alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2023064EN.01002901.xml

| 21.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/29

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

20 February 2023

(2023/C 64/11)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0674 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 143,09 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4461 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88738 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,0620 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9861 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 154,70 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,9683 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 23,693 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 382,83 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,7435 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9180 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 20,1379 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5456 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4367 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,3623 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7087 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4259 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 384,38 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 19,3471 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3191 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 178,69 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7291 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,675 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,708 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,5162 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,6555 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 88,3060 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0674

JPY

Japanese yen

143,09

DKK

Danish krone

7,4461

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88738

SEK

Swedish krona

11,0620

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9861

ISK

Iceland króna

154,70

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,9683

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

23,693

HUF

Hungarian forint

382,83

PLN

Polish zloty

4,7435

RON

Romanian leu

4,9180

TRY

Turkish lira

20,1379

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5456

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4367

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,3623

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7087

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4259

KRW

South Korean won

1 384,38

ZAR

South African rand

19,3471

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3191

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 178,69

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7291

PHP

Philippine peso

58,675

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

36,708

BRL

Brazilian real

5,5162

MXN

Mexican peso

19,6555

INR

Indian rupee

88,3060

---

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

---
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

Board of Directors and Stockholders 

Point Blank Solutions, Inc. 

We consent to the incorporation by reference inthe registration statement (No. 33-99032) on Form S-8 of Point Blank Solutions, Inc. of our reports dated March 14, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Point Blank Solutions, Inc. as of December 31, 2007 and 2006 and therelated consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2007, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2007, which reports appear in the December 31, 2007 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Point Blank Solutions, Inc. Our report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting expressed an adverse opinion on such effectiveness.

/s/ Rachlin LLP 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 

March 17, 2008
MEMORANDUM FORTHERECORD FROM: Kathi Epping, EE-43 i(t_ SUBJECT: Meeting with Energy Efficiency Advocates regarding Room Air Conditioner Energy Conservation Standards [Docket Numbers EE-RM-93-801 and EE-RM-93-801-RAC]

On September 27, 1996, DOEmet with Steve Nadel, ACEEE andGene Foley, Alliance to Save Energy; on conference call were Mike Martin, California Energy Commission; Jim Tait, Florida Energy Office; Charlie Stevens, Oregon Department ofEnergy; and David Goldstein, NRDC. DOE summarized the meeting ithad with AHAM the previous day (EE-RM-93-801-RAC No. 11), including the proposals which the Department had made. Because ofthe concern that had been expressed by AHAM regarding the "step-function-like" cost increases associated with chassis size increases, Steve Nadel, ACEEE, proposed usingthe lifecycle-cost minimums when the cost ofincreasing chassis size is prorated. Mr. Nadel referenced the handout provided by AHAM at a meeting on May 21, 1996. .(EE-RM-93-801-RAC No. 9 at Attachment 3A.) The energy efficiency advocates were concerned about loopholes thatcould be created ifthe standards for classes 8, 11, and 12 are not raised. They were concerned that a 1.0 EER orhigher difference between class 3, with louvers, and class 8,without louvers,.may allow manufacturers to produce class 8units less expensively than class 3 units, thus, creating a loophole. Similarly, the advocates were concerned that loopholes could be created ifthe standards forreverse cycle units (classes 11 and 12) differ.significantly from the standards oftheir "cool-only" counterparts. Theparticipants also consulted the AHAM directory inreference to casementroom air conditioners. The March 1996 AHAM Directory indicates that 12 outof 13 casement-only units meet 9.5 EER. Consequently, the meeting participants believed 9.5 EERwas areasonable standard level forthis class ofproduct. The potential ofModine Technology to improve heat exchange orperformance andlatent heat was also discussed. Charlie Stevens, Oregon Department ofEnergy stated he believed most manufacturers were in contact with Modine. The advocates also requested to call products with a reverse cycle "heat pump airconditioners."
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

KAELYN J. DRUMMOND,

1

Respondent BelowAppellant,

v.

MITCHELL R. DRUMMOND,

Petitioner BelowAppellee.

§

§ No. 267, 2017

§

§

§

§ Court Below—Family Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ C.A. No. CN10-05898

§ Petition No. 15-39427

§

Submitted: March 5, 2018

 Decided: March 15, 2018

O R D E R

This 15th day of March 2018, it appears that the Court issued by certified mail

a notice to the appellant to show cause why her appeal should not be dismissed for

her failure to file her opening brief. The appellant failed to accept service of the 

notice, which was resent to her by first class mail at the address she provided. The 

appellant has failed to respond to the notice to show cause within the required tenday period. Thus, dismissal of this action is deemed to be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 

Rules 3(b) and 29(b), that the within appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice

 

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).
§ 211.32 Definitions. The definitions in §§ 211.1 and 211.2 of subpart A apply to this subpart, subject to the following: ( a ) *Appropriate Federal Reserve Bank* has the same meaning as in § 211.21(c).
( b ) *Bank* has the same meaning as in section 2(c) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1841(c)).
( c ) *Company* has the same meaning as in section 2(b) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1841(b)).
( d ) *Eligible investors* means: ( 1 ) Bank holding companies, as defined in section 2(a) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1841(a));
( 2 ) Edge and agreement corporations that are subsidiaries of bank holding companies but are not subsidiaries of banks;
( 3 ) Banker's banks, as described in section 4(c)(14)(F)(iii) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(c)(14)(F)(iii)); and
( 4 ) Foreign banking organizations, as defined in § 211.21(o).
( e ) *Export trading company* means a company that is exclusively engaged in activities related to international trade and, by engaging in one or more export trade services, derives: ( 1 ) At least one-third of its revenues in each consecutive four-year period from the export of, or from facilitating the export of, goods and services produced in the United States by persons other than the export trading company or its subsidiaries; and
( 2 ) More revenues in each four-year period from export activities as described in paragraph (e)(1) of this section than it derives from the import, or facilitating the import, into the United States of goods or services produced outside the United States. The four-year period within which to calculate revenues derived from its activities under this section shall be deemed to have commenced with the first fiscal year after the respective export trading company has been in operation for two years.
( f ) *Revenues* shall include net sales revenues from exporting, importing, or third-party trade in goods by the export trading company for its own account and gross revenues derived from all other activities of the export trading company.
( g ) *Subsidiary* has the same meaning as in section 2(d) of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1841(d)).
( h ) *Well capitalized* has the same meaning as in § 225.2(r) of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.2(r)).
( i ) *Well managed* has the same meaning as in § 225.2(s) of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.2(s)).
# Ocean Dumping Convention – United States Department of State
#### § 160.42 State and local government obligations.

(a) Pursuant to HOLA section 5(c)(1)(H), a Federal savings association may invest in obligations issued by any state, territory, possession, or political subdivision thereof (“governmental entity”), subject to appropriate underwriting and the following conditions:

| | Aggregate limitation | Per-issuer limitation |
| --- | --- | --- |
| (1) General obligations | None | None. |
| (2) Other obligations of a governmental entity (*e.g.*, revenue bonds) if the issuer has an adequate capacity to meet financial commitments under the security for the projected life of the asset or exposure. An issuer has an adequate capacity to meet financial commitments if the risk of default by the obligor is low and the full and timely repayment of principal and interest is expected | None | 10% of the institution's total capital. |
| (3) Obligations of a governmental entity that do not qualify under any other paragraph but are approved by the OCC | As approved by the OCC | 10% of the institution's total capital. |

(b) *What is a political subdivision? Political subdivision* means a county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, a public authority, or a publicly-owned entity that is an instrumentality of a state or a municipal corporation.

(c) *What is a general obligation of a state or political subdivision?* A *general obligation* is an obligation that is guaranteed by the full faith and credit of a state or political subdivision that has the power to tax. Indirect payments, such as through a special fund, may qualify as general obligations if a state or political subdivision with taxing authority has unconditionally agreed to provide funds to cover payments.

(d) For all securities, the institution must consider, as appropriate, the interest rate, credit, liquidity, price, transaction, and other risks associated with the investment activity and determine that such investment is appropriate for the institution. The institution must also determine that the obligor has adequate resources and willingness to provide for all required payments on its obligations in a timely manner.

[76 FR 49030, Aug. 9, 2011, as amended at 77 FR 35258, June 13, 2012]
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00226-CV

IN RE GRAND LODGE OF TEXAS RELATOR

------------

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

------------

We have considered “Relator’s Motion To Dismiss Petition For Writ Of 

Mandamus.” It is the court=s opinion that the motion should be granted; 

therefore, we dismiss the petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8.

Further, we lift our June 24, 2011 stay of Respondent the Honorable Pat 

Ferchill’s verbal June 22, 2011 order requiring relator to produce documents by 

June 23, 2011, and Respondent the Honorable Lin Morrisett’s May 26, 2011 

order requiring relator to produce documents and/or a privilege log by June 2, 

2011, in cause number 2005-0000284-1-2, styled Estate of T J Gardner, 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Deceased, pending in Probate Court No. 2 of Tarrant County, Texas. “Relator’s 

Emergency Motion For Enforcement Of Stay” and real parties in interest’s 

“Conditional Motion to Determine no Violation of Court’s Stay Order” are denied 

as moot.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ. 

DELIVERED: October 27, 2011
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2826 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2826

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 1000 Avenida Sanchez Osorio in Carolina, Puerto Rico, as the 
           ``Roberto Clemente Walker Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 23, 2003

 Mr. Acevedo-Vila (for himself, Mr. Doyle, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Solis, 
Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. 
Pastor, Ms. Hart, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Greenwood, 
   Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Ortiz, Ms. Linda T. 
  Sanchez of California, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. 
  Murphy, Mr. Platts, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of 
California, Mr. Baca, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. McDermott, Ms. Watson, 
 Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. Frost, Mr. Upton, 
   Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mr. Sabo, Mr. McNulty, Mr. 
 Faleomavaega, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Ney, Ms. 
 Lee, Mr. Filner, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Owens, and Mr. Bilirakis) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 1000 Avenida Sanchez Osorio in Carolina, Puerto Rico, as the 
           ``Roberto Clemente Walker Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. ROBERTO CLEMENTE WALKER POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1000 Avenida Sanchez Osorio in Carolina, Puerto Rico, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Roberto Clemente Walker Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Roberto 
Clemente Walker Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1
                          RIVIERA HOLDINGS CORPORATION


                                  CERTIFICATION


In connection  with the periodic  report of Riviera  Holdings  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-K for the period  ending  December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  I, William L. Westerman,
hereby  certify  as of the date  hereof,  solely for the  purposes  of Title 18,
Chapter  63,  section  1350 of the United  States  Code,  that to the best of my
knowledge:

1)       The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
         15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

2)       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange commission or its
staff upon request.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date:  March 25, 2005
                                                     /s/ William L. Westerman
                                                      -----------------------
                                                      Chief Executive Officer
§ 1815.106 Supplemental environmental review. ( a ) The designated Fund official shall determine whether the proposed actions in the Application are sufficiently definite to perform a meaningful environmental review during the preliminary approval stage.
( b ) If the designated Fund official determines that the Application is sufficiently definite to perform a meaningful environmental review during the preliminary approval stage, no conditions for supplemental environmental review shall be imposed.
( c ) If the designated Fund official determines that the Application, or any part of the Application, is not sufficiently definite to complete a meaningful environmental review during the preliminary approval stage, the Fund shall require a supplemental environmental review prior to the taking of any action directly using Fund financial assistance that is not categorically excluded from environmental review or for which an environmental assessment or EIS has not been approved by the Fund. The applicant shall notify the designated Fund official when proposing any action requiring a supplemental environmental review and shall supply to the Fund all information necessary for the Fund to perform the supplemental environmental review. The Fund shall perform or have performed such a supplemental environmental review. The applicant shall not use any Fund financial assistance to perform any of the proposed actions requiring a supplemental environmental review that affect the physical environment until Fund approval for such action is received.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2822 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2822

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude working capital 
               in applying the accumulated earnings tax.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 22, 2003

 Mr. Wilson of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude working capital 
               in applying the accumulated earnings tax.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Accumulated Earnings Tax 
Modification Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. WORKING CAPITAL EXCLUDED FROM ACCUMULATED EARNINGS TAX.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 537 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(6) Working capital.--The reasonably anticipated needs of 
        a business shall include working capital for the business in an 
        amount that is not less than the sum of the cost of goods, 
        operating expenses, taxes, and interest expense that the 
        business incurred during the prior taxable year.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Julius Mautner et al., Appellants, *v.*Annie Pike et al., Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York, entered upon a verdict in favor of defendants.

Eugene Cohn and Julius- Levy, for appellants.

G-reenhall *&*Levy, for respondents.

McCarthy, J.

This is an appeal from a verdict for the defendants rendered at a trial and from an order allowing an extra allowance to the defendants, granted not at the time of the rendering of the verdict, hut granted by the trial justice at the same term, and I think shortly after the verdict was rendered, and that, too, without the Other side being present. We think that the granting of the extra allowance in the manner herein described was within the sound discretion of the court, and was proper.

We think, too, that the verdict should not be disturbed, inasmuch as the questions were properly submitted to the jury.

We do not observe any reversible error committed by the trial justice. Judgment must, therefore, be' affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

O’Dwyer, J., concurs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 86 (Thursday, May 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26277-26278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10664]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

Economic Impact Policy

    This notice is to inform the public that the Export-Import Bank of 
the United States has received an application for a $35 million 
transaction specific working capital guarantee to support the export of 
approximately $63.5 million worth of sulphur purification equipment and 
services to Iraq. The repayment term of the working capital guarantee 
is 24 months. The U.S. exports will enable the Iraqi mining company to 
establish a maximum production capacity of 500,000 metric tons of 
sulphur per year. Available information indicates that all of the Iraqi 
sulphur production will be sold domestically in Iraq. Interested 
parties may submit comments on this transaction by email to 
economic.impact@exim.gov or by mail to 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Room

[[Page 26278]]

947, Washington, DC 20571, within 14 days of the date this notice 
appears in the Federal Register.

Angela Mariana Freyre,
Senior Vice President and General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2012-10664 Filed 5-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
§ 238.83 Prohibited actions. ( a ) *Person.* If a person was convicted of a criminal offense described in § 238.84, or agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with a prosecution for such a criminal offense, he or she may not: ( 1 ) Become, or continue as, an institution-affiliated party with respect to any savings and loan holding company.
( 2 ) Own or control, directly or indirectly, any savings and loan holding company. A person will own or control a savings and loan holding company if he or she owns or controls that company under subpart D of this part.
( 3 ) Otherwise participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of any savings and loan holding company.
( b ) *Savings and loan holding company.* A savings and loan holding company may not permit any person described in paragraph (a) of this section to engage in any conduct or to continue any relationship prohibited under that paragraph.