alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government





---

close


Argentina
 Basic Facts Population
 People per sq. km
 Males per 100 females
 Children per woman
 Goods exported from U.S.
 Goods imported to U.S.
 Change in exports from U.S. for 2013 to 2022
 A Closer Look Source
 Comparisons
 Compared to the U.S.
 Compared to the World
 K = Thousands
				M = Millions
				B = Billions
  Merchandise Trade U.S. Trade in Manufactured Goods
 Top Exported Goods by U.S. State or Territory
 Population Current and Projected Population
 Population by Age and Sex
 Source and Notes Source: U.S. Census Bureau, International Database (demographic data) and USA Trade Online (trade data); Central Intelligence Agency, The World Fact Book (country reference maps). This application presents data for 228 countries and areas of the world with a 2024 population of 5,000 or more. For eleven of those countries and areas, only demographic data are presented. "Data not available" indicates that data are not available from this application.  In such instances, data may be available elsewhere at the census.gov website. Trade figures presented for France do not include data for overseas departments French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte, and Reunion but do include data for dependencies Saint Barthelemy and Saint Martin.  Trade figures for the United Kingdom include data for crown dependencies Guernsey, Isle of Man, and Jersey. To learn more about world population projections, go to Notes on the World Population Clock. To learn more about international trade data, go to Guide to Foreign Trade Statistics. All trade figures are in U.S. dollars on a nominal basis.


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
#### Irven Lee DAWKINS v. STATE.

No. 37234.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1968.

Appeal dismissed without opinion. 208 So.2d 119.
251 La. 683

#### Cy D. F. COURTNEY v. John Julien McKEITHEN et al.

No. 48988.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 1, 1967.

In re: Cy D. F. Courtney applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Writs refused. There appears no error of law in the ruling complained of.
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)   In connection with the quarterly Report of Mokita, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending November 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Brent Millward, President and CAO of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.     /s/ Brent Millward Brent Millward, President, CAO Dated: January 5, 20100
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES THERETO INCLUDED IN
THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       6,478,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                459,108,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             517,746,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                    156,250,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       214,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 221,543,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               517,746,000
<SALES>                                    333,920,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           333,920,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              296,530,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             33,507,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                12,915,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         20,592,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                20,592,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.97


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Charles EVANS v. CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS, SECTION “G”.

No. 54305.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 1, 1974.

In re: Charles Evans applying for Writ of Mandamus and Habeas Corpus.

Writ is moot. Trial judge ruled on relator’s application on November 28, 1973.
# C_2014002EN.01000601.xml

| 7.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/6

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

1

0,25 % on 1 January 2014

Euro exchange rates (2)

2

6 January 2014

2014/C 2/04

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3602 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 142,28 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4595 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83030 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,8687 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2319 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,3900 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,485 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 299,82 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1764 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4932 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,9837 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5207 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4496 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5479 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6431 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7253 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 449,01 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,5732 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2327 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6295 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 546,23 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4681 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,653 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 45,2800 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,987 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,2400 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,8526 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 84,6660 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3602

JPY

Japanese yen

142,28

DKK

Danish krone

7,4595

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83030

SEK

Swedish krona

8,8687

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2319

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,3900

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,485

HUF

Hungarian forint

299,82

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1764

RON

Romanian leu

4,4932

TRY

Turkish lira

2,9837

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5207

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4496

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5479

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6431

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7253

KRW

South Korean won

1 449,01

ZAR

South African rand

14,5732

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2327

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6295

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 546,23

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4681

PHP

Philippine peso

60,653

RUB

Russian rouble

45,2800

THB

Thai baht

44,987

BRL

Brazilian real

3,2400

MXN

Mexican peso

17,8526

INR

Indian rupee

84,6660

---

(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

1

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

2

Source:

---
# C_2014062EN.01000701.xml

| 4.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/7

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

1

0,25 % on 1 March 2014

Euro exchange rates (2)

2

3 March 2014

2014/C 62/06

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3768 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 139,51 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4626 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,82305 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,8652 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2129 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,3175 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,354 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 312,65 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1928 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5167 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,0576 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5432 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5278 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,6823 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6446 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7461 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 473,34 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,8640 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,4589 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6515 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 969,50 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5222 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,604 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 50,0835 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,818 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,2125 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,2997 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 85,3905 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3768

JPY

Japanese yen

139,51

DKK

Danish krone

7,4626

GBP

Pound sterling

0,82305

SEK

Swedish krona

8,8652

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2129

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,3175

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,354

HUF

Hungarian forint

312,65

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1928

RON

Romanian leu

4,5167

TRY

Turkish lira

3,0576

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5432

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5278

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,6823

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6446

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7461

KRW

South Korean won

1 473,34

ZAR

South African rand

14,8640

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,4589

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6515

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 969,50

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5222

PHP

Philippine peso

61,604

RUB

Russian rouble

50,0835

THB

Thai baht

44,818

BRL

Brazilian real

3,2125

MXN

Mexican peso

18,2997

INR

Indian rupee

85,3905

---

(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

1

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

2

Source:

---
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed February 9, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1255

Lower Tribunal No. 20-12852

________________

Mariana Fiuza Aquino de Oliveira,

Appellant,

vs.

Gregory Charles Sim,

Appellee.

An appeal from non-final orders from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade 

County, Victoria del Pino, Judge.

Law Office of Kimberly H. Schultz, P.A., and Kimberly H. Schultz 

(Plantation), for appellant.

Gregory Charles Sim, in proper person.

Before EMAS, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ. 

MILLER, J.
2

In this paternity action, appellant, Mariana Fiuza Aquino de Oliveira, 

the mother, challenges two non-final orders, the first of which entered default 

in favor of appellee, Gregory Charles Sim, the father, while the second 

denied a motion to quash service of process. Under well-settled precedent, 

we lack jurisdiction to review the propriety of the default at this juncture in 

the proceedings. See Fascetti v. Fascetti, 795 So. 2d 1094, 1095 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2001) (holding that clerk’s defaults are not independently appealable). 

Because no summons was issued, however, let alone served upon the 

mother, we are constrained to reverse the order denying the motion to quash. 

See Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.070(a)(1) (“On the commencement of the action,

. . . summons or other process authorized by law must be issued 

immediately by the clerk or judge under the clerk’s or the judge’s signature 

and the seal of the court and delivered for service.”); Ingenieria Y 

Exportacion De Tecnologia S.L. v. Freytech, Inc., 210 So. 3d 211, 213 (Fla. 

3d DCA 2016) (“Because no summons was ever served on . . . the foreign 

defendant in this case, [the plaintiff] failed to comply with Florida’s service 

requirements.”); State ex rel. Merritt v. Heffernan, 195 So. 145, 147 (Fla. 

1940) (“[T]he real purpose of the service of summons ad respondendum is 

to give proper notice to the defendant in the case that he is answerable to 

the claim of plaintiff and, therefore, to vest jurisdiction in the court 
3

entertaining the controversy . . . .”); Bay City Mgmt., Inc. v. Henderson, 531 

So. 2d 1013, 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (“When [the plaintiff] failed to issue 

summons to the [defendants], they were not advised that they were 

individually being called upon to answer the complaint and defend the suit. 

Thus, they were not obliged to serve any paper.”); see also Sierra v. U.S. 

Bank Tr., N.A. as Tr. for LSF9 Master Participation Tr., 299 So. 3d 402, 403 

(Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (“A defensive motion that challenges personal 

jurisdiction and that does not seek affirmative relief does not subject the 

movant to the court’s jurisdiction.”).

Reversed and remanded.
#### Diane JERNIGAN, by her next friend and parent, Howard Jernigan, Appellant, v. H. N. HUDON, Appellee.

No. I-126.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Feb. 9, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32

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 Quarterly Report of China Golden Star Holdings Limited (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeremy Mork, Chief Executive and Financial  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, to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|Dated:  March 16, 2011
By  /s/ Jeremy Mork
-----------------------------
    Jeremy Mork
    Chief Executive and  Financial Officer
   (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|     (1)       | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Triple Dragon Acquisition Corp. |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                            |   |                                                           |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date: August 16, 2010        | By:    | /s/ Samuel May                                                 |   |
|                                                            |   | Samuel May                                                     |   |
|                                                            |   | President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |   |
Exhibit



EXHIBIT 10.24


UGI CORPORATION
SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION


The table below shows the components of director compensation effective October 1, 2016.  A director who is an officer or employee of the Registrant or its subsidiaries is not compensated for service on the Board of Directors or on any Committee of the Board.  




CASH        EQUITY
COMPONENT        COMPONENT (1)(2) 


Annual Retainer for Non-Employee        $80,000        3,000 Stock Units
Directors                             9,000 Stock Options
                                
Additional:
Additional Annual Retainer for        $200,000        2,100 Stock Units
Independent Chairman                        6,400 Stock Options


Additional Annual Retainer for         $10,000
Audit Committee Members
(other than the Chairperson)            


Additional Annual Retainer for         $20,000
Audit Committee Chairperson        


Additional Annual Retainer for         $15,000
Compensation and Management 
Development Committee Chairperson        


Additional Annual Retainer for         $10,000
Corporate Governance Committee 
Chairperson                


Additional Annual Retainer for         $10,000
Safety, Environmental and Regulatory
Compliance Committee Chairperson        
        




		
	(1)
	Stock Units and Stock Options are granted under the UGI Corporation 2013 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan.




		
	(2)
	Stock Units and Stock Options to be awarded in January 2017.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DORSEY TRAILERS, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               7
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,429
<ALLOWANCES>                                       145
<INVENTORY>                                     13,090
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,514
<PP&E>                                          17,772
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,210
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,934
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,751
<BONDS>                                         12,294
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                      (4,761)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,934
<SALES>                                        150,328
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               150,328
<CGS>                                          143,508
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  143,508
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,975
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (487)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (487)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (487)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.10)
        

</TABLE>
#### Clementeen SINGLETON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1111.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 11, 1972.

*399Theodore M. Trushin, and Michael Solomon, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William L. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

Before SWANN, C. J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ. •

PER CURIAM.

The single point presented on this appeal from appellant’s conviction for the crime of grand larceny is her contention that the evidence was insufficient. The testimony presented by the state established that the victim awoke to see a figure clad in white standing at his dresser in his hotel room. He had left his wallet on his dresser. The victim pursued the figure and discovered her in the hall with another woman. When the victim accused them of the crime one of them told the other to return the wallet which was done. The statement was, “You can have your wallet, we don’t want any trouble. Let us go.” When the victim refused to let them go they fled and were later apprehended by the police near the hotel parking lot.

The appeal of the co-defendant was not prosecuted and was dismissed by this court. On this appeal by Clementeen Singleton who admitted that she was one of the women apprehended urges that since we do not know which one of the women was in the hotel room that this appellant must be acquitted. We find that the record contains sufficient evidence to support a finding by the trial judge that the present appellant was either the actor or was a cooperating principal in the larceny. Lake v. State, 100 Fla. 373, 129 So. 827 (1930); Henderson v. State, Fla.1954, 70 So.2d 358; Sons v. State, Fla.App.1958, 99 So.2d 888.

Affirmed.