alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020221EN.01000301.xml

| 6.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

3 July 2020

(2020/C 221/03)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1224 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 120,68 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4516 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,90120 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,4715 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0623 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 156,30 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,6775 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,665 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 352,55 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4687 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,8370 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 7,6957 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6175 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5233 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6987 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7204 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5654 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 346,54 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 19,1761 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,9310 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5570 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 286,02 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8123 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 55,536 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 80,2153 |
| THB | Thai baht | 34,918 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,0117 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 25,3049 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 83,8210 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1224

JPY

Japanese yen

120,68

DKK

Danish krone

7,4516

GBP

Pound sterling

0,90120

SEK

Swedish krona

10,4715

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0623

ISK

Iceland króna

156,30

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,6775

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,665

HUF

Hungarian forint

352,55

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4687

RON

Romanian leu

4,8370

TRY

Turkish lira

7,6957

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6175

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5233

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6987

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7204

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5654

KRW

South Korean won

1 346,54

ZAR

South African rand

19,1761

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,9310

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5570

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 286,02

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8123

PHP

Philippine peso

55,536

RUB

Russian rouble

80,2153

THB

Thai baht

34,918

BRL

Brazilian real

6,0117

MXN

Mexican peso

25,3049

INR

Indian rupee

83,8210

---

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

---
# Official Journal L 118/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 118 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 626 May 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 118

English edition

Legislation

Volume 626 May 2019

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/693 of 7 February 2019 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 481/2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1299/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to specific rules on eligibility of expenditure for cooperation programmes | 1 |
| | * | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/694 of 15 February 2019 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the form of financing which is not linked to costs of the relevant operations | 4 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/695 of 26 April 2019 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Gönci kajszibarack’ (PGI)) | 9 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/693 of 7 February 2019 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 481/2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1299/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to specific rules on eligibility of expenditure for cooperation programmes

1

*

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/694 of 15 February 2019 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the form of financing which is not linked to costs of the relevant operations

4

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/695 of 26 April 2019 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Gönci kajszibarack’ (PGI))

9

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Political Declaration on Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy

# 											Political Declaration on Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy									

Media Note

Office of the Spokesperson

November 13, 2023

Today, the United States joined 45 endorsing states to launch the implementation of the Political Declaration on Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy. 

This groundbreaking initiative contains ten concrete measures to guide the responsible development and use of military applications of AI and autonomy.  The Declaration, and the measures it outlines, are an important step in building an international framework of responsibility to allow states to harness the benefits of AI while mitigating the risks.  The United States is committed to working together with other endorsing states to build on this important development.  

This is an important demonstration of the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to the responsible development of AI. 

Calling on states to join the Declaration, Vice President Harris said in a speech in London on November 1, “History will show that this was the moment when we had the opportunity to lay the groundwork for the future of AI.  And the urgency of this moment must then compel us to create a collective vision of what this future must be.” 

The United States and the governments of Albania, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kosovo, Latvia, Liberia, Libya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malta, Montenegro, Morocco, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Türkiye, and the United Kingdom have taken a positive step towards creating that collective vision.  

The Declaration lays the foundation for states to engage in continued dialogue on responsible military use of the full range of AI applications, including sharing best practices, expert-level exchanges, and capacity-building activities.   

We echo the Vice President’s call for other states to endorse the Declaration and work with us to develop the norms of responsibility for military applications of AI and autonomy. 

Tags

Artificial IntelligenceOffice of the SpokespersonScience, Technology, and InnovationTechnology

Back to Top
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129139 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 129139 

 COA: 259063 
 Wayne CC: 98-013581

MICHAEL PAUL TUDOR,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 24, 2005 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

d1121 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2005 

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6469
RICHARD A. VOGENEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ZEB CREWS; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-95-204-2-MU) Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard A. Vogeney, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying reconsideration of the court's prior order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 petition, which the court properly construed as an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no abuse of discretion. Accordin gly, we deny acertificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Vogeney v. Crews , No. CA-95-204-2-MU (W.D.N.C. Mar. 11, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### SERVED: June 24, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

### 2014 JUN ')5

. OFFICE OF HEARINGS

. 4 

### 1-\ 

## c;: 31 WASHINGTON, DC

IN THE MATTER OF 

### LEARJET INC. DOCKETNO. FAA 2014-01 J3 ·(Civil Penalty Action).



### AMENDED PROCEDURAL ORDER The parties have agreed to an extension ofdiscovery deadlines. Accordingly, paragraphs #2 and #3 ofthe Procedural Order are amended as follows: WHEREFORE, the parties be and.are hereby ORDERED to adhere to the following procedural schedule: 1. Onorbefore September 26, 2014, the parties shall conclude all discovery including, butnot limited to, depositions, dociunent production, responses to production requests and/orinterrogatories. Ifthe parties cannotresolve a discovery dispute they shall submit the dispute to the undersigned for resolution in a.timely manner; 2. The parties shall be prepared to presentthis case at a hearing on or after September 26, 2014, subJect to the availability ofcourtroom facilities. The specific date and time for the hearing will be forthcoming in a separate Order. ·

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative LawJudge Attachment- Service ListSERVICE LIST -.BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2 W 1 000 1
ONE COPY 

### Mr. Ralph Acs, Vice President & 

### General Manager Learjet, Inc., Respondent 

### P.O. Box 7707 Wichita, KS 67277-7707 TEL: NOT PROVIDED FAX: ·NOTPROVIDED Brenda

### R. Mesker, Director ofLegal Services Learjet, Inc. One Learjet Way Wichita, KS 67209 TEL: NOT PROVIDED FAX: NOT PROVIDED Kenneth P. Quinn, Esquire, Respondent 's Counsel 

### Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037-1122 TEL: 202-663-8000 FAX: 202-663-8007 David Kessler, Complainant's Co·unsel 

### Federal Aviation Administration 901 Locust, Room 506 Kansas City, MO 64106-2641. TEL: 816-329-3763 FAX: 816-329-3771 DocketNo. FAA-2014-0113 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited**~ourier,** use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. ·
2

# ----------------

# ...........

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAC(: 202-366-7536

3
§ 78.135 Visits to monitor operation and compliance. ( a ) VA has the right, at all reasonable times, to make visits to all grantee locations where a grantee is using suicide prevention services grant funds to review grantee accomplishments and management control systems and to provide such technical assistance as may be required. VA may conduct inspections of all program locations and records of a grantee at such times as are deemed necessary to determine compliance with the provisions of this part. In the event that a grantee delivers services in a participant's home, or at a location away from the grantee's place of business, VA may accompany the grantee. If the grantee's visit is to the participant's home, VA will only accompany the grantee with the consent of the participant. If any visit is made by VA on the premises of the grantee or a community partner under the suicide prevention services grant, the grantee must provide, and must require its community partners to provide, all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and convenience of the VA representatives in the performance of their duties. All visits and evaluations will be performed in such a manner as will not unduly delay services.
( b ) The authority to inspect carries with it no authority over the management or control of any applicant or grantee under this part.
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/gpo24604 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2021 Fiscal Transparency Report…Azerbaijan

# 					2021 Fiscal Transparency Report: Azerbaijan			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Azerbaijan 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Azerbaijan

During the review period, budget documents and debt obligations were publicly available, including online, and provided a substantially complete picture of the government’s revenues, including natural resource revenues.  While budget documents did not fully disaggregate allocations to or earnings from state-owned enterprises, more detailed information was available through other public documents.  Audited financial statements for significant, large state-owned enterprises were publicly available online.  Information in budget documents was generally reliable.  Azerbaijan’s supreme audit institution audited the government’s annual executed budget, and its reports and opinions on state budget execution were publicly available within a reasonable period of time.  However, the criteria and procedures by which the national government awards contracts or licenses for natural resource extraction—particularly for oil production sharing agreements—were only partially specified in law, regulation, or public documents.  It is not clear to what extent the government followed applicable laws and regulations for awarding contracts or licenses for natural resource extraction.  Basic information on such awards was made publicly available after contracts were awarded.  The country’s sovereign wealth fund discloses its source of funding and general approach to withdrawals. Azerbaijan’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- specifying fully in law or regulation the criteria and procedures for awarding natural resource extraction contracts and following applicable laws and regulations in practice.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Azerbaijan 

Tags

AzerbaijanBureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and Development

Back to Top

                - White House
                - USA.gov
                - Office of the Inspector General
                - Archives
                - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

              - Privacy Policy
              - Accessibility Statement
              - Copyright Information
              - FOIA
              - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          69,449
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             196
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                23,548
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    376,017
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         178,984
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           181,516
<LOANS>                                      1,862,809
<ALLOWANCE>                                     24,518
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,592,839
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,079,517
<SHORT-TERM>                                   123,077
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             21,773
<LONG-TERM>                                    113,537
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,134
<OTHER-SE>                                     238,801
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,592,839
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 77,584
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               15,927
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,103
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                94,614
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              38,019
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43,081
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           51,533
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,183
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 329
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 32,382
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,101
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      27,101
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,309
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.14
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     453
<LOANS-NON>                                     16,324
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,263
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                23,291
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,370
<RECOVERIES>                                       329
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               24,518
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            24,518
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
# Official Journal L 139/2016

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 139 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5926 May 2016 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 139

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5926 May 2016

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/799 of 18 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the requirements for the construction, testing, installation, operation and repair of tachographs and their components (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/799 of 18 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the requirements for the construction, testing, installation, operation and repair of tachographs and their components (
  1
  )

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### MALAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 362, Docket 27722.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued May 28, 1963.

Decided May 28, 1963.

Alvin L. Korngold, Mineóla, N. Y., for appellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty., Southern District of New York (John Paul Reiner, Eugene R. Anderson, Robert E. Kushner, Asst. U. S. Attys., of counsel), for appellee.

Before WATERMAN, FRIENDLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to the Wunderlich Act, 41 U.S.C. §§ 321, 322, plaintiff brought this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for additional compensation under a contract it had with the Veterans Administration, claiming it was ordered to perform work it was not contractually required to perform. Pursuant to the standard government contract “disputes clause” plaintiff’s claim was submitted to the Contracting Officer, whose decision was adverse to plaintiff. Appeal was taken to the Construction Contract Appeals Board which also denied the claim.

*710Plaintiff complains, though agreeing with the Government that there are no genuine issues of fact in dispute, that the Veterans Administration’s procedures adopted in its case denied it procedural due process and denied it its constitutional rights, violated the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 1001 et seep; and the final decision adverse to it was not supported *by substantial*evidence.

We hold, as Judge Cashin held, that there is no merit to appellant’s claims, and we affirm the district court judgment on the opinion below.