alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017223EN.01000301.xml

| 12.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

11 July 2017

(2017/C 223/05)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1405 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 130,36 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4365 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88318 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,6390 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1040 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,5120 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,124 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 308,13 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2460 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5685 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,1431 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4988 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4718 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,9084 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5788 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5783 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 312,25 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,4595 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7577 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4110 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 272,44 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9013 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,813 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 69,3300 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,891 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,7258 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,5460 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 73,6650 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1405

JPY

Japanese yen

130,36

DKK

Danish krone

7,4365

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88318

SEK

Swedish krona

9,6390

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1040

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,5120

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,124

HUF

Hungarian forint

308,13

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2460

RON

Romanian leu

4,5685

TRY

Turkish lira

4,1431

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4988

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4718

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,9084

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5788

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5783

KRW

South Korean won

1 312,25

ZAR

South African rand

15,4595

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7577

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4110

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 272,44

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9013

PHP

Philippine peso

57,813

RUB

Russian rouble

69,3300

THB

Thai baht

38,891

BRL

Brazilian real

3,7258

MXN

Mexican peso

20,5460

INR

Indian rupee

73,6650

---

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

1

Source

---
#### American Surety Company of New York, Appellant, v. Jeanette Rosenbaum, as Executrix of Samuel Rosenbaum, Deceased, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements. Memorandum: The order appealed from properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for declaratory judgment under subdivision 4 of rule 107 and rule *694212 of the Rules of 'Civil Practice on the grounds of a prior adjudication determining the same issue and existence of an adequate remedy in a pending proceeding to compel arbitration. The prior adjudication was made in the arbitration proceeding which was opposed by appellant on the same ground alleged in the complaint in the present action. In both cases appellant alleged that respondent had breached the policy provision requiring the insured to immediately forward all suit papers to the insurer. Special Term, in granting the order, stated that the breach alleged had been considered by the court in the prior proceeding to compel arbitration and in any event it could be presented in the pending appeal from the court’s order rendered in that proceeding. Special Term’s determination that appellant should be estopped from again litigating the same issue raised by that proceeding is fortified by events occurring since entry of that order. The order was entered on August 23, 1960. Appellant could have presented the issue to this court in the appeal pending in the proceeding to compel arbitration and it could also have perfected and argued this appeal with the appeal in that proceeding which was not argued until November 29, 1960 and was not decided until January 12, 1961. (12 A D 2d 886.) It did neither. Seventeen months later (May, 1962) the Court of Appeals reversed the order of this court in the proceeding to compel arbitration. (11 N Y 2d 310.) Nearly three years after the order appealed from was made appellant presents the question to us anew. Under the foregoing facts there can be no doubt that appellant should be collaterally estopped. (Appeal from an order of Erie Special Term granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, MeClusky and Henry, JJ.
EAST\47812785.3 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

DAVID MACK, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 1:12-cv-04574 

 ) 

VIKING CLIENT SERVICES, INC. f/k/a ) Judge Manning 

VIKING COLLECTION SERVICES, INC., ) 

 ) 

Defendant. ) 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO ANSWER 

OR OTHERWISE PLEAD IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 

Defendant, Viking Client Services, Inc. f/k/a Viking Collection Services, Inc. 

(“Viking”) hereby moves this Court, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), for an extension of 

time to answer or otherwise plead in response to Plaintiff’s Complaint – Class 

Action (“Complaint”), and in support thereof states as follows: 

1. Pursuant to service of summons, Viking is required to answer or 

otherwise plead to the Complaint in this case by July 6, 2012. 

2. The allegations of the Complaint relate to alleged violations of the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, and the Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. 

3. Viking is in the process of gathering records concerning the allegations 

contained in the Complaint so that it may fully address, and defend itself against, 

the claims asserted in the Complaint. 

4. Viking respectfully requests that this Court extend their time to 

answer or otherwise plead to August 3, 2012. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04574 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/05/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:23
EAST\47812785.3 2

5. Counsel for the Plaintiff does not oppose the proposed extension. 

6. Viking’s motion is not brought for purposes of needlessly delaying the 

proceedings and will not prejudice any party. 

WHEREFORE, Viking respectfully request that this Court grant its motion 

for an extension of time to answer or otherwise plead in response to the Complaint 

up to and including August 3, 2012. 

Date: July 5, 2012 Respectfully submitted, 

VIKING CLIENT SERVICES, INC. 

f/k/aVIKING COLLECTION 

SERVICES, INC. 

 By: /s/ Albert E. Hartmann 

 One of Its Attorneys 

Albert E. Hartmann (ARDC #06256064) 

DLA PIPER US LLP 

203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1900 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

T: 312-368-2142 

F: 312-630-7317 

Email: albert.hartmann@dlapiper.com

Case: 1:12-cv-04574 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/05/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:24
EAST\47812785.3 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Albert E. Hartmann, an attorney, depose and state that on July 5, 2012, I 

electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF 

system, which will serve electronic notice to all counsel of record. 

 s/ Albert E. Hartmann 

 Albert E. Hartmann 

Case: 1:12-cv-04574 Document #: 7 Filed: 07/05/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:25
April10, 2013 

Docket Operations M-30 

West Building Ground Floor W 12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington DC 20590;3 

United States of America 

Department of Transportation 

Office of Secretary 

Washington DC 

RE: Docket DOS-OST-1997-2605 

On behalf of the City of Havre, its citizens, and the residents of the surrounding region who are 

served by Silver Airways Essential Air Service, I am expressing our concern over the possible 

suspension of essential air service to either Miles City or Lewistown, Montana at this time. The 

loss of this service in their areas would have a negative impact on the seven communities 

which Silver Airways serves, especially in light of the fact that Montana is one of the largest 

rural states in our nation-the elimination of any form of public transportation creates 

another hardship for the region's population. 

Please reconsider your tentative decision to enforce this Order of Show Cause-these 

communities have not had sufficient time to evaluate the situation nor have they had an 

opportunity to design or implement a solution to increase usage or to formulate a plan to 

compensate for the loss. I ask you to take the time to research the impact on Montana this 

action may have, and reconsider this order. 

Again, Montana's essential air service is one of the few transportation options availa'ble, and 

losing any segment of it negatively affects our state. I thank you for your reconsideration of 

the situation, and look forward to seeing a favorable resolution. 

Sincerely, 

Tim Solomon, Mayor 

City of Havre
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0105

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

JEB EUGENE MARQUIS

 

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including April 12, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 6 2024

03/06/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0105
#### 32.100 Scope of subpart.

This subpart provides policies and procedures applicable to contract financing and payment for any purchases other than purchases of commercial products or commercial services in accordance with part 12.

[60 FR 49710, Sept. 26, 1995, as amended at 86 FR 61029, Nov. 4, 2021]
Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

(Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)







In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cagles, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), J. Douglas Cagle , as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Mark M. Ham IV, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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) 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 Company.







Dated: February 8, 2006



By: /s/ J. Douglas Cagle

J. Douglas Cagle

Chief Executive Officer



By: /s/ Mark M. Ham IV

Mark M. Ham IV

Chief Financial Officer
#### 32.902 Definitions.

As used in this subpart—

*Discount for prompt payment* means an invoice payment reduction offered by the contractor for payment prior to the due date.

*Mixed invoice* means an invoice that contains items with different payment due dates.

*Payment date* means the date on which a check for payment is dated or, for an electronic funds transfer (EFT), the settlement date.

*Settlement date,* as it applies to electronic funds transfer, means the date on which an electronic funds transfer payment is credited to the contractor's financial institution.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Manuel Ostolaza, Appellant.

The determination of this appeal is held in abeyance, by unanimous vote, so that defendant may move promptly in the Supreme Court to suppress the evidence allegedly seized illegally, and so that the Supreme Court may hold a hearing without a jury to determine whether the search and seizure were incidental to a lawful arrest *{People*v. *Coffey,*11 N Y 2d 142, 148). Although counsel for defendant originally made no objection to the admission into evidence of the three packages of heroin and other objects, he did preserve his right to review of the constitutional issue on appeal by cross-examining the police officers extensively as to the absence of a search warrant, the manner of entry into the room where the contraband was first found, the extent of the search, the role played by an informer prior to the arrest and other related circumstances bearing upon the legality of the search,-seizure and arrest *{People*v. *O’Neill,*11 N Y 2d 148; of. *People*v. *Frióla,*11 N Y 2d 157). Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, 'Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### 3053.245-70 [Reserved]
O'toole , Catherin e (C)ST ) : j pj t IPM Tni : From : O'toole , Catherin e (OST ) 

### •^^.ISK)R17\T ' Sent : Thursday , Septembe r01 , 201 1 1:4 5 P M • ^J i tn , j,u,i> j



### :" ! OPERATIO N To : Cc : 'Shau n Christian ' Rober t Christian;'Pa z Christian ' T:l \ :-E P l b Ai| : H Subject : Docl<e t DOT-OST-2010-023 5

Shau n I a m respondin g t o th e $mai l exchang e I wa s copie d i n o n regardin g ou rreques t t o yo u fo ra forma l contrac t betwee n TDH C an d Star

. Th e DO Tdoe s no t hav^ a standard contrac t tha t w e provid e t o ai rcarriers

. ! Base d o n ou rfitnes s re(t|uirements , w e ar e intereste d i n seein g a forma l contrac t i n orde rt o ensur e tha t ther e ar e financia l protection s i n plac e fo rStar , an d tha t contro l o f th e ai rcarrie ri s i n th e hand s o f it s U S citize n owners
. On e wa yt o shp wtha t Sta ran d TDH C ar e actin g i n thei row n sel f interes t an d ar e no t subjec t t o an y pressur e o rdures s froo j th e othe rpart y- woul d b e a signed , forma l agreemen t betwee n th e tw o parties

.


### COMPLIANC E DISPOSITIO N Th e informatio n provide dpursuan t t o thi s Informatio n Reques t shoul db e accompanie db y th e followin g certification : Th e content s of

thi s applicatio n an dth e attache dexhibit (s ) are tru e an dcorrec t

t o th e bes t

o f my knowledg e an dbelief

. Pursuan t t o Title 1 8 Unite dState s Cod e Sectio n 1001, 1 [th e individua l signin g th e application , \vho shal l b e aprincipa l owner , senio r officer , o r

interna l counse l o f

th e applicant] , i n m y individua l capacity an da s th e authorize drepresentativ e o f th e applicant , hav e no t

i n an y manne r knowingl y an dWillfull

y falsified , conceale do r

faile dt o disclos e an y materia l fac t o r mad e an y false , fictitious , o r

fraidulen t

statemen t

o r knowingl y use dan y document s whic hconta msuc hstatement s i n connectio n withth e preparation , filin g o r prosecutio n o f

th e application

. I understan dtha t an individua l wh o i s foun dt o nav e violate dth e provision s o f 1 8 U.S. C sectio n 100 1 shal l b e fine do r imprisone dnot mor e than fiv e years , o r

both

. Pleas e le t m e kno wi f y<!)u hav e an yquestions

. I wil l plac e thi s lette ri n th e docke t - you rrepl yshoul d b e place d ther e a s well

. Regards , i Kat y

Kat yO'Tool e U.S

. Departmen t o

f Transportatio n Office o f Aviatio n Analysi s Ai rCarrie rFitnes s Divisioij i (X-56 ) phone : 202.366.999 8 fax : 202.366.763 8 Catherine.O'Toole@dot.a<) v
#### 252.236-7006 Cost limitation.

As prescribed in 236.570(b)(4), use the following provision:

# Cost Limitation (JAN 1997)

(a) Certain items in this solicitation are subject to statutory cost limitations. The limitations are stated in the Schedule.

(b) An offer which does not state separate prices for the items identified in the Schedule as subject to a cost limitation may be considered nonresponsive.

(c) Prices stated in offers for items subject to cost limitations shall include an appropriate apportionment of all costs, direct and indirect, overhead, and profit.

(d) Offers may be rejected which—

(1) Are materially unbalanced for the purpose of bringing items within cost limitations; or

(2) Exceed the cost limitations, unless the limitations have been waived by the Government prior to award.

(End of provision)

[56 FR 36479, July 31, 1991, as amended at 62 FR 2615, Jan. 17, 1997]
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site.(Historical purposes)

**Title:**  The year in review, eastern region

 
2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008

 
SuDoc Number� 

A 13.114/2:EA 7/

Item Number� 

0080 (online)

CGP system Number: 000716329
#### Ithaca Gas-light Company, Appellant, *v.*Leonard Treman et al., Appellants; Henry G. Beatley, Respondent.

(Argued October 16, 1883 ;

decided October 26, 1883.)

This action was brought by plaintiff against its president and treasurer for alleged malfeasance. The action was brought upon the demand of Henry G. Beatley, who owned one share of plaintiff’s capital stock, of the par value of $25. Upon his application an order was made allowing him to come in as a party defendant.

, From the order of General Term affirming said order this appeal is brought.

The mem. handed down is as follows :

*“*The Supreme Court had the power, under section 452 of the Code, to grant or refuse Beatley’s application t.o be made a party to this action, and we cannot interfere with the exercise "of its discretion.

It does not, however, follow that he can take substantial control of the prosecution of the action. His position is one that . cannot commend him" to a court of equity. He has but one share of the stock, and if he can establish all the wrongs which he alleges, the amount of damage to be apportioned to that share could not exceed about $15. He bought his stock, knowing all the facts, and thus voluntarily exposed himself to the, wrongs of which he complains. Under such circumstances it remains to be determined how far he can vex the courts, and annoy other people with a litigation in which, even if he wins, he will lose more than he gains.

We regret to be obliged to dismiss the appeal, but do it without costs.”

*661
      *J. McGuire*for appellant.

*L. E. Warren*for respondent.

*Per Curiam*

mem. for dismissal of appeal. All concur.

Appeal dismissed.
### UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC

Pro-Flight Aviation, Inc., Docket No. 16

- 15

- 03 Complainants 

### v. City of Renton Respondent

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME
This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the above-referenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-AssistedAirport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 C FR, Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to January 11 ' 2017. An extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this case.

K vin C. Willis, Director 1ce ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis 

# ji)-/~ 

# -/h Date

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 14, 2016, I caused to be emailed and placed in the United States mail (first class, postage paid) or personally delivered a true copy ofthe foregoing Notice addressed to: Counsel for Complainant Benjamin H. Klein Gross 

### & Klein LLP Pier 9 , Suite 100 San Francisco CA 94111 bhklein@grosskleinla w .com Counsel for Respondent Zanetta 

### L. Fontes Senior Assistant City Attorney City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton , WA 98057 zfontes @rentonwa.gov Delivered to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-600) FAA Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis (A CO-l00) Northwest Mountain Region, Compliance

Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Chattem,
Inc.'s unaudited financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                           1,398
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,096
<ALLOWANCES>                                       500
<INVENTORY>                                     16,737
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,355
<PP&E>                                          29,345
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 178,751
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,495
<BONDS>                                        136,034
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,955
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,001
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   178,751
<SALES>                                         34,921
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,921
<CGS>                                            9,682
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,021
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,180
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    912
<INCOME-TAX>                                       303
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                609
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       609
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
3017.402 Limitations. ( a ) ( 4 ) Submit requests per (HSAR) 48 CFR 3001.7000.
[68 FR 67871, Dec. 4, 2003, as amended at 71 FR 48801, Aug. 22, 2006]
#### 3046.790-1 Scope (USCG).

This subpart provides the policy for the USCG to use in obtaining warranties from contractors when contracting for the acquisition of a major system.

[68 FR 67871, Dec. 4, 2003. Redesignated and amended at 71 FR 25772, May 2, 2006]
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2002 (the Report) of Kiewit Royalty Trust (the Trust), as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Susan
K. Rosburg, the trust officer of U.S. Bank National Association, the trustee of
the Trust, certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition, distributable income and
changes in trust corpus of the Trust.



| | /s/ Susan K. Rosburg
Susan K. Rosburg
Trust Officer
U.S. Bank National Association
Trustee
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 15, 2003

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Trust for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Trust and will be retained by the Trust and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.