alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020437EN.01001801.xml

| 18.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/18

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

17 December 2020

(2020/C 437/07)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2246 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 126,19 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4398 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,90050 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,1335 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0821 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 155,40 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,5015 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,204 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 355,27 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4423 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,8695 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 9,4828 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6052 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5546 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,4939 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7093 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6227 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 338,48 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,9820 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,0006 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5315 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 17 293,80 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9419 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,799 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 89,3049 |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,554 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,2136 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 24,2407 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 90,1160 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2246

JPY

Japanese yen

126,19

DKK

Danish krone

7,4398

GBP

Pound sterling

0,90050

SEK

Swedish krona

10,1335

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0821

ISK

Iceland króna

155,40

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,5015

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,204

HUF

Hungarian forint

355,27

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4423

RON

Romanian leu

4,8695

TRY

Turkish lira

9,4828

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6052

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5546

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,4939

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7093

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6227

KRW

South Korean won

1 338,48

ZAR

South African rand

17,9820

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,0006

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5315

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

17 293,80

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9419

PHP

Philippine peso

58,799

RUB

Russian rouble

89,3049

THB

Thai baht

36,554

BRL

Brazilian real

6,2136

MXN

Mexican peso

24,2407

INR

Indian rupee

90,1160

---

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

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6402

ROBERT STEVEN LOGAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EARL BROWN, Unit Manager; CHARLES BROCK, Deputy Warden; RICHARD LINDLER, Warden; L. F. BESSINGER, Warden; JOYCE BROWN, Unit Manager; CHARLES MOORE, Inmate Representative; JAMES L. HARVEY, Regional Administrator; WILLIAM D. CATOE, Deputy Commissioner for Operations; PARKER EVATT, Ex-Commissioner; JOHN R. MAXEY, Investigator; GENE NOLES, Assistant Ombudsman; SAMMIE D. BROWN, Director of Classification;MICHAEL MOORE, Commissioner; E. JENNINGS, Correctional Officer; T. MURRAY, Lieutenant; SAMPSON PARKER, JR., Correctional Officer; TARA HOPKINS, Correctional Officer, TIM RILEY, Chief of Monitoring and Evaluation Branch, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-296-3-20-BC) Submitted: September 15, 1998 Decided: October 19, 1998 Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Steven Logan, Appellant Pro Se. W. Howard Boyd, Jr., GIBBES, GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief onhis 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting themagistrate judge’s recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Logan v. Brown , No. CA-97-296-3-20-BC (D.S.C. Feb. 6, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2017445EN.01001001.xml

| 28.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 445/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 445/10

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

27 December 2017

(2017/C 445/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1895 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,70 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4450 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88593 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,8727 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,1772 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,8605 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,840 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,99 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1884 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,6499 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,5475 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5316 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5028 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,2953 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6825 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5937 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 277,73 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,8108 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7975 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5398 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 123,38 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8481 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,430 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 68,5974 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,027 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,9196 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,5221 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 76,3125 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1895

JPY

Japanese yen

134,70

DKK

Danish krone

7,4450

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88593

SEK

Swedish krona

9,8727

CHF

Swiss franc

1,1772

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,8605

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,840

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,99

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1884

RON

Romanian leu

4,6499

TRY

Turkish lira

4,5475

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5316

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5028

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,2953

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6825

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5937

KRW

South Korean won

1 277,73

ZAR

South African rand

14,8108

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7975

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5398

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 123,38

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8481

PHP

Philippine peso

59,430

RUB

Russian rouble

68,5974

THB

Thai baht

39,027

BRL

Brazilian real

3,9196

MXN

Mexican peso

23,5221

INR

Indian rupee

76,3125

---

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

1

Source

---
32.503-10 Establishing alternate liquidation rates. ( a ) The contracting officer must ensure that the liquidation rate is— ( 1 ) High enough to result in Government recoupment of the applicable progress payments on each billing; and
( 2 ) Supported by documentation included in the administration office contract file.
( b ) The minimum liquidation rate is the expected progress payments divided by the contract price. Each of these factors is discussed below: ( 1 ) The contracting officer must compute the expected progress payments by multiplying the estimated cost of performing the contract by the progress payment rate.
( 2 ) For purposes of computing the liquidation rate, the contracting officer may adjust the estimated cost and the contract price to include the estimated value of any work authorized but not yet priced and any projected economic adjustments; however, the contracting officer's adjustment must not exceed the Government's estimate of the price of all authorized work or the funds obligated for the contract.
( 3 ) The following are examples of the computation. Assuming an estimated price of $2,200,000 and total estimated costs eligible for progress payments of $2,000,000: ( i ) If the progress payment rate is 80 percent, the minimum liquidation rate should be 72.7 percent, computed as follows:
( ii ) If the progress payment rate is 85 percent, the minimum liquidation rate should be 77.3 percent, computed as follows:
( 4 ) Minimum liquidation rates will generally be expressed to tenths of a percent. Decimals between tenths will be rounded up to the next highest tenth (not necessarily the nearest tenth), since rounding down would produce a rate below the minimum rate calculated.
[48 FR 42328, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended 52 FR 30077, Aug. 12, 1987; 65 FR 16281, Mar. 27, 2000]
#### LOFTUS v. STRAIGHT LINE ENGINE CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 7, 1906.)

Costs—Payment of Costs in Pbiob Action—Stay.

A defendant does not by answering a subsequent action waive his right to stay proceeding therein until the costs of a prior action due him are paid.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 13, Cent. Dig. Costs, § 1060.]

Appeal from Special Term, Onondaga County.

Action by Thomas Loftus against the Straight Line Engine Company. From an order denying a motion to restrain plaintiff from proceeding in an action until the costs recovered in a former action have been paid, defendant appeals.

Reversed.

*791Argued before McLENNAN, P. J., and SPRING, WILLIAMS, NASH, and KRUSE, jj.

Henry A. Talbot, for appellant.

Welch & Parsons, for respondent.

NASH, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the Special Term denying a motion made by the defendant to restrain the plaintiff from taking any further proceedings in the action, until he shall have paid the costs and disbursements - recovered by the defendant in a former action.

The rule is that if the plaintiff brings a second action without paying the costs of the first, the court will order payment of the costs of the first suit before allowing the second to proceed. Cuyler v. Vanderwerk, 1 Johns. Cas. (2d Ed.) 247, note. The rule recites that the dé-fendant answered before making the application, and the point is made by the respondent that the defendant not having made the motion until after serving its amended answer, waived by its laches any right which it might have had to the stay. In the case cited, it is said: “Per Curiam. The defendant is never too late, pending the second suit, before the' trial, to make his application to stay the proceedings." In Jackson v. Miller, 3 Cow. 57, the motion was made after a verdict in the second action had been taken subject to the opinion of the court; objection was made that the application came too late: “ Per Curiam. The application comes before us in season, if made at any time while the cause is in a course of litigation.” In Spaulding v. American Wood Board Co., 58 App. Div. 314, 68 N. Y. Supp. 945, the case relied upon by the respondent, the motion was made although not heard, before an answer was served. That fact was referred to in the opinion, and it was observed, that the motion was in time, from which it might be inferred that the motion should be made before serving an answer. But as there was no discussion of the question, the case cannot be regarded as an authority for overturning the long established rule, that the right is absolute, and that the application for the stay may be made at any time while the cause is in the course of litigation.

Order reversed, with $10 costs, and disbursements, and order restraining plaintiff’s further proceedings until payment of the costs of the former action granted, with $10 costs. All concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [ER-FRL-9055-2]

*Responsible Agency:*                     Office of Federal Activities, General Information 202-564-5632 or                     *https://www.epa.gov/​nepa*.                

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)

Filed January 25, 2021 10 a.m. EST Through February 1, 2021 10 a.m. EST

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

## Notice

                    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:                     *https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/​cdx-enepa-public/​action/​eis/​search*.                

*EIS No. 20210013, Final, USAF, NM,*                     Special Use Airspace Optimization to Support Existing Aircraft at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, Review Period Ends: 03/08/2021, Contact: Robin Divine 210-925-2730.                

*EIS No. 20210014, Final, USAF, VA,*                     Fifth Generation Formal Training Unit Optimization, Review Period Ends: 03/08/2021, Contact: Nolan Swick 210-925-3392.                

*EIS No. 20210015, Final, USFS, OR,*                     Government Camp—Cooper Spur Land Exchange, Review Period Ends: 04/06/2021, Contact: Michelle Lombardo 971-303-2083.                

*EIS No. 20210016, Draft, FHWA, OR,*                     Earthquake Ready Burnside Bridge, Comment Period Ends: 03/22/2021, Contact: Emily Cline 503-316-2547.                

## Amended Notice

*EIS No. 20200210, Draft, STB, UT,*                     Uinta Basin Railway, Comment Period Ends: 02/12/2021, Contact: Joshua Wayland 202-245-0330.                

Revision to FR Notice Published 12/18/2020; Extending the Comment Period from 01/28/2020 to 02/12/2021.

Dated: February 1, 2021.

Cindy S. Barger,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 2021-02412 Filed 2-4-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### 3404.710 Contracting officer records management responsibilities.

Upon notification from the contractor of any unlawful or accidental removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of Federal records, including all forms of mutilation, the contracting officer must notify the requiring activity, the Department Records Officer, and the HCA within one business day.
#### 326.600-1 Scope of part.

This subpart implements policies and procedures for the procurement of supplies, general services, architect and engineer (A&E) services, or construction while giving preference to Indian Economic Enterprises under authority of the Buy Indian Act (25 U.S.C. 47).
# C_2020008EN.01000301.xml

| 13.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

10 January 2020

(2020/C 8/03)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1091 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 121,60 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4731 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84810 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,5510 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0822 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 136,60 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,8745 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,265 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 333,85 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2462 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7796 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,5198 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6132 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4498 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6137 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6769 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4969 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 286,00 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,8081 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,6773 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4445 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 263,99 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5212 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 55,998 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 68,0410 |
| THB | Thai baht | 33,534 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,5188 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,8634 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 78,6915 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1091

JPY

Japanese yen

121,60

DKK

Danish krone

7,4731

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84810

SEK

Swedish krona

10,5510

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0822

ISK

Iceland króna

136,60

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,8745

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,265

HUF

Hungarian forint

333,85

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2462

RON

Romanian leu

4,7796

TRY

Turkish lira

6,5198

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6132

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4498

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6137

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6769

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4969

KRW

South Korean won

1 286,00

ZAR

South African rand

15,8081

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,6773

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4445

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 263,99

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5212

PHP

Philippine peso

55,998

RUB

Russian rouble

68,0410

THB

Thai baht

33,534

BRL

Brazilian real

4,5188

MXN

Mexican peso

20,8634

INR

Indian rupee

78,6915

---

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

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7019

JAMES EDWARD BROWN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee, and DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA PRISONS (DOC), Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:04-cv-00961-GBL) Submitted: September 26, 2006 Decided: October 3, 2006 Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Christopher Galanides, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: James Edward Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Brown’s motion for a transcript. While we grant Brown’s motion to amend his preliminary brief, we find the issues raised in the brief are frivolous. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1


WRITTEN STATEMENT

PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


Each of the undersigned, STEVEN F. UDVAR-HAZY,
the CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, and ALAN
H. LUND, the VICE CHAIRMAN-FINANCE, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND
CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER of INTERNATIONAL LEASE FINANCE
CORPORATION (the Company), pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, hereby certifies that to the
best of their knowledge:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (i) the Companys Annual Report on Form
    10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the
    Report) fully complies with the requirements of
    section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
    1934; and
|
| | (ii) the information contained in the Report
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                           



| |                         
| | ------------------------
| | /s/ STEVEN F. UDVAR-HAZY
| |                         
| | Steven F. Udvar-Hazy    

Dated: March 4, 2005



| |                 
| | ----------------
| | /s/ ALAN H. LUND
| |                 
| | Alan H. Lund    

Dated: March 4, 2005
32.500 Scope of subpart. This subpart prescribes policies, procedures, forms, solicitation provisions, and contract clauses for providing contract financing through progress payments based on costs. This subpart does not apply to— ( a ) Payments under cost-reimbursement contracts, but see 32.110 for progress payments made to subcontractors under cost-reimbursement prime contracts; or
( b ) Contracts for construction or for shipbuilding or ship conversion, alteration, or repair, when the contracts provide for progress payments based on a percentage or stage of completion.
[48 FR 42328, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 65 FR 16279, Mar. 27, 2000]
EXHIBIT 21.1



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                             SUBSIDIARIES OF GULFSTREAM AEROSPACE CORPORATION


<S>                                         <C>                                        <C>

       Subsidiary Name                             Doing Business As            Jurisdiction of Incorporation
       ---------------                             -----------------            -----------------------------

Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation                                                       California
Gulfstream Delaware Corporation                                                        Delaware
Gulfstream International Corporation                                                   Delaware
Gulfstream Aircraft Incorporated                                                       Georgia
Gulfstream Financial Services Corporation                                              Georgia
Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation                                                       Georgia
Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation            Gulfstream Aerospace Technologies          Oklahoma
Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation of Texas                                              Texas
Gulfstream Aerospace (Middle East) Ltd.                                                Cyprus
Interiores Aereos S.A. De C.V.                                                         Mexico
Gulfstream Aerospace Services Corporation   Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation           Delaware
</TABLE>