alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012120EN.01000301.xml

| 25.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 120/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

24 April 2012

2012/C 120/04

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3161 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 106,87 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4402 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,81540 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,8880 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2021 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,5565 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,997 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 297,69 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6993 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2003 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3818 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3510 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2775 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3020 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2141 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6170 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6417 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 500,43 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,2770 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2979 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5375 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 095,57 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0335 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,235 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 38,6550 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,746 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,4729 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,2850 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 69,3260 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3161

JPY

Japanese yen

106,87

DKK

Danish krone

7,4402

GBP

Pound sterling

0,81540

SEK

Swedish krona

8,8880

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2021

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,5565

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,997

HUF

Hungarian forint

297,69

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6993

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2003

RON

Romanian leu

4,3818

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3510

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2775

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3020

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2141

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6170

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6417

KRW

South Korean won

1 500,43

ZAR

South African rand

10,2770

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2979

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5375

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 095,57

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0335

PHP

Philippine peso

56,235

RUB

Russian rouble

38,6550

THB

Thai baht

40,746

BRL

Brazilian real

2,4729

MXN

Mexican peso

17,2850

INR

Indian rupee

69,3260

---

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

1

Source

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1360
ELSA TEKLE, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A95-906-077) Submitted: September 19, 2005 Decided: November 2, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Allan Ebert, LAW OFFICES OF ALLAN EBERT, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Michelle Gorden Latour, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Elsa Tekle, a native of Eritrea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying as untimely her motion to reopen immigration proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c) (2005). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Tekle , No. A95-906-077 (B.I.A. Mar. 7, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
exhibit_101






PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL               AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT  THIS AMENDMENT dated October 18, 2022 TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT dated June  7, 2021 (the “Employment Agreement”), by and between Parker Meeks and Hyzon Motors Inc.  (“the Company”).  Capitalized terms herein shall have their given meanings or the meanings in  the Employment Agreement.  RECITALS    WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company appointed Mr. Meeks as the Company’s  President ad Interim Chief Officer on August 17, 2022.  WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Company has agreed to increase Mr. Meeks’  Base Salary as defined in the Employment Agreement to reflect Mr. Meek’s role as President  and Interim Chief Executive Officer.  NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows.    AGREEMENT  1. Mr. Meeks’ annual Base Salary is and shall be increased from $450,000.00 to  $570,000.00.  2. Mr. Meeks’ new Base Salary as provided above shall be effective as of September 29,  2022, the date on which the Compensation Committee of the Company approved the  Base Salary increase.  Other than the above amendments, the Employment Agreement remains in full force and  effect.        HYZON MOTORS INC.      By: _______________________    Title: ______________________  PARKER MEEKS      Signature:______________________    Title: _________________________  DocuSign Envelope ID: FD705FE4-CCD2-4A04-8F4E-7E0D7975C98A President and Interim CEOChief Legal Officer
Home > Electricity > Restructuring Status 

## Status of Electricity Restructuring by State Data as of: September 2010
 The map below shows information on the electric industry re structuring. Click on a State for details.  Restructuring means that a monopoly s ystem of electric utilities has been replaced with competing sellers.

d Source: Energy Information Administration 

## Page 1 of 1 Electricity Restructuring by State

4/8/2011 htt p ://www.eia.doe. g ov/cneaf/electricit y / p a g e/restructurin g /restructure

_ elect.html
# C_2012341EN.01S00301.xml

| 9.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/s3

---

NOTICE

On 9 November 2012, in Official Journal of the European Union C 341 A, the ‘Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — 31st complete edition’ will be published.

Official Journal of the European Union

Subscribers to the Official Journal may obtain the same number of copies and language versions of this Official Journal as those to which they subscribe free of charge. They are requested to return the attached order form, duly completed and bearing their subscription registration number (code appearing on the left of each label and beginning with: O/...). This Official Journal will remain available free of charge for one year from the date of its publication.

Non-subscribers can order this Official Journal against payment from one of our sales offices (see http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

This Official Journal — like all Official Journals (L, C, CA, CE) — can be consulted free of charge online at http://eur-lex.europa.eu

Image

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




The Board of Directors of
Bestfoods:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms
S-8 (No. 2-48849, 2-92248 and 33-49847) and on Forms S-3 (No. 33-30813,
33-28989, 33-40759, 33-52213, 33-65171 and 333-32971) of Bestfoods of our report
dated February 10, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Bestfoods and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each
of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 1997 which report
appears in the December 31, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of Bestfoods.



                                                /S/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
                                                ----------------------------
                                                   (KPMG Peat Marwick LLP)


New York, New York
March 26, 1997
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

					NO. 2-08-344-CR

JOSHUA LEWIS	  	          					       APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	----------

	FROM THE 211TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

		MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered appellant’s “Motion To Withdraw Appeal.”  The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.  See id.; Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).									 						 	 	PER CURIAM

PANEL:  CAYCE, C.J.; LIVINGSTON, and DAUPHINOT, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: October 23, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           8,271
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,927
<ALLOWANCES>                                       561
<INVENTORY>                                     21,811
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,326
<PP&E>                                          30,409
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,650
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  87,782
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,309
<BONDS>                                         11,671
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,464
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,856
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    87,782
<SALES>                                        100,168
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               100,168
<CGS>                                           60,097
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  100,651
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,395
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,878)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (728)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,150)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,150)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.20)


</TABLE>
# C_2012382EN.01000202.xml

| 12.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6770 — American Securities/Metaldyne)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 382/03

On 5 December 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 32012M6770. 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 32012M6770. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
No. 11517.

#### Vonschriltz *v.*Hamm.

Decided February 8, 1910.

Error to Circuit Court of Pike county.

*Messrs. Eylar & Douglas,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Dougherty & Moore,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, C. J., Crew, Spear, Davis and Price, JJ., concur.
#### Donald Burg, Appellant, v Health Care Plan, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[722 NYS2d 843]

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and complaint against defendant Health Care Plan reinstated. Memorandum: We agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court erred in granting the motion of defendant Health Care Plan for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it (appeal No. 1). Public Health Law § 4410 (1) does not preclude a health maintenance organization from being held vicariously liable for the malpractice of its physician employees *(see, Wisholek v Douglas*[appeal No. 2], 280 AD2d 220 [decided herewith]). We disagree with plaintiff, however, that the court erred in granting the motion of defendant David B. Lillie, M.D. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him (appeal No. 2). He established that his actions were not a proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact *(see generally, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt and Burns, JJ.
#### Riley L. STRICKLAND, Petitioner, v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILWAY COMPANY and Norfolk & Western Railway Company, etc., et al., Respondents.

No. 42428.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 26, 1972.

Certiorari dismissed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
ー CH 2 - Ph Ph

- CH 2 ー O- ( CH 2 CH 2 O ) n H

n=14(average) 

# Structure
EXHIBIT 32.1



                        Certification of CEO 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 Annual Report of Crested Corp. (the "Company")
on  Form  10-K  for  the  period  ending  December  31,  2003  as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on March 30, 2004 (the "Report"), John L.
Larsen  Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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  his  knowledge,  that:

(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.



                                         /s/  John  L.  Larsen
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       John  L.  Larsen,
                                       Chief  Executive  Officer
                                       March  26,  2004


This  certification  accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to  Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002  and  shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes  of  Section  18  of  the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Crested Corp. and will be retained by Crested Corp. and furnished to
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or  its  staff  upon  request.
# C_2012002EN.01000601.xml

| 5.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6412 — Evraz/Alrosa/Mining and Metallurgical Company Timir JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 2/03

On 21 December 2011, 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 32011M6412. 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 32011M6412. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-2349

LT Case No. 2010-CF-14001-A

_____________________________

ANTONIO DEWAYNE ADAMSMAXWELL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

3.800 appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

London M. Kite, Judge.

Antonio Dewayne Adams-Maxwell, Milton, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Kristie Regan, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

March 12, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

KILBANE, MACIVER, AND PRATT, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
#### James Willard THORNTON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43691.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 7, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 273 So.2d 789.

CARLTON, C. J., find ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Samuel C. JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 720.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Feb. 1, 1967.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Osceola County; Murray W. Overstreet, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Eugene H. BENEDICT and Lillian C. Benedict, his wife, Appellants, v. DADE COUNTY REALTY, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 72-489.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 13, 1973.

Rehearing Denied April 4, 1973.

*554Fred A. Jones, Jr., Miami, Allen L. Jacobi, Miami Beach, for appellants.

Whitman & Wolfe, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants were the defendants in an action brought by appellee for a real estate brokerage commission.

The complaint alleged, in effect, that appellants authorized appellee in its capacity as a real estate broker to procure a purchaser for a parcel of appellants’ property consisting of about ten acres, for $100,000 net to appellants or for such price and terms and conditions as might be acceptable to the appellants. It was further alleged that appellee found a purchaser who entered into a binding contract of sale for the sum of $110,000 and on terms agreed upon by the appellants, which included an agreement by the appellants to pay appellee a brokerage commission of $10,000. Notwithstanding that appellee had obtained a purchaser ready, willing and able to purchase said property and had obtained a deposit and contract on said property in accordance with all of the terms and conditions requested by the appellants, they refused to execute the contract and consummate the sale and refused to pay appel-lee its brokerage commission of $10,000.

Appellants denied the material allegations of the complaint. The trial was non-jury and the judgment was for the plaintiff-appellees in the sum of $10,000.

Appellants’ primary contention on appeal is that the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the trial judge are clearly erroneous and contrary to the weight of the evidence.

“Where a broker is employed to procure a purchaser who is ready, willing and able to buy at a specified price, he will be entitled to his commission upon the execution of a binding contract of sale by the buyer which is acceptable to the seller.” Lind-quist v. Burklew, Fla.App. 1960, 123 So.2d 261.

The trial judge sitting as the trier of facts has the responsibility of determining the weight, credibility and sufficiency of the evidence, and these findings are clothed with the presumption of correctness. Gaisford v. Frostman, Fla.App. 1967, 202 So.2d 790; Heredia v. Industrial Supplies, Inc., of Florida, Fla.App.1972, 265 So.2d 709; Imperial Lumber Co. v. Knowles, Fla.App.1972, 267 So.2d 53; Hayes v. Williams, Fla.App.1972, 271 So.2d 200. The court’s findings are entitled to the weight of a jury verdict and will not be disturbed unless it is shown that there is a total lack of substantial evidence to support those conclusions. Gaisford v. Frost-man, supra; Heredia v. Industrial Supplies, Inc., of Florida, supra.

Our review of the record on appeal convinces us that there is substantial competent evidence shown therein to support the trial court’s conclusions and that the judgment is fully supported in law and fact.

No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.
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.10 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  FEBRUARY 2, 2011 Media Advisory — Census Bureau Ships Local 2010 Census Data to Mississippi https://www.census.gov/rdo/data http://factfinder2.census.gov The data will include summaries of population totals, as well as data on race, Hispanic origin and voting age. These data will be presented for multiple geographies within the state, such as census blocks, tracts, voting districts, cities, counties and school districts. According to Public Law 94-171, the Census Bureau must provide redistricting data to the 50 states no later than April 1 of the year following the census. As a result, the Census Bureau is delivering the data state-by-state on a flow basis in February and March. All states will receive their data by April 1, 2011.
  https://www.census.gov/rdo http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/redistricting.html Follow us on http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/redistricting.html and follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and YouTube (/uscensusbureau).
  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