alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006140EN.01000101.xml

| 15.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

14 June 2006

(2006/C 140/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2563 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 144,68 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4545 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68265 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2708 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5514 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 95,29 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8370 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5750 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,355 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 269,15 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0183 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5242 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,64 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,125 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,0125 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7004 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3993 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,7518 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,0125 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0035 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 208,69 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,6076 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,0568 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2588 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 908,47 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,614 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 66,873 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,0440 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,217 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2563

JPY

Japanese yen

144,68

DKK

Danish krone

7,4545

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68265

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2708

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5514

ISK

Iceland króna

95,29

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8370

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5750

CZK

Czech koruna

28,355

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

269,15

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0183

RON

Romanian leu

3,5242

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,64

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,125

TRY

Turkish lira

2,0125

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7004

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3993

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,7518

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,0125

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0035

KRW

South Korean won

1 208,69

ZAR

South African rand

8,6076

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,0568

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2588

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 908,47

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,614

PHP

Philippine peso

66,873

RUB

Russian rouble

34,0440

THB

Thai baht

48,217

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
§ 424.527 Provisional period of enhanced oversight. ( a ) *New provider or supplier.* Exclusively for purposes of both section 1866(j)(3) of the Act and this § 424.527, the term “new provider or supplier” is defined as any of the following: ( 1 ) A newly enrolling Medicare provider or supplier. (This includes providers that are required to enroll as a new provider in accordance with the change in majority ownership provisions in § 424.550(b).)
( 2 ) A certified provider or certified supplier undergoing a change of ownership consistent with the principles of 42 CFR 489.18. (This includes providers that qualify under § 424.550(b)(2) for an exception from the change in majority ownership requirements in § 424.550(b)(1) but which are undergoing a change of ownership under 42 CFR 489.18).
( 3 ) A provider or supplier (including an HHA or hospice) undergoing a 100 percent change of ownership via a change of information request under § 424.516.
( b ) *Effective date.* The effective date of a provisional period of enhanced oversight that is commenced under section 1866(j)(3) of the Act is the date on which the new provider or supplier submits its first claim.
[88 FR 77877, Nov. 13, 2023]
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6887

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. BEVERLY ALLEN BAKER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 5:11

- cr
- 00237

- D

- 1 )

Submitted : November 26, 2019 Decided: December 5, 2019

Before WYNN and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by un published per curiam opinion

.
Beverly Allen Baker, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Beverly Baker appeal s the district court’s denial of her motion to reinstate her direct appeal. W e must first decide whether the district court had jurisdiction to rule on Baker’s
motion. See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch

. Dist. , 475 U.S. 534, 54 1 (1986) ; Di Biase v. SPX Co rp. , 872 F.3d 224, 232 (4th Cir. 2017). While Baker claimed that she filed this motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), we must examine the substance of the motion to
ascertain whether it sought relief under Rule 60(b) or actually amounted to a successive § 2255 motion. Gonzalez v. Crosby , 545 U.S. 524, 531

- 32 (2005). If the motion attacks the “integrity” of the proceedings, it is a Rule 60(b) motion. Id. at 532. If it attacks the

“ res olution of a claim on the merits , ” however, it is a § 2255 motion. Id.
We conclude that Baker’s motion to reinstate her direct appeal was tantamount to a § 2255 motion, as it directly attack ed the conclusions of Baker’s previous § 2255 proceedings. Acc ordingly, because Baker had previously filed a § 2255 motion and ha d not received leave to file another one, the district court lacked jurisdiction to rule on
Baker’s motion. See United States v. McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 397 (4th Cir. 2015). We
therefore vac ate the district court’s denial of the motion to reinstate and remand with instructions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. See United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). Additionally, we construe Baker ’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See id. Baker’ s claims do not satisfy the criteria in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) for obtain ing authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion . Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
#### John Edwin BRIDGES, Appellant, v. Patricia S. BRIDGES, Appellee.

No. U-335.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 15, 1974.

Phillips, Williams, McCraw, Cetti & O’Brien, Pensacola, for appellant.

Levin, Warfield, Graff, Mabie & Rosen-bloum, Pensacola, for appellee.

*459PER CURIAM.

We have examined the record and have considered the briefs and arguments of counsel and find the final judgment fully-supported by the evidence with the exception of the award to each party of an undivided one-half interest in the boat. We find that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding a special equity in the boat to appellee.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part with directions to modify the final judgment to award the boat to appellant. In addition, appellee’s request for allowance of a reasonable attorney’s fee for her attorney’s representation of her on this appeal is granted and the trial judge is directed to assess such fee to be paid by appellant.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and McCORD and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 457

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 457 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010 and 77 FR 17213, 2013.

#### § 457.355 Presumptive eligibility for children.

The State may provide coverage under a separate child health program for children determined by a qualified entity to be presumptively eligible for the State's separate CHIP in the same manner and to the same extent as permitted under Medicaid under § 435.1101 and § 435.1102 of this chapter.

[81 FR 86466, Nov. 30, 2016]
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Robert L. BASKIN.

No. 54730.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 8, 1974.

In re: State of Louisiana through the District Attorney applying for Writ of Certiorari.

Writ denied. See State v. Baskin, La., 301 So.2d 313.
#### § 440.1 Basis and purpose.

This subpart interprets and implements the following sections of the Act:

1902(a)(70), State option to establish a non-emergency medical transportation program.

1905(a) Services included in the term “medical assistance.”

1905 (c), (d), (f) through (i), (l), and (m) Definitions of institutions and services that are included in the term “medical assistance.”

1913 “Swing-bed” services. (See §§ 447.280 and 482.58 of this chapter for related provisions on “swing-bed” services.)

1915(c) Home and community-based services listed as “medical assistance” and furnished under waivers under that section to individuals who would otherwise require the level of care furnished in a hospital, NF, or ICF/IID.

1915(d) Home and community-based services listed as “medical assistance” and furnished under waivers under that section to individuals age 65 or older who would otherwise require the level of care furnished in a NF.

1915(i) Home and community-based services furnished under a State plan to elderly and disabled individuals.

[57 FR 29155, June 30, 1992, as amended at 61 FR 38398, July 24, 1996; 73 FR 77530, Dec. 19, 2008; 79 FR 3029, Jan. 16, 2014; 79 FR 27153, May 12, 2014]
#### Ray Walter THOMPSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 78-1049.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 20, 1979.

J. Edward Worton, Key West, for appellant.

*671Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Joel D. Rosen-blatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, J., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.) and EZELL, BOYCE F., Jr., (Ret.), Associate Judges.

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

On the authority of *Wilson v. State,*359 So.2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), we reject the defendant-appellant’s contention that he was privileged to trespass into the trailer where his wife was staying with a male friend.

Because he made no objections below either to the court’s instructions or to the pertinent verdict form, we do not consider his alternative claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that the elements of the lesser included crime of which he was convicted were not alleged in the information. Under the circumstances of this case, which are very similar to those involved in *Andrews v. State,*309 So.2d 576, 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (specially concurring opinion), the alleged error was not a fundamental one which may be reviewed notwithstanding the defendant’s failure to preserve the point below. *Andrews*v. *State,*supra; see also *Smith v. State,*344 So.2d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 353 So.2d 678 (Fla.1977); *McPhee v. State,*254 So.2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); compare *Minor v. State,*329 So.2d 30, 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), and cases cited.

Affirmed.
#### Isaac FELDMAN, Appellant, v. Zena K. FELDMAN, Appellee.

No. 80-62.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 9, 1980.

*1232Weintraub, Weintraub, Seiden, Dudley & Press and Albert L. Weintraub, Miami, for appellant.

Markus & Winter and Laurie S. Silvers, Miami, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, C. J., and BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.

The portions of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage which awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $10,000 to the wife, Zena Feldman, and ordered Isaac Feldman to transfer to Zena twenty-six per cent of the operating capital of American Men’s Wear Clothing Company, Inc., are reversed upon holdings that (1) the failure of the wife to offer expert testimony to establish the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees vitiates the award, *Alexander Muss & Sons, Inc. v. Nelson,*366 So.2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); *Wilson v. Wilson,*362 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); *Segal v. Segal,*353 So.2d 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); *Lee v. Gilbert, Silverstein & Heilman, P. A.,*350 So.2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); (2) the trial court, although well within its authority to order, as it did, the husband to transfer to the wife stock owned by him in American Men’s Wear Clothing Company, Inc., was not empowered to order the transfer of the assets of a corporation which was not a party to the litigation, *see Couture v. Couture,*307 So.2d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

Since the wife’s failure to offer expert testimony on the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees may have resulted from the trial court’s premature award of such fees, we remand this cause with directions that the wife be afforded an opportunity to present such testimony at a further hearing before the trial court. In all other respects, the final judgment of dissolution is affirmed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
No. 99-9015.

#### Farah *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Frank C. GARDNER et al., Petitioners, v. SAILBOAT KEY, INC., et al., Respondents.

No. 45887.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 4, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 295 So.2d 658.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

ERVIN and OVERTON, dissent.
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3568

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 26, 1996

Received

AN ACT

To designate 51.7 miles of the Clarion River, located in

Pennsylvania, as a component of the National Wild and

Scenic Rivers System.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16
2

HR 3568 RDS

1 U.S.C. 1274(a)) is amended by adding at the end the fol2 lowing new paragraph:

3 ‘‘( ) CLARION RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA.—The

4 51.7-mile segment of the main stem of the Clarion

5 River from the Allegheny National Forest/State

6 Game Lands Number 44 boundary, located approxi7 mately 0.7 miles downstream from the Ridgway Bor8 ough limit, to an unnamed tributary in the back9 waters of Piney Dam approximately 0.6 miles down10 stream from Blyson Run, to be administered by the

11 Secretary of Agriculture in the following classifica12 tions:

13 ‘‘(A) The approximately 8.6-mile segment

14 of the main stem from the Allegheny National

15 Forest/State Game Lands Number 44 bound16 ary, located approximately 0.7 miles down17 stream from the Ridgway Borough limit, to

18 Portland Mills, as a recreational river.

19 ‘‘(B) The approximately 8-mile segment of

20 the main stem from Portland Mills to the Alle21 gheny National Forest boundary, located ap22 proximately 0.8 miles downstream from Irwin

23 Run, as a scenic river.

24 ‘‘(C) The approximately 26-mile segment

25 of the main stem from the Allegheny National
3

HR 3568 RDS

1 Forest boundary, located approximately 0.8

2 miles downstream from Irwin Run, to the State

3 Game Lands 283 boundary, located approxi4 mately 0.9 miles downstream from the

5 Cooksburg bridge, as a recreational river.

6 ‘‘(D) The approximately 9.1-mile segment

7 of the main stem from the State Game Lands

8 283 boundary, located approximately 0.9 miles

9 downstream from the Cooksburg bridge, to an

10 unnamed tributary at the backwaters of Piney

11 Dam, located approximately 0.6 miles down12 stream from Blyson Run, as a scenic river.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 25,

1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.

By JEFF TRANDAHL,

Assistant to the Clerk.
#### § 436.1000 Scope.

This subpart specifies when, and the extent to which, FFP is available in expenditures for determining eligibility and for Medicaid services to individuals determined eligible under this part, and prescribes limitations and conditions on FFP for those expenditures.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Stephen T. McGowan, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Sun Microsystems, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004, fully complies, subject to the disclosures therein, with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Sun Microsystems, Inc.



By:

/s/  STEPHEN T. MCGOWANName: Stephen T. McGowanTitle:   Chief Financial Officer
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Designating Iranian Cyber Officials

# 									Designating Iranian Cyber Officials							

Press Statement

Matthew Miller, Department Spokesperson

February 2, 2024

The United States is today designating the head of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Cyber–Electronic Command (IRGC-CEC), an organization that has been responsible for a series of cyberattacks on critical infrastructure in the United States and other countries, and five of its senior officials.

The United States is taking action against these individuals to respond to these harmful activities and IRGC-affiliated cyber actors’ recent cyber operations targeting programmable logic controllers (PLCs), in which actors used default credentials to display an anti-Israel message on the PLCs’ human-machine interface. Industrial control devices, such as PLCs, used in water and other critical infrastructure systems, are sensitive targets.  Although this particular operation fortunately did not disrupt any critical services, unauthorized access to critical infrastructure systems poses an elevated risk of harm to the public and can result in devastating humanitarian consequences.

Cyber operations that intentionally damage or impair the operation of critical infrastructure are destabilizing and potentially escalatory.  Today’s action sends a clear message that such actions will not be tolerated.

*The Department of the Treasury action was taken pursuant to**Executive Order 13224**, as amended.  For more information on this designation, see Treasury’s**press release**.*

Tags

Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital PolicyBureau of Near Eastern AffairsCyber IssuesCyber SecurityCybersecurity ExchangeIranOffice of the Coordinator for Cyber IssuesOffice of the SpokespersonSanctions

Back to Top
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...G7 Foreign Ministers’ Statement on the Situation Along Ukraine’s Borders

# 									G7 Foreign Ministers’ Statement on the Situation Along Ukraine’s Borders							

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

April 12, 2021

*The text of the following statement was released by the G7 foreign ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States of America and the High Representative of the European Union.*

Begin Text:

We, the G7 foreign ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States of America and the High Representative of the European Union are deeply concerned by the large ongoing build-up of Russian military forces on Ukraine’s borders and in illegally-annexed Crimea.

These large-scale troop movements, without prior notification, represent threatening and destabilising activities. We call on Russia to cease its provocations and to immediately de-escalate tensions in line with its international obligations. In particular, we call on Russia to uphold the OSCE principles and commitments that it has signed up to on transparency of military movements and to respond to the procedure established under Chapter III of the Vienna Document.

Recalling our last statement of 18 March, we reaffirm our unwavering support for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders. We support Ukraine’s posture of restraint.

We underline our strong appreciation and continued support for France’s and Germany’s efforts through the Normandy Process to secure the full implementation of the Minsk agreements, which is the only way forward for a lasting political solution to the conflict.  We call on all sides to engage constructively in the Trilateral Contact Group on the OSCE’s proposals to confirm and consolidate the ceasefire.

*End text.*

Tags

Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization OperationsBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsCanadaConflictsFranceGermanyItalyJapanOffice of the SpokespersonRussiaUkraineUnited Kingdom

Back to Top
HomeWanted: Narcotics Rewards Program Targets...Luis Antonio Lozada

# 									Luis Antonio Lozada							

Narcotics Rewards Program: Wanted

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs

March 28, 2017

**NAME:** Luis Antonio Lozada**ALIASES**: Carlos Antonio Lozada, Julian Gallo Cubillos**DOB:** March 24, 1961**POB:**Colombia**NATIONALITY:** Colombian**CITIZENSHIP:** Colombia**HEIGHT:** Unknown**WEIGHT:** Unknown**HAIR COLOR:** Grey**EYE COLOR:** Brown**SCARS, TATTOOS, OR MARKS:**Unknown

Luis Antonio Lozada is allegedly a member of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), which is a foreign terrorist organization in Colombia that was established in 1964. The FARC had a Marxist philosophy and is Latin America’s oldest, largest, most capable, and best-equipped insurgency — with perhaps 12,000 fighters and thousands of supporters. The FARC’s declared intent is to overthrow the democratic Colombian government. In addition to its attacks on Colombian military, political, and economic targets, the FARC is deeply involved in narcotics trafficking, kidnapping for ransom, extortion, murder, and other criminal activities.

Lozada is allegedly a member of the Estado Mayor and participated in setting and implementing the FARC’s cocaine policies, including directing and controlling the production, manufacture, and distribution of hundreds of tons of cocaine to the United States and the world; the “taxation” of the drug trade in Colombia to raise funds for the FARC; and the murder of hundreds of people who violated or interfered with the FARC’s cocaine policies.

The United States Department of State is offering a **REWARD OF UP TO $2.5 MILLION** for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of **Luis Antonio Lozada**.

If you have information and are located outside of the United States, please contact the nearest United States Embassy or Consulate. If in the United States, please contact the local Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office in your city. Government officials and employees are not eligible for rewards.

**ALL IDENTITIES ARE KEPT STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL.**

This reward was approved by the Secretary of State in March 2006

Tags

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsColombiaDrug TraffickingNarcoticsRewards for Justice

Back to Top
#### SOUTH DADE UTILITIES, INC., and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Paige Allison HARMS, a minor, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 74-818.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 2, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.

[54 C. Cls., 215 ; 255 U. S., 349.]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was *affirmed,*and the Supreme Court decided:

A railroad company, acquiescing in the practice and rulings of Government officials, charged and collected the “land-grant” rates for transportation of Army officers’ effects upon which it was entitled to collect higher commercial rates. *Held,,*that it had waived its right to collect more and could not recover more in the Court of Claims. See *Oregon-WasMngton R. R.*<£• *navigation, Oo.*v. *United States, ante,*339.

The transportation of Army officers’ effects for the Government at Government expense may be done at special rates under section 22 of the interstate commerce act.

Mr. Justice McKenna

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court March 7, 1921.