alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013178EN.01000101.xml

| 22.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/1

---

2013/C 178/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 171, 15.6.2013

OJ C 171, 15.6.2013

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 164, 8.6.2013

OJ C 156, 1.6.2013

OJ C 147, 25.5.2013

OJ C 141, 18.5.2013

OJ C 129, 4.5.2013

OJ C 123, 27.4.2013

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**STATEMENT PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS REQUIRED BYSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of John Deere Capital Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2010, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:

 

1.     The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.     The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| December 17, 2010 | */s/ S. R.  Allen* | * * | Chairman and Principal Executive  Officer              |
|------------------------|--------------------|----------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |               |     |                                                   |
|                   |               |     |                                                   |
| December 17, 2010 | */s/ J. M.  Field* | * * | Senior Vice President and  Principal Financial Officer |

 

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to John Deere CapitalCorporation and will be retained by John Deere Capital Corporation andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

70

----
# C_2013258EN.01000301.xml

| 7.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

6 September 2013

2013/C 258/04

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3117 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 130,71 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4588 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84200 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,7248 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2382 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0020 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,765 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 300,67 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7026 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2950 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4735 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,7031 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4309 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3682 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,1732 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6505 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6770 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 433,50 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,3552 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,0269 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5878 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 161,44 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3666 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,328 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 43,8260 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,440 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0395 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,4784 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 85,5820 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3117

JPY

Japanese yen

130,71

DKK

Danish krone

7,4588

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84200

SEK

Swedish krona

8,7248

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2382

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0020

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,765

HUF

Hungarian forint

300,67

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7026

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2950

RON

Romanian leu

4,4735

TRY

Turkish lira

2,7031

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4309

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3682

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,1732

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6505

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6770

KRW

South Korean won

1 433,50

ZAR

South African rand

13,3552

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,0269

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5878

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 161,44

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3666

PHP

Philippine peso

58,328

RUB

Russian rouble

43,8260

THB

Thai baht

42,440

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0395

MXN

Mexican peso

17,4784

INR

Indian rupee

85,5820

---

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

1

Source

---
#### Louis Michael BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-68.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 15, 1973.

Rehearing Denied April 3, 1973.

Louis Michael Brown, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court is affirmed. See Brown v. State, 262 So.2d 496 (Fla.App.1972), and Peterson v. State, 237 So.2d 223 (Fla.App. 1970).

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
#### Nancy S. HOSFORD, Appellant, v. John William HOSFORD, Jr., Appellee.

No. II-294.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 12, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 18, 1978.

*974Rivers Buford, Jr., Tallahassee, for appellant.

William C. Owen, of McClure, Wigginton, Campbell & Owen, P. A., Tallahassee, for appellee.

BOOTH, Judge.

This cause is before us on appeal from the order of the Circuit Court, Leon County, modifying the alimony awarded appellant. This is the third reduction in alimony since the original award at the time the parties were divorced in 1971. The order sought to be reviewed, dated October 13, 1977, is based on evidence of change in the husband’s financial condition considered by the court in ordering the second reduction of alimony on August 9,1976. Although there has been no material change since the prior modification, the latest order requires a further reduction.

Appellant correctly states that modification can only be based on changed conditions occurring since the prior award. *Florida Statute*§ 61.14. Once the court has found sufficient change in circumstances to require modification and thereupon enters an order, the facts and circumstances supporting that modification may not be revisited by the court as a basis for further modification. *Steinau v. Steinau,*343 So.2d 631, 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).

Appellant also contends that the trial court should have considered her motion for attorney fees for services performed in the trial court. We agree.

Accordingly, the order of October 13, 1977, is VACATED and the cause REMANDED with directions that the prior modification by order dated August 9,1976, remains in effect unless and until modified.

MELVIN, J., concurs.

SMITH, Acting C. J., dissents.
No. 00-7343.

No. 00-7623.

#### Walsh *v.*Walsh et al.; and Walsh *v.*Walsh.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 221 F. 3d 204.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
       
<S>                                    <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<CASH>                                 800,229
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                          350,211
<ALLOWANCES>                           18,500
<INVENTORY>                            390,390
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,708,256
<PP&E>                                 1,288,928
<DEPRECIATION>                         557,046
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         4,451,990
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  2,231,617
<BONDS>                                0
<COMMON>                               3,156
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<OTHER-SE>                             10,230,260
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           4,451,990
<SALES>                                1,682,786
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       1,682,786
<CGS>                                  1,307,612
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          1,516,623
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     5,777
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (1,139,735)
<INCOME-TAX>                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (1,139,735)
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                           (1,139,735)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          ($.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          ($.21)
        



</TABLE>
9/3/2015 Request for Information ­ FAA­2015­2065

https://email.dot.gov/owa/9­AWA­AVS­333Exemptions@faa.gov/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAABFvqQJAFf5SI8crGhIsEIyBwD3qfMUO7BCQ74YBi9P12... 1/1

Request for Information ­ FAA­2015­2065

9­AWA­AVS­333Exemptions (FAA)

Sent:Thursday, September 03, 2015 3:17 PM

To: herbay@bighousestudios.com

Dear Mr. Herbay:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

−2015−2065). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

Describe the aircraft makes, models, and types (i.e., fixed‐wing, rotorcraft, lighter‐than‐air) for the proposed

UAS operation. The descriptions should include the maximum weight (including payload). This information

can be located in the aircraft manuals.

Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order

8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove

closed‐set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested

response date listed below.

Please submit the additional information (non‐proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any

proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want

us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 9/17/15. If we do not

receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267­4264.

Sincerely,

Dan Ngo

FAA Office of Rulemaking
11

- i CHAPTER 11 . LIFE

- CYCLE COST SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

11.1 INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 11

- 1

11.2 IMPACTS OF PURCHASE PRICE

................................ ................................ .............. 11

- 111-1 CHAPTER 11. LIFE

- CYCLE COST SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

11.1 INTRODUCTION

The life

- cycle cost (LCC) subgroup analysis evaluates impac ts on identifiable groups of

customer s who may be disproportionately af fected by a national energy efficiency standard. The

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conduct s th e LCC subgroup analysis in preparation for the notice of proposed rulemaking

. DOE will conduct this analysis , in part, by analyzing the LCC and payback periods (PBPs) for customer s who fall into an identifiable group. DOE plans to evaluate variations in energy use and energy prices and use that might affect the net present

value of a standard to customer subpopu lations. To the extent possible, DOE will obtain

estimates of the variability of each LCC and PBP input parameter and will consider th at variability in calculating customer impacts. DOE plans to perform sensitivity analyses to

consider how differences in e nergy use will affect subgroups of customer s.

DOE will determine effects on customer subgroups using the LCC s preadsheet m odel,

which all ows for different data inputs. The standard LCC analysis (described in Chapter 8)

focuses on various types of distribut ion transformers and user groups . DOE can use the

s preadsheet m odel to analyze the LCC for any subgroup of customer types by sampling only that subgroup

. In the case of distribution transformers , some of the subgroups DOE may choose to consider are: (1) ru ral electric cooperatives, (2) municipal utilities and (3) owners of equipment

with specific installation requirements, for example : vault installed transformers

. (Chapter 8 preliminary technical support document explains in detail the inputs to the model used to
determin e LCC and PBP .)

11.2 IMPACTS OF PURCHASE PRICE

DOE is especially sensitive to increases in product purchase price s related to new standards . DOE wishes to avoid negative impacts on identifiable population groups that may be

un able to afford si gnificant increases in equipment price. Because increases in first costs of equipment can preclude the purchase o f a new model

, some customer s may retain equipment past their useful life. O lder equipment are generally are less efficient to begin with, and their efficiency may deteriorate further if they are reta ined beyond their useful life. Increases in first

cost also can preclude the purchase of new equipment altogether, resulting in a potentially large loss of utility to the customer

.
#### George Harley CASTLEBERRY, Appellant, v. John Warren MYERS, Appellee.

No. 73-459.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 13, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 26, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00144

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.R.,III AND A.R. CHILDREN,

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Co urt No. 15759A

Honorable Cathy Morris, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The appellant ’ s request for appointment of attorney ad

- litem is hereby DENIED.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 26th day of July, 2017

.

___________________________________ Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk
#### Patrick Lawrence MANSEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-223.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 2, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 21

                      PRINCIPAL SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

        (All incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida, unless
                               otherwise stated)


         Deltona Broadcasting Company, Inc.
         Deltona Construction Company, Inc.
         Deltona Corporation Realty Company (1)
         Deltona Land & Investment Corp.
         DLIC, Inc. (3)
         Deltona-Marco Properties, II, Inc.
         Deltona Marketing Corporation
         Deltona Marketing of Illinois, Inc. (an Illinois corporation) (2)
         Five Points Title Services Co., Inc.
         Three Seasons Corporation


------------------------
         (1)      Subsidiary of Three Seasons Corporation.

         (2)      Subsidiary of Deltona Marketing Corporation.

         (3)      Subsidiary of Deltona Land & Investment Corp.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,****as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
     In connection with the Form 10-K of DeanHolding Company (the “Company”) for the year endedDecember 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Barry A. Fromberg, Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, and the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
 /s/ BARRY A. FROMBERG      Barry A. Fromberg     *Executive Vice President and* *Chief Financial Officer*
Date: March 17, 2005
Note: This certification accompanies the Reportpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002and shall not be deemed filed, except to the extent required bythe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, by the Company for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
Exhibit 10.5

                     AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED
                         EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



                         Amendment  No. 4,  dated as of March 31,  1999,  to the
          Amended  and  Restated  Executive  Employment  Agreement,  dated as of
          August 1, 1992,  as amended (the "Amended  Agreement")  by and between
          Del  Global  Technologies  Corp.  (formerly  known as Del  Electronics
          Corp.)  (the  "Corporation")  and  Leonard A.  Trugman  ("Executive").
          Capitalized  terms  utilized  herein and not defined herein shall have
          the respective meanings ascribed to them in the Amended Agreement.

                         WHEREAS,  for  good  and  valuable  consideration,  the
          receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,  the parties
          hereto  have  agreed  to  amend a  certain  provision  of the  Amended
          Agreement.

                         NOW  THEREFORE,  the parties  hereto  mutually agree as
          follows:

                         Section 1.  Section  9.1 of the  Amended  Agreement  is
          hereby  amended by adding the  following  sentence  at the end of such
          section:

                         "In the event of a Change in Control, all stock options
          of the Corporation granted to Executive which have not vested shall be
          immediately vested."

                         Section 2. In all other respects the Amended  Agreement
          remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

                         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties  hereto have executed
          this Amendment no. 4 to the Amended Agreement as of the date set forth
          above.


                                       DEL GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP.

                                       By:/S/MICHAEL H. TABER
                                          -------------------
                                       Michael H. Taber, Chief Financial Officer



                                       /S/LEONARD A. TRUGMAN
                                       ---------------------
                                       Leonard A. Trugman
EXHIBIT 32.1

OFFICERS SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

Each of the undersigned officers of Income Opportunity
Realty Investors, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company) hereby certifies that:



| | (i) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | The information contained in the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the nine months ended September 30, 2006 fairly presents in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company, at and for the period indicated.
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |     |  |                                                     
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 14, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Steven A. Abney                                 
|                        |  |     |  | Steven A. Abney                                     
|                        |  |     |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                        |  |     |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer and     
|                        |  |     |  | Acting Principal Executive Officer)
#### Homer K. NAMAHOE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-607.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 11, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Stephen SIMON, Appellant, v. Andrea SIMON, Appellee.

No. 71-716.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 16, 1971.

Stephen Simon, in pro. per.

William Merritt, Miami, for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have considered the brief of appellant and record before us. We have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts"
in this Amendment No. 2 to the Registration Statement on Form S-3 and related
Prospectus of Trega Biosciences, Inc. for the registration of 3,886,668
shares of its common stock and to the incorporation by reference therein of
our report dated January 27, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Trega Biosciences, Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


San Diego, California


August 16, 2000
Exhibit 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of Trident Rowan Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Emanuel Arbib, Joint Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.


Date: May 25, 2004
                                                      /s/ Emanuel Arbib
                                                      --------------------
                                                      Emanuel Arbib


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Nathaniel SHARPE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-210.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 21, 1973.

Nathaniel Sharpe, in pro per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Michael M. Corin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. See State v. Barton, 194 So.2d 241 (Fla.1967) and Sharpe v. Wainwright, Case No. R-116, in the records of this Court.

CARROLL, DONALD K„ Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.