alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021003EN.01000801.xml

| 6.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 3/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 3/8

---

Corrigendum to Euro exchange rates – 29 December 2020

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 452 of 30 December 2020
  )

(2021/C 3/08)

The euro exchange rates table on page 3 should read as follows:

‘1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2259 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 127,23 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4382 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,90863 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,0840 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0862 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 156,30 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,5500 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,302 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 364,53 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5308 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,8757 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 9,0177 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6121 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5713 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,5043 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7171 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6274 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 340,33 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,9651 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,0070 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5447 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 17 305,60 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9655 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,903 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 90,1883 |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,826 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,3717 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 24,4001 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 89,9420 ’ |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2259

JPY

Japanese yen

127,23

DKK

Danish krone

7,4382

GBP

Pound sterling

0,90863

SEK

Swedish krona

10,0840

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0862

ISK

Iceland króna

156,30

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,5500

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,302

HUF

Hungarian forint

364,53

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5308

RON

Romanian leu

4,8757

TRY

Turkish lira

9,0177

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6121

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5713

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,5043

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7171

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6274

KRW

South Korean won

1 340,33

ZAR

South African rand

17,9651

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,0070

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5447

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

17 305,60

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9655

PHP

Philippine peso

58,903

RUB

Russian rouble

90,1883

THB

Thai baht

36,826

BRL

Brazilian real

6,3717

MXN

Mexican peso

24,4001

INR

Indian rupee

89,9420 ’

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Devere A. Rosa, Appellant.

Herlihy, J. P.

This is an appeal by the defendant from the judgment of conviction entered in the office of the Clerk of Otsego County on the 3rd day of February, 1963. Judgment of conviction modified by reducing the probationary period from three to two years (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1192, subd. 2; Code Crim. Pro., § 933), and as so modified, affirmed. Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 14, 2016

No. 04-16-00551-CR

Christopher Tudor CISNEROS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR12214

Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “this criminal case is a plea-bargain 

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea 

bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the 

prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court’s certification accurately 

reflects that the criminal case is a plea-bargain case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Rule 

25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “The appeal must be dismissed if a 

certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record 

under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal will be 

dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless appellant 

causes an amended trial court certification to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of 

this order showing appellant has the right of appeal.1See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; see also 

Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2003, order). All other appellate 

deadlines are SUSPENDED pending our resolution of the certification issue.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

 

1 We note that the clerk’s record does not contain a notice of appeal, only a “Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Late Notice of Appeal.”
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of September, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
### CBI Designation relatedtoThree Documents,January 14,2011 Document Request JILL.A.LlSKA to: GailFallon 02/08/2011 03:55 PM Cc: DeniseKennedy History: Thismessagehas beenforwarded.

Gail, Pursuant to the conversation with you and Denise just now, and the EPA's January 24th letters notifying us of a disclosure of CBI to EPA's contractor, it is my understanding that the EPA has requested that S&L (with Basin's concurrence) dedesignate three documents that we had designated as CBI in our January 14, 2011 Document Request Response. Those three documents are: low-high dust scr-leland old2- Sens2-cat life_052009.xls; low-high dust scr-leland old2- Sens2-cat life 052109.xls; and low-high dust scr-leland old2- Sens2-cat life.xls
. Please accept this email as notification that Sargent &Lundy, with Basin Electric's concurrence, agrees that the above three files are no longer claimed to be CBI by S&L.
Jill A. Liska Senior Associate Counsel Tel: 312
.269.2578 Fax: 312
.269.9731 Email: jill
.a.liska@sargentlundy.com THIS MESSAGE AND ANY FILES ATTACHED TO IT ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. THEY ARE INTENDED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM THEY ARE ADDRESSED
. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or the person responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you have received this message in error. Under those circumstances, any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this message or any of its attachments is strictly prohibited.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

A.S.A.P. FABRICATION, INC., )

on behalf of itself and a class, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 12 C 5669

)

v. ) Judge Nordberg

) Magistrate Judge Cox

MIDWEST SALT, LLC, )

and JOHN DOES 1-10, )

)

Defendants. )

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

NOW COME the Parties, by and through their respective attorneys, and pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), hereby stipulate to the dismissal of Plaintiff A.S.A.P. Fabrication, Inc.’s

individual claims against Defendant Midwest Salt, LLC with prejudice and without costs. Plaintiff

A.S.A.P. Fabrication, Inc.’s class claims against Defendant Midwest Salt, LLC are dismissed

without prejudice and without costs. Plaintiff’s individual claims against John Does 1-10 are

dismissed with prejudice and without costs, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.

Respectfully submitted, 

 s/ Heather Kolbus s/ Richard P. Darke (w/ permission)

Daniel A. Edelman Richard P. Darke 

Heather Kolbus DUANE MORRIS LLP 

EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER 190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3700 

& GOODWIN, LLC Chicago, IL 60603 

120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor (312) 499-6743

Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 499-6701 (FAX) 

(312) 739-4200

(312) 419-0379 (FAX) 

Case: 1:12-cv-05669 Document #: 26 Filed: 12/07/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:91
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Heather Kolbus, certify that on December 7, 2012, I caused a true and accurate

copy of the foregoing document to be served upon the party listed below through the Court’s

CM/ECF system:

Richard P. Darke

rpdarke@duanemorris.com

 s/ Heather Kolbus 

Heather Kolbus 

Daniel A. Edelman

Heather Kolbus

EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC

120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th floor

Chicago, Illinois 60603

(312) 739-4200

(312) 419-0379 (FAX)

Case: 1:12-cv-05669 Document #: 26 Filed: 12/07/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:92
#### 452.215-72 Amendments to Proposals.

As prescribed in 415.209(b), insert the following provision:

# Amendments to Proposals (FEB 1988)

Any changes to a proposal made by the offeror after its initial submittal shall be accomplished by replacement pages. Changes from the original page shall be indicated on the outside margin by vertical lines adjacent to the change. The offeror shall include the date of the amendment on the lower right corner of the changed pages.

(End of provision)

[61 FR 53646, Oct. 15, 1996, as amended at 64 FR 52675, Sept. 30, 1999]
#### Joseph Williams, as Administrator of the Estate of Josephine Williams, Deceased, Respondent, v Stanley Shapiro, Defendant, and Terrace Heights Hospital, Appellant.

— In a medical malpractice action, the defendant hospital appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated February 23, 1978, as granted plaintiff’s motion for a protective order striking Items Nos. 8, 9 and 17 of its demand for a bill of *707particulars. Order modified by deleting therefrom the provision which granted the. motion as to Item No. 17 and substituting therefor a provision denying the motion as to said item. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiff. Plaintiffs time to serve a bill of particulars as to Item No. 17 is extended until 20 days after service upon him of a copy of the order to be entered hereon, together with notice of entry thereof. The items which were properly stricken request information which is not expressly authorized by CPLR 3043 and is evidentiary in nature (see, e.g., *Cirelli v Victory Mem. Hosp.,*45 AD2d 856). Moreover, Items Nos. 8 and 9 of the defendant hospital’s demand for a bill of particulars are identical to items stricken as improper in *Venezia v Klinger*(61 AD2d 1145) and *Patterson v Jewish Hosp. & Med. Center of Brooklyn*(94 Mise 2d 680). Item No. 17 of the demand, which requests the Social Security number of plaintiff’s intestate, is allowed. This request is certainly not burdensome, bears some relation to evidence of collateral source payments (see CPLR 4010), and is not specifically resisted by plaintiff. Mollen, P. J., O’Connor, Rabin and Gulotta, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
  (1)
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year
ended December 31, 2008 (the
Report) 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Louis E. Prezeau(Signature)Chief Executive Officer
and President CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
  (1)
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year
ended December 31, 2008 (the
Report) 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Edward R. Wright(Signature)Edward R. Wright
Chief Financial Officer
and Senior Vice President 42
#### 301.106 Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

(a) The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.*) imposes a requirement on Federal agencies to obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before collecting the same information from 10 or more members of the public.

(b) The following OMB control numbers apply to the information collection and recordkeeping requirements contained in this chapter:

| HHSAR Segment | OMB Control No. |
| --- | --- |
| 311.7102 | 0990-0434 |
| 311.7202(b) | 0990-0434 |
| 311.7300 | 0990-0436 |
| 337.103(d)(3) | 0990-0430 |
| 337.103(d)(4) | 0990-0433 |
| 370.301 | 0990-0431 |
| 370.401 | 0990-0432 |
| 352.211-1 | 0990-0434 |
| 352.211-2 | 0990-0434 |
| 352.211-3 | 0990-0436 |
| 352.227-11 | 0990-0419 |
| 352.227-14 | 0990-0419 |
| 352.227-71 | 0990-0430 |
| 352.237-72 | 0990-0433 |
| 352.237-73 | 0990-0431 |
| 352.270-4a | 0990-0431 |
| 352.270-4b | 0990-0431 |
| 352.270-10 | 0990-0431 |
| 352.270-11 | 0990-0432 |
| 352.270-5a | 0990-0432 |
| 352.270-5b | 0990-0432 |
EXHIBIT 12.1

                 CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (CONSOLIDATED)
                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                   FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998
                            (Thousands Except Ratio)
                                   (Unaudited)


Operating Income                                                     $267,543

Adjustments:
  Income taxes                                                         60,611
  Provision for deferred income taxes                                  27,972
  Deferred investment tax credits                                      (4,674)
  Other income and deductions                                          16,065
  Allowance for borrowed and equity funds
    used during construction                                            4,458
                                                                    ---------
        Earnings                                                     $371,975
                                                                    =========


Fixed Charges:
  Interest on long-term debt                                         $101,606
  Interest on short-term debt and other                                29,889
  Distributions on Trust Preferred Securities                          10,533
                                                                    ---------

        Fixed Charges                                                $142,028
                                                                    =========


Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                       2.62
                                                                    =========
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03- 07 -00721 -CV In r e De niseHic ks

ORI GINAL PRO CEEDING FRO M H AY S COUNTY M E MO R

A N D UM O P I N I O N Th e pe tit ion

fo r wri t of

mand amus is d e nie d an d th e mot ion fo r e me rg e nc y

re lie f i s dismiss ed. See Te x. R. Ap p. P. 52 .8 (a ). Th e sta y or de re d b y

thi s Co ur t on De c e mbe r 2 0, 20 07 , is lifted.

W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Puryear and Waldrop Filed: Mar ch 27, 2008
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
                        --------------------------------

I, Joel P. Moskowitz, Chief Executive 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, 2002 (the "Report") 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 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.

Dated: August 14, 2002



                                                   /s/ JOEL P. MOSKOWITZ
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                   Joel P. Moskowitz
                                                   Chief Executive Officer

                                       25
# American Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Program

# Part A, 84.031T

# FY 2015 Noncompeting Continuation (NCC) Awards

09/25/2015
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Flow
International Corporation, a Washington corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K/A for the year ending April 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Douglas P. Fletcher, Principal
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:



(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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    DOUGLAS P.
FLETCHER                                       
|Douglas P. Fletcher Principal Financial Officer November 23, 2005
#### 452.236-71 Prohibition Against the Use of Lead-Based Paint.

As prescribed in 436.571, insert the following clause:

# Prohibition Against the Use of Lead-Based Paint (NOV 1996)

Neither the Contractor nor any subcontractor performing under this contract shall use paints containing more then 0.06 of 1 percent lead by weight (calculated as lead metal) in the total nonvolatile content of the paint, or the equivalent measure of lead in the dried film of paint already applied, or both.

(End of clause)
#### ANGLO-CONTINENTAL CHEMICAL WORKS, Limited, v. DILLON et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 9, 1906.)

1. Attorney and Client—Right oe Client to Change Attorney.

A party has the absolute right to change his attorney.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 5, Cent Dig. Attorney and Client, § 111.]

.2. Same—Substitution—Compensation oe Attorney—Lien.

Under rule 10 of the general rules of practice, providing that an attorney may be changed by consent of the party and his attorney, or, on application of the client, on cause shown, and on such terms as shall be just, the rights of the attorney should be protected, where no misconduct is shown; and when an attorney has rendered services and received no compensation therefor, a substitution should not be granted without protecting his lien.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 5, Cent. Dig. Attorney and Client, §§ 110-119.]

Appeal from Special Term, New York County.

Action by the Anglo-Continental Chemical Works, Limited, against James St. George Dillon and another. From an order granting substitution of attorneys, and directing the surrender of the papers in the action without terms, Archibald C. Shenstone appeals.

Modified, and, -.as modified, affirmed.

Argued before O’BRIEN, P. J„ and PATTERSON, INGRAHAM, "LAUGHLIN, and CLARKE, JJ.

Archibald C. Shenstone, in pro. per.

Edmund L. Mooney, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant has been the attorney of record •in this action for the defendant Maclagan since the commencement of the action. The order here appealed from was granted upon the motion of the defendant Maclagan; the granting of the order evidently "being based upon the absolute right of a party to change his attorney, as no misconduct on the part of the appellant or cause for the substitution is shown. That a party has the absolute right to change his attorney is without question in this state. Under rule 10 of the general rules of practice, however, the rights of the attorney should be pro-tected where no misconduct is shown, and this requires that when an *1082■ attorney has rendered services, and has received no compensation therefor, a substitution should not be granted without protecting his-lien. The application of the rule requires, in the present case, that a reference should be ordered to determine the amount due the attorney, the latter to be allowed to retain the papers until the amount due him is determined and paid; that part of the order, however, which directs substitution to stand.

The order appealed from should be modified accordingly, and, as-so modified, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the appellant.
#### COOPER, Appellant, v. NEW YORK, O. & W. RY. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 27, 1903.)

Action by Emma Cooper, as administratrix, against the New York, Ontario & Western Railway Company.

PER CURIAM.

Decision and order of reversal herein (82 N. Y. Supp. 98) amended so as to read, “Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide event, upon questions of law and of fact,” upon condition, however, that the defendant have leave to discontinue its appeal to the Court of Appeals, without costs.

HISCOOK, J., dissents upon the ground that the decision of reversal by this court was based upon questions of law only. STOVER, J., not voting.
#### 1852.219-73 Small business subcontracting plan.

As prescribed in 1819.708-70(a), insert the following provision:

# Small Business Subcontracting Plan (MAY 1999)

(a) This provision is not applicable to small business concerns.

(b) The contract expected to result from this solicitation will contain FAR clause 52.219-9, “Small Business Subcontracting Plan.” The apparent low bidder must submit the complete plan within [Insert number of days] calendar days after request by the Contracting Officer.

(End of provision)

[62 FR 36733, July 9, 1997; 62 FR 40309, July 28, 1997, as amended at 64 FR 25215, May 11, 1999]