alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018234EN.01000201.xml

| 5.7.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

4 July 2018

(2018/C 234/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1642 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 128,64 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4507 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88108 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,2510 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1557 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 125,25 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4433 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,028 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 325,65 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3790 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6656 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 5,4692 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5763 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5306 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,1307 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7217 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5891 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 301,20 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,9628 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7207 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3940 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 709,00 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7104 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,158 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 73,6646 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,622 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,5346 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,6786 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 80,0270 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1642

JPY

Japanese yen

128,64

DKK

Danish krone

7,4507

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88108

SEK

Swedish krona

10,2510

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1557

ISK

Iceland króna

125,25

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4433

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,028

HUF

Hungarian forint

325,65

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3790

RON

Romanian leu

4,6656

TRY

Turkish lira

5,4692

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5763

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5306

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,1307

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7217

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5891

KRW

South Korean won

1 301,20

ZAR

South African rand

15,9628

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7207

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3940

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 709,00

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7104

PHP

Philippine peso

62,158

RUB

Russian rouble

73,6646

THB

Thai baht

38,622

BRL

Brazilian real

4,5346

MXN

Mexican peso

22,6786

INR

Indian rupee

80,0270

---

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

1

Source

---
# C_2017111EN.01000901.xml

| 8.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 111/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/9

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2017/C 111/09)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country
  : Italy

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : Bimillenary of the death of Titus Livius

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : Bust of the Roman historian Titus Livius, taken from a work by Lorenzo Larese Moretti; on the left the logo of the Italian Republic ‘RI’, and ‘C.M.’ initials of the author Claudia Momoni; on the right ‘17’ and ‘2017’, respectively year of the death of Livius and year of the issue of the coin, and the mintmark of the Mint of Rome ‘R’; around circle of dots and the inscription ‘TITO • LIVIO’.

Description of the design

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued
  : 1,5 million

Number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  : April 2017

Date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
Please visit our updated website https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/school-support-and-accountability/21st-century-community-learning-centers/contacts-21st-century-community-learning-centers/
#### 252.247-7000 Hardship conditions.

As prescribed in 247.270-4(a), use the following clause:

# Hardship Conditions (AUG 2000)

(a) If the Contractor finds unusual ship, dock, or cargo conditions associated with loading or unloading a particular cargo, that will work a hardship on the Contractor if loaded or unloaded at the basic commodity rates, the Contractor shall—

(1) Notify the Contracting Officer before performing the work, if feasible, but no later than the vessel sailing time; and

(2) Submit any associated request for price adjustment to the Contracting Officer within 10 working days of the vessel sailing time.

(b) Unusual conditions include, but are not limited to, inaccessibility of place of stowage to the ship's cargo gear, side port operations, and small quantities of cargo in any one hatch.

(c) The Contracting Officer will investigate the conditions promptly after receiving the notice. If the Contracting Officer finds that the conditions are unusual and do materially affect the cost of loading or unloading, the Contracting Officer will authorize payment at the applicable man-hour rates set forth in the schedule of rates of this contract.

(End of clause)

[65 FR 50147, Aug. 17, 2000, as amended at 75 FR 51418, Aug. 20, 2010]
#### In the Matter of Carmella La Valle, Petitioner, v Barbara Blum, as Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent State commissioner, dated December 27, 1977 and made after a statutory fair hearing, which affirmed the determination of the local agency to reduce petitioner’s home care services. Petition granted to the extent that the determination is annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and matter is remanded to the respondent State commissioner for a new determination in accordance herewith. The unintelligible handwritten notes of the hearing officer could not form the basis of a proper determination by the respondent State commissioner. Moreover, the factual inaccuracies contained in the decision following the fair hearing, which was issued prior to the availability of an exact rendition of the testimony at the hearing, confirm our reservations in this regard. We note in particular the crucial finding that no medical recommendation that petitioner receive 56 hours per week of home health care services was made to the agency until after July 11, 1977 (the date that the agency decided to reduce petitioner’s home care services to 20 hours per week). Had the respondent State commissioner reviewed the transcript of the hearing it would have been apparent from the testimony of petitioner’s caseworker, Mrs. Beha, that petitioner had been receiving 56 hours of home care services per week, at least until July 11, 1977, upon the recommendation of petitioner’s physician, Dr. Schadlow. Further, agency Exhibits Nos. 10 and 11 consist of a Department of Social Services form dated April 24, 1977, in which Dr. Schadlow recommended that the petitioner be provided with a "Homemaker” eight hours per day, seven days per week. In light of the foregoing, this case should be remanded to the respondent State commissioner so that a careful review of the entire record might properly be made. O’Connor, J. P., Shapiro, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 12.3

               SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (CONSOLIDATED)
                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                    FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,1999
                            (Thousands Except Ratio)
                                   (Unaudited)



     Operating Income                                 $148,023

     Adjustments
        Income taxes                                    61,751
        Provision for deferred income taxes            (13,203)
        Deferred investment tax credits                 (4,607)
        Other income and deductions                        774
        Allowance for borrowed and equity funds
             used during construction                    2,180
        Interest portion of financing leases               543
                                                    -----------

               Earnings                               $195,461
                                                    ===========


     Fixed Charges:
        Interest on long-term debt                     $39,227
        Interest on short-term debt and other            9,263
        Distributions on Trust Preferred Securities      8,662
        Interest portion of financing leases               543
                                                    -----------

               Fixed Charges                           $57,695
                                                    ===========


     Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                3.39
                                                    ===========
#### 309.470 Reporting of suspected causes for debarment or suspension or the taking of evasive actions.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  UT
<CIK>  0000018540
<NAME>  CENTRAL AND SOUTH WEST CORPORTION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                      PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                            8,343
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                            191
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,002
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                               505
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       2,762
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      13,803
<COMMON>                                               743
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            1,039
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                  1,848
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                       3,630
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   26
<PREFERRED>                                            499
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                                 3,887
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                       0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                               40
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       1,288
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                          200
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                                1
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                              6
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                         3
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                       4,223
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                       13,803
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                            3,939
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                   135
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                           3,205
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                           3,340
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                                599
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                      27
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                         626
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               321
<NET-INCOME>                                           129
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             10
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                          129
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                               277
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                              168
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                                 409
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.61
        




</TABLE>
304.7200 Scope of subpart. This subpart implements Section 220 of Public Law 112-74, FY 2012 Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations Act, which requires, semi-annual reporting on the use of funds from the Prevention and Public Health Fund (PPHF), Public Law 111-148, sec. 4002. Contractors that receive awards (or modifications to existing awards) with a value of $25,000 or more funded, in whole or in part, from the PPHF, shall report information specified in the clause at 352.204-70, Prevention and Public Health Fund—Reporting Requirements, including, but not limited to— ( a ) The dollar amount of contractor invoices;
( b ) The supplies delivered and services performed; and
( c ) Specific information on subcontracts with a value of $25,000 or more.
#### Mohammed ASHRAF, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER,* Acting Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-71520.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 17, 2007 **.

Filed Nov. 2, 2007.

Jonathan M. Kaufman, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John R. Cunningham, Esq., Edward C. Durant, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: WALLACE, KLEINFELD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Mohammed Ashraf seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge’s order denying Ashraf s application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

*661We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that an applicant has failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative, *see Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003), and Ashraf does not raise a colorable due process claim, *see Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“[Traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”); *see also Kumar v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 520, 523-24 (9th Cir.2006) (noting that violation of agency regulations reviewed for harmless error); *Larita-Martinez v. INS,*220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir.2000) (recognizing that alleged procedural defects in immigration proceedings do not rise to level of due process violation absent a showing of prejudice).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### 250.102-2 Contract adjustment boards.

The Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force each have a contract adjustment board. The board consists of a Chair and not less than two nor more than six other members, one of whom may be designated the Vice-Chair. A majority constitutes a quorum for any purpose and the concurring vote of a majority of the total board membership constitutes an action of the board. Alternates may be appointed to act in the absence of any member.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

|                                             |
|---------------------------------------------|
|                                             | PurposeFunding StatusEligibilityLaws, Regs, & GuidanceApplicant InfoResourcesAwardsFAQsPerformanceContacts |  |
| Office of English Language Acquisition Home |
|                                             |

Program Statute: Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title III, Part A, Subpart 1, Sec. 3112; 20 U.S.C. 6821(c)(1)(A), 3111(c)(1)(A), and 20 U.S.C. 6822.

Regulations: The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements  for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended in 2 CFR part 3474  and the Supplemental Priorities.

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
317.105-1 Uses. ( a ) Each head of the contracting activity (HCA) determination to use multi-year contracting, as defined in FAR 17.103, is limited to individual acquisitions where the full estimated cancellation ceiling does not exceed 20 percent of the total contract value over the multi-year term or $12.5 million, whichever is less. Cancellation ceiling provisions shall conform to the requirements of FAR 17.106-1(c). The determination is not delegable and shall address the issues in FAR 17.105-1(a).
( b ) ( 1 ) SPE approval is required for any— ( i ) Individual determination to use multi-year contracting with a cancellation ceiling in excess of the limits in 317.105-1(a); or
( ii ) Class determination (see FAR subpart 1.7).
( 2 ) A determination involving a cancellation ceiling in excess of the limits in 317.105-1(a) shall present a well-documented justification for the estimated cancellation ceiling. When the estimated cancellation ceiling exceeds $12.5 million, the determination shall accompany a draft congressional notification letter pursuant to FAR 17.108 and 317.108.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.1

                                  SUBSIDIARIES


MPSI Systems Limited                                           U.K. Corporation
MPSI Australia Pty. Ltd.                                  Australia Corporation
MPSI do Brasil                                               Brazil Corporation
MPSI Systems K.K.                                          Japanese Corporation
MPSI Systems Pte. Ltd.                                    Singapore Corporation
Shanghai MPSI Software Inc.                                 Chinese Corporation
Management Planning Systems, Inc.                          Oklahoma Corporation


INACTIVE CORPORATIONS
MPSI China Inc.                                            Delaware Corporation
MPSI Surveys Inc.                                          Oklahoma Corporation
MPSI Systems Canada Inc.                                   Canadian Corporation
MPSI Systems SARL                                            French Corporation
MPSI Systems GmbH                                            German Corporation
Quest Systems International Inc.                           Delaware Corporation


BRANCH OFFICES
Seoul, South Korea                             Branch of MPSI Systems Pte. Ltd.
Johannesburg, South Korea                         Branch of Management Planning
                                         Systems, Inc. (d/b/a MPSI Africa Inc.)


                                      46
. Qa

‘Order Form (01/2008) wee

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge JOHN W. DARRAH Sitting Judge if Other G( deep
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
F
CASE NUMBER 12 C 5286 DATE S-(a-( 2
CASE Marvin Atkins (#R-33561) vs. Vandalia Correctional Center, et al.
TITLE
DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois at East St. Louis
for imposition of an initial filing fee and whatever other action the transferee court deems appropriate. The clerk
shall not issue summonses unless the transferee court so directs. The case and all pending motions are terminated
on this court’s docket.

Docketing to mail notices.

1 [For further details see text belo
7

STATEMENT

The plaintiff, an Illinois state prisoner, has brought this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. He claims that Vandalia Correctional Center officials wrongfully conducted a strip search training
exercise for correctional officer cadets using Vandalia inmates including plaintiff. Without expressing an opinion
as to the merits of the complaint, the court finds that venue does not lie in this judicial district.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil rights action under Section 1983 may be brought only in: (1) a judicial
district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that
is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is
no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.

The court discerns no basis for venue in this district. The events giving rise to this lawsuit took place at
the Vandalia Correctional Center, where the plaintiff is currently confined. Vandalia is in Fayette County, which
is situated in the Southern District of Illinois federal judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 93(c). Presumably, the
proper defendants (the complaint on file lists non-suable entities and will undoubtedly need to be amended) can
be found in that district. Venue does, therefore, exist in the Southern District of Illinois and, given the particulars
of this case, that district is clearly the most convenient forum for this action.

(CONTINUED)

1WN09 LastSia “Ss
wy319

Elek WY ESAS)

Page | of 2



TEMENT (continued

For the foregoing reasons, this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois at East St. Louis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) for imposition of an initial filing fee and
whatever other action the transferee court deems appropriate. The clerk shall not issue summonses unless the

transferee court so directs.

Page 2 of 2