alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012370EN.01000701.xml

| 30.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 370/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 370/7

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

29 November 2012

2012/C 370/05

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2994 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 106,72 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4604 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,81053 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,6371 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2043 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,3500 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,226 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 279,30 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6962 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0968 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5100 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3241 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2432 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,2886 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,0704 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5763 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5857 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 407,53 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,4055 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,0917 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5391 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 490,31 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9569 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,001 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,0600 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,905 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,7264 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,8116 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 71,2400 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2994

JPY

Japanese yen

106,72

DKK

Danish krone

7,4604

GBP

Pound sterling

0,81053

SEK

Swedish krona

8,6371

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2043

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,3500

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,226

HUF

Hungarian forint

279,30

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6962

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0968

RON

Romanian leu

4,5100

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3241

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2432

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,2886

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,0704

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5763

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5857

KRW

South Korean won

1 407,53

ZAR

South African rand

11,4055

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,0917

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5391

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 490,31

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9569

PHP

Philippine peso

53,001

RUB

Russian rouble

40,0600

THB

Thai baht

39,905

BRL

Brazilian real

2,7264

MXN

Mexican peso

16,8116

INR

Indian rupee

71,2400

---

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

1

Source

---
#### The STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Clarence Joseph CARNIVALE, Respondent.

No. 43471.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 30, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 271 So.2d 793.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2003 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2003

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the energy credit 
                for certain property under construction.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 6, 2014

Mr. Bennet (for himself and Mr. Heller) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the energy credit 
                for certain property under construction.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Renewable Energy Parity Act of 
2014''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF ENERGY CREDIT FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY UNDER 
              CONSTRUCTION.

    (a) Solar Energy Property.--Paragraphs (2)(A)(i)(II) and (3)(A)(ii) 
of section 48(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are each amended 
by striking ``periods ending'' and inserting ``property the 
construction of which begins''.
    (b) Qualified Fuel Cell Property.--Section 48(c)(1)(D) of such Code 
is amended by striking ``for any period after December 31, 2016'' and 
inserting ``the construction of which does not begin before January 1, 
2017''.
    (c) Qualified Microturbine Property.--Section 48(c)(2)(D) of such 
Code is amended by striking ``for any period after December 31, 2016'' 
and inserting ``the construction of which does not begin before January 
1, 2017''.
    (d) Combined Heat and Power System Property.--Section 
48(c)(3)(A)(iv) of such Code is amended by striking ``which is placed 
in service'' and inserting ``construction of which begins''.
    (e) Qualified Small Wind Energy Property.--Section 48(c)(4)(C) of 
such Code is amended by striking ``for any period after December 31, 
2016'' and inserting ``the construction of which does not begin before 
January 1, 2017''.
    (f) Thermal Energy Property.--Section 48(a)(3)(A)(vii) of such Code 
is amended by striking ``periods ending'' and inserting ``property the 
construction of which begins''.
    (g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed March 27, 2014.

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01678-CR

CHARLES RICHARD VANDIVER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-56764-M

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, O’Neill, and Brown

Opinion by Justice O’Neill

A jury convicted Charles Richard Vandiver of assault involving family violence, found 

one enhancement paragraph true, and assessed punishment at twenty years’ imprisonment and a 

$2,500 fine. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(a)(1), (b)(2)(A) (West 2011); TEX. FAM. CODE 

ANN. §§ 71.0021, 71.005 (West 2008 & Supp. 2013). On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a 

brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets 

the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional 

evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See 
-2-

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a 

copy of the brief to appellant. 

Appellant filed a pro se response raising several issues After reviewing counsel’s brief, 

appellant’s pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. 

See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s 

duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

121678F.U05

/Michael J. O'Neill/

MICHAEL J. O’NEILL

JUSTICE
-3-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

CHARLES RICHARD VANDIVER,

Appellant 

No. 05-12-01678-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 194th Judicial District 

Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 

F12-56764-M).

Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill, 

Justices Bridges and Brown participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered March 27, 2014.

/Michael J. O'Neill/

MICHAEL J. O’NEILL

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000949298
<NAME> CENTRAL PARKING CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           22983
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    13492
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 40451
<PP&E>                                           35036
<DEPRECIATION>                                     567
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   95146
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            25291
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           116
<OTHER-SE>                                       65997
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     95146
<SALES>                                          33251
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 34046
<CGS>                                            25037
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    29116
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  4079
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   4929
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1701
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3228
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28
        

</TABLE>
#### Joseph R. CATES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 70-439, 70-440.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 19, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

Memorandum

From: Ari Kahan, Assessment and Standards Division

Date: July 31, 2012

Subject: Final Rulemaking Curve Fitting Analyses of MY 2008- and MY 2010-based fleet 

forecasts 

EPA has finalized CO2 standard target curves as proposed. However, as discussed in Joint TSD 

Chapter 2, EPA has also analyzed the curves that could be fit to the MY 2008 and MY 2010 

based market forecasts used in the final rulemaking. 

This memo is accompanied by eight files. For each market forecast, there is:

An excel file that contains the technology packages, costs, and effectiveness.

An excel file containing the fleet forecast.

An “R” language script that conducts the analysis.

A pdf file containing the outputs of the analysis.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6598

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KENNETH AVERY WATSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-98-66, CA-00-184-5-1-V) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 20, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Avery Watson, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Kenneth Avery Watson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Watson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
#### Richard Franz PIERRO et al., Appellants, v. Mary McGUIRE, as surviving spouse of Donald McGuire, Appellee.

No. 72-378.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 19, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED OCTOBER 6, 1996.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-06-1996
<CASH>                                       2,773,717
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,654
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,807,771
<PP&E>                                         544,293
<DEPRECIATION>                                (77,702)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,619,412
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          415,786
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,900
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,778,024
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,619,412
<SALES>                                        157,827
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               157,827
<CGS>                                           68,624
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  202,896
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                51,595
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             451,496
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,380,731)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,380,731)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,380,731)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.00)
        

</TABLE>
#### LUDLUM ENTERPRISES, INC., etc., et al., Appellants, v. GRAY PRODUCTS CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-121.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 22, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
|EXHIBIT 21.0


SUBSIDIARIES OF THE
REGISTRANT AS OF FEBRUARY 7, 2004
|--------------------------------------------------------------------

|                                           |  |  | STATE/      |  |  |               |  | 
|------------------------------------------ |  |  | ----------- |  |  | ------------- |  | 
|                                           |  |  | PROVINCE    |  |  | COUNTRY       |  | 
|                                           |  |  |             | 
|CPI Corp.                                  |  |  | Delaware    |  |  | United States |  | 
|                                           |  |  |             |  |  |               |  | 
|Consumer
      Programs, Incorporated      |  |  | Missouri    |  |  | United States |  | 
|d/b/a
      Sears Portrait Studios         |  | 
|Centrics
      Technology, Inc.            |  |  | Delaware    |  |  | United States |  | 
|d/b/a
      searsphoto.com                 |  | 
|Consumer
      Programs Partner, Inc.      |  |  | Delaware    |  |  | United States |  | 
|CPI
      Images L.L.C                     |  |  | Missouri    |  |  | United States |  | 
|d/b/a
      Sears Portrait Studios         |  | 
|d/b/a
      Mainstreet Portraits           |  | 
|CPI
      Research and Development. Inc.   |  |  | Delaware    |  |  | United States |  | 
|myportraits.com,
      Inc.                |  |  | Missouri    |  |  | United States |  | 
|                                           |  |  |             |  |  |               |  | 
|CPI Corp.
      Canada                     |  |  | Nova Scotia |  |  | Canada        |  | 
|d/b/a
      Sears Portrait Studios         |  | 
|                                           |  |  |             |  |  |               |  | 
|CPI Technology
      Corp.                 |  |  | Missouri    |  |  | United States |  | 
|                                           |  |  |             |  |  |               |  | 
|CPI Prints
      Plus, Inc.                |  |  | Delaware    |  |  | United States |  | 
|Prints
      Plus Ridgedale                |  |  | Minesota    |  |  | United States |  | 
|                                           |  | 
|CPI Portrait
      Studios de Mexico       |  | 
|S.
      de R.L. de C.V                    |  |  | Monterey,   |  | 
|                                           |  |  | Nuevo Leon  |  |  | Mexico        |  | 
|                                           |  |  |             |  |  |               |  | 
|CPI International
      Holdings, Inc.     |  |  | Delaware    |  |  | United States |  | 
|                                           |  |  |             |  |  |               |  | 
|CPI Canadian
      Holdings, Inc.          |  |  | Delaware    |  |  | United States |  | 
|                                           |  |  |             |  |  |               |  | 
|CPI Portrait
      Studios of Canada Corp. |  |  | Nova Scotia |  |  | Canada        |  | 

|
|
EXHIBIT 32.2



     Certification  of  CFO  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"), Robert
Scott  Lorimer,  Chief  Financial  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/  Robert  Scott  Lorimer
                                       -----------------------------
                                       Robert  Scott  Lorimer,
                                       Chief  Financial  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.
#### CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. CRALLE-HALL MOTOR COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 71-506.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 9, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-04-1998
<CASH>                                           6,421
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,115
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,168
<INVENTORY>                                     40,520
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               130,009
<PP&E>                                          43,429
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,363
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 122,099
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,913
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           130
<OTHER-SE>                                      80,573
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   122,099
<SALES>                                         50,572
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,572
<CGS>                                           26,070
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,070
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,846
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  34
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,540
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,239
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,301
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,301
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
        

</TABLE>