alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004127EN.01000101.xml

| 1.5.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 127/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 127/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

30 April 2004

(2004/C 127/01)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1947 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 131,87 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4412 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,6737 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1483 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5511 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 88,16 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,221 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9474 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5865 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 32,543 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 251,15 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6522 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,426 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,8108 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 40 424 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 238,63 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 40,455 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 698 039 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6577 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6383 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,3183 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9153 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0342 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 401,80 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,1894 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1947

JPY

Japanese yen

131,87

DKK

Danish krone

7,4412

GBP

Pound sterling

0,6737

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1483

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5511

ISK

Iceland króna

88,16

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,221

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9474

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5865

CZK

Czech koruna

32,543

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

251,15

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6522

MTL

Maltese lira

0,426

PLN

Polish zloty

4,8108

ROL

Romanian leu

40 424

SIT

Slovenian tolar

238,63

SKK

Slovak koruna

40,455

TRL

Turkish lira

1 698 039

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6577

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6383

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,3183

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9153

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0342

KRW

South Korean won

1 401,80

ZAR

South African rand

8,1894

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM TREX MEDICAL
CORPORATION'S REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 4, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                OCT-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                     JUL-04-1998
<CASH>                                41,666
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                         80,744
<ALLOWANCES>                           2,933
<INVENTORY>                           61,783
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     189,702
<PP&E>                                28,322
<DEPRECIATION>                         9,045
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       331,943
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 72,893
<BONDS>                                  225
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                 341
<OTHER-SE>                           250,262
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         331,943
<SALES>                              203,568
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     203,568
<CGS>                                117,735
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        117,735
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      23,156
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         700
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       252
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       26,265
<INCOME-TAX>                          11,051
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   15,214
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                          15,214
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0.47
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Haley and Senior Judge Coleman 

CURTIS EDWARD BODDIE 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2228-06-1 PER CURIAM 

 JANUARY 23, 2007 

NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING 

 AND DRY DOCK COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Gregory E. Camden; Charlene A. Morring; Montagna Klein 

Camden, LLP, on brief), for appellant. 

 (Christopher R. Hedrick; Mason, Mason, Walker & Hedrick, P.C., 

on brief), for appellee. 

 Curtis Edward Boddie appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission 

that ruled he failed to prove he sustained an injury by accident arising out of his employment on 

September 8, 2004. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion, and we hold 

this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the commission’s decision for the reasons 

stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Boddie v. Newport News Shipbuilding and 

Dry Dock Co., VWC File No. 220-65-38 (Aug. 15, 2006). We dispense with oral argument and 

summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code 

§ 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

 Affirmed.

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
# C_2004222EN.01000302.xml

| 4.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case No COMP/M.3531 — DIXONS GROUP/KOTSOVOLOS)

(2004/C 222/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 25 August 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 32004M3531. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. (http://europa.eu.int/celex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 32004M3531. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. (http://europa.eu.int/celex)

---
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 24 (Thursday, February 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 6517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02289]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than February 20, 2015.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, 
Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55480-0291:
    1. Vance Vinar, Sr., Vance Vinar, Jr., Kaylin Vinar, Jared Vinar, 
Joey Vinar, Chad Wolff, and Courtney Wolff, all of Faribault, 
Minnesota, as a group acting in concert, to acquire voting shares of 
Reliance Bancorporation, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting 
shares of Reliance Bank, both in Faribault, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 2, 
2015.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-02289 Filed 2-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
From: Flanders, Phillip
To: jlapcev@firstenergycorp.com
Cc: Jordan, Ronald ; Schroeder, Cuc ; Thomas Finseth Subject: RE: Follow up to comments on proposed Steam Electric effluent guidelines
Date: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 9:38:16 AM

Good Morning Joe,

Thank you for submitting additional data from Hatfield’s Ferry. We believe that this will be helpful for evaluating comments regarding treatment of FGD wastewater. We would like to ask you some follow-up questions to ensure that we understand the submitted data. We understand that it may
be difficult to locate some records because of the deactivation of the facility, however we would appreciate any input that you can offer.

These are the specific questions we would appreciate your input on regarding the Excel Spreadsheet that you sent us a couple of weeks ago.

1. What method was used for Arsenic in column D (AS - Arsenic) and Column E (HGTGEO - Mercury, Trace, Geochemical Labs)? The MDL is included on the spreadsheet, but we don't know what the quantitation limit and the reporting limit are.

2. In Column D (AS - Arsenic) one value is reported as <MDL and several are reported as 0. What exactly does a reported value of "0" mean? Were these samples also below the MDL? Does this mean the sample was a nondetect?

3. In Column E (HGTGEO - Mercury, Trace, Geochemical Labs) several values are reported as

0. What exactly does a reported value of "0" mean? Were these samples also below the MDL? Does this mean the sample was a nondetect?

4. What is the difference between Column F and Column G, both of which are labeled Hg (245.7)? Is the unit on Column G a typo? Should they both be ug/L? (The same numbers are reported in the two columns, but the units are different) Why is the sample from 9/17/2013 listed
as below MDL in Column F and zero in Column G?

5. What is different about the samples reported between 7/7/2009 and 11/29/2011 and 11/6/2012 and 12/10/2013? Decommissioning Hatfield's Ferry only accounts for data acquired after 10/6/2013. The samples from 11/6/2012 onwards do not have sample numbers. Was a different method or a different laboratory used? Are these values in different units?

Thanks in advance for any advice you can offer,

Phillip Flanders, Ph.D.

Environmental EngineerEngineering and Analysis Division Office of Science and Technology
Office of Water

Mail Code 4303T (202) 566-8323
# C_2004179EN.01000602.xml

| 10.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/6

---

Appeal brought on 10 May 2004 by Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment delivered on 3 March 2004 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-355/02 between Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being Zirh International Corp.

(Case C-206/04 P)

(2004/C 179/12)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 March 2004 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-355/02 (1) between Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being Zirh International Corp., was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 May 2004 by Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG, established in Cologne (Germany), represented by T. Schulte-Beckhausen, lawyer.

1

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul the decision of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 3 March 2004 (Case T-355/02) and also the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the defendant and appellee of 1 October 2002 (Case No. R-657/2001-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the decision of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 3 March 2004 (Case T-355/02) and also the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the defendant and appellee of 1 October 2002 (Case No. R-657/2001-2);

| 2. | order the defendant and appellee to pay the costs in total. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the defendant and appellee to pay the costs in total.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The appellant submits that, given the similarity of the goods and services in question and the similarity in sound of the opposed marks, the Court of First Instance should have come to the conclusion that there is a likelihood of confusion between the opposed marks, pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (2).

2

The appellant therefore maintains that the Court of First Instance has misconstrued the requirements of Article 8(1)(b) and that the contested judgment should be annulled.

---

(1)  OJ C 70, 22.03.2003, p. 23.

1

(2)  Of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 14.01.1994, p. 1), as amended.

2

---
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Raul Rodriguez v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 12

- 00688

- CR

Trial court case number: 1348372

Trial court: 178th District Court of Harris County

T he State has filed a “Motion to Exceed Word Limit,” along with its 35,112

- word brief,

requesting that this Court accept the brief although it exceeds the 15,000 word limit set by the

Texas Rule s of Appellate Procedure

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.4 (i) (2)(B). W e previously granted

the appellant’s motion to exceed the word limit by 10,000 words, for a total of 25,000 words.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.4(i)(4).

W e DENY the State’s motion and STRIKE the State’s brief for failure to comply with

Texas Rule of Appellate Pr ocedure 9.4(i)(2)(B). See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.4(i)(2), (j). We ORDER

the State to file a brief within 30 days of the date of this order containing no more than 25,000

words. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.4(i)(4). No extensions of time to file the brief will be g ranted. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(d).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: October 3 , 2013
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

PATRICK RIVERS, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D19-1983

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed November 27, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Hillsborough County; Samantha 

Ward, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See § 775.082(9)(a)(1)(g), (9)(a)(1)(p), Fla. Stat. (2014); 

McDonald v. State, 957 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2007); Knight v. State, 808 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 

2002); State v. Roby, 246 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1971); Young v. State, 54 So. 3d 1022 (Fla. 

2d DCA 2011); Hillman v. State, 410 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Woodberry v. 

State, 193 So. 3d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Brown v. State, 97 So. 3d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 

2012); Lopez v. State, 833 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

VILLANTI, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
No. 86-6161.

No. 86-6261.

#### In re Humphrey; and In re Sogoian.

Petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Background, Status, and Issues Related to the Regulation of Advanced Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycle Facilities: ACNW&M White Paper (NUREG-1909)

On this page:
        - Publication Information 
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1909 (PDF - 3.90 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**May 2008**Date Published:**June 2008

**Prepared by:**A.G. Croff, R.G. Wymer, L.L. Tavlarides, J.H. Flack, H.G. Larson

Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and MaterialsU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

In February 2006, the Commission directed the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials (ACNW&M) to remain abreast of developments in the area of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing, and to be ready to provide advice should the need arise. A white paper was prepared in response to that direction and focuses on three major areas: (1) historical approaches to development, design, and operation of spent nuclear fuel recycle facilities, (2) recent advances in spent nuclear fuel recycle technologies, and (3) technical and regulatory issues that will need to be addressed if advanced spent nuclear fuel recycle is to be implemented. This white paper was sent to the Commission by the ACNW&M as an attachment to a letter dated October 11, 2007 (ML072840119). In addition to being useful to the ACNW&M in advising the Commission, the authors believe that the white paper could be useful to a broad audience, including the NRC staff, the U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, and other organizations interested in understanding the nuclear fuel cycle.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
#### Erny Basket Company, Appellant, vs. Bank of Edgar and another, Respondents.

For the appellant: *S. W. Jensch*of Hudson.

For the respondents : *Bird, Smith, Okoneski & Puchner*of Wausau.

*By the Court.*

Order affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2283 

MAMIE L. JACKSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(CA-03-1725-3)

Submitted: June 8, 2005 Decided: July 8, 2005

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mamie L. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Vance J. Bettis, Derwood

Lorraine Aydlette, III, Christopher Wofford Johnson, GIGNILLIAT,

SAVITZ & BETTIS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

Jackson does not challenge on appeal the district court’s

judgment in favor of Appellee on its counterclaim and, therefore,

has waived appellate review of that issue. 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The

Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal

brief.”).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Mamie L. Jackson appeals the district court’s orders

accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing her

employment discrimination action for failure to comply with the

court’s prior orders imposing sanctions and compelling discovery.*

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Jackson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of S.C., No. CA-03-

1725-3 (D.S.C. filed June 23, 2004 & entered June 24, 2004; filed

Aug. 3, 2004 & entered Aug. 4, 2004; filed Sept. 16, 2004 & entered

Sept. 17, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE> 1

                                                      EXHIBIT 10.2

AETNA      151 Farmington Avenue, RE6A     Alfred P. Quirk, Jr.
           Hartford, CT  06156             Vice President, Finance
                                           (860) 273-1322
                                           Fax: (806) 273-1314



October 22, 1996


Jerry J. Fall
Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York
60 Wall Street, 23rd Floor
New York, NY  10019


Dear Jerry,

Pursuant to Section 2.07(c) of the $2.5 billion Credit Agreement 
(the "Credit Agreement") dated as of June 28, 1996, among Aetna 
Life and Casualty Company (renamed Aetna Services, Inc) as the 
Borrower and Aetna Inc. as Guarantor, the Banks listed therein and 
Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York, as Administrative 
Agent, the Borrower hereby requests the ratable reduction of the 
outstanding Commitments by $1 billion.  Following this reduction, 
the remaining outstanding Commitments under the Credit Agreement 
shall be $1.5 billion.

As provided in Section 2.07(c), this reduction shall be effective 
three Domestic Business Days from the date hereof.

Capitalized terms used in this letter shall have the meanings as 
set forth in the Credit Agreement.



Sincerely,


/s/ Alfred P. Quirk, Jr.
________________________
       (Signature)      
Alfred P. Quirk, Jr.