alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2013256EN.01001301.xml

| 5.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/13

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

4 September 2013

2013/C 256/06

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3171 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 131,06 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4582 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84380 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,7165 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2345 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0035 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,787 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 301,30 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7027 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2663 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4570 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,7040 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4373 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3814 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2145 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6698 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6786 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 441,40 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,4904 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,0608 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5780 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 083,43 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3254 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,353 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 44,0000 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,417 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0883 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,5563 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 88,2790 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3171

JPY

Japanese yen

131,06

DKK

Danish krone

7,4582

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84380

SEK

Swedish krona

8,7165

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2345

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0035

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,787

HUF

Hungarian forint

301,30

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7027

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2663

RON

Romanian leu

4,4570

TRY

Turkish lira

2,7040

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4373

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3814

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2145

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6698

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6786

KRW

South Korean won

1 441,40

ZAR

South African rand

13,4904

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,0608

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5780

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 083,43

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3254

PHP

Philippine peso

58,353

RUB

Russian rouble

44,0000

THB

Thai baht

42,417

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0883

MXN

Mexican peso

17,5563

INR

Indian rupee

88,2790

---

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

1

Source

---
Exhibit 99  OxfordJacksonNatchezHattiesburg _________________________________________________________________  AmSouth Building200 East Capitol StreetSuite 100 (39201-2200)Box 23027Jackson, MS 39225-3027601.948.6700Fax 601.948.6000www.str-cpa.com   Board of Directors Total Transportation Jackson, Mississippi   Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm  We have audited the combined consolidated balance sheet of Total Transportation of Mississippi and affiliated companies (Total Transportation) as of December 31, 2005, and the related combined consolidated statements of income, stockholders equity and cash flows for the year then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Companys management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.  We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform an audit of the Companys internal control over financial reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Companys internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements,
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  In our opinion, the combined consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Total Transportation as of December 31, 2005, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.        February 9, 2006
# C_2015273EN.01000101.xml

| 18.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/1

---

Corrigendum to Position (EU) No 10/2015 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97 on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of the Member States and cooperation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of the law on customs and agricultural matters — Adopted by the Council on 15 June 2015

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 239 of 21 July 2015
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 239 of 21 July 2015

(2015/C 273/01)

On page 10, in Article 1, point (15), the following point is added:

| ‘(c) | paragraph 3 is deleted;’. |
| --- | --- |

‘(c)

paragraph 3 is deleted;’.

---
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES ) No. ACM 39869

)

)

v. )

) ORDER

)

Brandon C. CSADY )

Staff Sergeant (E-5) )

U.S. Air Force, ) Special Panel

Applicant )

Judgment was entered in Applicant’s general court-martial on 23 December 2019. Applicant then sought review under Article 69(c), Uniform Code of 

Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 869(c), Manual for Courts-Martial, 

United States (2019 ed.). On 12 August 2020, The Judge Advocate General denied relief, finding “no error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the Applicant.”

We have reviewed the action taken by The Judge Advocate General in this 

case and the Application for Grant of Review timely submitted to this court 

under Article 69(d)(1)(B), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 869(d)(1)(B), dated 9 October

2020.

* The court determines the application has not demonstrated a substantial basis for concluding that the action under review constituted prejudicial 

error. Article 69(d)(2)(A), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 869(d)(2)(A).

Accordingly, it is by the court on this 30th day of September, 2021,

ORDERED:

The Application for Grant of Review is DENIED.

FOR THE COURT

CAROL K. JOYCE

Clerk of the Court

 

* The court docketed the application for review on 9 October 2020, and, on 8 December 

2020, granted Applicant’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief. On 30 March 

2021, the court accepted the supplemental brief.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41012

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDWIN CHARLES FORTES, JR

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-86-ALL

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Edwin Charles

Fortes, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Fortes has filed a response. The

record is insufficiently developed to allow consideration at this time of Fortes’s

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United States v. Cantwell, 470

F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 25, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 05-41012

2

brief, and Fortes’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Date: Sept 2, 2014 

Meeting: Methane Emissions 

Rule(s) Discussed: 

Written Materials? Yes/No: 

Name Organization Phone N urn ber 

~ c......----- --1 ----l-----1
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Clinton ANDERSON v. Ross MAGGIO, Warden.

No. 60454.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 28, 1977.

In re: Clinton Anderson applying for writ of certiorari and habeas corpus.

Writ denied. No error in the district court ruling.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3173 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3173

     To prohibit the admission to the United States as refugees of 
 individuals who served in the armed forces of Iraq during the Persian 
                             Gulf conflict.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 1993

Mr. Livingston introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To prohibit the admission to the United States as refugees of 
 individuals who served in the armed forces of Iraq during the Persian 
                             Gulf conflict.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES AS REFUGEES OF 
              INDIVIDUALS WHO SERVED IN THE ARMED FORCES OF IRAQ DURING 
              THE PERSIAN GULF CONFLICT.

    (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b) and notwithstanding any 
other provision of law, an individual who served in the armed forces of 
Iraq for any period during the Persian Gulf conflict may not be 
admitted to the United States as a refugee under the Immigration and 
Nationality Act.
    (b) Conditional Exception.--The prohibition under subsection (a) 
shall not apply to an individual who is determined by the Attorney 
General--
            (1) to have assisted United States or United Nations 
        coalition forces during the Persian Gulf conflict before or 
        after capture by such coalition forces; and
            (2) not to have participated in any activities as an 
        individual or as a member of the armed forces of Iraq which 
        would be considered internationally recognized war crimes or 
        crimes against humanity.
    (c) Persian Gulf Conflict Defined.--For purposes of this section, 
the term ``Persian Gulf conflict'' means the period beginning on August 
2, 1990, and ending on February 27, 1991.

                                 <all>
```
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1856 

To repeal section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, relating to 

an annual adjustment of retired pay for members of the Armed Forces 

under the age of 62. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 18, 2013 

Mr. PRYOR (for himself and Mrs. HAGAN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To repeal section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, 

relating to an annual adjustment of retired pay for members of the Armed Forces under the age of 62. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT OF RETIRED 

4 PAY FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES 

5 UNDER THE AGE OF 62. 

6 Section 403 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 

7 is repealed. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
562 S.E.2d 346

#### Paul Trevor ASBY, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia, Appellee.

Record No. 0176-00-1.

Court of Appeals of Virginia.

April 16, 2002.

UPON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA

In accordance with the order of the Supreme Court of Virginia entered on, October 18, 2001, the opinion previously rendered by this Court on January 9, 2001 is withdrawn and the mandate entered on that date is vacated. This Court’s order entered on May 29, 2001 is also vacated.

As further directed by the order of the Supreme Court, and in accordance with the decision of that Court in *Commonwealth v. Southerly,*262 Va. 294, 551 S.E.2d 650 (2001), the *149case is hereby transferred to the Supreme Court of Virginia pursuant to Code § 8.01-677.1.

This order shall be published.
#### Johnny WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-60.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 29, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3198

To suspend until January 1, 1997, the duty on [3R-alpha(R*),4-beta]]-

4-(acetyloxy)-3-[1-[[(1,1-dimethyl ethyl) dimethylsily]oxy]ethyl]-2-azetidinone, also known as aceotoxy azetidinone.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 30, 1993

Mr. KANJORSKI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend until January 1, 1997, the duty on [3R-alpha

(R*),4-beta]]-4-(acetyloxy)-3-[1-[[(1,1-dimethyl ethyl) dimethylsily]oxy]ethyl]-2-azetidinone, also known as

aceotoxy azetidinone.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. ACETOXY AZETIDINONE.

4 Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tar5 iff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting

6 in numerical sequence the following new heading:
2

•HR 3198 IH

‘‘ 9902.31.12 [3R-[3-alpha(R*), 4-

beta]]-4-(acetyloxy-3-[1-

[[(1,1-dimethyl ethyl)

dimethylsilyl]oxy]ethyl]-

2-azetidinone (acetoxy

azetidinone) (CAS No.

76855–69–1) (provided

for in subheading

2933.79.50) ................... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/96 ’’.

1 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

2 The amendment made by section 1 applies with re3 spect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for

4 consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of

5 the enactment of this Act.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> BD
<CIK> 0000862525
<NAME> ML SECTOR STRATEGY FUND LP

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,654,855              16,570,770
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                                  0                       0
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,654,855              16,570,770
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0                       0
<PAYABLES>                                     276,730                 119,360
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0                       0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,378,125              16,451,410
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,654,855              16,570,770
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                    0                       0
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                                 0                       0
<COMMISSIONS>                                        0                       0
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                (233,989)                  15,575
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<COMPENSATION>                                       0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (233,989)                  15,575
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   (233,989)                  15,575
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (233,989)                  15,575
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.40)                    0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.40)                    0.17


</TABLE>
Exhibit 21



Subsidiaries



|                                 |  |                                           
|-------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|                                 |  | State or OtherJurisdiction ofIncorporation
|Cooperative Bank                 |  | North Carolina                            
|Lumina Mortgage Company (1)      |  | North Carolina                            
|CS&L Holdings, Inc. (1)          |  | Virginia                                  
|CS&L Real Estate Trust, Inc. (2) |  | North Carolina                            

---

|(1) | Wholly owned subsidiary of Cooperative Bank
|--- | -------------------------------------------



|(2) | Majority owned subsidiary of C S & L Holdings, Inc.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------
**IN THE** **SUPREME COURT** **OF PENNSYLVANIA** **MIDDLE DISTRICT** **COMMONWEALTH OF** **PENNSYLVANIA, Nos.** **16 and** **17 MM** **2021 Respondent** **V. DION** **DAVID DERRIG,** **Petitioner ORDER** **PER CURIAM** **AND NOW,** **this 23rd** **day of** **April, 2021,** **the Petition** **for Leave** **to File** **Petition for** **Allowance of** **Appeal Nunc** **Pro Tunc** **and the** **Petition for** **Appointment of** **Counsel are** **DENIED.**
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-07-00205-CR

______________________________

CARLOS A. BIRDOW, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

On Appeal from the 336th Judicial District Court

Fannin County, Texas

Trial Court No. 22207

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
This appeal is a companion appeal involving the same appellant to our cause number 06-07- 1

00206-CR (trial court number 22208). The clerk's record in cause number 06-07-00205-CR (trial

court number 22207) contains the judgment and plea agreement for trial court cause number 22208,

and the record in cause number 06-07-00206-CR (trial court number 22208) contains the judgment

and plea agreement for trial court number 22207. An appellate court may take judicial notice of its

own records in the same or related proceedings involving the same or nearly the same parties.

Fletcher v. State, 214 S.W.3d 5, 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Huffman v. State, 479 S.W.2d 62, 68

(Tex. Crim. App. 1972). Therefore, we take judicial notice of the records in both cause numbers.

The negotiated plea agreement in this case demonstrates that Birdow's waiver of appeal was 2

done knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. See Ex parte Delaney, 207 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2006) ("One way to indicate that the waiver was knowing and intelligent is for the actual

punishment or maximum punishment to have been determined by a plea agreement when the waiver

was made.").

2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Carlos A. Birdow, Jr., has filed a notice of appeal from his conviction pursuant to a

negotiated plea agreement of the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. 

We have now received the clerk's record in this appeal. On our review of that record, we 1

note that the trial court's certification affirmatively states this "is a plea-bargain case, and the

defendant has NO right of appeal" and "the defendant has waived the right of appeal." 

Unless a certification, showing that a defendant has the right of appeal, is in the record, we

must dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). Because the trial court's certification

affirmatively shows Birdow has no right of appeal, and because the record before us does not reflect

that the certification is incorrect, see Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005),

we must dismiss the appeal.2
3

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: April 9, 2008

Date Decided: April 10, 2008

Do Not Publish
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3525 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3525

   To amend title 18, United States Code, to punish certain types of 
                     bribery in Federal elections.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 17, 1993

  Mr. Klein (for himself, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Fazio, Mrs. Schroeder, Mr. 
  Klink, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Andrews of New Jersey, Mr. 
   Pallone, Mr. Payne of New Jersey, and Mr. Nadler) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 18, United States Code, to punish certain types of 
                     bribery in Federal elections.

    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 ``Voter Protection Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. VOTER PROTECTION.

    Section 597 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``Whoever'' the first place 
        it appears; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Whoever, with the intent to influence any person to withhold 
his vote in an election for Federal, State or local political office, 
gives such person or any other person, for such purpose, anything of 
value shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 
years, or both.''.

                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: ESTATE OF MARY D. FRANO

PETITION OF: EAGLE 

ENVIRONMENTAL, L.P.

:

:

:

:

:

No. 368 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of March, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.