alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012060EN.01000201.xml

| 29.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

28 February 2012

2012/C 60/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3454 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 108,39 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4355 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84790 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,8275 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2050 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,4800 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,900 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 289,63 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6988 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1410 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3480 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3580 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2486 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3396 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,4332 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6040 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6846 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 513,77 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,1176 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,4766 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5710 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 146,01 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0483 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,753 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,0475 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,833 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2873 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,2682 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 66,0390 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3454

JPY

Japanese yen

108,39

DKK

Danish krone

7,4355

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84790

SEK

Swedish krona

8,8275

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2050

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,4800

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,900

HUF

Hungarian forint

289,63

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6988

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1410

RON

Romanian leu

4,3480

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3580

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2486

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3396

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,4332

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6040

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6846

KRW

South Korean won

1 513,77

ZAR

South African rand

10,1176

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,4766

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5710

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 146,01

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0483

PHP

Philippine peso

57,753

RUB

Russian rouble

39,0475

THB

Thai baht

40,833

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2873

MXN

Mexican peso

17,2682

INR

Indian rupee

66,0390

---

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

1

Source

---
O rder filed March 7 , 2019



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

______ _ ____



### No. 11

- 1 8

- 00 2 1 4

- CR

_____ _

_____


### JULIE LYNN LYMAN , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 104 th District Court Taylor County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 19687B

O R D E R

A ppellant’s court

- appointed attorney o f record

, Kenneth G. Leggett

, has filed

in this court a motion to withdraw as counsel on appeal

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 6.5.
Leggett state s in his motion that h e has been appointed to the judiciary to serve as

the judge of the Title IV

- D Court for Taylor and surrounding counties and that, as
such, he is precluded from engaging in the private practice of law

. The motion to

withdraw is granted , and the appe al is abated

.2 The trial court is directed to appoint new counsel to represent A ppellant on appeal , and the trial court clerk is instructed to file in this court on or before

March 18 , 2019

, a supplemental clerk’s record evidencing such appointment

. The
appeal will be reinstated when the supplemental clerk’s record is filed in this court.
We note that a brief has already been filed in this court on behalf of Appellant. New
counsel may either adopt that brief or file an amended brief on behalf of Appell ant.
The amended brief will be due to be filed in this court thirty days after the date that
this appeal is reinstated.

PER CURIAM

March 7 , 201 9
Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C. J., Stretcher , J., an d Wright, S.C.J. 1

Willson, J., not participating.

1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.4
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR STOCK OPTION
 APAC CUSTOMER SERVICES, INC.
 STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
   WHEREAS,
 NOW, THEREFORE,
 1. Grant of Option .
 2. Time of Exercise .
  Date
    
    Cumulative Number of Shares«Vest_Date_Period_1»
    
    One-third of Shares
(rounded to the nearest whole Share)«Vest_Date_Period_2»
    
    One-third of Shares
(rounded to the nearest whole Share)«Vest_Date_Period_3»
    
    100% of Shares




---



##### 



3. Term of Option .
 4. Definitions .
  2




---



##### 



5. Method of Exercise .
      3




---



##### 



6. Non-Transferability; Death .
 7. Registration .
 8. Adjustments .
   9. Subject to Plan .
 4




---



##### 



10. Administration and Interpretation .
 11. Compliance with Code Section 409A.
 12. Enforceability .
 13. Governing Law; Severability .
 14. Service Rights .
 15. Shareholders Rights .
 16. Entire Agreement .
 17. Notices .
 5




---



##### 



APAC Customer Services, Inc.
Six Parkway North Center
First Floor
Deerfield, IL 60015
Attn: General Counsel   IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 APAC Customer Services, Inc.By:Its:  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerOptionee:«First_Name» «Middle_Name» «Last_Name» 6
#### Nelle H. MATHIS, a widow, Appellant, v. CIGAR FESTIVAL ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 7035.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Nov. 23, 1966.

Rehearing Denied April 19, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Geo. J. BAYA and Mary Phillips Baya, his wife, Appellants, v. Robert REVITZ, Appellee.

No. 72-1042.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 31, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 12, 1973.

Ward, Ward, Straessley, Hiss & Heath, Miami, for appellants.

Sibley, Giblin, Levenson & Ward, Miami, for appellee.

*522Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellants’ point urges that a judgment for partition must be reversed because a cotenant may not seek partition where there is an outstanding lease giving the present right of possession. The trial judge correctly determined that the outstanding lease was not a bar. See Leonard v. Browne, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 872.

Appellee contends that a stipulation in the record of this case was a stipulation of settlement and that therefore the appellants cannot appeal the consent judgment. We agree. Our examination of the record convinces us that the stipulation was a settlement.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 15

                     INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT
                     --------------------------------------

The Stockholders and Board of Directors
ARV Assisted Living, Inc.:

We have reviewed the condensed consolidated balance sheet of ARV Assisted
Living, Inc. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 1997, and the related condensed
consolidated statements of earnings and cash flows for the three-month period
ended June 30, 1997 and 1996. These condensed consolidated financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in
accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of
which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken
as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the condensed consolidated financial statements referred to above
for them to be in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of ARV Assisted Living, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of March 31, 1997, and the related consolidated statements of
earnings, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not
presented herein); and in our report dated June 20, 1997, we expressed an
unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In our opinion,
the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance
sheet as of March 31, 1997, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in
relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.


/s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
---------------------------
Orange County, California
August 11, 1997
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

                    CONSENT OF KPMG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors

Calypte Biomedical Corporation:


We consent to the incorporation by reference herein of our reports dated March
9, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Calypte Biomedical
Corporation and subsidiary as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 1999, and the
related schedule, which reports appear in the December 31, 1999 annual report on
Form 10-K of Calypte Biomedical Corporation.

Our reports dated March 9, 2000 contain an explanatory paragraph that states
that the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations and has an
accumulated deficit that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue
as a going concern. The consolidated financial statement and the financial
statement schedule do not include any adjustments that might result from that
uncertainty.



/s/ KPMG LLP



San Francisco, California

September 27, 2000
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

687 

KA 14-02255 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., LINDLEY, CURRAN, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LYLE F. DAVOY, SR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

ADAM R. MATTESON, LOWVILLE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LEANNE K. MOSER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOWVILLE, D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO,

ESQS., SYRACUSE (JOHN A. CIRANDO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Lewis County Court (Daniel R. King,

J.), rendered December 6, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant,

upon his plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him,

upon his plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree (Penal Law 

§ 125.25 [1]). As conceded by defendant, the record of the plea

colloquy establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently

waived his right to appeal (see People v Dean, 48 AD3d 1244,

1244-1245, lv denied 10 NY3d 839), and that valid waiver encompasses

his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see

People v Griffin, 120 AD3d 1569, 1570, lv denied 24 NY3d 1084; People

v Irvine, 42 AD3d 949, 950, lv denied 9 NY3d 962). Moreover,

defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the

plea colloquy was factually insufficient inasmuch as he failed to move

to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that

ground (see People v Lawrence, 118 AD3d 1501, 1501, lv denied 24 NY3d

1220; People v Kozody, 74 AD3d 1907, 1908, lv denied 15 NY3d 806), and

this case does not fall within the rare exception to the preservation

rule (see Lawrence, 118 AD3d at 1501-1502; see generally People v

Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665-666). Although defendant’s initial statements

during the factual allocution negated the element of intent to cause

death, defendant’s subsequent statements “ ‘removed any doubt’ ”

regarding his intent to cause the victim’s death (People v Manor, 121

AD3d 1581, 1582-1583, affd 27 NY3d 1012; see People v Trinidad, 23

AD3d 1060, 1060, lv denied 6 NY3d 760). Specifically, defendant

agreed that, by loading the gun, pointing it at the victim, and firing

it, he was intentionally causing the death of the victim and that the

incident in fact caused the death of the victim. To the extent that

defendant contends that County Court was required to conduct further
-2- 687 

KA 14-02255 

inquiry regarding a possible affirmative defense, we reject that

contention inasmuch as defendant said nothing during the plea colloquy

that “ ‘raised the possibility of a viable [extreme emotional

disturbance] defense’ ” (Manor, 121 AD3d at 1582; see People v Hart,

114 AD3d 1273, 1273, lv denied 23 NY3d 963). 

Entered: September 30, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### CITY OF COCOA and Commercial Union Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Violet Lee ALDRIDGE and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 36014.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 8, 1967.

B. C. Pyle, of Whittaker, Pyle & Wood, Orlando, for petitioners.

Lealand L. Lovering, of Miller, Cone,. Owen, Wagner & Nugent, Rockledge, Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lakeland, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for a writ of certiorari we-have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date November *17,*1966.

We find that oral argument would serve-no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate-Rule 3.10, subd. e, 31 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petition, the record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.

The petition is therefore denied.

The petition for allowance of an attorney’s fee is granted in the amount of $250.-00.

THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32(b)


            CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
               SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                          (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Dataram Corporation, a New Jersey
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2011,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Mark E.
Maddocks, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350), that to his 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 result of operations of the Company.



July 28, 2011            /s/ Mark E. Maddocks
                         _____________________________________
                         Mark E. Maddocks
                         Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Dataram Corporation and will be retained by Dataram
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.]
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6102

DEVONE SHARNELL BEST , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:19

- hc

- 02187

- FL )

Submitted : June 16, 2020 Decided: June 19, 2020

Before MOTZ and KING , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Devone Sharnell Best , Appellant Pro Se

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Devone Sharnell Best , a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (201 8 ) petition in which he sought to challenge his conviction and sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018)

. Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his convicti on or sentence in a traditional writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. [Section] 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of a conviction when: (1 ) at the time of conviction, settled law of this circuit or the Supreme Court established the legality of the conviction; (2) subsequent to the prisoner’s direct appeal and first § 2255 motion, the substantive law changed such that the conduct of which the prisoner was convicted is deemed not to be criminal; and (3) the prisoner cannot satisfy the gatekeeping provisions of § 2255 because the new rule is not one of constitutional law.
In re Jones , 226 F.3d 328, 333

- 34 (4th Cir. 2000).
We have reviewed the re cord and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Best v. Andrews , No. 5:19

- hc

- 02187

- FL (E.D.N.C. Dec. 19, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
#### J. Cail LEE, Judge, Court of Record IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, Florida, Petitioner, v. Robert W. JOHNSTON and Joseph E. Madeline, Respondents.

No. 43200.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 20, 1973.

Ray Sandstrom of Sandstrom & Hodge, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.

Howard Levine and Thomas P. Quinn, Fort Lauderdale, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reported at 269 So.2d 76. Certiorari was granted, without argument, based on apparent decisional conflict on the question of the jurisdiction of the circuit court to issue a writ of prohibition directed to the court of record. Now, however, after careful consideration of the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that the writ was improvidently issued. Accordingly, certiorari is discharged.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Henry Porter JOYCE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-331.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 26, 1973.

Robert G. Ferrell, III, Public Defender, Titusville, and Ned N. Julian, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Sanford, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Nelson E. Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

On this direct appeal from a conviction of murder and life sentence the only question presented is whether the trial court correctly denied defendant’s motion t0‘ suppress tangible evidence seized following a search of defendant’s automobile. The record contains competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s determina*422tion that the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his automobile which resulted in seizure of the evidence sought to be suppressed. No error is shown in this respect and the judgment and sentence are severally affirmed.

CROSS, OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB11-CN.161 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2011 Media Advisory — Census Bureau to Release Microsoft Access Table Shell for 2010 Census Summary File 1 — Next State Statistics to be Released July 14 **What:**
Next week, the U.S. Census Bureau will release a 2010 Census Summary File 1 Microsoft Access table shell. The table shell will provide an easier way to access Summary File 1 information from the Census Bureau's FTP site <http://www2.census.gov/census_2010/04-Summary_File_1/>. Instructions for how to use the shell and work with the information will also be included in the .zip file. In addition, the Missouri State Data Center has made SAS data sets available for users at 
<http://mcdc.missouri.edu/cgi-bin/uexplore?/pub/data/sf12010>. During June through August, the Census Bureau will provide statistics for states on a flow basis. No state statistics will be embargoed Tuesday, July 5, or released Thursday, July 7. The state information releases will resume Thursday, July 14. The Summary File 1 tables provide the most detailed information available so far from the 2010 Census, including cross-tabulations of age, sex, households, families, relationship to householder, characteristics of owners and renters, detailed race and Hispanic or Latino origin groups, and group quarters. **When:**
The Microsoft Access table shell will be available Thursday, July 7 and can be accessed from the online press kit for Summary File 1 at <http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/summary-file-1.html>. **Online Press Kit:**
For more information about the release of Summary File 1, please visit <http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/summary-file-1.html>.  **Follow @uscensusbureau on Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube and Ustream.**
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
#### Merlin EVANS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 66-815.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 21, 1967.

Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Marvin J. Emory, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Arden M. Siegendorf, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL, and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Buchanan v. State, Fla.App.1966, 184 So.2d 225, and Hammond v. United States, 309 F.2d 935 (4th Cir. 1962).
COMMENCING JULY 20, 1953

#### In the Matter of the Estate of John N. Visich, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County,

July 20, 1953.

*Schechter & Schechter*for Ruth B. Visich, petitioner.

*Herman Wollitser*for Vincent Visich, as executor of John N. Visich, deceased, respondent.

Hazleton, S.

Petitioner, the widow of deceased, filed her notice of election, which was rejected by the executor upon the ground that petitioner had abandoned her husband.

In 1943, the widow and her husband entered into a separation agreement, wherein petitioner released her right of election. I find that shortly after the execution of this agreement, there *2was effected a reconciliation; and further, that at the decease of the husband, both he and petitioner were living together as man and wife.

The executor further contends that since the two children of deceased assigned to their mother a one-third interest in the estate, subsequent to the filing of the notice of election, there is no justiciable issue before the court. With this contention I cannot agree. The right to file a notice of election under section 18 of the Decedent Estate Law is a personal right, as distinguished from a property right. *(Matter of Carll,*201 Misc. 829, and cases cited therein.) The widow is not deprived of this purely personal right with all of its benefits and implications by accepting a gift of a one-third interest in her husband’s estate from her children, who received the entire estate under the will.

Submit decree accordingly on notice.