alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004200EN.01000101.xml

| 7.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 200/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

6 August 2004

(2004/C 200/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2064 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,62 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4346 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,66190 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1821 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5380 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 86,63 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,3400 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,57940 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 31,611 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 248,21 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6550 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4248 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4020 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 40 899 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,9700 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 40,020 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 771 000 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7158 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5922 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,4081 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8706 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0791 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 402,74 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,5451 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2064

JPY

Japanese yen

134,62

DKK

Danish krone

7,4346

GBP

Pound sterling

0,66190

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1821

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5380

ISK

Iceland króna

86,63

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,3400

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,57940

CZK

Czech koruna

31,611

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

248,21

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6550

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4248

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4020

ROL

Romanian leu

40 899

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,9700

SKK

Slovak koruna

40,020

TRL

Turkish lira

1 771 000

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7158

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5922

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,4081

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8706

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0791

KRW

South Korean won

1 402,74

ZAR

South African rand

7,5451

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# C_2005019EN.01000501.xml

| 22.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 2 December 2004

in Case C-226/03 P: José Martí Peix SA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Appeal - Fisheries - Community financial aid - Reduction of the aid - Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Articles 1 and 3 - Limitation period)

(2005/C 19/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case C-226/03 P: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 22 May 2003, between José Martí Peix SA, established in Huelva (Spain), (avocats: J.R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and D. Domínguez Pérez, avocats) and the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: S. Pardo Quintillán, avocat: J. Guerra Fernández) – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; Múgica Azarmendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 December 2004, in which it:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders José Martí Peix SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders José Martí Peix SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.

1

---
Conservation Practice Standard Overview

October 2014

Structures for wildlife are structures installed 

to replace or modify a missing or deficient 

wildlife habitat component.

Practice Information

Artificial wildlife structures are constructed 

and applied to the land, to provide loafing, 

escape, nesting, rearing, roosting, perching 

and/or basking habitat, when the natural 

habitat structures are lacking. These artificial 

structures are typically installed to provide 

temporary missing habitat until more 

permanent natural habitat can be 

established. 

Common examples of structures for wildlife 

are avian nesting structures, rock piles, 

brush piles, and rapture perches. The 

modification of an existing structure (e.g. 

fences and watering facilities) that poses an 

immediate danger or threat to at-risk species 

would also fall under this national 

conservation practice. 

Examples of modifications of existing 

structures are the addition of fence markers 

to existing fences, adding or removing wire to 

facilitate safe passage of wildlife, and adding 

wildlife escape ramps to existing water 

troughs. The application of this practice is 

limited to non-domesticated species and 

populations.

Common Associated Practices

Structures for Wildlife (649) is commonly 

applied as a facilitating practice to Upland 

Wildlife Management (645) or Wetland 

Wildlife Management (644). When monitoring 

and maintenance is required of the installed 

structure, Access Road (560) is commonly 

used to support this practice.

For further information, contact your local 

NRCS field office.

Structures for Wildlife (649) 

Helping People Help the Land

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JONATHAN MONSANTO-BERRIO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D22-744

September 30, 2022

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Hillsborough County; Mark D. Kiser, Judge.

Jonathan Monsanto-Berrio, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and William C. 

Shelhart, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, VILLANTI, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### Olson, Plaintiff and Respondent, vs. Rahr-Green Bay Brewing Corporation, Defendant and Respondent: American Motorists Insurance Company, Appellant.

For the appellant: *North, Bie, Duquaine, Welsh & Trow-bridge*of Green Bay.

For the respondent (plaintiff) : *M. E. Davis,*attorney, and *Isadore G. Aik*of counsel, both of Green Bay.

For the respondent (defendant) : *Clifford & Dilweg*of Green Bay.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM September 2020

Surface Drain, Field Ditch (607)

1. Excavated surface channel less than 2 feet in 

depth with flat side slopes, graded to drain

D.5 (+) Cost of 

installation and 

maintenance

Initial setting: Excessive surface or 

shallow subsurface water limiting crop 

or forage production that is not in a 

designated wetland.

C.3 (+/-) Income and

income stability 

(individuals and

community)

I.7 (+/-) Aquatic 

habitats

I.3 (+/-) Sediment and 

particulate contaminants 

(including pathogens) to 

surface waters

C.2 (+/-) Fishable and 

swimmable waters, health and 

safety issues for humans, 

C.1 (+/-) Quality of domestic and wild animals

receiving waters

I.4 (+) Dissolved 

contaminants (including 

nutrients) to surface waters

I.2 (+) Soil erosion 

D.3 (-) Subsurface 

water level

D.2 (+) Surface water runoff

Streambank and 

Shoreline Protection

(580)

Start

I.5 (+) Degradation of 

pesticide residues

I.6 (-) Pesticide 

transport to 

groundwater

Integrated Pest Management (595)

Nutrient Management (590)

D.4 (-) Ponding of 

water

I.13 (+) Crop 

and forage

production

I.12 (+) Growing 

environment for 

desired plants

I.15 (+/-) Net return 

to producer

I.8 (+) Oxidation of 

soil organic matter I.10 (-) Soil 

compaction

I.9 (-) Soil 

organic matter

I.14 (+) Potential 

income

I.1 (+) Offsite surface 

water

C.4 (+/-) Soil 

quality 

D.1 (+) Soil erosion 

potential (construction, 

spoil, berms)

Critical Area 

Planting (342)

(-)

(+)

I.11 (-) Equipment 

operation and

maintenance D. Direct effect

#. Created by practice

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Pathway

Notes:

Effects are qualified with a plus 

(+) or minus (-). These symbols 

indicate only an increase (+) or a 

decrease (-) in the effect upon 

the resource, not whether the 

effect is beneficial or adverse.

LEGEND

Mitigating practice

Associated practice
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 7079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02487]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee 
will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public 
comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the 
Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, February 25, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Billups at 1-888-912-1227 or 
(214) 413-6523.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee 
will be held Wednesday, February 25, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time 
via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or 
submit written statements for consideration. For more information 
please contact Ms. Billups at 1-888-912-1227 or 214-413-6523, or write 
TAP Office 1114 Commerce Street, Dallas, TX 75242-1021, or post 
comments to the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various committee issues for submission to 
the IRS and other TAP related topics. Public input is welcomed.

     Dated: February 3, 2015.
Otis Simpson,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2015-02487 Filed 2-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### Goyk, Appellant, vs. Goyk, Respondent. (Case No. 2.)

Appeal from a judgment of the county court of Wauke-sha county dated May 17, 1926: David W. Agnew, Judge.

Action for accounting. Counterclaim for specific performance. Judgment for defendant, from which plaintiff appeals.

For the appellant: *Casimir Gonski*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *Lockney & Lowry*of Waukesha.

*By the Court.*—

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION


REQUIRED
BY RULE 13a-14(b) or


RULE
15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


(AS
ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)




I, Floyd
Warkol, as Chief Executive Officer of KSW, Inc. (the “Company”), certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002:





(1) the accompanying Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) on the date hereof fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





Dated:  November
12, 2009








/s/ Floyd
Warkol


Floyd
Warkol


Chief
Executive Officer
*March 8, 1932.*

#### Peterson, Respondent, vs. Stevenson, Appellant.

For the appellant: *John J. Fisher*of Bayfield and *C. F. Morris*of Washburn.

For the respondent: /. *W. Bernard*of Superior.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
# C_2005006EN.01003205.xml

| 8.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/32

---

Removal from the register of Case C-118/04 (1)

1

(2005/C 6/63)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Language of the case: Italian)

By order of 6 July 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-118/04: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           8,831
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     66,985
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                              0
<ALLOWANCE>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 102,203
<DEPOSITS>                                           0
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                  0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           386
<OTHER-SE>                                      90,828
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 102,203
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                      0
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,034
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                     0
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                                0
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 150
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (7,104)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,208)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.11)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### Den on demise of William Tate’s heirs *v*. Ephraim Greenlee.

From Burke.

Boundary is a question of fact, or of law and fact combined, and propei-only for the decision of the Jury. If the presiding Judge in his charge to the Jury intimate an opinion as to the fact, it is a good ground for a new trial ¡ for the act of 1796, ch. 4, declares, “ that it shall not be lawful for any Judge in delivering a charge to the Jury, to give an opin“ion whether a fact is fully or sufficiently proved, such matter being the “true office and province of the Jury.”

The Defendant claimed title to the land in question, under an older grant than that under which the Plaintiff *claimed;*and the question between the parties arose from the boundaries called for in the Defendant’s grant. This grant called for six hundred and forty acres, *“*lying in “ the county of Burke, on the waters of Silver Creek, *“*bounded *bij lands of his own*(Greenlee,) John Bowman, " John Mackey and Job Morgan : beginning at Bowman’s *“*south east corner black oak, thence with Mackey’s land *“*south 23° east 354 poles to a post oak on the side of a *ee*ridge, thence east 230 poles to a pine on the side of the *“*road leading from Burke to Broad river, thence north « 68° west 89 poles to Morgan’s corner black oak, thence *557“ north 18° oast 92 *poles to a stake,*thence west 295 poles *“*to a .stake, on Bowman’s line, thence south 46 poles to *“*the beginning.” The question was where’ the *ffih*line should terminate ? If it terminate at the distance called for in the grant, no part of this tract will adjoin *other lands*of the Defendant (Greenlee,) nor will any part of the lands claimed by the lessors of the Plaintiff be covered by the Defendant’s grant. If the fifth line be extended a considerable distance beyond that called for in the grant, it will reach a tract of land belonging' to the Defendant, and the Defendant’s grant will cover the lands claimed by the lessors of the Plaintiff.

The Court charged the Jury, that the fifth line terminated at the end of the distance called for in the grant. A verdict was found for the Plaintiff $ and a rule for a new trial being obtained, and on argument discharged, the Defendant appealed.

Henderson, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

From the case, it appears that the Judge charged the Jury that the fifth line of the Defendant’s grant terminated at the end of the distance. From viewing the grant and the plat only, if is quite probable that wo as Jurors would arrive at the same conclusion. But, as has been frequently said during the present term, boundary is a question of fact, or of law and fact combined, and proper only for the decision of the Jury. For the purpose of giving the decision of the question to the proper tribunal, there must be a new trial. The cases of Reddick and wife v. Leggat, and Orbison v. Morrison, decided at this term, and of Cherry and Slade, decided at the last term, contain a more full view of the principles which govern the Court in this case.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Final Environmental Impact Statementfor the Construction and Operation of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation on the Reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians and the Related Transportation Facility in Tooele County, Utah (NUREG-1714)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
Exhibit10_38



Exhibit 10.38

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT NO. SM407968C


 

First Union National Bank, as trustee

800 East Main, Lower Mezzanine

Richmond, Virginia 23219

Attention:  Corporate Trust Department


Ladies and Gentleman:


We hereby amend our irrevocable letter of credit no. SM407968C (the "Letter of Credit") as follows:  

All references in the Letter of Credit and its Appendices to (i) Bonds shall refer to "Fresh Advantage, Inc. Taxable Variable Rate Demand Bonds, Series 2001, issued in the original aggregate principal amount of $9,000,000"; (ii) Indenture shall refer
to "Trust Indenture, dated as of February 1, 2001, between Trustee and Issuer"; (iii) Issuer shall refer to "Fresh Advantage, Inc."; and (iv) Pledge Agreement shall refer to "Pledge Agreement, dated as of February 1, 2001, between the Bank and the Borrower.
"






All other terms and conditions of the Letter of Credit shall remain in full force and effect.  


Very truly yours,


FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK


 

By:________________________________

     Name:

     Title:


DATE:_____________
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 21 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 21

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for en 
    bloc consideration in resolutions of disapproval for ``midnight 
                    rules'', and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. EN BLOC CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF DISAPPROVAL PERTAINING 
              TO ``MIDNIGHT RULES''.

    (a) In General.--Section 801(d) of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(4) In applying section 802 to rules described under paragraph 
(1), a joint resolution of disapproval may contain one or more such 
rules if the report under subsection (a)(1)(A) for each such rule was 
submitted during the final year of a President's term.''.
    (b) Text of Resolving Clause.--Section 802(a) of title 5, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting after ``resolving clause of which is'' the 
        following: ``(except as otherwise provided in this 
        subsection)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following: ``In the case of a 
        joint resolution under section 801(d)(4), the matter after the 
        resolving clause of such resolution shall be as follows: `That 
        Congress disapproves the following rules: the rule submitted by 
        the __ relating to __; and the rule submitted by the __ 
        relating to __. Such rules shall have no force or effect.' (The 
        blank spaces being appropriately filled in and additional 
        clauses describing additional rules to be included as 
        necessary)''.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 4, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                H. R. 21

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for en 
    bloc consideration in resolutions of disapproval for ``midnight 
                    rules'', and for other purposes.
```
EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Robert E. Sobol, M.D., Chief Executive Officer of GenStar Therapeutics (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

|(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Dated: August 14, 2002 | /s/ Robert E. Sobol Robert E. Sobol, MD  Chief Executive Officer
|---------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------