alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004257EN.01000101.xml

| 19.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

18 October 2004

(2004/C 257/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2474 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,51 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4387 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69185 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0985 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5382 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 87,12 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,239 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5757 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 31,398 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 247,35 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6686 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4297 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2902 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 41 257 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,9 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 39,955 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 848 000 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7103 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5658 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,7183 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8124 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0943 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 426,65 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,9846 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2474

JPY

Japanese yen

136,51

DKK

Danish krone

7,4387

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69185

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0985

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5382

ISK

Iceland króna

87,12

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,239

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5757

CZK

Czech koruna

31,398

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

247,35

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6686

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4297

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2902

ROL

Romanian leu

41 257

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,9

SKK

Slovak koruna

39,955

TRL

Turkish lira

1 848 000

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7103

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5658

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,7183

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8124

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0943

KRW

South Korean won

1 426,65

ZAR

South African rand

7,9846

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
FILED

October 30, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTION AT KNOXVILLE

RONALD STEPHEN COFER, ) BRADLEY CIRCUIT

)

Plaintiff/Appellee ) NO. 03A01-9705-CV-00173

)

v. )

)

LYNDA SUSAN DAVIS COFER, ) HON. STEPHEN BEBB

Defendant/Appellant ) JUDGE

)

Defendant/Appellant ) AFFIRMED

D. Mitchell Bryant, Cleveland, for Appellant.

Ron D. Powers, Chattanooga, for Appellee.

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

INMAN, Senior Judge

The appellant argues that (1) the Court erred in awarding both parties a

divorce, insisting that she should have been awarded a divorce; (2) the Court

failed to award her sufficient alimony; (3) the Court should have awarded the

entire interest in the marital residence to her, rather than a 50 percent interest;

(4) the Court failed to award her a reasonable attorney fee.

The record reveals that the marital estate was equitably and fairly divided

and that the award of alimony was likewise equitable and in keeping with the

circumstances of the parties. Since the allowance of attorney fees is ordinarily a

matter of judicial discretion, the record reveals no abuse of this judicial

prerogative.
1

 10. Affirmance Without Opinion - Memorandum Opinion.

(b) Memorandum Opinion. The Court, with the concurrence of all

judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify the actions

of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion would

have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum

opinion it shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be

published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in a

subsequent unrelated case. [As amended by order filed April 22, 1992.]

2

This case is peculiarly adaptive to the application of RULE 10, RULES OF

THE COURT OF APPEALS,

1

 and the judgment is accordingly affirmed at the costs

of the appellant.

_________________________________

William H. Inman, Senior Judge

CONCUR:

_______________________________

Houston M. Goddard, Presiding Judge

_______________________________

Herschel P. Franks, Judge
1 

### Chaudhari, Narendra

From: Duclos, John <John.Duclos@des.nh.gov>

Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 2:40 PM

To: Chaudhari, Narendra

Subject: RE: Non-Aqueous Corrosive Waste Regulated by NH

Attachments: Copy of NH02 2014.xlsx

Hi Narendra,

Attached is a table query on our manifest tracking database for NH02 which was used as the first waste code on the

manifest for 2014. Hope this is what you were looking for. If you need more let me know.

Thanks

‐ John

John J. Duclos, Administrator

Hazardous Waste Management Bureau

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services

29 Hazen Drive, PO Box 95

Concord, NH 03302

‐ 0095

John.Duclos@des.nh.gov

Tel: (603) 271

‐ 1998

Fax: (603) 271

‐ 2456

This e

‐ mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely and exclusively for the use of the persons to whom it is

addressed. The information contained in this electronic message and any attached files may be privileged, confidential

or otherwise protected by law or regulation. Please notify me at (603) 271

‐ 1998 or reply to John.Duclos@des.nh.gov if

you believe you have received this e

‐ mail accidentally or in error, and delete or destroy all copies of this electronic

message and any attachment or printed copies.

From: Chaudhari, Narendra [mailto:Chaudhari.Narendra@epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 11:32 AM

To: Duclos, John

Cc: Oleary, Jim; Helms, Greg

Subject: Non-Aqueous Corrosive Waste Regulated by NH

Hi John,

I work with Jim Oleary in the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery at USEPA. Jim referred me to you for a

question I have on non

‐ aqueous corrosive waste regulated by New Hampshire under the hazardous waste code

NH02. This waste is defined under your state regulations as HW 403.04(b)(3). I’m looking for information on the

following:

1. What types of non

‐ aqueous wastes are being regulated by New Hampshire as hazardous waste NH02?

2. Does New Hampshire maintain a database to keep track of NH02 wastes regulated to date (providing

information such as company name, volumes generated, pH values, etc.) and, if you do, can you send me a link

to access it?

Thanks.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Office of Pesticide Programs 

Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division {7 511 P) 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

NOTICE OF PESTICIDE REGISTRATION 

X Registration 

__ Reregistration 

(under FIFRA. as amended) 

Name and Address of Registrant (include ZIP Code): 

EPA Reg. 

Number: Date of Issuance: 

89615-1 FEB- 5 2015 

Term of 

Issuance: Unconditional, Time- Limited 

Name of Pesticide Product: 

Bacillus subtilis strain 

IAB/8503 

Technical Powder 

lAB, S.L. (Investigaciones y Aplicaciones Biotechnologicas S.L.) 

Avda, Paret del Patriarca 

11-B, Ap. 30 

46113 Moncada (Valencia) s·pain 

Note: Changes· in labeling differing in substance from that accepted in connection with this registration must be submitted to and accepted by the 

Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division prior to use of the label In commerce. In any correspondence on this product always refer to the 

above EPA registration number. 

On the basis of information furnished by the registrant, the above named pesticide is hereby registered under the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. 

Registration is in no way to be construed as an endorsement or recommendation of this product by the Agency. 

In order to protect health and the environment, the Administrator, on his or her motion, may at any time suspend 

or cancel the registration of a pesticide in accordance with the Act. The acceptance of any name in connection 

with the registration of a product under this Act is not to be construed as giving the registrant a right to exclusive 

use of the name or to its use if it has been covered by others. 

This registration does not eliminate the need for continual reassessment of the pesticide. If EPA determines at 

any time, that additional data are required to maintain in effect an existing registration, the Agency will require 

submission of such data under section 3(c)(2)(8) of FIFRA. 

This product is unconditionally registered in accordance with FIFRA section 3(c)(5) and is subject to the following 

terms and conditions: 

1. Revise the EPA Registration number on the label to read, "EPA Reg. No. 89615-1 ." 

2. The subject registration will automatically expire on February 4, 2020. 

3. Submit two (2) copies of the revised final printed labeling before you release the product for shipment 

A stamped copy of the lab(11 is en~osed for your records. 

Signature of Approving Official: '-f. ..\.J 1 () • 

Kimberly Nesci, Chielj J }/1,~ \ V~ Microbial Pesticides Bran;·~ Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511 P) 

EPA Form 8570-6 

Date: 

FEB- 5 2015
# C_2005019EN.01000101.xml

| 22.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/1

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 28 October 2004

in Case C-164/01 P G. van den Berg v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Milk - Additional levy - Reference quantity - Producers having entered into a non-marketing undertaking - SLOM producers - Change of holding - Refusal to grant a special reference quantity)

(2005/C 19/01)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-164/01 P: appeal under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice brought on 13 April 2001 by G. van den Berg, residing in Dalfsen (Netherlands) (avocat: E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk), the other parties to the procedure being the Council of the European Union (Agent: A.-M. Colaert) and the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: T. van Rijn) – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermanns, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 October 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr van den Berg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr van den Berg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            Certification Pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                             As Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Daou Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Neil R. Cassidy,
Chief 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:

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

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


/s/ Neil R. Cassidy

Neil R. Cassidy
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002

                                       23
# C_2004300EN.01001301.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/13

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 7 October 2004

in Case C-379/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret): Skatteministeriet v Imexpo Trading A/S (1)

1

(Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature - Chairmats)

(2004/C 300/25)

Language of the case: Danish

In Case C-379/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Østre Landsret (Denmark), made by order of 15 October 2002, received at the Court on 21 October 2002, in the proceedings between Skatteministeriet and Imexpo Trading A/S — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), and S. von Bahr, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 October 2004, in which it has ruled:

The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1734/96 of 9 September 1996, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 of 4 November 1997, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2261/98 of 26 October 1998, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2204/99 of 12 October 1999 must be construed as meaning that in a dispute such as that in the main proceedings, in which the parties disagree as to whether plastic chairmats such as those at issue in the main proceedings come under subheading 3918 10 90 or subheading 9403 70 90 of the Combined Nomenclature, classification under the former subheading is to be preferred.

---

(1)  OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.

1

---
#### Hautenen (Henry), Administrator, Appellant, vs. Dewey and others, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Kadwit & Lepp*of Kenosha.

For the respondents: *Randall, Cavanagh, Stephenson & Mittelstaed*of Kenosha.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 99.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Philip M. McDermott, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of AltiGen Communications, Inc. on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in such Form 10-Q/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of AltiGen Communications, Inc.



By:

/s/    PHILIP M. MCDERMOTTName: Title:

Philip M. McDermott Chief Financial Officer
# C_2004312EN.01002101.xml

| 17.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 312/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/21

---

Amendment to the notice of invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley to certain third countries

(2004/C 312/11)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union, C 253 of 13 October 2004
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union, C 253 of 13 October 2004

Page 8, the text of point 2, under heading I ‘Subject’, reads as follows:

‘The total quantity in respect of which there may be fixed a maximum export refund as provided in Article 4(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 (1), is approximately 2 000 000 tonnes.’

1

---

(1)  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7.

1

---
### UNITED STATES DEPARTM

. ENT OFTRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

MANSFIELD HELIFLIGHT, INC. Complainant, 

### v. CITY OFBURLINGTON, VERMONT Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### FAA Docket No. 16-14-06

ORDER On November 25, 2014, counsel for Respondent City of Burlington, Vermont ("City") filed an unopposed motion for an extension oftime to file a rebuttal. The City requests an extension of time in which it may file its rebuttal until Friday, January 9, 2015. Mansfield Heliflight ("Mansfield") filed its reply and answer to the City's Answer and Motion for Summary Judgment on November 24, 2014. Under 14 C.P.R.§ 16.23(f) the City may file a rebuttal within 10 days of the date of service of Complainant's reply and thus the City has until December 4, 2014 to submit a rebuttal. The Motion notes "[ c

]omplainant raised new issues in its reply that require careful review, consideration, and response. Counsel for the City has a number ofpreexisting commitments and, as a result of the upcoming holidays, additional time to coordinate the rebuttal with City and airport staff is needed." It adds that counsel for the City contacted counsel for the Complainant onTuesday November 25, 2014 who "advised that Complainant does not oppose this request." Under 14 C.F.R. § 16.11, the Federal Aviation Administration may grant extensions oftime "where necessary or appropriate for a fair and complete consideration ofmatters before the agency, priorto issuance ofthe Director's Determination." 

### Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: Respondent's Unopposed Motion ofthe City of Burlington, Vermont for an Extension ofTime to File Rebuttal is granted. The Respondent may file its Rebuttal on or before January 9, 2015.Randall Fiertz Director Office ofAirport Compliance and ManagementAnalysis Date Issued



### -:. **-=-"l==--- --=<i)_-_;_l......~~---** 

2

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFYthat on December



# ~2014, I caused to beplaced inthe United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy oftheNotice ofExtensionof Time addressed to:
FOR RESPONDENT Pablo 0. Nuesch Anjali G. Patel Spiegel and McDiarmid, LLP 1875 Eye Street,N.W. Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006
FOR COMPLAINANT Benjamin H. Klein The Klein Law Firm, LLC 61 Broadway, Suite 2125 New York, NY 1 0006 Copy to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-600 FAA Airport Compliance and Field Operations, AC0-100 

# ({/'

. . f)



# ll **11AY~~** Claudia Roberts Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis
Exhibit 32.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
                     Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Tanger
                     Properties Limited Partnership (the "
                     Operating Partnership") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that: (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Operating
                     Partnership for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
                     15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
                     amended; and (ii)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                     all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                     operations of the Operating Partnership.  Date: May 7, 2010
                           
                           
                           /s/ Steven B. TangerSteven B. TangerPresident and Chief Executive Officer ofTanger GP Trust, Sole General Partner of theRegistrant
# C_2004262EN.01002001.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale de Teramo by decision of that court of 31 July 2004 in the case of criminal proceedings against Christian Palazzese

(Case C-359/04)

(2004/C 262/34)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale de Teramo (Italy) of 31 August 2004, received at the Court Registry on 18 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of criminal proceedings against Christian Palazzese on the following question:

‘May Articles 43(1) and 49 (1) of the Treaty be interpreted as allowing the Member States to derogate temporarily (6 to 12 years) from the principle of freedom of establishment and of freedom to provide series within the European Union, by:

| 1) | allocating to certain persons licences for the pursuit of certain activities involving provision of services, valid for 6 or 12 years, on the basis of a body of rules which excluded from the tender procedure certain kinds of (non-Italian) competitors; |
| --- | --- |

1)

allocating to certain persons licences for the pursuit of certain activities involving provision of services, valid for 6 or 12 years, on the basis of a body of rules which excluded from the tender procedure certain kinds of (non-Italian) competitors;

| 2) | amending that system, after subsequently noting that it was not compatible with the principles enshrined in Articles 43 and 49 of the Treaty, so as to allow in future the participation of those persons who had been excluded; |
| --- | --- |

2)

amending that system, after subsequently noting that it was not compatible with the principles enshrined in Articles 43 and 49 of the Treaty, so as to allow in future the participation of those persons who had been excluded;

| 3) | not revoking the licences granted on the basis of the earlier system which, as stated, infringed the principles of freedom of establishment and of free movement of services or setting up a new tender procedure pursuant to the new rules which now comply with the abovementioned principles; |
| --- | --- |

3)

not revoking the licences granted on the basis of the earlier system which, as stated, infringed the principles of freedom of establishment and of free movement of services or setting up a new tender procedure pursuant to the new rules which now comply with the abovementioned principles;

| 4) | continuing, on the other hand, to pursue anyone carrying on business via a link with anyone who, despite being entitled to pursue such an activity in the Member State of origin, was excluded from the tender procedure precisely under the exclusions contained in the earlier rules, later removed’. |
| --- | --- |

4)

continuing, on the other hand, to pursue anyone carrying on business via a link with anyone who, despite being entitled to pursue such an activity in the Member State of origin, was excluded from the tender procedure precisely under the exclusions contained in the earlier rules, later removed’.

---
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 41193 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
SAMUEL REYES

- ALVARADO , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:14

- CR

- 365

- 1

Before JOLLY , GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Samuel Reyes

Alvarado has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Reyes

- Alvarado h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 18 , 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-41193 Document: 00513159479 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2015No. 14

- 41193

2 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motio n for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 14-41193 Document: 00513159479 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2015