alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007195EN.01000201.xml

| 23.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

22 August 2007

(2007/C 195/02)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3493 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 155,32 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4415 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67865 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3852 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6306 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 88,31 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9920 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5842 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,749 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 258,85 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6969 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8340 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,2655 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 33,761 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8122 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6752 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4299 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5339 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9281 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0611 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 273,87 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,8522 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,2547 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3275 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 676,67 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6989 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,635 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,8340 |
| THB | Thai baht | 43,908 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3493

JPY

Japanese yen

155,32

DKK

Danish krone

7,4415

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67865

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3852

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6306

ISK

Iceland króna

88,31

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9920

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5842

CZK

Czech koruna

27,749

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

258,85

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6969

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8340

RON

Romanian leu

3,2655

SKK

Slovak koruna

33,761

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8122

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6752

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4299

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5339

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9281

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0611

KRW

South Korean won

1 273,87

ZAR

South African rand

9,8522

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,2547

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3275

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 676,67

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6989

PHP

Philippine peso

62,635

RUB

Russian rouble

34,8340

THB

Thai baht

43,908

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 12, 2023

NO. 03-21-00564-CV

Keith Volk, Appellant

v.

Coryell County Sheriff’s Office, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES KELLY AND SMITH

REMANDED -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on October 4, 2021. The parties 

have announced they have resolved their dispute. Consistent with that resolution, we set aside 

the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and remand this cause to the trial court for 

rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement. The parties shall bear their

own costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
No. 52733.

protest 139203-K (New York).

#### Air Express International Agency, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record revealed that the protest was not filed within the statutory period of 60 days after the date of liquidation, as required by section 514, Tariff Act of 1930. The motion to dismiss was therefore granted.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Aeolus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard W. Reichow, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ RICHARD W. REICHOWRichard W. ReichowExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and TreasurerFebruary 8, 2005
July 19, 1939

No. 41863.

Suit 4161.

#### United *States*v. *Louis Wolf & Co.*

T. D. 49262 affirmed.
#### Jacob Goldstein, Resp’t, *v.*Meyer Stern, Applt.

*(City Court of New York, General Term,*

*Filed February 26, 1890.)*

Tender—Judgment.

Where a tender before suit is kept good by deposit in court, the judgment should follow the verdict and the deposit be credited after the judgment is entered. Where plaintiff credited such deposit on entering his judgment, an order allowing him to correct such mistake is properly allowed.

Appeal from order allowing plaintiff to amend judgment, and from an order denying a motion to vacate said judgment.

*S. F. Hyman,*for app’lt; *M. B. Qoodhart,*for resp’t.

*662Per Curiam.

The rule in regard to the effect of a tender before suit brought (insufficient in amount) kept good by deposit in court, is to direct judgment for the whole amount of the claim, so as to- preserve the plaintiff’s right to costs, and to credit the deposit on account of the judgment *after it is entered. Dakin*v. Dunning, 7 Hill, 30; *Murphy*v. *Gold & Stock Tel. Co.,*24 N. Y. State Rep., 123; 3 N. Y. Supplt., 804. The plaintiff credited the amount paid into court on entering his judgment. This was error. The judgment should have followed the verdict. The court below allowed the plaintiff to correct the mistake and conform the judgment to prescribed practice. The order so made was a proper exercise of judicial power, and the motion to vacate the judgment so corrected was right and must be affirmed. The appellant cites §§ 731 to 734 of the Code to sustain his position, but those sections refer to tender “ after suit brought," and such a tender must include “ costs of the action ” to the date of the tender. The tender relied on here was one “before suit brought,” and the payment into court was to keep it good. It was “ without costs,” and the rule applicable is that laid down in *Dakin*v. *Dunning,*and kindred cases, before referred to.

Order affirmed, with costs.

McAdam, Oh. J., and Ehrlich, J., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.01

                  CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER &
                            CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Michael Pacult, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
White Oak Financial Services, Inc. as general partner of Providence Select
Fund, L.P., certify that (i) Amendment No. 1 to the Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2007 of Providence Select Fund, L.P. fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the information contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2007 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Providence Select Fund, L.P.


PROVIDENCE SELECT FUND, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By:	White Oak Financial Services, Inc., General Partner


By: /s/ Michael Pacult
Michael Pacult
Chief Executive Officer &
Chief Financial Officer

Date:	August 23, 2007

<page>
AFS-11-116-E 

February 24, 2011 

 Exemption No. 8841B 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26745 

Mr. David L. Jones 

Corporate Aviation Education Director 

Aviation Institute of Maintenance 

4455 South Boulevard 

Virginia Beach, VA 23452 

Dear Mr. Jones: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8841, 

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated December 26, 2010 you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Technical Educational Services, Inc., d.b.a. Aviation Institute of Maintenance 

(Aviation Institute) (operating under Air Agency Certificate U6ET095K) for an extension of 

Exemption No. 8841, as amended. That exemption from § 65.75(a) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations allows Aviation Institute to administer the aviation mechanic general 

written test to students immediately following their successful completion of the general 

curriculum but before they meet the experience requirements of § 65.77. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

regarding public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register. The requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, 

and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Aviation Institute. 
2 

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8841, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition. 

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8841, as amended, to 

February 28, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8841 remain the same. This letter must be 

attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8841. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Raymond Towles 

Acting Director, Flight Standards Service
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

October 3, 2014

t0930 

# Order

Clerk October 3, 2014

148928

- 9

DOUGLAS LATHAM,

Plaintiff

- Appe llee,

v SC: 148928

COA: 312141

Oakland CC: 2004

- 059653

- NO

BARTON MALOW COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

DOUGLAS LATHAM,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148929

COA: 313606

Oakland CC: 2004

- 059653

- NO

BARTON MALOW COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 4, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.302(H)(1).

The parties shall submit supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order

addressing whether a significant number of workers were exposed to th e high degree of

risk identified by this Court in Latham v Barton Malow Co, 480 Mich 105, 114 (2008)

(“the danger of working at heights without fall

- protection equipment ”). The parties

should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

REGINALD T. ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

 Civil Action 2:10-cv-01118

v. Judge James L. Graham

 Magistrate Judge E.A. Preston Deavers

ROBIN KNAB, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court for consideration of the October 5, 2011 Report and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers, to whom

this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (ECF No. 11.) The Magistrate Judge

recommended that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to timely effect service of process. 

The Report and Recommendation specifically advises Plaintiff that the failure to object to

the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of the Report results in a “waiver of the

right to de novo review . . . by the District Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment

of the District Court.” (Report and Recommendation 2, ECF No. 11.) The time period for filing

objections to the Report and Recommendation has expired. Plaintiff has not objected to the

Report and Recommendation. 

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation. Noting that no objections have

been filed and that the time for filing such objections has expired, the Court ADOPTS the Report

Case: 2:10-cv-01118-JLG-EPD Doc #: 14 Filed: 10/31/11 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
and Recommendation. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

pursuant to Rule 4(m) for failure to timely effect service of process. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/ James L. Graham 

James L. Graham

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Date: October 31, 2011

2

Case: 2:10-cv-01118-JLG-EPD Doc #: 14 Filed: 10/31/11 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
an ee eae gategeeeafs« =

>)
. @

PLANET OCEAN

BaHaenHewHwHHHeHHHHeHeOHmellUUmlUrlUr
(Reap. Dec. 8916)

Entry No. 16232.

#### J. E. Bernard & Company, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided July 17, 1957)

*Wallace & Schwartz*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to certain steel cabinet handles exported from Japan and entered at the port of Chicago.

The case is before me on an agreed set of facts which establish that export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, and that such statutory value is the appraised value, less ocean freight and insurance, as invoiced, and I so hold. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
(V. D. 10)

#### Carl Zeiss, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 958936.

(Decided September 16, 1954)

*Lane, Young & Fox (William H. Fox*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This matter is presently before me on a remand from a classification proceeding decided by the first division of this court in *Carl Zeiss, Inc.*v. *United States,*32 Cust. Ct. 490, Abstract 58082. The judgment entered therein stated: “* * * that the matter be remanded to a single judge in reappraisement pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d).”

The matter has been submitted for decision upon an agreed statement of facts entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto.

Upon the agreed facts, I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for determining the values of the involved merchandise and that such values are as set forth in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof.

I further find such values to be the dutiable values of said merchandise.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

> Schedule “A”

> *Remand of protest No. Entry No. Merchandise German Deutsche Marks*

> Binoculars with cases 215712-K/5883-53 958936

> 20 pcs., 8 x 30 Binoculars, each__ — - 123.24

> Carrying cases, each_ 15. 70

> 10 pcs., 10 x 50 Binoculars, each_ 235/ 00

> Carrying cases, each-i_ 18. 50

> *488
>       *Remand of protest No. Entry No. Merchandise German Deutsche Marks*

> 215712-K/5883-53 958936 5 pcs., 8 x 56 Binoculars, each_ 278. 15

> Carrying cases, each_ 19. 60

> 10 pcs., 7 x 42 Binoculars, each_ 280. 40

> Carrying eases, each... 17. 35

> 3 pcs., 16 x 56 Binoculars, each_ 288. 65

> Carrying cases, each... 19. 60

> 20 pcs., 6 x 30 Binoculars, each_ 112. 55

> Carrying cases, each... 15. 70

> plus packing as invoiced
Please note the following:

1. The material harvested in this folder only represents what was claimed to be on cdc.gov website on 03/23/2015.

2. Typically GPO organized files such as these by publication year. These files are organized by region and country as was done on the original web site.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned hereby
certifies that, to his or her knowledge, (i) the Form 10-Q filed by New Century Bancorp, Inc. (the Issuer) for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the periods presented
therein.



|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                                      
|------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 15, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ William L. Hedgepeth II          
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | William L. Hedgepeth II              
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit
32.1






CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350






In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ace Consulting
Management, Inc., for the period ending March 31, 2010, I, Alex Jen, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Ace Consulting Management,
Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, that:




1. Such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010, fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and




2. The
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2010, fairly represents in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Ace Consulting Management, Inc.




Ace
      Consulting Management, Inc.Date: May  19,
      2010
            By:
            /s/
      Alex JenAlex
      JenChief
      Executive Officer
              Chief Financial
Officer
Exhibit 13.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of BioLineRx Ltd. (the “Company”) hereby certifies to such officer’s knowledge that:





(i)    the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(ii)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: March 23, 2015





/s/ Philip Serlin


Philip Serlin


Chief Financial and Operating Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference to any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
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

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, has been renewed for a 2-year period through March 15, 2009. 

For information, contact Kenneth Castro, M.D., Executive Secretary, Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E10, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone 404/639-8000 or fax 404/639-8604. 

                    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                     **Federal Register**                     notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                 

Dated: March 26, 2007. 

Elaine L. Baker, 

Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. E7-6016 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The First Marblehead Corporation (the Company) for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel Meyers, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |                                                
|------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 16, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ DANIEL MEYERS                              
|                    |  |  |  | Daniel Meyers                                  
|                    |  |  |  | Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The First Marblehead Corporation and will be retained by
The First Marblehead Corporation and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.