alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023039EN.01001501.xml

| 1.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/15

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

31 January 2023

(2023/C 39/02)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0833 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 141,27 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4388 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88073 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,3480 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0032 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 153,10 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,9083 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 23,792 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 390,91 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,7090 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9210 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 20,3787 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5476 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4570 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,4898 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6858 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4268 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 338,90 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 18,9223 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3198 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 282,57 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6211 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,192 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 35,787 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,5373 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,3961 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 88,6360 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0833

JPY

Japanese yen

141,27

DKK

Danish krone

7,4388

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88073

SEK

Swedish krona

11,3480

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0032

ISK

Iceland króna

153,10

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,9083

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

23,792

HUF

Hungarian forint

390,91

PLN

Polish zloty

4,7090

RON

Romanian leu

4,9210

TRY

Turkish lira

20,3787

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5476

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4570

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,4898

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6858

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4268

KRW

South Korean won

1 338,90

ZAR

South African rand

18,9223

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3198

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 282,57

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6211

PHP

Philippine peso

59,192

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

35,787

BRL

Brazilian real

5,5373

MXN

Mexican peso

20,3961

INR

Indian rupee

88,6360

---

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

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheets and Consolidated Statements of Operations found on
pages 3 and 4 of the Partnership's Form 10Q for the Year-To-Date, and is
qualified in its' entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         2,147
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  11,738
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    2,670
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               94,257
<PP&E>                                         779,067
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (77,046)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 811,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          45,634
<BONDS>                                        641,934
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     118,532
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   811,120
<SALES>                                        313,739
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               313,739
<CGS>                                          260,574
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  260,574
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             61,943
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,032)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,032)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,032)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
42139.

#### TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY et al. v. EDGE.

Argued July 6, 1966

Decided September 6, 1966

Rehearing denied September, 20, 1966

*Greene, Neely, Buckley & DeBievx, J. Douglas Stewart,*for appellants.

*L. D. Skaggs,*for appellee.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

An award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation unreversed is res judicata of all matters therein adjudicated and cannot be challenged or changed *302except upon a showing of change in condition. See *Carney v. Travelers Ins. Co.,*101 Ga. App. 42 (112 SE2d 69), and citations.

The first award standing unreversed which denied the claimant compensation for the difficulties from which he was then suffering established that such condition was not compensable, and the evidence upon the second hearing, based upon a change in condition, which only established that such condition had become worse did not authorize the award of compensation. The superior court erred in affirming the award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Hall and Deen, JJ., concur.*
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Saint Lucia Independence Day

# 									Saint Lucia Independence Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

February 22, 2022

On behalf of the United States, I send best wishes to the people of Saint Lucia as you celebrate your 43rd anniversary of independence.

We are proud of the strong bilateral relationship between Saint Lucia and the United States.  Our partnership is rooted in a shared commitment to advancing security, prosperity, and democracy in the Caribbean.  We continue to fight the global pandemic together, bringing medical supplies and vaccines to the people of Saint Lucia.  Through renewed security cooperation, we stand with you to protect peace and prosperity for all Saint Lucians.

Our relationship has always been one of friendship and mutual respect.  We hope for a year of improved global health and the renewal of travel and tourism between our countries.

Tags

Bureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonSaint LuciaThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1140

_____________________________

VINSON SANDERS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Edward P. Nickinson, III, Judge.

September 6, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, OSTERHAUS, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Vinson Sanders, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
1

C o l v i l l e 

Ikpikp

uk 

River 

R i v

e

r 

Nuiqsut 

Umiat 

Atigaru Point 

Cape Halkett 

H a r r i s o n 

B

a y 

Pitt Point 

B e a u f o r t 

S e a 

F is h 

C r e e k 

T i n g m

i a

k s

i q v i k R i v e r 

K i k i a k r o r a k 

R i v e r 

K o g o s u k r u k 

R i v e r 

Jud y

Cr e e k 

Migu akiak R. 

1 E 

2 

8 

9 N 

A R C T I C O C E A N

Cape Simpson 

Sm it h Bay 

15 N 

3 2 1 W 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 

Teshekpuk Lake 14 

13 

12 

11 

10 

2 3 4 5

1 W 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 N 

3 4 5

1 W 1 E 2 3 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 

1 S 

LARGE SHOREBIRDS

Onshore Density (1992 - 2005)

(Birds per Square Kilometer) 

High

M 4 edium High

Medium

Low 5

None Observed 

0 6 12

Miles 6 

Source: Onshore Density Data: USFWS Migratory Bird Management, Anchorage, AK

Map 3-18. Onshore Density of Large Shorebirds in the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska 

2 

3
427 A.2d 244

#### Commonwealth v. Strickland.

Submitted March 21, 1980.

Robert L. Steinberg, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellant;

Richard J. Makoul, for appellee.

Before PRICE, CAVANAUGH and WATKINS, JJ.

The order of the court of common pleas is affirmed.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1672

___________

Michael Lewis Butler, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas *

Department of Correction; Greg *

Harmon, Warden, East Arkansas *

Regional Unit, ADC; Cheryl Evans, Lt., *

East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; *

Dondie Franklin, Sgt., East Arkansas * Appeal from the United States

Regional Unit, ADC; Harrison * District Court for the

Foreman, Sgt., East Arkansas Regional * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Unit, ADC; Lamontrell Jones, Officer, *

East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Timothy L. Morrison, Officer, East *

Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Felicia *

Phillips, East Arkansas Regional Unit, *

ADC; Cleaster Hubbard, Officer, East *

Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Brenda *

Anderson, Officer, East Arkansas *

Regional Unit, ADC; T. Compton, *

Grievance Supervisor, ADC; James *

Gibson, Internal Affairs Supervisor, *

ADC; Kathy Stewart; Mary Willis, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: September 9, 2010

Filed: September 16, 2010

___________
1

The Honorable Brian S. Miller, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of

Arkansas. 

-2-

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Michael Lewis Butler filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint

against several Arkansas Department of Correction employees. In September 2009,

Butler’s counsel informed the district court1

 that the parties had entered into a

settlement agreement, and counsel requested the action be dismissed with prejudice.

The court then ordered the complaint dismissed on September 14, but it did not enter

judgment and retained jurisdiction for thirty days to vacate its order if a party showed

that the settlement had not been completed. In October, Butler moved through

counsel to vacate the dismissal order and to reopen the case. In November, Butler

filed a separate pro se motion to vacate, arguing that the written settlement agreement

did not reflect certain verbal assurances made by defendants. In January 2010, the

district court denied the pending motions to vacate upon concluding that the parties

had settled, and entered judgment dismissing the action with prejudice. Butler

appeals.

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in concluding that the

parties had settled. See Chaganti & Assocs., P.C. v. Nowotny, 470 F.3d 1215, 1221

(8th Cir.2006) (standard of review; basic principles of contract law govern existence

and enforcement of alleged settlement); see also Worthy v. McKesson Corp., 756 F.2d

1370, 1373 (8th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (parties to voluntary settlement agreement

cannot avoid agreement simply because agreement ultimately proves to be

disadvantageous). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                           5
<MULTIPLIER>                                                        1

<S>                                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                              MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                                     29,028,000
<SECURITIES>                                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               5,092,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 (773,000)
<INVENTORY>                                                 2,815,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           38,676,000
<PP&E>                                                    155,097,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                            (25,528,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            171,281,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      22,105,000
<BONDS>                                                   100,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                        4,916
<OTHER-SE>                                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              171,281,000
<SALES>                                                    42,758,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           39,478,000
<CGS>                                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              34,405,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              850,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          2,717,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             1,507,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  527,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  979,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                    0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0.19


</TABLE>
42579.

#### FINANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. WILSON.

Deen, Judge.

Under the Uniform Commercial Code a holder takes commercial paper for value to the extent that he acquires a security interest therein *(Code Ann.*§ 109A-3-— *281303(a)) or takes it as security for an antecedent claim; and is a holder in due course where he takes the paper for value, in good faith, and without notice that it is overdue, has been dishonored, or is subject to the claim or defense of another person *(Code Ann.*§ 109A-3—302(1)). On motion for summary judgment in this case the plaintiff brought suit against the defendant Wilson for the unpaid balance on a promissory note regular on its face, signed by Wilson and made payable to the Citizens Bank, endorsed by the bank to Stockbridge Investment Corporation and by the latter to the plaintiff, the uncontroverted affidavit attached to the motion for summary judgment showing the endorsements to have been by authorized personnel, before maturity of the instrument, for value and without notice of a defense.

The defendant contends that the trial court properly denied the motion for summary judgment on the sole ground that the plaintiff, who held this and other commercial paper as collateral for a loan to Stockbridge Investment Corporation in the amount of $6,766.32 and antecedent loans of over $300,000 proceeded, after default by Stockbridge in its own obligations, to advertise and sell this and other notes at a judicial sale at which it repurchased them in its own name. Defendant relies on *Code Ann.*§ 109A-3—302(3): “A holder does not become a holder in due course of an instrument: (a) by purchase of it at judicial sale or by taking it under legal process.” Defendant, however, ignores *Code Ann.*§ 109A-3— 201 which provides that the transferee of an instrument takes all rights of the transferor unless he has been a party to fraud or illegality affecting the instrument. It is specifically provided that a prior holder with notice of a defense or claim cannot improve his position by taking from a later holder in due course. The status of one against whom a defense might have been urged in his prior capacity will not improve by interposing such a holder, but in the same vein one with the rights of a holder in due course, and who has not otherwise lost such rights, does not diminish his status by purchasing at a judicial sale although he may not *by virtue of such purchase alone*become a due course holder. That the Code has in this respect adhered to existing law see former *Code*§ 14-508; *Veal v. Jenkins,*58 Ga. App. 4 (3) (197 SE 328); *Code*§ 39-1303.

*282
      *Frankum, P. J., and Quillian, J., concur.*

Argued February 8, 1967

Decided February 23, 1967.

*Robert S. Whitelaw, Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Larry I. Bogart,*for appellant.

*S. T. Ellis,*for appellee.

The trial court erred iii denying the motion for summary judgment.

*Judgment reversed.*
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 10587 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JESUS DIAZ CARDOZO , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:15

- CR

- 340

- 1

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jesus Diaz Cardozo appeals the 27

- month sentence imposed in connection with his conviction for illegal reentry following deportation. He argues that the district court plainly erred in applying the eight

- level enhancement under former U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)( 1)(C) (2015). He contends that his prior conviction under Texas Penal Code (TPC) § 46.04 does not qualify as an aggravated felony because the Texas definitions of felony and firearm are

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 9, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-10587 Document: 00514108664 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2017No. 16

- 10587

2 broader than the definitions of those terms in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He concedes that this court rejected these arguments in the recent decision of United States v. Castillo

- Rivera , 853 F.3d 218, 226 (5th Cir. 2017) (en banc), petition for cert. filed (June 28, 2017) (No. 17

- 5054) , and h e raises the issue merely to preser ve it for further review. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance. Summary affirmance is proper where, among other instances, “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there
can be no subst antial question as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). The summary procedure is generally reserved for cases in which the parties concede that the issues are foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Lopez , 461 F. App’x 372, 374 n.6 (5th Cir. 2012).
T he motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED. Case: 16-10587 Document: 00514108664 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/09/2017
EX10.5 - Joseph Tyrrell Promotion Letter







March 23, 2015


Joseph Tyrrell


Dear Joe:
Congratulations, I am pleased to confirm your new role as Executive Vice President, of Corporate Strategy, which includes Product Strategy in addition to Business and Corporate Development.
In this new role and as an Officer of the company your total compensation package will include an annual salary of $275,000, a bonus target of 80% of your base salary and eligibility for ongoing equity grants.   With this promotion, you will be receiving an equity award with a grant date value of $800,000 divided equally into stock options, restricted stock units and performance shares units under the 2015 Senior Executive Performance Share Program.
In connection with your promotion, you will have a Change of Control Severance Agreement as well as a customary Indemnification Agreement.


We appreciate your service and contributions, and we wish you success in your new position at Ellie Mae. 
Sincerely,


Jonathan Corr
President and Chief Executive Officer
§ 208.71 What are the requirements to invest in or control a financial subsidiary? ( a ) *In general.* A state member bank may control, or hold an interest in, a financial subsidiary only if: ( 1 ) The state member bank and each depository institution affiliate of the state member bank are well capitalized and well managed;
( 2 ) The aggregate consolidated total assets of all financial subsidiaries of the state member bank do not exceed the lesser of: ( i ) 45 percent of the consolidated total assets of the parent bank; or
( ii ) $50 billion, which dollar amount shall be adjusted according to an indexing mechanism jointly established by the Board and the Secretary of the Treasury;
( 3 ) The state member bank, if it is one of the largest 100 insured banks (based on consolidated total assets as of the end of the previous calendar year), meets the debt rating or alternative requirement of paragraph (b) of this section, if applicable; and
( 4 ) The Board or the appropriate Reserve Bank has approved the bank to acquire the interest in or control the financial subsidiary under § 208.76.
( b ) *Debt rating or alternative requirement for 100 largest insured banks* — ( 1 ) *General.* A state member bank meets the debt rating or alternative requirement of this paragraph (b) if: ( i ) The bank has at least one issue of eligible debt outstanding that is currently rated in one of the three highest investment grade rating categories by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization; or
( ii ) If the bank is one of the second 50 largest insured banks (based on consolidated total assets as of the end of the previous calendar year), the bank has a current long-term issuer credit rating from at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization that is within the three highest investment grade rating categories used by the organization.
( 2 ) *Financial subsidiaries engaged in financial activities only as agent.* This paragraph (b) does not apply to a state member bank if the financial subsidiaries of the bank engage in financial activities described in § 208.72(a)(1) and (2) only in an agency capacity and not directly or indirectly as principal.
# C_2022451EN.01000101.xml

| 28.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 451/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 451/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2022/C 451/01)

Last publication

OJ C 441, 21.11.2022

Past publications

OJ C 432, 14.11.2022

OJ C 424, 7.11.2022

OJ C 418, 31.10.2022

OJ C 408, 24.10.2022

OJ C 398, 17.10.2022

OJ C 389, 10.10.2022

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
§ 211.7 Voluntary liquidation of Edge and agreement corporations. ( a ) *Prior notice.* An Edge or agreement corporation desiring voluntarily to discontinue normal business and dissolve, shall provide the Board with 45 days' prior written notice of its intent to do so.
( b ) *Waiver of notice period.* The Board may waive the 45-day period if it finds that immediate action is required by the circumstances presented.