 What is a Pilot In Command/What is a Visual Observer?

 Responsibilities Review

 Ensure the Safety of the Flights

 Terminology

 Return to Home

 Land Immediately

 Avoidance Dive

 FAA Regulation Review for Applicable Airspace

 Right of Way

 Weather Minimums

 Operations near other aircraft

 Aircraft/Operating General Rules Review

 Height, Weight, Speed, Proximity Rules, etc.
Flight Training

 Pilot In Command/Visual Observer Joint Operations

 Review Pre-Flight Checklists

 Review Aircraft Maintenance

 Review Weather Minimum Rules and make current weather observation

 Review flight logs and log the flights

 Take-Offs & Landings

 In-Flight Operations and Communication

 Evasive Maneuvers

 Emergency Action Plan Steps and Execution

 1hr. Basic Training, 1.5hrs. In-Depth Training, Min. 25hrs. Flight Training
#### In the Matter of Marie R. Memoli, Respondent, v Philip Toia, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, Appellant, and Henry G. Parry, Jr., as Commissioner of the Orange County Department of Social Services, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the State commissioner made after a statutory fair hearing, affirming a determination of the local agency discontinuing petitioner’s grant of home relief, the State commissioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County, entered January 4, 1978, which annulled the determination. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Since the petition raises a question of whether the State commissioner’s determination, made after a hearing, is supported by substantial evidence, the instant article 78 proceeding should have been transferred to this court for a determination in the first instance (see CPLR 7804, subd [g]). In such a case, the error in failing to make the transfer can be obviated by considering the proceeding *de novo,*as though it had been properly transferred (see *Matter of Hammerl v Mavis,*41 AD2d 724; *Matter of Mistier v Tofany,*39 AD2d 710). The petitioner, a recipient of home relief, transferred her home to her daughter and son-in-law, in consideration of their assumption of the outstanding mortgage thereon. The *890Department of Social Services determined that the petitioner had violated the regulation which requires that a recipient must utilize available resources to reduce or eliminate the need for public assistance (18 NYCRR 352.16 [a]) and therefore discontinued her relief. This court disagrees with that determination. The situation is analogous to the one discussed in *Matter of Mondello v D’Elia*(39 NY2d 978). Thus the fact that a recipient of home relief transfers her home to relatives does not automatically disqualify her from continued assistance. In addition, the petitioner did not receive any money for the house and thus did not have funds which were actually available for her utilization (see *Matter of Dumbleton v Reed,*40 NY2d 586). Therefore, 18 NYCRR 352.16 (a) is inapplicable. Though the Department of Social Services was entitled to obtain a lien on the property, which would have prevented transfer, it failed to do so (see Social Services Law, § 106). Since there was no lien and the petitioner was not notified that a transfer of her property would disqualify her from further eligibility, there is no evidence that she acted fraudulently. Titone, J. P., Lazer, Hargett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

          In connection with the Annual Report of SORL AUTO PARTS, INC. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K Amendment No. 2 for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “report”), I, Zong Yun Zhou, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|   | (1)    | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)   or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                 |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                         |
|   | (2)    | The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all   material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the   Registrant. |

| Dated this 24th day of July, 2006. | By:    | /s/ Zong Yun Zhou       |
|------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                               |   |                         |
|                               |   | Zong Yun Zhou           |
|                               |   | Chief Financial Officer |
#### 2804.402-70 Contractor personnel security program.

It is DOJ policy that all acquisitions which allow unescorted contractor access to Government facilities or sensitive information contain, as appropriate, requirements for appropriate personnel security screening by the contractor. To the maximum extent practicable, contractors shall be made responsible for the performance of personnel security screening. The personnel security screening may vary from one acquisition to another, depending upon the type, context, duration and location of the work to be performed. Classified contracts are exempted from the requirements of this section because they are governed by the requirements of Executive Order 12829 (January 6, 1993).