alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021522EN.01001001.xml

| 28.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 522/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 522/10

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

27 December 2021

(2021/C 522/02)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1312 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 129,79 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4362 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84330 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,3250 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0396 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 147,40 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,0405 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,139 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 370,22 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6050 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9498 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 12,8099 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5685 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4529 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8246 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6660 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5354 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 343,60 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,5609 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,2087 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5025 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 081,55 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7318 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,830 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 83,2088 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,963 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,4157 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,3216 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 84,8105 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1312

JPY

Japanese yen

129,79

DKK

Danish krone

7,4362

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84330

SEK

Swedish krona

10,3250

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0396

ISK

Iceland króna

147,40

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,0405

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,139

HUF

Hungarian forint

370,22

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6050

RON

Romanian leu

4,9498

TRY

Turkish lira

12,8099

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5685

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4529

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8246

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6660

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5354

KRW

South Korean won

1 343,60

ZAR

South African rand

17,5609

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,2087

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5025

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 081,55

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7318

PHP

Philippine peso

56,830

RUB

Russian rouble

83,2088

THB

Thai baht

37,963

BRL

Brazilian real

6,4157

MXN

Mexican peso

23,3216

INR

Indian rupee

84,8105

---

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

---
#### PIGGOTT JUNIOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE *v.*Charlie HOLLIS et al

75-96

528 S.W. 2d 915

Opinion delivered October 20, 1975

[Rehearing denied November 24, 1975.]

*693
      *C. W. Knauts,*for appellant.

*C. Joseph Calvin*and *E. L. Hollaway,*for appellees.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

This litigation involving the right of the appellant, Piggott Junior Chamber of Commerce to lease county property has been before us on two previous occasions — see *Piggott Junior Chamber of Commerce*v. *Hollis,*242 Ark. 205, 412 S.W. 2d 595 (1967) and *Hollis*v. *Piggott Junior Chamber of Commerce,*248 Ark. 725, 453 S.W. 2d 410 (1970). Following the last reversal, the matter came on for hearing in circuit court without the mandate from this court having been filed within the time limited by Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-2144 (Repl. 1962) and Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-2145 (Repl. 1962). Because of the failure to file the mandate within the twelve months limited by those statutes, the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the order from which this appeal was taken. See *Robeson*v. *Kempner,*189 Ark. 27, 70 S.W. 2d 37 (1934) and *Palmer*v. *Carden, Chancellor,*239 Ark. 336, 389 S.W. 2d 428 (1965).

The appellees, to sustain the lack of jurisdiction in the trial court, contend that the issue was waived because it was not raised in the trial court. Appellees rely upon the cases of *Bertig Bros.*v. *Independent Gin Co.,*147 Ark. 581, 228 S.W. 392 (1921) and *Union Nat’l Bank of Little Rock*v. *Smith,*240 Ark. 354, 400 S.W. 2d 652 (1966), for the proposition that the failure to file the mandate could be waived. However, in those cases the one year limitation had not expired when the parties waived the filing of the mandate, whereas in this case there was a lapse of over four years. Consequently, it follows that the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the order of December 30, 1974.

Reversed and remanded with directions to set aside the order of December 30, 1974, as having been entered without jurisdiction.
Exhibit 32  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PUSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respect the financial condition and results of operations of Vitro Diagnostics, Inc.   Date:  June 28, 2011 By: _/s/James R. Musick Name:  James R. Musick Title: President, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer Vitro Diagnostics, Inc.
§ 1209.50 Conduct of hearings. ( a ) *General rules.* ( 1 ) *Conduct.* Hearings shall be conducted in accordance with chapter 5 of title 5 and other applicable law and so as to provide a fair and expeditious presentation of the relevant disputed issues. Except as limited by this subpart, each party has the right to present its case or defense by oral and documentary evidence and to conduct such cross examination as may be required for full disclosure of the facts.
( 2 ) *Order of hearing.* FHFA counsel of record shall present its case-in-chief first, unless otherwise ordered by the presiding officer or unless otherwise expressly specified by law or regulation. FHFA counsel of record shall be the first party to present an opening statement and a closing statement and may make a rebuttal statement after the respondent's closing statement. If there are multiple respondents, respondents may agree among themselves as to the order of presentation of their cases, but if they do not agree, the presiding officer shall fix the order.
( 3 ) *Examination of witnesses.* Only one representative for each party may conduct an examination of a witness, except that in the case of extensive direct examination, the presiding officer may permit more than one representative for the party presenting the witness to conduct the examination. A party may have one representative conduct the direct examination and another representative conduct re-direct examination of a witness, or may have one representative conduct the cross examination of a witness and another representative conduct the re-cross examination of a witness.
( 4 ) *Stipulations.* Unless the presiding officer directs otherwise, all documents that the parties have stipulated as admissible shall be admitted into evidence upon commencement of the hearing.
( b ) *Transcript.* The hearing shall be recorded and transcribed. The transcript shall be made available to any party upon payment of the cost thereof. The presiding officer shall have authority to order the record corrected, either upon motion to correct, upon stipulation of the parties, or following notice to the parties upon the presiding officer's own motion.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10(b)

                           REPRESENTATION OF COUNSEL

I, Sandra M. DaDalt, in my capacity as counsel to Sun Life of Canada (U.S.)
Variable Account F (the "Account") have reviewed this Post-Effective
Amendment to the Registration Statement of the Account which is being filed
pursuant to paragraph (b) of Rule 485 under the Securities Act of 1933. Based
on my review of this Post-Effective Amendment and such other material
relating to the operations of the Account as I deemed relevant, I hereby
certify as of the date of filing this Post-Effective Amendment, that the
Post-Effective Amendment does not contain disclosure which would render it
ineligible to become effective pursuant to paragraph (b) of Rule 485.

I hereby consent to the filing of this representation as part of this
Post-Effective Amendment to the Registration Statement of the Account.

                                              /s/ SANDRA M. DADALT
                                              ----------------------
                                              Sandra M. DaDalt, Esq.


June 23, 2000
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 20

- 00348

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020

- 003890

- 1

Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Gabriel, J. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### R

YAN 

### W K EPHART AND 

### S TEFFANIE 

### K EPHART 

### , Appellants

V



### .
C HUXIONG 

### D ING 

### , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPI NION AND JUDGMENT
On November 4, 2020, and November 18, 2020, we notified appellant s , in
accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal

unless they paid the $205 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 44.3. Appe llant s have

not done so. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).
Because appellant s have not complied with a procedural requirement and the
Texas Supreme Cou rt’s order of August 28, 2015, 1 we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R.
App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).
Appella nt s m ust pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: December 10, 2020

1 See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi

- District Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 15

- 9158 (Aug. 28, 2015) (listing courts of appeals’ fees).
§ 42.21 Discovery. ( a ) The following types of discovery are authorized: ( 1 ) Requests for production of documents for inspection and copying;
( 2 ) Requests for admissions of the authenticity of any relevant document or the truth of any relevant fact;
( 3 ) Written interrogatories; and
( 4 ) Depositions.
( b ) For the purpose of this section and §§ 42.22 and 42.23 of this part, the term “documents” includes information, documents, reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data and documentary evidence. Nothing contained herein shall be interpreted to require the creation of a document.
( c ) Unless mutually agreed to by the parties, discovery is available only as ordered by the ALJ. The ALJ shall regulate the timing of discovery.
( d ) *Motions for discovery.* ( 1 ) A party seeking discovery may file a motion with the ALJ. The motion shall be accompanied by a copy of the requested discovery, or in the case of depositions, a summary of the scope of the proposed deposition.
( 2 ) Within ten days of service, a party may file an opposition to the motion and/or a motion for protective order as provided in § 42.24 of this part.
( 3 ) The ALJ may grant a motion for discovery only if the ALJ finds that the discovery sought— ( i ) Is necessary for the expeditious, fair, and reasonable consideration of the issues;
( ii ) Is not unduly costly or burdensome;
( iii ) Will not unduly delay the proceeding; and
( iv ) Does not seek privileged information.
( 4 ) The burden of showing that discovery should be allowed is on the party seeking discovery.
( 5 ) The ALJ may grant discovery subject to a protective order under § 42.24 of this part.
( e ) *Depositions.* ( 1 ) If a motion for deposition is granted, the ALJ shall issue a subpoena for the deponent, which may require the deponent to produce documents. The subpoena shall specify the time and place at which the deposition will be held.
( 2 ) The party seeking to depose shall serve the subpoena in the manner prescribed in § 42.8 of this part.
( 3 ) The deponent may file with the ALJ a motion to quash the subpoena or a motion for a protective order within ten days of service.
( 4 ) The party seeking to depose shall provide for the taking of a verbatim transcript of the deposition, which it shall make available to all other parties for inspection and copying.
( f ) Each party shall bear its own costs of discovery.
# C_2022100EN.01004001.xml

| 1.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/40

---

Dedicated Calls for proposals in 2022 under the Work Programme 2021-2022 of the Research Fund for Coal and Steel Programme (2021-2027)

(2022/C 100/08)

Notice is hereby given of the launch of two dedicated calls for proposals (i.e. one Big Tickets in coal and one Big Tickets call in steel) and related activities in 2022 under the Work Programme 2021-2022 of the Research Fund for Coal and Steel programme (2021-2027).

The Commission has adopted the RFCS Work Programme 2021-2022 by Decision C(2022)905 of 18 February 2022.

Proposals are invited for these calls. The RFCS Work Programme 2021-2022, including objectives, deadlines and budgets, is available through the Funding & Tender opportunities website along with information on the modalities of the calls and related activities and the information for applicants on how to submit proposals:

| | https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/home . |
| --- | --- |

https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/home .

---
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.355 Testamentary capacity for insurance purposes. When cases are referred to a rating agency involving the testamentary capacity of the insured to execute designations or changes of beneficiary, or designations or changes of option, the following considerations will apply: ( a ) Testamentary capacity is that degree of mental capacity necessary to enable a person to perform a testamentary act. This, in general, requires that the testator reasonably comprehend the nature and significance of his act, that is, the subject and extent of his disposition, recognition of the object of his bounty, and appreciation of the consequence of his act, uninfluenced by any material delusion as to the property or persons involved.
( b ) Due consideration should be given to all facts of record, with emphasis being placed on those facts bearing upon the mental condition of the testator (insured) at the time or nearest the time he executed the designation or change. In this connection, consideration should be given to lay as well as medical evidence.
( c ) Lack of testamentary capacity should not be confused with insanity or mental incompetence. An insane person might have a lucid interval during which he would possess testamentary capacity. On the other hand, a sane person might suffer a temporary mental aberration during which he would not possess testamentary capacity. There is a general but rebuttable presumption that every testator possesses testamentary capacity. Therefore, reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of testamentary capacity.
[26 FR 1590, Feb. 24, 1961]
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20

- 1881

_____________________________ S EVA T ECHNOLOGIES , L LC
, Appellant,

v.

F LORIDA D EPARTMENT OF M ANAGEMENT S ERVICES , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Florida Department of Management Services

. Jonathan Satter
, Secretary

. September 24, 2021

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R AY , M AKAR , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Geoffrey D. Smith, Timothy B. Elliott, and Stephen B. Burch of Smith & Associates, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

M. Drew Parker and Brittany Adams Long of the Radey Law Firm, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### § 1022.122 [Reserved]
EX-10.3



 Exhibit 10.3 

AMENDMENT NO. 2 
 TO

 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This
Amendment No. 2 (this “Amendment”), dated as of April 29, 2015, is made by and between Sprouts Farmers Markets, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Brandon Lombardi (the
“Executive”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive are parties to an employment agreement dated as of
January 23, 2012 (the “Effective Date”), as amended on November 15, 2012 (collectively, the “Employment Agreement”); and 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Employment Agreement as provided below. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual agreements herein contained, the parties hereby agree as follows, in each
case effective as of the Effective Date: 
 1. Amendment to Section 2. The second sentence of Section 2 shall hereby be
amended to read in its entirety as follows: 
 “On each annual anniversary of the Effective Date, the Term shall be extended for one
additional year, unless during the 30-day period prior to any such anniversary, the Company or the Executive notifies the other in writing not to have the Term so extended.” 

2. Ratification. All other provisions of the Employment Agreement remain unchanged and are hereby ratified by the Company and
Executive. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment on the date set forth above. 

 

					
	Sprouts Farmers Markets, Inc.
		
	 By:
		 /s/ Doug Sanders

	 Name:
		 Doug Sanders

	 Title:
		 President and CEO

	
	Executive
			
			 By:
		 /s/ Brandon Lombardi

			 Brandon Lombardi
# C_2021446EN.01001301.xml

| 3.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 446/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 446/13

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

2 November 2021

(2021/C 446/05)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1603 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 132,03 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4399 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84955 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,8973 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0594 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 150,80 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,7920 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,572 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 359,35 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6078 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9500 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 11,0656 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5544 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4389 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,0297 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6260 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5637 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 363,97 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,9158 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,4239 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5307 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 570,39 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8135 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,560 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 83,2159 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,568 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,5907 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 24,0730 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 86,6040 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1603

JPY

Japanese yen

132,03

DKK

Danish krone

7,4399

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84955

SEK

Swedish krona

9,8973

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0594

ISK

Iceland króna

150,80

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,7920

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,572

HUF

Hungarian forint

359,35

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6078

RON

Romanian leu

4,9500

TRY

Turkish lira

11,0656

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5544

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4389

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,0297

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6260

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5637

KRW

South Korean won

1 363,97

ZAR

South African rand

17,9158

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,4239

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5307

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 570,39

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8135

PHP

Philippine peso

58,560

RUB

Russian rouble

83,2159

THB

Thai baht

38,568

BRL

Brazilian real

6,5907

MXN

Mexican peso

24,0730

INR

Indian rupee

86,6040

---

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

---
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE: CELGARD, LLC,

Appellant

______________________ 

2016-1218

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2014-

00692.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

CYRUS ALCORN MORTON, Robins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, MN, argued for appellant. Also represented by 

ANDREW DOUGLAS HEDDEN, WILLIAM MANSKE; BRYAN J.

VOGEL, New York, NY.

 FRANCES LYNCH, Office of the Solicitor, United States 

Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for 

intervenor Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by NATHAN 

K. KELLEY, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, WILLIAM LAMARCA, SCOTT 

WEIDENFELLER. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 
 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, LOURIE and MOORE,

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 December 13, 2016 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announces the persons who will serve on the National Institutes of Health's Senior Executive Service 2009 Performance Review Board. This action is being taken in accordance with Title 5, U.S.C., Section 4314(c)(4), which requires that members of performance review boards be appointed in a manner to ensure consistency, stability, and objectivity in performance appraisals and requires that notice of the appointment of an individual to serve as a member be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

The following persons will serve on the NIH Performance Review Board, which oversees the evaluation of performance appraisals of NIH Senior Executive Service (SES) members: Ms. Colleen Barros (Chair); Dr. Michael Gottesman; Ms. Lenora Johnson; Ms. Robin Kawazoe; Dr. Raynard Kington; Ms. Janis Mullaney; Dr. Sally Rockey.

For further information about the NIH Performance Review Board, contact the Office of Human Resources, Workforce Relations Division, National Institutes of Health, Building 31, Room B3C07, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, telephone 301-402-9203 (not a toll-free number).

Dated: September 20, 2009.

Francis S. Collins,

Director, National Institutes of Health. 

[FR Doc. E9-23265 Filed 9-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P