alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017023EN.01000501.xml

| 24.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 23/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 23/5

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2017/C 23/05)

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 issuance of euro coins are authorised to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, one of these being 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
  : France

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : Centenary of Auguste Rodin

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : For the 100th anniversary of his passing away, Monnaie de Paris pays tribute to the illustrious French sculptor Auguste Rodin. Born in 1840, he is one of the major icons of the realistic style. His works such as The Thinker, The Kiss, The Hell’s Door or The Calais’ Bourgeois remain timeless masterpieces of the world sculpture.

Description of the design

The design represents Auguste Rodin and The Thinker, his best known work, like forehead to forehead. The RF mention standing for République Française is drawn as sculpted on the top of the coin. The name of the artist ‘A. Rodin’ and the relevant dates ‘1917-2017’ are inscribed in his beard.

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

Number of coins to be issued
  : 10 million coins

Number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  :

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

---
# C_2018002EN.01000301.xml

| 5.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/3

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

1

0,00 % on 1 January 2018

Euro exchange rates (2)

2

4 January 2018

(2018/C 2/04)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2065 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 135,92 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4449 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89103 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,8220 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1763 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,7655 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,515 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 308,53 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1555 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6290 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,5367 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5398 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5114 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,4323 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6957 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6043 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 283,14 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,8475 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8380 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4355 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 191,23 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8405 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,062 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 68,9312 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,873 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,9060 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,3216 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 76,4980 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2065

JPY

Japanese yen

135,92

DKK

Danish krone

7,4449

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89103

SEK

Swedish krona

9,8220

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1763

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,7655

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,515

HUF

Hungarian forint

308,53

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1555

RON

Romanian leu

4,6290

TRY

Turkish lira

4,5367

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5398

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5114

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,4323

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6957

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6043

KRW

South Korean won

1 283,14

ZAR

South African rand

14,8475

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8380

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4355

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 191,23

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8405

PHP

Philippine peso

60,062

RUB

Russian rouble

68,9312

THB

Thai baht

38,873

BRL

Brazilian real

3,9060

MXN

Mexican peso

23,3216

INR

Indian rupee

76,4980

---

(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

1

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

2

Source

---
# C_2021117EN.01000501.xml

| 6.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 117/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/5

---

Calls for proposals and related activities under the 2021-2022 work programme under Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2021-2027)

(2021/C 117/05)

Notice is hereby given of the launch of actions under the 2021-2022 work programme under Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2021-2027).

The Commission has adopted the above mentioned work programme by Decision C(2021) 1940 of 31 March 2021.

The actions are subject to the adoption of the Council Decision establishing the Specific Programme implementing Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, and the Regulation establishing Horizon Europe – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, laying down the rules for the participation and dissemination by the legislative authority without significant modifications. They are also subject to a positive opinion or lack of objection by the committees established by the Council Decision establishing the Specific Programme implementing Horizon Europe as well as the availability of the appropriations provided for in the draft general budget of the Union for 2021 and 2022, following the adoption of that budget by the budgetary authority or as provided for in the system of provisional twelfths. The Commission reserves its right to cancel or make corrigendum to the actions.

Confirmation that these conditions have been met will be announced on the European Commission Funding & Tenders Portal website (https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/programmes/horizon).

This work programme, including deadlines and budgets for the actions, are available through the above-mentioned Funding & Tenders Portal along with information on the modalities of the actions, and guidance for applicants on how to submit proposals. All this information will be updated as necessary on the same Funding & Tenders Portal.

---
Exhibit 99.2


                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 filing of eClickMD, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the
"Company") Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30,
2002 with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Neil Burley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to the 18 U.S.C. (SS) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (SS) 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 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.


/s/ NEIL BURLEY
---------------------------
Neil Burley
Chief Financial Officer

November 12, 2002
401.602-3 Ratification of unauthorized commitments. ( a ) *Definitions. Ratification,* as used in this section, means the signed, documented action taken by an authorized official to approve and sanction a previously unauthorized commitment. *Unauthorized commitment,* as used in this section, means an agreement made by a Government representative who lacked the authority to enter into a contract on behalf of the Government.
( b ) *Policy.* The HCA may delegate ratification authority to the chief of the contracting office.
( c ) *Procedure.* Whenever an official of the cognizant contracting activity who is authorized to ratify unauthorized commitments learns that a person or firm has assumed work as a result of an unauthorized commitment, that official shall take the following actions: ( 1 ) Immediately inform any person who is performing work as a result of an unauthorized commitment that the work is being performed at that person's risk;
( 2 ) Inform the individual who made the unauthorized commitment of the seriousness of the act and the possible consequences;
( 3 ) Ensure that the individual who made the unauthorized commitment furnishes all records and documents concerning the commitment and a complete, written statement of facts, including, but not limited to: a statement as to why a contracting officer was not used; why the vendor was selected and a list of sources considered; a description of work to be performed or products to be furnished; the estimated or agreed price; whether an appropriation is available for the work; and whether performance has begun. Under exceptional circumstances, such as when the individual who made the unauthorized commitment is no longer available to attest to the circumstances of the unauthorized commitment, the ratifying official may waive these requirements; and
( 4 ) Decide whether ratification is proper and proceed as follows: ( i ) If ratification is not justifiable, provide the cognizant program office, contracting office, and the unauthorized contractor with an explanation of the decision not to ratify.
( ii ) If ratification appears adequately justified, ratify the action and retain or assign the contract to a successor contracting officer if necessary.
( iii ) Maintain related approval, decisional, and background documents in the contract file for audit purposes.
( iv ) Notify the cognizant program supervisor or line officer about the final disposition of the case; the notification may include a recommendation that the unauthorized commitment should be further considered a violation of USDA's employee conduct regulations.
#### 403.203 Reporting suspected violations of the gratuities clause.

A suspected violation of the contract clause, FAR 52.203-3, Gratuities, shall be reported immediately to the cognizant contracting officer in writing, stating the circumstances surrounding the incident(s), the date(s), and names of all parties involved. The contracting officer shall review the report for completeness, add any additional information deemed necessary and a recommendation for action, and submit the report to the HCA.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4203

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PEDRO MALDONADO-SANCHEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:14-cr-00072-RLV-DSC-3)

Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 17, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

D. Baker McIntyre III, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Pedro Maldonado-Sanchez appeals the judgment imposed 

following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and 

possess with intent cocaine and money laundering conspiracy. On 

appeal, Maldonado-Sanchez’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant 

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that 

there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning 

whether the sentence is reasonable. Maldonado-Sanchez was 

advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but 

has not filed a brief. We affirm. 

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing 

Maldonado-Sanchez. See United States v. Martinovich, 810 F.3d 

232, 242 (4th Cir. 2016) (stating standard of review). We 

discern no procedural sentencing error, see Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), and Maldonado-Sanchez has failed 

to rebut the presumption that his sentence is substantively 

reasonable, see United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 

(4th Cir. 2014). Additionally, we have reviewed the guilty plea 

colloquy and find that Maldonado-Sanchez’s plea was both knowing 

and voluntary, and supported by a sufficient factual basis. See

United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 813 (4th Cir. 2014) 

(noting plea colloquy is reviewed for plain error where 
3

defendant does not move to withdraw his guilty plea); Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 11. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and find no meritorious ground for appeal. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment and we deny 

counsel’s motion to withdraw. This court requires that counsel 

inform Maldonado-Sanchez, in writing, of the right to petition 

the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If 

Maldonado-Sanchez requests that the petition be filed, but 

counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then 

counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Maldonado-Sanchez. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

    SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AVATEX CORPORATION 1993 STOCK OPTION AND PERFORMANCE
                     AWARD PLAN (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE NATIONAL
          INTERGROUP, INC. 1993 STOCK OPTION AND PERFORMANCE AWARD PLAN)


     THIS SECOND AMENDMENT (this "Amendment") to the Avatex Corporation Stock
Option and Performance Award Plan (formerly known as the National Intergroup,
Inc. 1993 Stock Option and Performance Award Plan), as amended by the Amendment
thereto dated October 12, 1994 (the "Plan"), dated as of June __, 1999, is made
and entered into by Avatex Corporation, a Delaware corporation formerly known as
National Intergroup, Inc. (the "Company").  Terms not used in this Amendment
shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Plan unless otherwise
specifically defined herein.

     WHEREAS, Section 15 of the Plan provides that the Board of Directors of the
Company may amend the Plan at any time; and

     WHEREAS, the Company has determined to change the name of the Plan to
conform to the change in the name of the Company; and

     WHEREAS, the Company desires to clarify the ability of the Committee to
determine in certain circumstances the periods during which Options may be
exercisable and the restrictions to be applicable to such Options;

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended effective June __, 1999 as
follows:

     1.   The name of the Plan shall be amended to the Avatex Corporation 1993
Stock Option and Performance Award Plan.

     2.   Section 6 is hereby amended by adding the following subsection to the
end thereof:

          "j.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, in
     connection with the termination of employment of an optionee or the
     separation of an optionee from the Company, the Committee shall have
     complete discretion to amend any Option previously granted to such
     optionee so as to extend the period during which such Option is
     exercisable and/or remove any restrictions applicable to such Option,
     including the acceleration of the vesting thereof."

     3.   In all other respects, the Plan is hereby ratified and confirmed and
any actions taken by the Committee with respect to any outstanding Options prior
to the date hereof but consistent with the amendments contained herein are
hereby ratified and confirmed.




     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company hereby executes this Amendment on the date
first above written.


                                   AVATEX CORPORATION


                                   By: ________________________

                                   Name: ______________________



<PAGE>




                                   Title: _____________________
















                                     2
30.101 Cost Accounting Standards. ( a ) 41 U.S.C. chapter 15, Cost Accounting Standards, requires certain contractors and subcontractors to comply with Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) and to disclose in writing and follow consistently their cost accounting practices.
( b ) Contracts that refer to this part 30 for the purpose of applying the policies, procedures, standards and regulations promulgated by the CASB pursuant to 41 U.S.C. chapter 15, shall be deemed to refer to the CAS, and any other regulations promulgated by the CASB (see 48 CFR chapter 99), all of which are hereby incorporated in this part 30.
[57 FR 39587, Aug. 31, 1992, as amended at 62 FR 40237, July 25, 1997; 63 FR 9060, Feb. 23, 1998; 79 FR 24210, Apr. 29, 2014; 85 FR 67614, Oct. 23, 2020]
Exhibit 23.2

                 NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



         Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 provides that in case any
part of a registration statement, when such part became effective, contained an
untrue statement of a material fact, or omitted to state a material fact
required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein not
misleading, any person acquiring a security pursuant to such registration
statement (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition such person
knew of such untruth or omission) may sue, among others, an accountant who has
with his consent been named as having certified any part of the registration
statement, or as having prepared any report which is used in connection with the
registration statement.

                  On June 6, 2002, we dismissed Arthur Andersen LLP ("Arthur
Andersen") as its independent auditors. For more information, please see our
Current Report on Form 8-K, dated June 6, 2002. Both the engagement partner and
the manager for our audit are no longer with Arthur Andersen. As a result, we
have been unable to obtain Arthur Andersen's written consent to the
incorporation by reference of Arthur Andersen's audit report with respect to our
financial statements as of and for the years ended October 31, 2001 and October
31, 2000 into our previously filed registration statements File Nos. 33-49402,
33-72716, 33-62381, 333-16933, 333-53416, 333-69650 and 333-99717. Such audit
report is included in this Form 10-K.

                  Under these circumstances, Rule 437a under the Securities Act
of 1933 permits us to file this Form 10-K, which is incorporated by reference
into the above listed registration statements, without a written consent from
Arthur Andersen. However, as a result, Arthur Andersen will not have any
liability under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act for any untrue statements of
a material fact contained in the financial statements audited by Arthur Andersen
or any omissions of a material fact required to be stated therein. Accordingly,
you would be unable to assert a claim against Arthur Andersen under Section
11(a) of the Securities Act.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER TO REINSTATE

Appellate case name: Javier Noel Campos v. The State of Texas

Appellate case numbers: 01-13-00415-CR; 01-13-00416-CR; 01-13-00417-CR

Trial court case numbers: 1328806; 1328807; 1308988

Trial court: 184th District Court of Harris County

The district clerk has filed with the Clerk of this Court a supplemental clerk’s record that 

that complies with our October 15, 2015 Order of Abatement by containing an order appointing 

appellate counsel for appellant. Therefore, we order the appeal reinstated.

On January 13, 2015, this Court issued its opinion affirming the judgment of the trial 

court. See Campos v. State, 458 S.W.3d 120 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. 

granted). On July 29, 2015, the Court of Criminal Appeals vacated our judgment and remanded 

the case to this Court for reconsideration in light of Meadows v. State, 455 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2015), which abolished the common-law “tacking” doctrine and requires the 

admissibility of remote prior convictions to be determined under Texas Rule of Evidence 609(b). 

The Court of Criminal Appeals instructed us to consider the admissibility of the challenged 

remote prior conviction “in light of [its] opinion in Meadows.” Campos v. State, 466 S.W.3d 

181, 182 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (per curiam).

If appellant wishes to file a supplemental brief on this issue on remand, it is due thirty 

days from the date of this order. If the State wishes to file a supplemental brief in response, it is 

due thirty days from the date appellant files his brief. As the Court of Criminal Appeals 

explicitly refused with prejudice grounds 1–8 and grounds 10–13 of appellant’s petition for 

discretionary review, we will not entertain further briefing on those issues on remand. Id. at 182 

n.1.

The case will be set for submission at a future date, and the parties will be notified of the 

submission date.

It is so ORDERED.
Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: November 5, 2015
#### GUERIN, Respondent, v. GUERIN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 11, 1903.)

Action by Daniel Guerin against John Guerin.

No opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.