alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016434EN.01000201.xml

| 24.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 434/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 434/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

23 November 2016

(2016/C 434/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0602 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 118,04 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4398 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85393 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,7863 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0731 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,0680 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,027 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,04 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4154 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5165 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,5944 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4294 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4260 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,2232 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5039 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5136 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 248,20 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,9912 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3157 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5280 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 351,42 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7122 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,899 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 68,1458 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,743 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,5860 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,8340 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,8745 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0602

JPY

Japanese yen

118,04

DKK

Danish krone

7,4398

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85393

SEK

Swedish krona

9,7863

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0731

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,0680

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,027

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,04

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4154

RON

Romanian leu

4,5165

TRY

Turkish lira

3,5944

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4294

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4260

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,2232

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5039

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5136

KRW

South Korean won

1 248,20

ZAR

South African rand

14,9912

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3157

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5280

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 351,42

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7122

PHP

Philippine peso

52,899

RUB

Russian rouble

68,1458

THB

Thai baht

37,743

BRL

Brazilian real

3,5860

MXN

Mexican peso

21,8340

INR

Indian rupee

72,8745

---

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

1

Source

---
V

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1306

For the relief of Harold W. Brown.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 10, 1993

Mr. BACCHUS of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Harold W. Brown.

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

3 SECTION 1. SATISFACTION OF CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED

4 STATES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall

6 pay, out of funds appropriated for operation and mainte7 nance for the Department of Defense, to Harold W.

8 Brown, of Titusville, Florida, the amount described in sub9 section (b) as reimbursement for the amount deducted

10 from Mr. Brown’s earnings incident to the transportation

11 of his household goods at the time of his retirement as

12 a United States Department of Defense civilian employee
2

•HR 1306 IH

1 in March 1982. The payment of this sum shall be in full

2 satisfaction of any claim against the United States for re3 imbursement of such transportation expenses.

4 (b) AMOUNT OF PAYMENT.—The amount to be paid

5 under subsection (a) shall be the lesser of—

6 (1) the cost of shipping Mr. Brown’s household

7 goods from Madrid, Spain (his post of duty at the

8 time of his retirement), to Paris, France (where Mr.

9 Brown elected to reside following retirement) includ10 ing a drop off en route at Antibes, France, or

11 (2) the constructive cost of shipping the same

12 goods from Madrid, Spain, to Silver Spring, Mary13 land (Mr. Brown’s place of actual residence at the

14 time of his assignment to duty outside the United

15 States).

16 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ATTORNEY’S AND AGENT’S FEES.

17 No more than 10 percent of the sum appropriated

18 by section 1 shall be paid to or received by any agent or

19 attorney for services rendered in connection with the claim

20 described in such section. Any person violating the provi21 sions of this section shall be fined not more than $1,000.

Æ
EXHIBIT 11


                             BDM INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                  (Amounts in Thousands, Except Per Share Data)


                                                       For the Years Ended
                                                1996         1995         1994

Net Income                                    $17,675     $ 18,392      $13,078
                                              =======     ========      =======

Shares used for primary earnings per share:

     Weighted average shares
         outstanding                           13,730       11,121       10,417

     Dilutive effect of common stock
         equivalents-noncontingent options        863          697          524
                                              -------     --------      -------

              Total shares used for primary
                  earnings per share           14,593       11,818       10,941

Additional shares used for fully diluted 
     earnings per share:

     Increase for dilutive effect of
         contingent stock options                  89          187           63
                                              -------     --------      -------

         Total shares used for
              fully diluted earnings 
               per share                       14,682       12,005       11,004
                                              =======     ========      =======

Earnings per share:

     Primary                                    $1.21        $1.56        $1.20
                                                =====        =====        =====

     Fully diluted                              $1.20        $1.53        $1.19
                                                =====        =====        =====
EXHIBIT 32.1 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 Ever-Glory International Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kang
Yihua, 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 and 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. By:    /s/ Kang Yihua             Kang Yihua

             Chief Executive Officer May 10 , 2006
J

- S41033

- 15

NON
- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION
- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 RICKY TEJADA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant

v.
CAPTAIN PAINTER, LT. GAFF, AND HEALTH CARE ADMINIST RATOR DREIBELBIS,
Appellees No. 2148 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered November 26 , 2014 in the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County

Civil Division at No.: 2014

- 00958

BEFORE: ALLEN, J., LAZARUS, J., and PLATT, J. *

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PLATT, J.: FILED JUNE 17, 2015 Appellant, Ricky Tejada, appeals pro se from the order dismissing his complaint. He raises issues that are in the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Commonwealth Court. Therefore, we transfer to that Court. On July 28, 2014, Appellant initiated this civil rights action against
Appellees, employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. He alleged a violation of his constitutional rights based on excessive and unnecessary force and inhumane conditions of confinement, specifically, placing him in an intermediate restraint system for twenty

- f our hours. Appellees responded by filing preliminary objections in the nature of a

________________________________ ____________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.J

- S41033

- 15

- 2

-

demurrer. On November 26, 2014, the trial court sustained the objections
and dismissed the complaint. Appellant timely appealed.

It is well

- settled that this Court may “r aise[] the question of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte . . . . ” Commonwealth v. Danysh , 833 A.2d 151, 152 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted); see Pa.R.A.P. 751(a),
752(a). Civil rights claims against prison officials are properly heard in the

Commonwealth Court. See Danysh , supra ; 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 762(a)(1)(i). Here, Appellant has appealed the dismissal of his civil rights action brought against three employees of the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections. ( See Appellant’s Brief, at 5) . Accordingly, the Commonwealth Court has jurisdiction and we transfer this matter to that Court. See Danysh , supra

. Appeal transferred to the Commonwealth Court. 1
Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 6/17/2015

________________________________ ____________

1 Appellant’s Motion to Reinstate Appeal filed March 25, 2015 is dismissed as moot. Appellees’ Application for Relief filed April 10, 2015 is dismissed as moot.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000870905
<NAME>                         PUBLIC STORAGE PROPERTIES XIX, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                  1
<CURRENCY>                                                   US
       
<S>                                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                            12-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                      Jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                        Dec-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                               1
<CASH>                                                1,232,000
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           228,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      1,460,000
<PP&E>                                               61,707,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (13,640,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       49,527,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 2,559,000
<BONDS>                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                 41,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           46,927,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         49,527,000
<SALES>                                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      8,488,000
<CGS>                                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         5,322,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        213,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        6,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       2,947,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   2,947,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                          2,947,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              0.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0.71
        

</TABLE>
Transport Airplane Directorate

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W.

Renton, Washington 98057-3356

October 25, 2016

Mr. Douglas M. Lane

Director, Commercial Airplanes

The Boeing Company

P.O. Box 3707 MC 03-56

Seattle, WA 98124-2207

Dear Mr. Lane:

We have received your September 30, 2016, petition for an extension of time-limited partial 

grant of exemption number 10905. That exemption granted partial relief from the 

requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25.901(c), Amendment 

25-126, and 25.981(a)(3) Amendment 25-102 or later, for planned changes to the fuel 

quantity indication system (FQIS) on the 737-600/-700/-700C/-800/-900/-900ER airplanes.

That exemption expires December 17, 2017. The current petition requests an extension of 

the time limit to December 17, 2025.

This request, which you submitted to the Department of Transportation’s Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS), originally posted to docket no. FAA-2016-9259 but has been 

moved to docket no. FAA-2012-1137. We are in the process of reviewing your request and 

will contact you if we need additional information.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please 

contact Mike Collins by phone at 425-227-2689 or by e-mail at michael.collins@faa.gov.

Sincerely,

/s/

Theresa White

Transport Airplane Directorate

Aircraft Certification Service
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). JK / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T AN DR E B R I GH AM YO UN G, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. S T A T E O F W A S H I N G T O N ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 35640 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 6 - c v - 0 1 6 8 7 - J CC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on J ohn C . C oughe nour , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 16, 2010 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , P R E G E R S O N , an dR A W L IN S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A n d r e B r ig h a m Y o u n g , af o rm e rW a s h in g to n s ta te p r is o n e ra n dc u rr e n t c iv il d e ta in e e , ap p e a ls p r o s e f r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t d is m is s in g h is 4 2 U .S .C . 

# FI LED MA R 30 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSJ K / Res ea r ch 08- 35640 2 § 1 9 8 3 act i o n as b arredb y H ec k v . H um ph re y , 512 U . S . 477 ( 1994) . W e ha ve ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o . W h ita ke rv . G a r c e tti , 486 F . 3d 572, 579 ( 9th C i r . 2007) . W e a f f i rm i n part , va c a t e i n part , a nd r e m and. T h e d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y d i sm i ssedth e act i o n as H ec k-barre d b ec ause a ju d g m e n t in Y o u n g ’s f

a v o rw o u ldn e c e s s ar ilyim p lyth e in v a lid ityo f h is c o n v ic tio n , an dY o u n g f a ile dto a lle g e th a t h is c o n v ic tio n h a s b e e n in v a lid a te d . See H ec k , 5 1 2 U .S . at 4 8 6 - 8 7 ; H uf t i le v . Mi cc i o-Fon se ca , 410 F . 3d 1136, 1139- 40 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( appl y i ng H ec k t o c i vi l de t a i ne e s ) . H ow e ve r , w e va c a t e the j udgm e ntt o the e xt e nttha ti tdi s m i s s e d the a c t i on w i th pr e j udi c e , a nd r e m and f

or e n tryo f d is m is s a l w ith o u t p r e

ju d ic e . See T

ri m b le v. C i t

y o f Sa n ta R o sa , 49 F . 3d 58 3, 58 5 (9th C i r. 19 95 ) ( per c uri am ) ( st at i ng thatdi sm i ss al s und er H ec k ar e w ith o u t p r e

ju d ic e ) . W e d o n o t c o n s id e ra r g u m e n ts r a is e df o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l. Se e Sm i th v. M a rsh , 19 4 F . 3d 10 45 , 10 52 (9th C i r. 19 99 ). T h e p artie s s h a ll b e arth e iro w n c o s ts o n ap p e a l. AF F I RME D i n p a r t , V AC AT E D i n p a r t , a n d RE MAND E D.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 233 (Monday, December 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30740]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-622-001]


El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

November 28, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 22, 2000, El Paso Natural Gas Company 
(El Paso) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Second Revised Volume No. 1-A, the following tariff sheets, with an 
effective date of November 1, 2000:

Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 270
Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 284

    El Paso states that is being filed compliance with the Commission's 
order issued October 27, 2000 at Docket No. RM96-1-014, et al.
    El Paso states that the tariff sheets are being filed to revise 
imbalance netting and trading tariff provisions in compliance with the 
Commission's order in this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30740 Filed 12-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
STATE OF FLORIDA,

DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY

SAFETY AND MOTOR

VEHICLES

,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES R. SUTTON

,

Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOT ION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 1593

Opinion filed September 20, 2016.

Certiorari

– Original Jurisdiction.

Stephen D. Hurm, General Counsel, and Na talia Costea, Assistant General Counsel,

Department of Highway Saf ety and Motor Vehicles, Miami , for Petitioner.

David M. Robbins and Susan Z. Cohen of Epstein & Robbins, Jacksonville , for

Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

ROBERTS, C.J., WETHERELL and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
Amendment to Letter of Understanding with Corey Lindley as of March 25, 2005.







EXHIBIT 10.3 






We
previously entered into an employment letter effective August 8, 2002 (as supplemented by
a Letter of Understanding dated December 22, 2003) with Corey Lindley, our Executive Vice
President and President of our Greater China operating region regarding his service as an
ex-patriot employee in Mainland China through June 2005. On March 25, 2005, Mr. Lindley
agreed to extend his service under such arrangement through June 2006. We also mutually
agreed to consider an earlier repatriation date if the company’s or Mr.
Lindley’s circumstances change before that date.
#### SKAGGS v. STATE.

No. 20086.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 11, 1939.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 8, 1939.

Wallace Hughston, of McKinney, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of receiving and concealing stolen property, and his punishment assessed at two years confinement in the penitentiary.

This cause comes before us without any statement of facts or bills of exception. The indictment appears to be proper, and all proceedings herein seem to be regular, and we have no other alternative than to affirm the judgment, which is accordingly done.

On Motion for Rehearing.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant has filed a motion for a rehearing in which he insists that the indictment is fundamentally defective in that it fails to charge an offense against the laws of this, state. We have again examined the same with much care, but remain of the opinion that it is sufficient to charge the offense for which he was convicted.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
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. 08-50600

Summary Calendar

GEORGE STEPHEN CLEGG

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DAWN GROUNDS; KENNETH DEAN; FNU FULLMAN

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:08-CV-82

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

George Stephen Clegg, Texas prisoner # 681197, sued prison officials

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting that a policy prohibiting inmates from using

the restroom during two-hour library sessions effectively prevents him from

conducting legal research in violation of his right of access to the courts. He

asserted that he has a medical condition that causes him to urinate frequently.

The district court dismissed the suit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 18, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50600

2

because Clegg failed to assert an actual injury as a litigant that resulted from

the policy. The court denied Clegg’s motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP) on appeal, certifying that the appeal was not taken in good faith.

Clegg seeks this court’s leave to proceed IFP.

Although Clegg asserts generally that his attempts to obtain postconviction relief and an out-of-time appeal were adversely affected by the prison

policy, he fails to assert any facts that demonstrate how he was injured as a

litigant. Accordingly, he fails to show that he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on

appeal. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). The motion is denied and

the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 &

n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

The district court’s dismissal of Clegg’s complaint and our dismissal of his

appeal count as two strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba

v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Clegg is cautioned that once he

accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal

filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; IFP MOTION DENIED; SANCTION WARNING

ISSUED.