alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006148EN.01000101.xml

| 24.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

23 June 2006

(2006/C 148/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2502 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 145,50 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4564 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68800 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2213 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5641 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 95,45 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9180 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5750 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,498 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 280,84 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6960 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1098 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,6115 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,65 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,300 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1335 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7096 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4041 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,7118 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,0633 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9995 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 195,25 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,3880 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,0049 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2615 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 755,01 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,604 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 66,586 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 33,9130 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,118 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2502

JPY

Japanese yen

145,50

DKK

Danish krone

7,4564

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68800

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2213

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5641

ISK

Iceland króna

95,45

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9180

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5750

CZK

Czech koruna

28,498

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

280,84

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6960

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1098

RON

Romanian leu

3,6115

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,65

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,300

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1335

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7096

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4041

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,7118

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,0633

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9995

KRW

South Korean won

1 195,25

ZAR

South African rand

9,3880

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,0049

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2615

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 755,01

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,604

PHP

Philippine peso

66,586

RUB

Russian rouble

33,9130

THB

Thai baht

48,118

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
#### Charles Edward ROBINSON v. STATE.

6 Div. 340.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 31, 1981.

J. Mark White of Smith, White & Hynds, Birmingham, for appellant.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Jean Williams Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

HARRIS, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis seeking to overturn a robbery conviction in 1978 *1090and a twenty-five year sentence in the penitentiary.

The original conviction was affirmed by this court on June 17,1980. Rehearing was denied on July 29, 1980, and certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court on October 31, 1980. *Robinson v. State,*Ala.Cr.App., 389 So.2d 144, writ denied, Ala., 389 So.2d 151.

While the case was pending on appeal appellant filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The petition was filed on May 14, 1980, and was denied on the same day on the ground the trial court was without jurisdiction as the case was on appeal.

In *Summers v. State,*Ala.Cr.App., 366 So.2d 336, this court held: “A petition for writ of error coram nobis will not be granted and is premature if filed while an appeal is pending.” Writ denied, Ala., 366 So.2d 346.

Appellant alleges that after he was convicted he filed a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. On the hearing of the motion for a new trial appellant presented the testimony of Forrest Allen Spears who testified that he alone committed the robbery and that appellant was not in the car at the time of the robbery and did not participate in planning the robbery. However, the victim of the robbery made a positive identification of Robinson as the robber.

The testimony of Spears left much to be desired as he was uncertain as to the details of the robbery and refused to state who his companions were who did participate in the robbery. He had known Robinson for five years and they were cell mates for a period of time following the crime, and he certainly had every reason to give false testimony. *Robinson v. State,*supra.

Under *Summers v. State,*supra, and the cases therein cited, the order of the trial court in denying the petition in this case is correct and is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All the Judges concur.
# C_2006060EN.01002901.xml

| 11.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/29

---

Action brought on 17 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-20/06)

(2006/C 60/55)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Michel Nolin, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/102/EC of 5 October 2004 amending Annexes II, III, IV and V to Council Directive 2000/29/EC on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/102/EC of 5 October 2004 amending Annexes II, III, IV and V to Council Directive 2000/29/EC on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| 2. | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of Directive 2004/102 expired on 28 February 2005.

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 309, p. 9

1

---
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Randolph M. SMITH, Appellee.

No. 78-1896.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 14, 1979.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Karal B. Rushing, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed. *See Helmig v. State,*330 So.2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); § 831.02, Fla.Stat. (1969).

BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and SCHEB and OTT, JJ., concur.
CONSENT OF REZNICK FEDDER & SILVERMAN, PC




                                   Exhibit 23



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-42457 and 33-50332) of Alpha 1 Biomedicals, Inc.
(the  "Company")  of our report dated June 2, 2000  appearing  in the  Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1999.

/s/Reznick Fedder & Silverman
REZNICK FEDDER & SILVERMAN PC

Bethesda, Maryland
November 6, 2000
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman to Lead U.S. Delegation in Strategic Stability Dialogue with Russian Federation

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman to Lead U.S. Delegation in Strategic Stability Dialogue with Russian Federation							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

July 23, 2021

Deputy Secretary of State Wendy R. Sherman will travel to Geneva, Switzerland to lead the U.S. delegation’s participation in a U.S.-Russia bilateral Strategic Stability Dialogue on July 28, 2021. She will be joined by Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Bonnie Jenkins, who will provide additional leadership for the delegation. This meeting follows up on a commitment made between President Biden and Russian President Putin to have a deliberate and robust dialogue between our two nations that will seek to lay the groundwork for future arms control and risk reduction measures.

Tags

Arms Control and NonproliferationBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDeputy Secretary TripDeputy Secretary of StateOffice of the SpokespersonOfficial International TravelRussiaStrategic DialogueUnder Secretary for Arms Control and International Security

Back to Top
No. 95-3123

United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Serafin Flores, also known as * Colima, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

Submitted: February 16, 1996 Filed: March 11, 1996
Before LOKEN, BRIGHT, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.
Se rafin Flores appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribut e methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1981). The district cour t entered judgment against Flores on April 13, 1995, and Flores filed hi s notice of appeal more than three months later. The Federal Rules o f Appellate Procedure r equire a defendant to file a notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment, but they also give the district cour t discretion to extend the filing time for an additional thirty days upon a showing of excusable neglect. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b).

In th is case, Flores filed a motion to extend the time to file hi s notice of appeal on August 9, 1995, and the district court granted it on August 16, 1995. The district court lacked the authority to give Flores extra time, however, because he filed his

### -2-

motion more than thirty days after the time for filing his notice of appea l had exp ired. "[A]fter the expiration of forty days from the entry of a final judgment there is nothing either the trial court or the court o f appeals can do to ext end the time for filing a notice of appeal." United States v. Carter , 990 F.2d 402, 403 (8th Cir. 19 93) (quoting United States v. June , 503 F.2d 442, 443-44 (8th Cir. 1974)).
We therefore dismiss Flores's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### LES LEVY OIL & SUPPLY, INC. v. SOUTHERN PETROLEUM TRANSPORTS, INC., Paul A. Paciera, Jr., and Paciera Services, Inc.

No. 10877.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Nov. 12, 1979.

McElroy & Ramsey, Ltd., Allen A. McEl-roy, Jr., Berwick, for plaintiff-appellee.

Derbes & Derbes, James G. Derbes, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant, Paul A. Paciera, Jr.

*CMLXXXVIIIBefore REDMANN, BOUTALL and SCHOTT, JJ.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

BOUTALL, Judge.

Upon our own inquiry into our jurisdiction, we issued a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed because the judgment appealed seemed to be interlocutory in nature.

Plaintiff Les Levy Oil & Supply, Inc., filed a rule against defendants Paul A. Pac-iera, Jr., Southern Petroleum Transports, Inc., and Paciera Services, Inc. for failure of these parties to appear at a scheduled deposition hearing pursuant to witness subpoenas issued them. Plaintiff prayed for relief under the provisions of C.C.P. Articles 1471 and 1473, including a judgment by default against the disobedient defendants, the granting of reasonable attorneys’ fees and reasonable expenses incurred. After hearing the trial court rendered judgment only as follows: Condemning Paul A. Paciera, Jr. to pay petitioner reasonable expenses in the sum of $500 plus costs in bringing the rule. Paciera has appealed.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. C.C.P. Article 1841 defines interlocutory and final judgments, and C.C.P. Article 2083 provides that an appeal may be taken from a final judgment or from an interlocutory judgment which may cause irreparable injury. The appellate courts of Louisiana have uniformly held that judgments compelling payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses for failure to comply with discovery procedures are interlocutory in nature and are unappealable. *Winslow v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company,*359 So.2d 699 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1978); *Roy v. Moity, 225*So.2d 315 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1969); *Advertiser, Division of Independent, Inc. v. Tubbs,*199 So.2d 426 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1967); *Anderson v. Southern Consumers Education Foundation, Inc.,*196 So.2d 686 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1967). The case of *Berard v. American Employers Insurance Company,*246 So.2d 686 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1970) recognizes the application of that rule to parties, and holds only that a judgment imposing penalties against counsel himself was a final judgment.

In conformity with the jurisprudence of our fellow appellate courts, we conclude that the judgment rendered is an interlocutory judgment, and there has been no showing of irreparable injury. Appellant may obtain appellate review upon an appeal from the merits of the case. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal at appellants’ cost.

*APPEAL DISMISSED.*
EXHIBIT
23





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm











The Board
of Directors


PAR
Technology Corporation:





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-119828, 33-04968, 33-39784, 33-58110, 33-63095 and 333-137647) on Form S-8
and the registration statement (No. 333-102197) on Form S-3 of PAR Technology
Corporation of our report dated March 16, 2010, with respect to the consolidated
balance sheets of PAR Technology Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31,
2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
comprehensive income (loss), changes in shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009, and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,
2009, which report appears in the December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K
of PAR Technology Corporation.








/s/KPMG
LLP








Syracuse,
New York


March 16,
2010
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002;
                          QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
                    FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2003


Each  of  the  undersigned  hereby  certifies  in  his capacity as an officer of
SafeGuard Health Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company"), that the Quarterly Report of
the  Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such
period  and  the  results  of  operations  of  the  Company  for  such  period.

Pursuant  to  the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act  of  1934, this certification has been signed by the undersigned in the City
of  Aliso  Viejo,  State  of  California,  on  the  10th  day  of November 2003.


               SAFEGUARD  HEALTH  ENTERPRISES,  INC.


               By:   /s/  James  E.  Buncher
                     -----------------------
                    James  E.  Buncher
                    President  and  Chief  Executive  Officer
                    (Principal  Executive  Officer)

               By:  /s/  Dennis  L.  Gates
                    ----------------------
                    Dennis  L.  Gates
                    Senior  Vice  President  and  Chief  Financial  Officer
                    (Principal  Accounting  Officer)


                                       28
<PAGE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Andrew JOSEPH.

No. 65198.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

August 27, 1979.

In re State of Louisiana, applying for writ of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition. Parish of Orleans. No. 270-676.

Writ granted. All proceedings stayed until further orders of this Court; however, the State may avoid upsetting the trial by answering Interrogatory # 24 in which event this writ will be mooted.
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.690 Notice and effect of hearing decision. ( a ) As soon as practical after the close of the hearing, the hearing officer issues a written decision that— ( 1 ) Is based upon the evidence of record; and
( 2 ) Contains separately numbered findings of fact and conclusions of law.
( b ) The hearing officer provides a copy of the hearing decision to each party.
( c ) The hearing decision is final and binding unless it is reversed or modified by the Administrator following review under § 422.692, or reopened and revised in accordance with § 422.696.
#### James T. CLYNES v. Elaine Lowe CLYNES.

No. 65159.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1979.

In re James T. Clynes, applying for writ of certiorari or review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. No. 10,728.

Writ granted. Ruling of Court of Appeal reversed and set aside; judgment of the trial court is reinstated.
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

Editorial Note on Subpart L of Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subpart L of part 422 appear at 63 FR 35106, June 26, 1998.

§ 422.553 Effect of leasing of an MA organization's facilities. ( a ) *General effect of leasing.* If an MA organization leases all or part of its facilities to another entity, the other entity does not acquire MA organization status under section 1876 of the Act.
( b ) *Effect of lease of all facilities.* ( 1 ) If an MA organization leases all of its facilities to another entity, the contract terminates.
( 2 ) If the other entity wishes to participate in Medicare as an MA organization, it must apply for and enter into a contract in accordance with subpart K of this part.
( c ) *Effect of partial lease of facilities.* If the MA organization leases part of its facilities to another entity, its contract with CMS remains in effect while CMS surveys the MA organization to determine whether it continues to be in compliance with the applicable requirements and qualifying conditions specified in subpart K of this part.
[50 FR 1346, Jan. 10, 1985; 50 FR 20570, May 17, 1985, as amended at 58 FR 38079, July 15, 1993; 60 FR 45681, Sept. 1, 1995. Redesignated and amended at 63 FR 35067, 35106, June 26, 1998; 70 FR 52027, Sept. 1, 2005]
EXHIBIT 23
                                

Deloitte & Touche LLP
(logo)                   Two Prudential Plaza         Telephone (312) 946-3000
                         180 North Stetson Avenue     Facsimile:(312) 946-2600
                         Chicago, Illinois  60601-6779




INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement 
No. 33-62635 of Norwest Financial, Inc. on Form S-3  of our report 
dated January 18, 1999, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Norwest Financial, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1998.



\s\ Deloitte & Touche LLP

March 19, 1999
Chicago, Illinois

























Deloitte Touche
Tohmatsu
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000706270
<NAME> AMERICA WEST AIRLINES INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         105,545
<SECURITIES>                                    15,617
<RECEIVABLES>                                  104,019
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,005
<INVENTORY>                                     49,327
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               554,741
<PP&E>                                       1,078,334
<DEPRECIATION>                                 378,185
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,663,495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          489,915
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     882,469
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,663,495
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,146,955
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,949,054
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,352
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                200,974
<INCOME-TAX>                                    84,352
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   116,622
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 23.1


              INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON SCHEDULE AND CONSENT

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND STOCKHOLDERS
AMERICA WEST HOLDINGS CORPORATION:

    The audits referred to in our report dated March 29, 2000, included the
related consolidated financial statement schedule as listed in Item 14(d) for
the years ended December 31, 1999, 1998 and 1997, included herein. The
consolidated financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the consolidated
financial statement schedule based on our audits. In our opinion, such
consolidated financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the
basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in
all material respects, the information set forth therein.

    We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-60555), (Form S-8 No. 333-26935), (Form S-8 No. 333-94361),
(Form S-3 No. 333-51107) and (Form S-3 No. 333-02129) of America West Holdings
Corporation of our report dated March 29, 2000, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of America West Holdings Corporation and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated statements of income,
cash flows and stockholders' equity for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 1999 and the related consolidated financial statement
schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 1999, annual report on Form
10-K of America West Holdings Corporation.

                                                                        KPMG LLP

Phoenix, Arizona
March 29, 2000