alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 3333 HOLDING
CORPORATION'S JUNE 30, 1997, FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000818762
<NAME> 3333 HOLDING CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                               6
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,882
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,655
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                         769
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,655
<SALES>                                            412
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   412
<CGS>                                              320
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      320
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     92
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 92
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        92
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

SHEIK L. LOVE EL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 2273

)

BANK OF NEW YORK, etc., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Following this Court’s March 28, 2012 ruling that rejected

the effort of Sheik Love EL (“Love EL”) to obtain the modest sum

of $10 million in his pro se lawsuit against several targeted

defendants, Love EL filed a motion for reconsideration on

April 6. With Love EL having failed to bring the motion on for

presentment within 14 days in accordance with this District

Court’s LR 5.3 and 78.2, that would alone constitute an

independent ground for denial of the motion. But most

importantly, when one peels away the irrelevancies with which

Love EL clutters up his motion, it must be and is denied on the

merits because it fails to show that it too is non-frivolous in

the legal sense. 

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: April 23, 2012
#### In the Matter of the Intermediate Accounting of Security Trust Company of Rochester, Respondent, as Trustee of an Express Trust Made and Executed by Charles M. Thoms and Others. Janet T. Ingersoll, Appellant. (And Seven Other Proceedings.)

Order unanimously modified by striking therefrom the allowance to the Referee and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: The allowance to the Referee was premature. No question was raised as to the reasonableness of the amount of the allowance for attorneys’ fees. (Appeal by objeetant from order of Monroe Special Term directing payment for legal services and disbursements rendered to the trustee for services by Referee and fees of reporters.) Present—Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
Exhibit
32.6
 
 
 SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION
 OF
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
 CENTRAL
ILLINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
 (required
by Section 906 of the
 Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002)
 
 
 In
connection with the report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2005 of Central Illinois Public Service Company (the “Company”) as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Form 10-Q"), I, Warner L. Baxter, chief financial officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)
    The
      Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
      and
 
 (2)
    The
      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.
 
 
 Dated:
May 10, 2005
 ****By:
    /s/ Warner L.
  BaxterWarner
      L. BaxterExecutive Vice President
      andChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial
  Officer)
# C_2020182EN.01000501.xml

| 2.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1 June 2020

(2020/C 182/04)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1116 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 119,75 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4549 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89673 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,4635 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0686 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 151,00 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,7890 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,859 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 345,45 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4278 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,8437 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 7,5743 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6488 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5228 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6165 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7824 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5669 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 364,44 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 19,3993 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,9327 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5895 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 240,48 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8004 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 55,947 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 77,4378 |
| THB | Thai baht | 35,204 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,9276 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 24,4520 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 83,9380 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1116

JPY

Japanese yen

119,75

DKK

Danish krone

7,4549

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89673

SEK

Swedish krona

10,4635

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0686

ISK

Iceland króna

151,00

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,7890

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,859

HUF

Hungarian forint

345,45

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4278

RON

Romanian leu

4,8437

TRY

Turkish lira

7,5743

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6488

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5228

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6165

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7824

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5669

KRW

South Korean won

1 364,44

ZAR

South African rand

19,3993

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,9327

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5895

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 240,48

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8004

PHP

Philippine peso

55,947

RUB

Russian rouble

77,4378

THB

Thai baht

35,204

BRL

Brazilian real

5,9276

MXN

Mexican peso

24,4520

INR

Indian rupee

83,9380

---

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

---
----

----

| CLECO CORPORATION | EXHIBIT 32.2 |
|-------------------|--------------|

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

| (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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

| Date:  May 4, 2011            |
|--------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/  Darren J. Olagues                       |
| Darren J. OlaguesSenior Vice President & CFO  |

----

----
#### James O. RICHARDSON, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.

No. 2008-3078.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 12, 2008.

*986James 0. Richardson, of Pensacola, Florida, pro se.

Sara B. Rearden, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With her on the brief were B. Chad Bungard, General Counsel, and Rosa M. Koppel, Deputy General Counsel.

Before MAYER, RADER, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The Merit Systems Protection Board dismissed the petition of Mr. James 0. Richardson, a retired federal employee, for failure to prosecute. Mr. Richardson asked the Board to reconsider the Office of Personnel Management’s recomputation of his civil service annuity. The recomputation eliminated credit for Mr. Richardson’s military sendee after 1956. Because Mr. Richardson failed entirely to comply with the administrative judge’s multiple orders and also failed to otherwise communicate with the administrative judge, the court affirms.

Federal statute limits this court’s review of Board decisions. This court must affirm a Board decision unless it is “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence....” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). In turn, the Board’s own regulations give deciding officials authority to dismiss an appeal for failure to prosecute. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.43(b). This court has recognized that failure to respond to the Board’s orders may justify dismissal. *See Ahlberg v. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs.,*804 F.2d 1238, 1242-43 (Fed.Cir.1986).

After filing his appeal with the Board, Mr. Richardson did not attend the prehearing conference and likewise did not contact the Board in any manner before issuance of the administrative judge’s initial decision. The administrative judge issued multiple orders and provided Mr. Richardson with notice that his appeal would be dismissed if he failed to respond. After the administrative judge issued his initial decision, Mr. Richardson sent a letter petitioning the Board for review. Mr. Richardson stated in his letter that he thought he was expected to participate over the telephone.

The Board denied Mr. Richardson’s petition and made final the administrative judge’s decision. In doing so, the Board gave Mr. Richardson’s letter consideration. However, Mr. Richardson did not deny receipt of the administrative judge’s orders. He only stated he thought he was supposed to appear by telephone rather than in person. Thus, nothing in the record suggests that the Board abused its *987discretion in denying Mr. Richardson’s petition and in adopting the administrative judge’s initial decision as final.

*AFFIRMED.*

COSTS

Each party shall bear its own costs.
# C_2019124EN.01000401.xml

| 3.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 124/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 124/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

2 April 2019

(2019/C 124/06)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1200 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 124,73 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4646 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86000 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,4418 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1195 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 137,10 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,6445 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,753 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 321,68 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2953 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7618 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,2141 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5817 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4919 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7918 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6544 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5178 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 272,75 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,8256 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,5265 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4298 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 926,40 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5715 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,706 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 73,2144 |
| THB | Thai baht | 35,560 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,3237 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,3972 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 77,0035 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1200

JPY

Japanese yen

124,73

DKK

Danish krone

7,4646

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86000

SEK

Swedish krona

10,4418

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1195

ISK

Iceland króna

137,10

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,6445

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,753

HUF

Hungarian forint

321,68

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2953

RON

Romanian leu

4,7618

TRY

Turkish lira

6,2141

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5817

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4919

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7918

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6544

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5178

KRW

South Korean won

1 272,75

ZAR

South African rand

15,8256

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,5265

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4298

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 926,40

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5715

PHP

Philippine peso

58,706

RUB

Russian rouble

73,2144

THB

Thai baht

35,560

BRL

Brazilian real

4,3237

MXN

Mexican peso

21,3972

INR

Indian rupee

77,0035

---

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

---
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed April 26, 2023.

________________

No. 3D23-216

Lower Tribunal No. F99-1602C

________________

Joseph Seme,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Teresa Pooler, Judge.

Joseph Seme, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before MILLER, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

We deny Joseph Seme’s motion for rehearing, but withdraw our 

previous opinion, and substitute the following opinion in its stead.

Affirmed. See Raines v. State, 14 So. 3d 244, 246 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) 

(“At least as a general rule, a sentence cannot be challenged after it has 

been fully served and has expired because any sentencing issue is moot 

thereafter.”); Fillmore v. State, 970 So. 2d 452, 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)

(finding the defendant’s motion challenging his mandatory minimum 

sentence was not moot despite his having fully served that minimum 

sentence because the defendant “could still benefit from elimination of the 

mandatory minimum as to gain time”); Jackson v. State, 96 So. 3d 980, 981 

(Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (finding that a defendant “serving a life sentence, and 

not a term of years,” is not entitled to the benefit of gain time); Wemett v. 

State, 567 So. 2d 882, 884 (Fla. 1990) (noting that the sentencing guidelines 

did not allow the defendant “to benefit from gain-time while serving a life 

sentence”); see also Mitzenmacher v. Mitzenmacher, 656 So. 2d 178, 179 

(Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“A per curiam decision of the appellate court is the law 

of the case between the same parties on the same issues and facts, and 

determines all issues necessarily involved in the appeal, whether mentioned 
3

in the court’s opinion or not.”); Seme v. State, 327 So. 3d 1221, 1221 (Fla. 

3d DCA 2021).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Benjamin RUBALCABA-VAZQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-50976

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 10, 2008.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Miguel A. Torres, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before STEWART, OWEN and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

*355PER CURIAM: *

Benjamin Rubalcaba-Vazquez was convicted of one count of attempted illegal reentry into the United States and sentenced to serve 76 months in prison. Rubalcaba-Vazquez appeals his sentence. He argues that the district court erred by including three of his prior convictions in his criminal history score. He contends that these convictions should not have been scored because he was not represented by counsel in connection with these convictions. He thus contends that the district court used the wrong guidelines sentencing range when sentencing him and that his range should have been significantly lower.

When reviewing a sentence, we typically consider whether the district court committed procedural error at sentencing and whether the sentence imposed is substantively reasonable. *See Gall v. United States,*— U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 594, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *see also United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez,*517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir.2008). The district court’s interpretation and application of the Guidelines are reviewed de novo, and its findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. *See Cisneros-Gutierrez,*517 F.3d at 764.

Rubalcaba-Vazquez’s sentencing claim, however, is reviewed for plain error only because it was not presented to the district court. *See United States v. Hernandez-Martinez,*485 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir.2007). Under the plain error standard of review, “reversal is not required unless there is (1) an error; (2) that is clear or plain; (3) that affects the defendant’s substantial rights; and (4) that seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” *United States v. Vasquez,*216 F.3d 456, 459 (5th Cir 2000).

Rubalcaba-Vazquez’s claim is unavailing. The record does confirm Rubalcaba-Vazquez’s assertion that the disputed convictions were uncounseled. However, the record does not show whether these convictions were uncounseled because Rubalcaba-Vazquez validly waived his right to counsel or because he was uninformed of his right to counsel. Consequently, Rubalcaba-Vazquez has not carried his burden of showing that the disputed convictions were constitutionally infirm, nor has he shown plain error in connection with his sentence. *See United States v. Osborne,*68 F.3d 94, 100-01 (5th Cir.1995). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

**Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
# C_2017161EN.01000101.xml

| 22.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2017/C 161/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 151, 15.5.2017

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 144, 8.5.2017

OJ C 129, 24.4.2017

OJ C 121, 18.4.2017

OJ C 112, 10.4.2017

OJ C 104, 3.4.2017

OJ C 95, 27.3.2017

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
32.409-3 Security, supervision, and covenants. ( a ) If advance payments are approved, the contracting officer shall enter into an agreement with the contractor covering special accounts and suitable covenants protecting the Government's interest (see 32.411). This requirement generally applies under all statutory authorities, but modified requirements applicable to certain specific cases are prescribed in paragraphs (e) through (g) below.
( b ) The agency shall ( 1 ) ensure that the amount of advance payments does not exceed the contractor's financial needs, and
( 2 ) closely supervise the contractor's withdrawal of funds from special accounts in which the advance payments are deposited.
( c ) In the terms of the agreement, the contracting officer should provide for a paramount lien in favor of the Government. This lien may supplement or replace other security requirements. The lien should cover— ( 1 ) Supplies being acquired;
( 2 ) Any credit balance in the special account in which advance payments are deposited; and
( 3 ) All property that the contractor acquires for performing the contract, except to the extent to which the Government otherwise has valid title to the property.
( d ) Security requirements vary to fit the circumstances of different cases. Minimum security requirements are covered by the clauses prescribed in the contract. The contracting officer may supplement these as necessary in each case for protection of the Government's interest. Examples of additional security terms are— ( 1 ) Personal or corporate endorsements or guarantees;
( 2 ) Pledges of collateral;
( 3 ) Subordination or standby of other indebtedness;
( 4 ) Controls or limitations on profit distributions, salaries, bonuses or commissions, rentals and royalties, capital expenditures, creation of liens, retirement of stock or debt, and creation of additional obligations; and
( 5 ) Advance payment bonds (rarely required).
( e ) In an advance payment agreement with an instrumentality of the Government, a State, a local government, or an agency or instrumentality of a State or local government, the contracting officer may omit the requirement for deposit of the advances in a special account, if the official approving the advance determines that other adequate security exists to protect the Government's interest.
( f ) The requirements of this 32.409-3 do not apply when using letters of credit if an agency's procedures provide for— ( 1 ) The use under a cost-reimbursement contract of Federal funds deposited in the contractor's account at a financial institution (without the contractor acquiring title to the funds); and
( 2 ) The security of such deposit of public moneys in accordance with governing regulations of the Treasury Department.
( g ) If a separate special account is not required; e.g., advance payment by a letter of credit, an agency may require a special account for an individual case, or classes of cases, if the circumstances warrant.
[48 FR 42328, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 66 FR 2138, Jan. 10, 2001]
You are here: EPA Home Technology Transfer Network Models & Tools Economic Analysis Models/Tools Elasticity Databank 

# Elasticity Databank In the absence of an encyclopedic ‘Book of Elasticities’ the Elasticity Databank serves as a searchable database of elasticity parameters across a variety of types (i.e., demand and supply elasticities, substitution elasticities, income elasticities, and trade elasticities) and economic sectors/product markets. A submittal form allows you to provide elasticity estimates for consideration as part of this databank For details on TTNWeb's file type icons, standard file formats, and how to use them, see the TTNWeb File Types page.



### File Description File Date File

Types
Elasticity Databank 9-03
Elasticity Databank User Manual 9-03
Elasticity Submittal Form 7-05 

## Technology Transfer Network Economics & Cost Analysis Support http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/Elasticity.htm Last updated on Friday, June 22, 2007 3/15/2011 EPA - TTN - ECAS - Air Compliance Ad...

www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/Elasticity.htm 1/1
# Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) Program - Competitive Grants 

# FY 2016 New Awards

[9/26/2016]