alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005007EN.01000101.xml

| 11.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

10 January 2005

(2005/C 7/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3103 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,83 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4403 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69780 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0430 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5469 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 82,99 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2270 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,58090 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 30,245 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 247,80 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6969 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4321 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0763 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 38 671 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,7800 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,528 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,8155 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7256 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6041 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2144 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8865 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1573 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 380,66 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,8438 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3103

JPY

Japanese yen

136,83

DKK

Danish krone

7,4403

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69780

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0430

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5469

ISK

Iceland króna

82,99

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2270

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,58090

CZK

Czech koruna

30,245

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

247,80

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6969

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4321

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0763

ROL

Romanian leu

38 671

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,7800

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,528

TRY

Turkish lira

1,8155

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7256

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6041

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2144

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8865

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1573

KRW

South Korean won

1 380,66

ZAR

South African rand

7,8438

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
```

[Federal Register: March 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 41)]
[Notices]               
[Page 9598]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03mr10-47]                         

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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE U.S.

[Public Notice 145]

 
Agency Information Collection Activities: Final Collection; 
Comment Request

Correction

    In notice document 2010-3647 appearing on page 8353 in the issue of 
February 24, 2010, make the following correction:
    In the first column, the paragraph that begins with ``DATES:'' 
should read: ``DATES: Comments should be received on or before April 
26, 2010 to be assured of consideration.''

[FR Doc. C1-2010-3647 Filed 3-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM October 2017

Waste Recycling (633) 

C.2 (+) Quality of Life

(Individuals and community)

1. An agricultural waste processed

and recycled for an agriculture use.

C.1 (+) Income stability

(individuals and community)

Initial setting: A potentially 

environmentally harmful 

waste is used for a 

conservation benefit. 

3. A nonagricultural waste processed and

recycled for an agricultural use.

2. An agricultural waste processed and recycled

for a nonagricultural use. 

D.2 (+) Energy conservation or production

I.2 (-) Fertilizer use

Start

I.1 (+) Wildlife Habitat

D.1 (+) Water quality and quantity D.3 (+) Soil quality

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

Nutrient Management (590)

Feed Management (592)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1996 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>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          30,006
<SECURITIES>                                    74,860
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,050
<ALLOWANCES>                                        68
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               122,481
<PP&E>                                          19,001
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,697
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 137,816
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,490
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        12,015
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,610
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   137,816
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               219,836
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  180,467
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                42,410
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,998
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,856
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,142
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,142
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21
        

</TABLE>
AIR-09-248-E August 25, 2010 Exemption No. 10125 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2007-0007

Mr. Rob A. Dubin Future Flight LLC 411 Walnut Street, #3986 Green Cove Springs, FL 32043

Dear Mr. Dubin:

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our decision and explains its basis.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated Septem ber 18, 2007, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Future Flight LLC (Future Flight) for an exemption from §§ 21.191(i)(1) and (i)(3) and 21.193(e)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow Future Flight to produce and sell gyroplanes for certification under § 21.191(i) without previous ly having m anufactured and assembled a gyroplane of the same make and model that has been issued a special airworthiness certificated in the light-sport category under § 21.190

.

The FAA has determ ined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Future Flight.

The FAA recently issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 10099 (copy enclosed), the FAA did not believe it is in the public interest to permit a manufacturer to sell a make and model of gyroplane (or aircraft kit), eligible for the issuance of an experimental certificate in the light-sport category, if that manufacturer has not yet produced a gyroplane of that make and model that meets the accepted consensus standards.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—2

 they don’t differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed denial of exemption;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed exemption also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Adm inistrator has delegated to me, I hereby deny your petition Future Flight LLC for an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 21.191(i)(1) and (i)(3) and 21.193(e)(1).

Sincerely,

/s/

K.C. Yanamura Acting Director, Aircraft Certification Service

Enclosure
#### Bachhuber, Plaintiff and Respondent, vs. Boosalis, Defendant: American Indemnity Company, Defendant and Appellant.

*January 6*

February 4, *1930.*

The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of *Anthony G. Derse*of Oconomowoc and *Ernest E. Watson*of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and for the respondent on that of *Shannon & Cronin*of Oconomowoc.

Crownhart, J.

The action is to recover damages to plaintiff’s automobile in a collision, wherein the defendant *575Boosalis is chárged with negligence causing the damage. The insurer of Boosalis was made a party on the theory of direct liability to plaintiff under sec. 85.25, Stats.

Service was had upon the defendant Boosalis by service on the secretary of state, pursuant to sub. (3), sec. 85.15, Stats., and upon the defendant insurance company by service on the insurance commissioner, pursuant to sub. (2) (b), sec. 201.38. The defendant Boosalis failed to appear. The defendant insurance company answered alleging that it was a foreign corporation not licensed to do business in Wisconsin; that the contract of insurance involved was issued by it. in Minnesota to Boosalis, who was then a resident thereof; that by the terms of the policy no liability was incurred by the insurer unless the insured gave immediate notice of the accident resulting in damage and immediate notice of claim under the policy, and unless the insured cooperated in the defense of any action brought against him by reason thereof. The insurance company alleges that the insured failed to comply with the provisions of the policy in those respects.

The provisions in the policy as to notice, of accident, claim for damages, and co-operation in defense are conditions precedent, failure to perform which, in the absence of waiver or estoppel, constitute defenses to liability on the policy. *Foster v. Fidelity & Cas. Co.*99 Wis. 447, 75 N. W. 69; *Underwood Veneer Co. v. London G. & A. Co.*100 Wis. 378, 75 N. W. 996.

Sec. 85.25, Stats., reads as follows:

> “Any bond or policy of insurance covering liability to others by reason of the operation of a motor vehicle shall be deemed and construed to contain the following conditions : That the insurer shall be liable to the persons entitled to recover for the death of any person, or for injury to person or property, caused by the negligent operation, maintenance, use or defective construction of the vehicle *576described therein, such liability not to exceed the amount named in said bond or policy.”

We have held recently that sec. 85.25 creates no liability where none exists by the terms of the policy. It only provides direct liability and for joining the insurer with the insured in an action where there is an ultimate liability on the insurer on its contract of insurance. *Stransky v. Kousek,*199 Wis. 59, 225 N. W. 401.

The answer of the insurance company sets forth a good defense as against Boosalis, and as it is liable under its contract only by reason of its liability to Boosalis, the demurrer to the answer should have been overruled.

*By the Court,*— The order of the circuit court is reversed.
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM September 2020

Rock Wall Terrace (555)

D.1(+) Redirected water flow

1. Channel and rock retaining wall 

constructed across the slope

I.7 (+) Infiltration

C.4 (+/-) Income and 

income stability 

(individuals and 

communities) 

C.1 (+) 

Preservation of 

infrastructure; (-) 

community 

maintenance costs 

I.2 (-) Sediments and sedimentborne contaminants to receiving 

surface waters

I.5 (-) Erosion (sheet and rill 

and ephemeral gullies)

C.3 (+/-) Fishable and swimmable waters, health 

and safety issues for humans, domestic and wild 

animals

I.6 (+) Soil 

quality

Initial setting: Cropland, on steep, 

non-irrigated slopes that are 

subject to water-induced soil 

erosion and/or runoff

I.4 (-) Runoff velocity

I.3 (-) Maintenance of 

drainage ditches and other 

structures

I.10 (+) Potential crop 

production

I.11 (+/-) Net return to producer

Start

I.1 (-) Runoff amount

C.2 (+/-) Quality of receiving 

waters and aquatic habitats

D.2 (-) Slope length; (+) in-field water storage capacity

I.8 (+) Waterborne 

contaminants to 

receiving ground waters

I.9 (+) Plant 

available 

moisture

D.3 (+) Cost of installation 

and maintenance (removing 

sediment, reshaping)

LEGEND

#. Created by practice

D. Direct effect

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Pathway

Mitigating practice

Associated practice

Note: 

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.

Integrated Pest Management (595)

Nutrient Management (590)

Grassed Waterway 

(412)

Lined Waterway or 

Outlet (468)

Underground Outlet 

(620)
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 25 (Friday, February 6, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02419]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 665

RIN 0648-XD745


Pacific Island Fisheries; 2015 Harvest Guideline; Northwestern 
Hawaiian Islands Lobster

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notification of lobster harvest guideline.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS establishes the annual harvest guideline for the 
commercial lobster fishery in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands for 
calendar year 2015 at zero lobsters.

DATES: February 6, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Harman, NMFS PIR Sustainable 
Fisheries, tel 808-725-5170.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) 
commercial lobster fishery is managed under the Fishery Ecosystem Plan 
for the Hawaiian Archipelago. The regulations at 50 CFR 665.252(b) 
require NMFS to publish an annual harvest guideline for lobster Permit 
Area 1, comprised of Federal waters around the NWHI. Regulations 
governing the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in the NWHI 
prohibit the unpermitted removal of monument resources (50 CFR 404.7), 
and establish a zero annual harvest guideline for lobsters (50 CFR 
404.10(a)). Accordingly, NMFS establishes the harvest guideline for the 
NWHI commercial lobster fishery for calendar year 2015 at zero 
lobsters. Thus, no harvest of NWHI lobster resources is allowed.

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: February 3, 2015
H. Menashes,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-02419 Filed 2-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht, Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 11 October 2004 in the case of Fidium Finanz AG against Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht

(Case C-452/04)

(2005/C 6/52)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court), Frankfurt am Main (Germany) of 11 October 2004 received at the Court Registry on 27 October 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fidium Finanz AG against Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht on the following questions:

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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      10,024,895
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,641,135
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (356,226)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,532,525
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               152,358
<PP&E>                                       2,384,906
<DEPRECIATION>                               (848,485)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,085,418
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,469,904
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,264
<OTHER-SE>                                  27,473,627
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,085,418
<SALES>                                      4,053,680
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,636,120
<CGS>                                        1,879,528
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,223,391
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,052,955
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             577,488
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (9,217,714)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,217,714)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,217,714)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.75)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.b



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 BCTC IV Assignor Corp. (the "registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Principal Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(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 registrant.



|                |  |                            
|--------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:           |  |                            
|August 14, 2009 |  | /s/ Marc N. Teal           
|                |  |                            
|                |  | Marc N. Teal               
|                |  | Principal Financial Officer
|                |  |                            
|                |  |                            
|                |  |                            

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
*November 9, 1932.*

#### Will of Schmidt: Pfeiler and others, Appellants, vs. Citizens State Bank, Respondent.

For the appellants: *Charles Voigt*of Sheboygan.

For the respondent: *Buchen & Schlichting*of Sheboygan.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
Submitted on record and briefs August 4,

affirmed September 21,

reconsideration denied October 28, petition for review denied November 15, 1983 (296 Or 56)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*JOHN PATRICK McFARLAND, *Appellant.*

(L82-7335; CA A26888)

669 P2d 341

Wade P. Bettis, Jr., La Grande, filed the brief for appellant.

Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, William F. Gary, Solicitor General, and Thomas H. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Warden and Young, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*629PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for DUII, raising two issues. He contends that he should have been considered for diversion under ORS 484.445 *et seq.*In support of that contention, he argues on appeal that ORS 484.450(4) (d)1 violates his right to equal protection of the laws, guaranteed by Article 1, section 20 of the Oregon Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We addressed and rejected similar equal protection challenges to ORS 484.450(4) (d), in *State v. Dendurent,*64 Or App 575, 669 P2d 361 (1983).

Defendant further contends that ORS 484.450(4)(d) violates federal due process. That contention proceeds from the erroneous premise that ORS 484.445 *et seq,*creates in defendant a liberty interest. It does not.

Affirmed.

1

 ORS 484.450(4) (d) provides in part:

> “* * * [T]he court may allow a petition for a driving while under the influence of intoxicants diversion agreement unless:

> <<**** *

> “The present driving while under the influence of intoxicants offense involved an accident required to be reported under ORS 483.606 * *

ORS 483.606 requires the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident that results in injury or death to any person or damage to property of any one person in excess of $400 to forward a written report of the accident to sheriff, chief of police or other agency, designated by the Motor Vehicles Division to receive them within 72 hours.
**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, theundersigned officer of Arden Realty, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), herebycertifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: (i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal yearended December 31, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and  (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Date: March 15, 2006 By:  /s/  Richard S. Ziman    Richard S. Ziman    Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
No. 82-6024.

#### Collins, aka Cross *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.