alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004282EN.01000101.xml

| 19.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

18 November 2004

(2004/C 282/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3024 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 135,54 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4313 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,7025 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9645 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5171 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 86,74 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1265 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,578 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 31,267 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 245,92 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6812 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4325 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,254 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 39 736 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,79 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 39,408 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 882 100 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6685 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5651 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,1296 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8365 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1485 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 387,97 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,8623 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3024

JPY

Japanese yen

135,54

DKK

Danish krone

7,4313

GBP

Pound sterling

0,7025

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9645

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5171

ISK

Iceland króna

86,74

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1265

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,578

CZK

Czech koruna

31,267

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

245,92

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6812

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4325

PLN

Polish zloty

4,254

ROL

Romanian leu

39 736

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,79

SKK

Slovak koruna

39,408

TRL

Turkish lira

1 882 100

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6685

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5651

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,1296

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8365

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1485

KRW

South Korean won

1 387,97

ZAR

South African rand

7,8623

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-17-00487-CV

Dawn JOURDAN,

Appellant

v.

Wallace T. JACOBS,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-05596

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE ANGELINI, AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

MODIFIED as follows:

It is ORDERED that “the principal amount due” be decreased from $24,743.25 to 

$6,022.62. 

As modified, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that costs of 

appeal are taxed against the party incurring same. 

SIGNED August 1, 2018.

_____________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice
### SERVED OCTOBER 16, 2015 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARlNGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

APPLICATION OF TRANS NORTHAVIATION, LTD FDMS DOCKET NO. FAA 2014-1117 (Equal Access to Justice Action)

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICANT'S APPEAL 

# I OCT 22 2015



## !NG

COMES NOWApplicant, TRANS NORTH AVIATION, LTD., by and through its counsel, BARNETT & 

### BORTI-1, LLC, andpursuant to the settlement agreement reached by the parties hereby withdraws its appeal.

Charles R. Barnett, Ill Barnett & 

### Borth, LLC 800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 Glenview, IL 60025 (815) 356-7042 (FAX) Respectfully submitted,

Attorney for Applicant Trans North Aviation, LTD.

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Notice Withdrawal of Applicant's Appeal was served via US Certified Mail, return receipt requested as follows: ORIGINALAND ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2WJ000 FAX: 202-493-5142 ONE COPY Jessica E. Kabaz-Gomez,Agency's Counsel Enforcement Division AGC-300 Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 TEL: 202-267-7395 FAX: 202-267-5106 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E-11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 Legal Assistant FAX: 202-366-7536 James W. Tegtmeier Federal Aviation Administration Manager, Midwest Team Enforcement Division FAA Office ofthe ChiefCounsel 2300 EastDevonAvenue Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696 TEL: 847-294-7058 FAX: 847-294-7498
Dated this 16th day October 2015

# tC~ Charles R. Barnett, TIT Attorney for Respondent


### 2
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-15-00210- CR
Daniel Uvalle, Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TO M GREEN CO UNTY, 51ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. A-1 3-1 053- SA, H ONO RAB LE TH OM AS J. GO SSETT, JUDGE P RESIDING

O R D E R
P ER CURIAM

Appellant Daniel Uvalle filed his notice of appea l in the trial court on April 6, 2015. Appellant’s brief was orig inally du e i n t h i s C ourt on J uly 27, 2015. On counsel’s motion, we extended the deadline for filing the brief by 60 day s, making the brief due on September 25, 2015. On September 25, 2015, appellant fi l ed a second motion for extension of time, seeking another 60-day extension for a total of 120 day s. We g rante d the extension but order ed that appellant’ s brief must be filed no later than No v em b er 2 4 , 2015. We notified appellant’ s counsel that no further extension would b e gra n t ed and that failure to file the brief by November 24, 2015, would result in ref err al of the case to the trial court for a hear ing under Rule 38.8 of the Texas R u l es of Appellate Proc edure
.Be cause appellant’ s counsel neither filed a brief nor responde d to this Court’s notice,

we abate d the cause and rema nded it to the trial court for a proce eding in acc ordanc e with Rule 38.8. Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b). The district court held a hear ing on J anuar y 6, 2016, to deter

mine whether appellant still wishes to prosec ute his appea l, whether appellant is indige nt, and whether counsel has abandone d the appea l. Id. The trial court forwa rded its finding s and rec ommendations to this Court,
as well as the repor

ter’s rec ord from the hear ing. The trial court found that appellant is indige nt and has not evidenc ed any desire to abandon this appea l and that counsel has not abandone d this appea l.

Ba sed on the trial court’s rec ommendation, we will g rant co u n s el an additional 30 day s from the date of this order to file appellant’ s brief. We order counsel to file appellant’ s brief
no later than Fe bruar

y 24, 2016. I f the brief is not filed by that d at e, co u n s el m ay be require d to show ca use why he should not be held in conte mpt of court. I t is ordere d on J anuar

y 25, 2016. Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Pemberton a nd Bour land

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A)
CHILDTIME LEARNING CENTERS, INC. FORM 10-Q/A No.1 FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED
JANUARY 8, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B)
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>        
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-08-1999
<CASH>                                           2,830
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,299
<ALLOWANCES>                                       245
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,894
<PP&E>                                          46,483
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,545
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  61,446
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,363
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,816
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    61,446
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                84,876
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   79,290
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (265)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 237
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,613
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,117
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,496
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,496
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .64
        

</TABLE>
# C_2004118EN.01003303.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/33

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof, by order of that Court of 22 January 2004 in the case of Franz Werner against Finanzamt Cloppenburg

(Case C-163/04)

(2004/C 118/63)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) of 22 January 2004, received at the Court Registry on 31 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Franz Werner v Finanzamt Cloppenburg on the following question:

May the owner of an agricultural undertaking assign, by means of a lease, land which he has previously used for transactions subject to the flat-rate scheme for farmers (Article 25 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (1)) to an activity which is taxable under the normal value added tax system and deduct input tax in respect of a poultry-fattening house erected on the land?

1

---

(1)  OJ L 145, p. 1.

1

---
- 1

- Alexander Van der Bellen

Managing Director and

Associate General Counsel

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

1212 New York Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20005

202.842.4184

s ascha.vanderbellen@ delta .com

O ctober 23 , 201 4

via email and regulations.gov

Brett Kruger

Acting Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division

Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Application of Delta Air Lines

, Aeromexico, and GoJet

For C odesharing

Docket s DOT

- OST

- 1997

- 3289

Dear Mr. Kruger :

This letter is to confirm that Delta has polled all of the carrier s on the service list to the above

referenced application and t here are no objec tions. In these circumstances, we urge that the

application be granted as soon as possible.

Respectfully submitted,

Alexander Van der Bellen

cc: Brian Hedberg, DOT

Bob Finamore , DOT

info@airlineinfo.com
#### Kaiser, Appellant, vs. Olmsted and another, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Leonard F. Schmitt*of Merrill.

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

*By the Court.—*Judgment affirmed.
# C_2004284EN.01003002.xml

| 20.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/30

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-306/02 (1)

1

(2004/C 284/59)

(Language of the case: French)

(Language of the case: French)

By order of 7 September 2004, the President of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-306/02, Renaud Denuit v Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 323 of 21.12.2002.

1

---
# C_2004141EN.01000301.xml

| 25.5.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

21 May 2004

(2004/C 141/02)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2031 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,78 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4403 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,6717 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1051 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5369 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 87,97 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,251 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9463 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5857 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 31,827 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 253,25 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4529 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6565 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,426 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6794 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 40 687 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 238,68 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 40,145 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 871 812 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7178 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6472 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,373 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9685 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0617 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 413,94 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,1145 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2031

JPY

Japanese yen

134,78

DKK

Danish krone

7,4403

GBP

Pound sterling

0,6717

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1051

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5369

ISK

Iceland króna

87,97

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,251

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9463

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5857

CZK

Czech koruna

31,827

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

253,25

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4529

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6565

MTL

Maltese lira

0,426

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6794

ROL

Romanian leu

40 687

SIT

Slovenian tolar

238,68

SKK

Slovak koruna

40,145

TRL

Turkish lira

1 871 812

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7178

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6472

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,373

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9685

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0617

KRW

South Korean won

1 413,94

ZAR

South African rand

8,1145

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
Exhibit
23.1


CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Forms S-3 (File No. 333-11492, File No. 333-36785, File No. 333-37420 and File
No. 333-70951) and Forms S-8 (File No. 333-08249, File No. 333-08251, File No.
333-30854, File No. 333-30926, File No. 333-55316, File No. 333-66903 and File
No. 333-70947) of Wilhelmina International, Inc. of our report dated March 23,
2009, which appears on page 31 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2008.
 
 /s/
Burton McCumber & Cortez, L.L.P.
 Brownsville,
Texas
 April 13,
2009
EDENTON,

OCTOBER TERM, 1795.

#### Den on the demise of Sandifer v. Foster.

The last line of a boundary was from a white oak, (which stood half a mile from the river) thence along the river to the beginning : *held,*that the river is the boundary.

Ejectment. The land in controversy was patented in ttyeyear 1706, by one *Gee,*and a transfer of two hundred *272acres of the tract was made to *Briclgers*by endorsement on the deed. In 1752, *Bridgers*conveyed to *Robert San-difer,*who in 1765, devised to his son *Robert Sandifer,*after the death of ttie devisor’s *widow;*but in the. mean time, he gave the lands to her for her life. She is yet alive, and bad) conveyed the lands to the Plaintiffs. In the year 1780, *John Sandifer*obtained a grant from the State, and conveyed to his son *Robert,*who conveyed to tiie Defendant apart of this land. *Gee’s*patent began at the mouth of Dividing run, thence north, thence cast, thence south to a white-oak, thence along the river to the beginning. This white-oak stood half a mile from the river *;*and if the line be run a direct course from thence to the beginning, a large part of the land described in the Plaintiff’s grant, will be left out of *Gee’s*patent; but if the ilver is deemed to be the boundary, tin1 land described in the Defendant’s grant will then be included in *Gee’s*patent, and of course, be also included in *Bridger’s*deed.

*Per curiam,*

Williams and Haywood,

after argument — the river in this case, must be considered as the boundary of *Gee’s*patent — it has always been thus uniformly decided in our courts.

The jury found accordingly, and there was judgment, *accordingly'*— Baker for Plaintiff, *Keys*for Defendant.

*Note.*— Vide *Hartsfield v.*Westbrook, *post*258—note to *Bradford v. Hill, ante*22.
#### Danielak, by guardian *ad*litem, Appellant, vs. Heigel, *alias,*and others, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Goodman & Goodman*of Milwaukee.

For the respondents: *D. J. Regan*of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed.
Served: July 12, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 12th of July, 2012

Essential Air Service at

ADAK, ALASKA

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq. 

DOCKET DOT-OST-2000-8556

NOTICE OF EXTENSION FOR PROPOSALS AT ADAK, ALASKA

By Order 2010-7-9 the Department selected Alaska Airlines, Inc. to provide two nonstop or onestop round trips per week between Adak and Anchorage with Boeing 737-400 aircraft for 

$1,675,703 annually through June 30, 2012. 

As the end of the current rate term was approaching, Order 2012-2-8 requested proposals at Adak

and we received a timely-filed proposal from only one carrier, Peninsula Airways, Inc., (PenAir). 

However, Order 2012-5-24 rejected PenAir’s proposal and re-solicited competitive bids, with the 

deadline for proposals set for June 26, 2012. On June 19 we received a request from Everts Air 

Cargo for an extension to July 12. On June 21, we granted that request. On July 11, Alaska 

Airlines, Inc., requested an extension to July 24. It indicates it is only studying whether or not to 

submit a proposal, but needs the additional time to complete its analysis before making its decision. 

We will grant that request. Proposals at Adak are now due on July 24, 2012.

Dennis DeVany, Chief,

EAS and Domestic Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at

http://www.regulations.gov
|   | (i)      the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended      December 31, 2009 (the “Report”), fully complies with the      requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,      and |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                                                                                  |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                  |
| /S/ MICHAEL    TATE                                                                   |
| Michael      TateVice      President and Chief Financial OfficerFebruary 25,2010 |

|   | A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has      been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon      request. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Certification**

 

I, Joseph J. Bouffard, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Patapsco Bancorp, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small businessissuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The small business issuer’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: February 14, 2006