alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012001EN.01000101.xml

| 4.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 1/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 1/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

2 January 2012

2012/C 1/01

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2935 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 99,52 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4335 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83514 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9275 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2155 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,754 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,505 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 314,38 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6998 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4733 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3325 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,4376 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2662 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3195 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,0473 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6623 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6781 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 494,27 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,4599 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,1529 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5343 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 1 174, |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1033 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,703 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 41,6448 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,758 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,4178 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,021 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 68,95 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2935

JPY

Japanese yen

99,52

DKK

Danish krone

7,4335

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83514

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9275

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2155

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,754

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,505

HUF

Hungarian forint

314,38

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6998

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4733

RON

Romanian leu

4,3325

TRY

Turkish lira

2,4376

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2662

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3195

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,0473

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6623

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6781

KRW

South Korean won

1 494,27

ZAR

South African rand

10,4599

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,1529

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5343

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

1 174,

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1033

PHP

Philippine peso

56,703

RUB

Russian rouble

41,6448

THB

Thai baht

40,758

BRL

Brazilian real

2,4178

MXN

Mexican peso

18,021

INR

Indian rupee

68,95

---

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

1

Source

---
#### Daisy LEAKS, Appellant, v. William D. ADEIMY and Delores T. Adeimy, Appellees.

No. 943.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Feb. 14, 1967.

*48William M. Holland, of Holland & Smith, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Harry Lee Anstead, of Sullivan & An-stead, West Palm Beach, for appellees.

CROSS, Judge.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff below from an adverse summary judgment. The action was one for damages for personal injuries received by the plaintiff-servant maid when she suffered a fall on the premises of the defendants, her employers.

The defendants in support of their motion for summary judgment relied on the pleadings, plaintiff’s answers to interrogatories, requests for admissions, and the deposition of plaintiff. Plaintiff filed no affidavit in opposition to the motion.

Plaintiff’s employment, among other duties, consisted in washing, ironing and general household work and while going through the utility room for the purpose of hanging up laundry in the back yard (the utility room being the way defendants provided for plaintiff to enter the back yard) plaintiff fell over a metal pot on the floor of said room incurring injury.

The utility room was maintained by defendants for the purpose of storing utilities, household items and items used in the business of the defendants. Light in the room was provided by the location of a window therein and electrical facilities which were not on at the time of the injury.

The facts as disclosed and justifiable inferences to be drawn therefrom are triable issues as to whether or not the defendants breached their duty to provide a reasonably safe place for plaintiff to work.

The courts are in entire agreement that the moving party for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue as to all the material facts. It is not the function of the trial court to adjudicate genuine factual issues at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment and all inferences of fact from the proof proffered at the hearing must be drawn against the movant and in favor of the party opposing the motion.

The question of defendants’ liability cannot be lawfully withdrawn from the jury and determined by the court unless the facts are not only undisputed but are also such that all reasonable men, in the exercise of a fair and impartial judgment, must draw the inference and conclusion therefrom of non-negligence. See Warring v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 915.

 Applying the foregoing rule of law to the facts as stated it is our conclusion *49that the lower court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Reversed.

WALDEN, C. J., and BARNS, PAUL D. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
# C_2012134EN.01000202.xml

| 8.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6550 — Towerbrook/York/Apollo/Monier)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 134/04

On 26 April 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6550. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6550. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 155 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 155

       To designate a mountain in the State of Alaska as Denali.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 28, 2013

 Ms. Murkowski introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To designate a mountain in the State of Alaska as Denali.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF DENALI IN THE STATE OF ALASKA.

    (a) In General.--The mountain located at 63 04' 12" N, by 151 00' 
18" W, in the State of Alaska shall be known and designated as 
``Denali''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the mountain described 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to ``Denali''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

AIRTRAN HOLDINGS, INC.

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 of AirTran Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph B. Leonard, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |     |  |                                     
|---------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------
|November 1, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Joseph B. Leonard               
|                 |  |     |  | Joseph B. Leonard                   
|                 |  |     |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                                       EXHIBIT 11
                                          CONNECTICUT NATURAL GAS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                         -----------------------------------------------------
                                COMPUTATION OF CONSOLIDATED PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      (Thousands of Dollars Except for Shares and Per Share Date)
                                                                    
                                                                             Fiscal Year Ended September 30,                     
                                                           --------------------------------------------------------------------  
      <S>                                                <C>           <C>           <C>          <C>           <C>
                                                             1996         1995          1994         1993          1992    
                                                          ----------   ----------    ----------   ----------    ---------- 
      Net income applicable to common stock:
          Income                                          $   18,995   $   17,019    $   17,703   $   16,855    $   15,265 
          Less-Preferred stock dividends                          63           62            66           67            68 
                                                          ----------   ----------    ----------   ----------    ---------- 
          Net income applicable to common stock           $   18,932   $   16,957    $   17,637   $   16,788    $   15,197 
                                                          ==========   ==========    ==========   ==========    ========== 

      Weighted average number of shares of common
        stock outstanding during the year (1)             10,146,932    9,926,980     9,539,695    9,527,772     8,704,897 
                                                          ==========   ==========    ==========   ==========    ========== 
      Net income per share of common stock -
        primary and fully diluted (1)                          $1.87        $1.71         $1.85        $1.76         $1.75 
                                                               =====        =====         =====        =====         ===== 
<FN>
       
      NOTE:
       (1)  The Company has no common stock equivalents.  Therefore, no adjustments to the weighted average number of shares of
            common stock outstanding during any of the years reflected in this exhibit are necessary in order to calculate either
            primary or fully diluted earnings per share.  For this reason primary and fully diluted earnings per share are the
            same in each year.
       
       (2)  Changes in accounting include a change in the method of accounting for municipal property taxes in 1991.      
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
No. 11302.

#### Brown-Ketcham Iron Works *v.*The Dayton Arcade Co.

Decided February 8, *5631910.

Error to Circuit Court of Montgomery county.

*Messrs. Rowe, Shuey, Matthews & James,*for . plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. McMahon & McMahon,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, Spear and Shauck, JJ., concur.
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, September 18, 2018.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-4110.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Communications Project Committee will be held Tuesday, September 18, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Antoinette Ross. For more information please contact: Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-4110, or                           ( print page 39511)                        write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 1509, National Office, Washington, DC 20224, or contact us at the website:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The committee will be discussing various issues related to Taxpayer Communications and public input is welcome.

Dated: August 1, 2018.

Otis Simpson,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2018-17011 Filed 8-8-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
{In Archive} MCU permits

Shaheerah Kelly to: Patrick Flynn 01/05/2007 02:51 PM

Cc: justin.j.harrison

Bcc: Shaheerah Kelly

Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive.

I'm resending these permit documents because I received an email stating that my message was 

undeliverable. 

Attached are the PSD permits issued for the McElmo Creek Unit. 

Let me know if you have any questions. 

Thanks.

Shaheerah Kelly

U S EPA Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415-947-4156

Fax: 415-947-3579
Notice of Death Page 1 No. 04

- 14 -00751- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

JOSEFINA ALEXANDER GONZALEZ, ET AL,

Appellants

v.

RAYMOND S. DE LEON II, ET AL,

Appellee

NOTICE OF DEATH

TO THE HONORABLE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellant s inform the Court of the death of Josefina Alexander

Gonzalez on December 9, 2014.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Robinson C. Ramsey______

ROBINSON C. RAMSEY

State Bar No. 16523700

Email: rramsey@langleybanack.com

JOYCE W. MOORE

State Bar No. 14357400

jwmoore@langleybanack.com

PAULA C. BOSTON

State Bar No. 24089661

pboston@langleybanack.com

LANGLEY & BANACK, INC.

Trinity Plaza II

745 E. Mulberry, Suite 900

San Antonio, Texas 78212

Telephone: 210.736.6600

Telecopier: 210.735.6889 ACCEPTED

04-14-00751-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

1/8/2015 2:30:14 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERKNotice of Death Page 2 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVI CE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing

document has been served on this 8 th day of January , 201 5 , to the following

counsel of record:

James Maverick McNeel

Laura C. Mason

S TRASBURGER & P RICE , LLP

2301 Broadway

San Antonio, Texas 78215

Attorneys for Raymond S. De

Leon II, Trustee of the Family

Trust Jeffrey T. Knebel

Michael B. Knisely

O SBORNE

, H ELMAN

, K NEBEL &

D ELEERY

, LLP

301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1910

Austin, Texas 78701

Attorneys for Rocio G. Guerra

/s/Robinson C. Ramsey______

ROBINSON C. RAMSEY

L & B 16052/0003/L093 3914 .DOCX
**Exhibit 23**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-35760, 33-63715, 33-63717, 333-17987, 333-41427, 333-71839, 333-91345, 333-67442, 333-68958, 333-107692, 333-112615) and Form S-3 (Nos. 333-83776, 333-18385, 33-60071, 333-71797, 333-96173, 333-67512) ofSara Lee Corporation of our report dated August 27, 2007 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in the Annual Report to Stockholders, which is incorporated in thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated August 27, 2007 relating to the financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Chicago, Illinois 

August 27, 2007
Honorable Tom 1. Beeuchamp 

Secretary of State 

Austin, Texas 

Attention: Mr. Claude A. Williams 

Dear Sir: 

Opinion Ho. O-1140 

Re: Statutes applicable to a foreign 

corporation issuing no psr value 

stock and applying for s permit to 

&business inTexas. 

We acknowledge receipt of your letter of July 19, in vhich you request 

the opinion of this depertment on the follovlng three questions: 

'1. In the matter of a foreign corporation with non par 

value shares of stock, must such corporation show that 

at least $25,COC of the non par valus'shares have been 

subscribed and paid for which in no event shell be less 

than ten per cent of the capital stock? 

“2. In case of a foreign corporation vith both per and 

non par shares, would such corporation have to show that 

5U$ of its par value shares has been subscribed.: and lO$ 

paid in, providing that such non par value shares shall 

be not less than $25,000 paid in? 

"3. Would Article 1530 of the Revised Civil Statutes 

control in all instances in the matter of foreign 

corporations, that is, muat each foreign corporation, 

regedless of its division of capital stock into par 

and non par shares, be controlled by this article of 

the Statutes, re@rdleas of the limitations conferred 

by virtue of the non par value Act?” 

As you indicate in your letter,, in an Opinion dated August 2, 196, 

addresse& to Eon. D. A. Gregg, Acting Secretary of State, Assistant 

Attorney General George E. Christian answered-tie identical 

questions set out above; the first two in the negative andU.e third 

in the affirmative. 
Honorable Tom L. Beauchamp, Psge 2 (O-1140) 

The provisions of Chapter lga, Title 32, Revised Civil Statutes of 195, 

apply only to the organization of Bomeatic corporations and the e?aendment 

of &a&em of domestic corporations. The articles contained in Chapter 

19, Title -52, Revised Civil Statute8 of 1925, set forth the conditions 

under which a foreign corporation vill be permitted to do business in 

Texas. We enclose a copy of the Opinion of Assistant Attorney General 

Christian, with which we fully concur. 

Yours very truly 

ATIXRNFX-OF~ 

s/ Ross Carlton 

BY 

Ross Carlton 

Assistant 

RC: in-law 

ENC. 

APPRO~'~ JULY 28, 

s/w. F. KmlE 

1939 

FIRST ASSISTART 

ATTORUEf GAPPFiovEB OPmIOH col4lmYTE 

RI R. w. F.,
1 The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-3733

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. George Johnson, also known as Georg e * [UNPUBLISHED] Dewey Johnson, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 5, 1999 Filed: May 10, 1999

___________ Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. George Johnson was convicted of being a felon in possession of firearms and was sentenced as an armed career criminal. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e). He appealed, and on the government’s motion we remanded for resentencing. United Stat es v. Johnson , No. 98-1006, slip op. (8th Cir. Apr. 17, 1998) (unpublished per curiam). After a hearing, the district court 1 reimposed the original sentence. Johnson again appeals, now arguing that the district court abused its discretion in denying the-2-

motion for mistrial he made immediately following a government witness’s unsolicited statement that Johnson had “been in prison all his life.” Johnson argues that he had stipulated to his status as a previously convicted felon and foregone his right to testify, the witness’s statement was clearly prejudicial, and the court’s curative instruction was insufficient. The government argues that Johnson waived this issue by not raising it in his first appeal, and alternatively, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial after striking the testimony as unresponsive and instructing the jury to disregard it.
We agree with the government that Johnson waived this issue. See United States v. Santonelli , 128 F.3d 1233, 1238 (8th Cir. 1997). In any case, Johnson has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial. See United States v. Hall , 1999 WL 170678, at *12 (8th Cir. Mar. 30, 1999). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 99(ii)


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-
95795 of Dominion Resources, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated December 20,
2000, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 11-K of Thrift Plan of CNG
Transmission Corporation and Hope Gas, Inc. for Employees Represented by the
United Gas Workers Union, Local No. 69 - Division II, SEIU, AFL-CIO for the year
ended June 30, 2000.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Richmond, Virginia
December 21, 2000

                                       3