alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004220EN.01000101.xml

| 2.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/1

---

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

1

2,02 % on 1 September 2004

Euro exchange rates (2)

2

1 September 2004

(2004/C 220/01)

1 euro
  =

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2168 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 133,09 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4377 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67775 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,137 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5386 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 87,85 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,3695 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5774 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 31,835 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 248,55 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,659 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4272 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4399 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 40 910 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,99 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 40,255 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 832 000 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7305 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5966 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,491 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8568 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0799 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 396,95 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,0614 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2168

JPY

Japanese yen

133,09

DKK

Danish krone

7,4377

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67775

SEK

Swedish krona

9,137

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5386

ISK

Iceland króna

87,85

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,3695

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5774

CZK

Czech koruna

31,835

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

248,55

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,659

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4272

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4399

ROL

Romanian leu

40 910

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,99

SKK

Slovak koruna

40,255

TRL

Turkish lira

1 832 000

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7305

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5966

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,491

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8568

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0799

KRW

South Korean won

1 396,95

ZAR

South African rand

8,0614

---

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

1

(2)

2

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0000128 26-APR-2012 11:50 AM

NO. SCPW-12-0000128 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I CHRIS GRINDLING, Petitioner,
vs. THE HONORABLE JOSEPH E. CARDOZA, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI ' I, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.) Upon consideration of the motion for reconsideration of the March 30, 2012 order denying the petition for a writ of mandamus, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, April 26, 2012. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
# C_2004262EN.01003702.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/37

---

Action brought on 23 July 2004 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-294/04)

(2004/C 262/71)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 July 2004 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V., Rosbach (Germany), represented by H. Kaltenecker, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 54 037.00 on account of material damage suffered by the applicant through conduct by Commission servants in breach of their official duty, and order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 54 037.00 on account of material damage suffered by the applicant through conduct by Commission servants in breach of their official duty, and order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The claimant is a German non-governmental organisation, working in the humanitarian area.

The applicant maintains that in Case T-321/01 (1), concerning the rejection of two applications by the applicant for co-financing, the Court of First Instance recognised that the Commission's conduct was deficient and annulled the corresponding Commission decision. The applicant argues that, in the pre-judicial proceedings before the European Ombudsman, it incurred substantial costs, the recoverability of which the Court of First Instance did not acknowledge under its Rules of Procedure in the context of Case T-321/01. The applicant therefore sees no alternative to bringing an action against the Commission for non-contractual liablity in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 288 EC.

1

---

(1)  Judgment of 18.9.2003 in Case T-321/01 Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.

1

---
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Critical Area Planting, Diversion, Filter Strip, Grassed Waterway, Integrated Pest Management, Nutrient Management, Roof Runoff Structure, Shallow Water Development and Management, Streambank and Shoreline Protection, Subsurface Drain, Surface Drainage, Field Ditch, Surface Drainage, Main or Lateral, Terrace.

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
CARL LEVIN 

MICHIGAN 

RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510-2202 

(202)224-6221 

May 7, 2010 

Bnited States Senate 

WASHINGTON, DC 20510-2202 

COMMITTEES: 

ARMED SERVICES 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SMALL BUSINESS 

INTELLIGENCE 

Dennis DeVany 

Essential Air Service Division, X-53, 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Department of Transportation 

400 Seventh Street, S.W. 

Washington. D.C. 20590 ^ o o 3 -

RE: EAS Proposal DOT Docketll5128 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

Today I write to urge your consideration of the Delta County Airport's preference request for an 

Essential Air Service (EAS) provider. 

I have long supported the EAS program as it provides affordable, reliable and safe air service 

which helps link rural communities to the national and global aviation system, promoting their 

economic growth and development. It is my understanding that the Delta County Airport Board 

has given careful consideration to the impact each bid would have on the community as well as 

input from area stakeholders. I support the means by which the Delta County officials have 

arrived at their selection preference, and have confidence in their conclusion. 

While the ultimate decision is in your capable hands, 1 hope you will fully consider the Delta 

County Airport Board determination as to which service provider would be of greatest benefit for 

their region. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I would appreciate notification of your decision. 

Please forward your response to my aide, Ms. Amy Berglund via the Escanaba office listed 

below. 

Sincerely, 

^:C -

Carl Levin 

CL/ab 

OETflOIT 

477 MICHIGAN AVENUE 

SUITE 1880 

DETHOIT, M I 48228 

(313)^26-8020 

ESCANABA 

5 2 4 LUDINQTON STUEE T 

SUITE LL103 

ESCANABA. Ml 49829 

(9081 789-0052 

GRAND RAPIDS 

FEDERAL BUILDING 

SUITE 720 

110 MICHIGAN AVENUE, N.W. 

GRAND RAPIDS, Ml 49503 

(816)466-2531 

STATE OFFICES 

LANSING 

124 WEST ALLEGAN 

SUITE 1810 

UNSING , M I 48933 

(6171377-1508 

SAGINAW 

515 NORTH WASHINGTON 

SUITE 4 B 

SAGINAW, Ml 48607 

(989) 754-2494 

TRAVERSE CITY 

207 GRANDVIEW PARKWAY 

Sun-E 104 

TRAVERSE CITY, Ml 49684 

(231)947-9569 

WARREN 

30600 VAN DYKE 

SUITE 206 

WARREN, Ml 48093 

(586) 573-9145
#### Kenneth Elton STEWART, Appellant, v. Harold A. COX, Warden of the New Mexico State Penitentiary, Appellee. James Floyd LARK, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO, and Harold A. Cox, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary, Appellee.

Nos. 7966, 7967.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

April 23, 1965.

Daniel H. Polsby, Denver, Colo. (James T. Bayer, Denver, Colo., on the brief), for appellants.

L. D. Harris, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Albuquerque, N. M. (Boston E. Witt, Atty. Gen. of New Mexico, on the brief), for appellees.

Before PICKETT, BREITENSTEIN and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appellants, Stewart and Lark, are state prisoners serving sentences in the New Mexico State Penitentiary. Their appeals present identical questions and were consolidated for disposition in this court. They brought separate habeas corpus proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico alleging, in substance, that their convictions were void because neither had been represented by counsel when they were brought before a state magistrate for a preliminary hearing. Lark alleges that he requested an attorney to represent him at that time. This allegation was denied. After the preliminary hearings each was represented by competent counsel. Stewart pleaded guilty to the charges against him, and Lark was convicted by a jury after a plea of not guilty. The district court dismissed the habeas corpus petitions without a hearing.

 State prisoners may obtain relief in federal courts only when rights guaranteed them by the Constitution of the United States have been denied. Mooneyham v. State of Kansas, 10 Cir., 339 F.2d 209; Oyler v. Taylor, 10 Cir., 338 F.2d 260; Ramsey v. Hand, 10 Cir., 309 F.2d 947, cert. denied 373 U.S. 940, 83 S.Ct. 1547,10 L.Ed.2d 695. Under circumstances similar to those presented here, we have repeatedly held that an accused does not have a constitutional right to be represented by an attorney at a preliminary hearing. Hickock v. Crouse, 10 Cir., 334 F.2d 95, cert. denied 379 U.S. 982, 85 S.Ct. 689, 13 L.Ed.2d 572; Latham and York v. Crouse, 10 Cir., 320 F.2d 120, cert. denied 375 U.S. 959, *94884 S.Ct. 449, 11 L.Ed.2d 317; State of Utah v. Sullivan. 10 Cir., 227 F.2d 511, cert. denied sub nom. Braasch v. State of Utah, 350 U.S. 973, 76 S.Ct. 449, 100 L.Ed. 844. The exact question was recently considered by this Court in a New Mexico case (Gallegos v. Cox, 10 Cir., 341 F.2d 107), and was decided adversely to the contention here. Pointer v. State of Texas, 85 S.Ct. 1065, is not to the contrary.

Affirmed.
# C_2004228EN.01001501.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/15

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 15 July 2004

in Case C-407/03: Commission of the European Communities against Republic of Finland (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Conservation of natural habitats - Wild fauna and flora)

(2004/C 228/28)

Language of the case: Finnish

In Case C-407/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. van Beek and M. Huttunen) against Republic of Finland (Agent: A. Guimares-Purokoski) — application for a declaration that, by failing to provide a sufficient degree of legal certainty in its national law relating to the obligation to carry out for every project, including those subject to an environmental impact assessment, the appropriate assessment under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | By failing to provide a sufficient degree of legal certainty in its national law relating to the obligation to carry out an appropriate assessment for every project, including those subject to an environmental impact assessment, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora; |
| --- | --- |

1.

By failing to provide a sufficient degree of legal certainty in its national law relating to the obligation to carry out an appropriate assessment for every project, including those subject to an environmental impact assessment, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

| 2. | The Republic of Finland is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Republic of Finland is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 275 of 15.11. 2003.

1

---
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsRulemaking DocumentsRulemaking Dockets

# Rulemaking Dockets for 2015

subscribe to page updates
*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, July 27, 2022

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, July 27, 2022
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gilbert Hu, 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 for the quarter ended March 31, 2004,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such quarterly report on
Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of AltiGen Communications, Inc.


Date: May 14, 2004                     By:       /s/ Gilbert Hu
                                                 -------------------------------
                                       Name:     Gilbert Hu
                                       Title:    Chief Executive Officer
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 LCA-Vision Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Stephen N. Joffe, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Alan Buckey, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:



(1)

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



(2)

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





/s/Stephen N. Joffe

/s/Alan Buckey

Stephen N. Joffe

Alan Buckey

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer





August 8, 2002
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0404 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CIMMARON STEVEN DRENNAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including February 4, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 17 2021

12/17/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0404
# C_2004239EN.01000902.xml

| 25.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/9

---

Action brought on 13 August 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-349/04)

(2004/C 239/17)

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 August 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by E. Gippini Fournier and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | Declare that, by failing to supply the Commission with all the information necessary to allow it to confirm that the provisions of Directive 2002/77/EC (1) have been complied with, Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declare that, by failing to supply the Commission with all the information necessary to allow it to confirm that the provisions of Directive 2002/77/EC (1) have been complied with, Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of that directive;

1

| 2. | Order Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 9 of Directive 2002/77/EC requires the Member States to supply the Commission, no later than 24 July 2003, with information allowing it to confirm that the provisions of that directive have been complied with.

---

(1)  Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 249, p. 21).

1

---
HomeNuclear SecurityRadioactive Material SecurityIntegrated Source Management Portfolio (ISMP)National Source Tracking System (NSTS)

# NSTS Presentations

*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, December 7, 2021

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - NSTS Login
          - National Source Tracking System: Blog
          - NSTS Overview
          - Background
          - Get Credentialed to Access NSTS
          - How to Report to NSTS
          - Resources  for Online Reporting
          - NSTS Expansion
          - Annual Inventory Reconciliation
          - NSTS Presentations
          - Frequently Asked Questions
          - Help Desk Support
          - Contact Us

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, December 7, 2021
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Conservation Crop Rotation, Forage and Biomass Planting, Herbaceous Weed Control, Integrated Pest Management, Nutrient Management, Prescribed Grazing, Upland Wildlife Habitat Management.

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
# C_2004168EN.01000301.xml

| 26.6.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 168/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/3

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Special Commissioners by order of that court dated 29 April 2004, in the case of Cadbury Schweppes plc and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd against the Commissioners of Inland Revenue

(Case C-196/04)

(2004/C 168/05)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by an order of the Special Commissioners dated 29 April 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 3 May 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Cadbury Schweppes plc and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on the following question:

‘Do articles 43, 49 and 56 of the EC Treaty preclude national tax legislation such as that in an issue in the main proceedings, which provides in specified circumstances for the imposition of a charge upon a company resident in that Member State in respect of the profits of a subsidiary company resident in another Member State and subject to a lower level of taxation?’

---