alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020096EN.01000601.xml

| 24.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

23 March 2020

(2020/C 96/06)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0783 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 119,11 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4706 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,92970 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,0715 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0590 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 151,50 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 12,2568 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,635 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 352,33 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6056 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,8481 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 7,1016 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,8586 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5510 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,3631 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8939 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5745 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 355,10 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 19,0140 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,6385 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6060 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 17 872,82 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7930 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 55,425 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 86,0800 |
| THB | Thai baht | 35,438 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,4652 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 26,6130 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 82,1255 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0783

JPY

Japanese yen

119,11

DKK

Danish krone

7,4706

GBP

Pound sterling

0,92970

SEK

Swedish krona

11,0715

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0590

ISK

Iceland króna

151,50

NOK

Norwegian krone

12,2568

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,635

HUF

Hungarian forint

352,33

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6056

RON

Romanian leu

4,8481

TRY

Turkish lira

7,1016

AUD

Australian dollar

1,8586

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5510

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,3631

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8939

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5745

KRW

South Korean won

1 355,10

ZAR

South African rand

19,0140

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,6385

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6060

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

17 872,82

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7930

PHP

Philippine peso

55,425

RUB

Russian rouble

86,0800

THB

Thai baht

35,438

BRL

Brazilian real

5,4652

MXN

Mexican peso

26,6130

INR

Indian rupee

82,1255

---

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

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00264-CV

In re Darin J. Bassett and Kim A. Bassett

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

The petition for writ of mandamus and the emergency motion for stay are denied. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a), id. R. 52.10.

__________________________________________

Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Kelly and Smith

Filed: April 26, 2019
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10532 Conference Calendar

__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus ANTHONY DARRELL MARTIN, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:94CR00149

- - - - - - - - - - April 18, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Anthony Darrell Martin appeals from his sentence following a guilty plea for money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1). Martin argues that the disparity in the penalty provisions and sentencing guidelines applicable to crack cocaine and cocaine powder violates his equal protection and due process rights. Martin argues that the district court erred in considering the guidelines for cocaine base under U.S.S.G.No. 95-10532 -2- § 2D1.1 because he never possessed or distributed crack cocaine and his "attempt" to do so was never fulfilled. The argument that the disparate sentencing provisions for crack cocaine and cocaine powder in the sentencing guidelines violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses has been rejected. See United States v. Galloway , 951 F.2d 64, 65-66 (5th Cir. 1992). In the factual resume supporting the guilty plea, Martin stipulated to negotiating a drug transaction involving two kilograms of crack cocaine. Under § 1B1.2(a), which provides in part that in the case of a plea agreement containing a stipulation that specifically establishes a more serious offense than the offense of conviction, the offense guideline is determined based on the section in Chapter Two most applicable to the stipulated offense. The district court did not err in sentencing Martin under § 2D1.1, the applicable provision for the stipulated drug trafficking offense.
AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 177 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 177

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental 
 Protection Agency relating to ``New Source Performance Standards for 
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil 
     Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; Emission Guidelines for 
   Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric 
  Generating Units; and Repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 2, 2024

Mr. Palmer submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental 
 Protection Agency relating to ``New Source Performance Standards for 
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil 
     Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; Emission Guidelines for 
   Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric 
  Generating Units; and Repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``New 
Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New, 
Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating 
Units; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Existing 
Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; and Repeal of the 
Affordable Clean Energy Rule'' (89 Fed. Reg. 39798 (May 9, 2024)), and 
such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<CIK>                              0000715369     
<NAME>                             DYCO OIL AND GAS PROGRAM 1983-2
                                    
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                    88,279
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                             44,711
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         132,990
<PP&E>                                31,367,053
<DEPRECIATION>                        31,213,157
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           410,861
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     10,266
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                               325,693
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             410,861
<SALES>                                  257,948
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         259,458
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            196,768
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           62,690
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       62,690
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                              62,690
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               9.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        
 

</TABLE>
#### 3452.216-70 Additional cost principles.

Insert the following clause in solicitations and contracts as prescribed in 3416.307(b):

# Additional Cost Principles (AUG 1987)

(a) *Bid and Proposal Costs.* Bid and proposal costs are the immediate costs of preparing bids, proposals, and applications for potential Federal and non-Federal grants, contracts, and other agreements, including the development of scientific, cost, and other data needed to support the bids, proposals, and applications. Bid and proposal costs of the current accounting period are allowable as indirect costs; bid and proposal costs of past accounting periods are unallowable as costs of the current period. However, if the organization's established practice is to treat these costs by some other method, they may be accepted if they are found to be reasonable and equitable. Bid and proposal costs do not include independent research and development costs or pre-award costs.

(b) *Independent research and development costs.* Independent research and development is research and development that is not sponsored by Federal and non-Federal grants, contracts, or other agreements. Independent research and development shall be allocated its proportionate share of indirect costs on the same basis as the allocations of indirect costs of sponsored research and development. The costs of independent research and development, including its proportionate share of indirect costs, are unallowable.

(End of clause)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000<F1>
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-02-2000<F1>
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-17-2000<F1>
<CASH>                                          28,133
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  736,176
<ALLOWANCES>                                    94,825
<INVENTORY>                                    516,292
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,245,922
<PP&E>                                       1,977,665
<DEPRECIATION>                                 863,021
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,040,074
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          841,683
<BONDS>                                      1,213,638
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       316,488
<OTHER-SE>                                     274,690
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,040,074
<SALES>                                      2,457,195
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,457,195
<CGS>                                        2,055,821
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,055,821
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               248,754
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              46,797
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                105,823
<INCOME-TAX>                                    24,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             81,523
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    81,523
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.46<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.46<F3>
<FN>
<F1>THE COMPANY'S FISCAL YEAR ENDS ON THE SATURDAY CLOSEST TO DECEMBER 31. FISCAL
YEAR 2000 ENDS DECEMBER 30, 2000 AND INCLUDES 52 WEEKS. ALL QUARTERS INCLUDE 12
WEEKS, EXCEPT FOR THE THIRD QUARTER WHICH HAS 16 WEEKS.
<F2>IN ACCORDANCE WITH SFAS NO. 128, "EARNINGS PER SHARE", THIS ITEM REFLECTS BASIC
EARNINGS PER SHARE.
<F3>IN ACCORDANCE WITH SFAS NO. 128, "EARNINGS PER SHARE", THIS ITEM REFLECTS
DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### Carlotta Price, Respondent, v. Allstate Insurance Company, Appellant.

Order, entered on June 10, 1960, granting summary judgment to the plaintiff and the judgment entered thereon, unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondent. The claim that there was an unreasonable delay in the giving of notice to the defendant is not supported by the record. The reasonable notice required of an injured party is of necessity measured by standards different than those applied to the insured *(Lauritano*v. *American Fed. Fire Ins. Co.,*3 A D 2d 564, affd. 4 N Y 2d 1028). Under the circumstances here present we find that the plaintiff acted with reasonable expedition. The only other contentions that merit comment are the alleged failure to serve a notice of the entry with the judgment and the asserted insufficiency of the complaint. The exhibits annexed to the affidavits reveal that the judgment served upon the defendant bore the notation “Filed March 24, 1959, New York Co. Clerks Office.” In the circumstances here present such notation is the equivalent of the notice of entry required by the statute. We also reject the contention that the motion must be denied because of the alleged insufficiency of the complaint in failing to specifically allege that service of a copy of the judgment was made upon the defendant insurer. We find the complaint to be sufficient in this regard. Under section 167 (subd. 1, par. [b]) of the Insurance Law the insurance policy here in issue must be deemed to contain the provision requiring that the copy of the judgment with notice of entry be served upon the insurer. The plaintiff, by alleging that she performed all the terms and conditions of the policy, in effect alleges such service upon the defendant. In any event, even were the complaint deficient in the area charged, in the circumstances of this case and in the light of the affidavits and exhibits, such deficiency would not be fatal to the granting of summary judgment *(McAnsh*v. *Blauner,*222 App. Div. 381, affd. 248 N. Y. 537; *Florida Land Holding Corp.*v. *Burke,*135 Misc. 341, affd. 229 App. Div. 853; see Shientag, Summary Judgments, pp. 59-62). Should a specific allegation be considered essential then the com*912plaint is deemed amended to include it *(McAnsh*v. *Blauner, supra).*Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### Gilda Scarine, Respondent, v. Philip Scarine, Appellant.

Motion by appellant to stay all proceedings pending appeal from an order denying his motion for change of venue, granted on condition that, effective immediately and during the pendency of this appeal, he shall pay to respondent the sum of $25 a week for her support; and on the further condition that appellant shall perfect the appeal and be ready to argue or submit it at the October Term, beginning October 1, 1962; appeal ordered on the calendar for said term. This stay, however, shall not include the application referred to below. Cross motion by respondent for a counsel fee to oppose the appeal and this motion for a stay, denied without prejudice to an application for such counsel fee at Special Term, if respondent be so advised. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Hill, JJ., concur.
#### Herbert J. Sims & Co., Inc., Respondent, v. Zara Contracting Co., Inc., Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
239.7303 Authorized individuals. ( a ) Subject to 239.7304, the following individuals are authorized to take the actions authorized by 239.7305: ( 1 ) The Secretary of Defense.
( 2 ) The Secretary of the Army.
( 3 ) The Secretary of the Navy.
( 4 ) The Secretary of the Air Force.
( b ) The individuals authorized at paragraph (a) may not delegate the authority to take the actions at 239.7305 or the responsibility for making the determination required by 239.7304 to an official below the level of— ( 1 ) For the Department of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment; and,
( 2 ) For the military departments, the service acquisition executive for the department concerned.
[78 FR 69271, Nov. 18, 2013, as amended at 84 FR 4370, Feb. 15, 2019]
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 213 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 213

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
   United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Financial Crimes 
Enforcement Network relating to ``Financial Crimes Enforcement Network: 
Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism Program and 
     Suspicious Activity Report Filing Requirements for Registered 
          Investment Advisers and Exempt Reporting Advisers''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 18, 2024

Mr. Palmer submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
   United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Financial Crimes 
Enforcement Network relating to ``Financial Crimes Enforcement Network: 
Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism Program and 
     Suspicious Activity Report Filing Requirements for Registered 
          Investment Advisers and Exempt Reporting Advisers''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network relating to 
``Financial Crimes Enforcement Network: Anti-Money Laundering/
Countering the Financing of Terrorism Program and Suspicious Activity 
Report Filing Requirements for Registered Investment Advisers and 
Exempt Reporting Advisers'' (89 Fed. Reg. 72156; published September 4, 
2024), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
## BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

Essential Air Service at 

## ELDORADO/CAMDEN,ARKANSAS HARRISON,ARKANSAS 

## Under 49 U.S.c. §41731 etseq. ) ) ) 

## ) OST-1997-2935 ) OST-1997-2935 ) )



## GULFSTREAM

## INTERNATIONALAIRLINES WITHDRAWAL OFITS PROPOSALTO PROVIDE SUBSIDIZEDAIR SERICEAT ELDORADO/CAMDENARKANSAS AND HARRISON,ARKANSAS
Correspondence with regard to this document should be addressed to: Mickey Bowman Vice President ofEssential Air Service Gulfstream International Airlines 3201 Griffin Road, 4th Floor Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312 Telephone: 270-689-2180 Fax: 270-689-2180 E-Mail: mbowman@gulfstreamair.com

Gulfstream International Airlines ("Gulfstream") hereby withdraws its proposals to provide subsidized air service to the cities ofEI Dorado/Camden and Harrison, Arkansas.
As noted in its prior filing relating to Muscle Shoals, Alabama, Gulfstream has been unable to reach a planned codeshare and/or suitable interline agreement with Delta Air Lines. Given this fact the infrastructure related to servicing that bid will no longer be in place. Given the fact that structure is required as a basis for these bids, Gulfstream feels it has no choice but to withdraw these offers from consideration.
Should you have any further questions relating to these bids please don't hesitate to contact me directly.
EXHIBIT 12.4

               SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
               RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
         FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
                    (Thousands except Ratio)
                           (Unaudited)


Operating Income                                                $166,324

Adjustments:
  Federal and state income taxes                                  29,233
  Provision for deferred Federal and
    state income taxes                                            17,561
  Deferred investment tax credits                                 (4,717)
  Other income and deductions                                      3,175
  Allowance for borrowed and equity funds
    used during construction                                      10,285
  Interest portion of financing leases                             1,978

        Earnings                                                $223,839


Fixed Charges:
  Interest on long-term  debt                                   $ 44,127
  Amortization of debt issuance cost                               3,558
  Other interest                                                   6,560
  Interest portion of financing leases                             1,978

        Fixed  Charges                                          $ 56,223


Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                  3.98
#### 2816.207 Firm-fixed-price, level-of-effort term contracts.
EXHIBIT 32.2 **Section 906 Certification of Chief Financial Officer**I, Jerrold J. Pellizzon, Chief Financial Officer of Ceradyne, Inc. (the “Company”), certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1) the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30,2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); 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: July 24, 2007 By:  /s/ JERROLD J. PELLIZZON    **Jerrold J. Pellizzon**         **Chief Financial Officer**
# C_2019363EN.01000202.xml

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/2

---

Election of the Vice-President of the General Court

(2019/C 363/03)

Meeting on 27 September 2019, the Judges of the General Court, in accordance with Article 9(4) of the Rules of Procedure, elected Mr Savvas Papasavvas Vice-President of the General Court for the period from 27 September 2019 to 31 August 2022.

---
#### In the Matter of Burnet Scrap Corp.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, upon stipulation.