alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005085EN.01000701.xml

| 7.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/7

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

6 April 2005

(2005/C 85/03)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2860 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 139,75 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4500 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68505 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1612 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5508 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 78,76 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1670 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5842 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 29,956 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 247,23 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4298 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1273 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 36 492 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,68 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,915 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7462 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6804 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5708 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,0302 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8092 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1378 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 303,23 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,8774 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,6436 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4150 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 191,28 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,887 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 70,376 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 35,8450 |
| THB | Thai baht | 50,872 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2860

JPY

Japanese yen

139,75

DKK

Danish krone

7,4500

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68505

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1612

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5508

ISK

Iceland króna

78,76

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1670

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5842

CZK

Czech koruna

29,956

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

247,23

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4298

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1273

ROL

Romanian leu

36 492

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,68

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,915

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7462

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6804

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5708

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,0302

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8092

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1378

KRW

South Korean won

1 303,23

ZAR

South African rand

7,8774

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,6436

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4150

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 191,28

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,887

PHP

Philippine peso

70,376

RUB

Russian rouble

35,8450

THB

Thai baht

50,872

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
[Merrill Lynch Letterhead]


Mr. George Fischer
Controller
Sel-Leb Marketing, Inc.
485 River street
Paterson, NJ 07524

RE: WORKING CAPITAL MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT ("WCMA") NO. 885-07E38

Dear Mr. Fischer,

This letter is to confirm the extension through May 15, 2001 of the WCMA Line of
Credit Account and the temporary increase on that Line of Credit.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,


/s/ Kimberly D. Lee

Kimberly D. Lee
Assistant Vice President
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Integrated Pest Management, Irrigation Pipeline, Irrigation Reservoir, Irrigation Water Management, Mulching, Nutrient Management, Pumping Plant, Residue and Tillage Management-Mulch Till, Residue and Tillage Management-No Till/Strip Till/Direct Seed, Residue and Tillage Management-Ridge Till, Residue Management-Seasonal, Water Well.

**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.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6967

CURTIS KIRKPATRICK, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. BUTCH JACKSON, Supt. of Nash Corr., Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Russell A. Eliason, Magistrate Judge. (1:07-cv-00918-RAE) Submitted: September 24, 2008 Decided: October 3, 2008 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Curtis Kirkpatrick, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* The parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). 2 PER CURIAM: Curtis Kirkpatrick seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s * orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and denying his motion for a certificate of appealability. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Kirkpatrick has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 11.1

                                OZEMAIL LIMITED
                        CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER ADS
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER ADS DATA)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 THREE MONTHS ENDED    TWELVE MONTHS ENDED
                                                     DECEMBER 31,          DECEMBER 31,
                                                   1996        1997       1996       1997
                                                ---------   ---------   --------   ---------
<S>                                            <C>        <C>         <C>        <C>
Net income (loss)                               A$   (588)  A$ (5,920)  A$   434   A$  2,988
                                                ---------   ---------   --------   ---------
Shares used in share computation -
 Common Stock shares outstanding (weighted
 average) representing shares used in the
 computation of basic earnings per share          103,500     107,822     89,286     104,631
 
Effect of dilutive stock options                        -           -      5,700       4,329
                                                ---------   ---------   --------   ---------
Shares used in computation of diluted                       
 earnings per share                               103,500     107,822     94,986     108,960
                                                ---------   ---------   --------   ---------
Diluted earnings per ADS (2)                    A$  (0.06)  A$  (0.05)  A$ (0.05)  A$   0.27
                                                =========   =========   ========   =========
Basic earnings per ADS (2)                      A$  (0.06)  A$  (0.05)  A$ (0.05)  A$   0.29
                                                =========   =========   ========   =========
</TABLE>

(1) Pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting
    Bulletins, ordinary shares and ordinary share equivalents issued during the
    period April 1995 to March 1996 have been included in the calculation as if
    they were outstanding for all periods presented.

(2) Following a 10 for 1 stock split on September 1997, 1 ADS represents 10
    Ordinary Shares with a par value per Ordinary Share of A$0.004.
EXHIBIT 32.1



SPEEDCOM Wireless Corporation

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 annual report of SPEEDCOM Wireless
Corporation (SPEEDCOM) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark Schaftlein, Chief Financial Officer of SPEEDCOM, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(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 SPEEDCOM.



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Mark Schaftlein                                       
|Mark Schaftlein                                           
|Chief Financial Officer and acting Chief Executive Officer
|April 14, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-24-1999
<CASH>                                      25,893,389
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               37,443,356
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,259,240)
<INVENTORY>                                 29,378,518
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            93,245,328
<PP&E>                                      10,221,664
<DEPRECIATION>                             (5,440,393)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             124,493,645
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       23,158,789
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   103,725,914
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,412,505
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               124,493,645
<SALES>                                     58,616,006
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            58,616,006
<CGS>                                       41,783,146
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               41,783,146
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,925,779
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             253,532
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,160,613
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,371,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,788,813
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,788,813
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30


</TABLE>
# C_2005082EN.01003201.xml

| 2.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/32

---

Action brought on 10 January 2005 by V.I.C. Verband der Internationalen Caterer in Deutschland e.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-5/05)

(2005/C 82/60)

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 10 January 2005 by V.I.C. Verband der Internationalen Caterer in Deutschland e.V., represented by K. Kühne, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul the refusal, notified by letter of 11 November 2004, of access to the request of the German authorities, sent to the Commission on 12 May 1978, for authorisation to introduce derogating measures; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the refusal, notified by letter of 11 November 2004, of access to the request of the German authorities, sent to the Commission on 12 May 1978, for authorisation to introduce derogating measures;

| 2. | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested letter, the Commission rejected, pursuant to Article 4(5) and (6) of the Regulation on Access to Documents, (1) a request from the applicant to consult the file concerning the request of the Federal Republic of Germany for authorisation to introduce special derogating measures pursuant to Article 27 of the Sixth VAT Directive. (2)

1

2

The applicant claims that the refusal of access to the request constitutes a de facto denial of legal protection vis-à-vis the applicant, because the dismissal of the applicant's appeal in the main proceedings is based on the requested document. The applicant further claims that the refusal to grant access infringes the Regulation on Access to Documents.

The applicant argues that the refusal of access and, as the case may be, Article 4(5) of the Regulation on Access to Documents infringe Article 1 EU and Articles 21 EC, 207 EC, 253 EC and 255 EC because essentially no reasons are given for the withholding of agreement to disclosure of the requested document.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, p. 43).

1

(2)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, p. 1).

2

---
From: Sharon Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

Date: 05/30/2012 07:47 AM

Subject: Fw: memo to docket

Cortney- here's the memo you wanted to see - I'm copying the preamble paragraph where it was 

referenced.

Sharon V. Nizich

Minerals and Manufacturing Group (MMG)

Sector Policies and Programs Division

OAQPS - US EPA

RTP NC 27711

919/541-2825

----- Forwarded by Sharon Nizich/RTP

Commenters identified another factor contributing to the difficulty of meeting PS 11 correlation 

requirements and that would be low PM concentrations with a corresponding low applicable emissions 

limit. We have recently reevaluated the capabilities of the EPA Method 5 for measuring low

concentrations of PM (see memo to docket) and have determined a Method 5 method detection limit 

of about for a 1-hour test run of approximately 2 mg/dscm. The uncertainty of a measurement at this 

PM concentration would be from 50 to 100 percent (i.e., ±1 to 2 mg/dscm). We can determine a 

practical quantitation limit (PQL) using~3 x method detection limit to reduce that Method 5 

measurement uncertainty to ±10 to 20 percent. That means that the PQL for a 1 hour test run with 

Method 5 would be approximately 6 mg/dscm. The Portland cement MACT PM emissions limit 0.02 

lb/ton of clinker equates to 6 to 10 mg/dscm, depending on production rate (assuming a typical total gas 

flow rate per clinker production rate). As noted above, PS 11 specifies acceptable criteria for a 

correlation directly related to the applicable emissions limit. For example, inherent uncertainty 

associated with the Method 5 measurement alone would readily approach ±25 percent of the applicable 

limit acceptance threshold. Factoring in the inherent PM CEMS response variability, we agree with 

commenters that trying to satisfy PS 11 at such low concentrations would be problematic. This condition 

applies regardless of the type of PM CEMS technology used.

Sharon V. Nizich

Minerals and Manufacturing Group (MMG)

Sector Policies and Programs Division

OAQPS - US EPA

RTP NC 27711

919/541-2825

(See attached file: 014_mdl clcltns 040512_8 cln.pdf)
# No Fear Act Data

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  No Fear Act Data 

NRCS reporting page for the Notification and Federal Employee Anti-discrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (NO FEAR Act), Public Law 107-174.

Welcome to the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) reporting page for the Notification and Federal Employee Anti-discrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (NO FEAR Act), Public Law 107-174.

NRCS is posting this summary statistical Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint data under Title III, "Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint Data Disclosure," of the NO FEAR Act. The NO FEAR Act requires Federal Agencies to post cumulative year-to-date summary statistical EEO complaint data on a quarterly basis during each Fiscal Year (FY).

The No FEAR ACT (Notification and Employee Anti-discrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002) is an Equal Employment Opportunity statistical report on complaints which provides information about the basic provisions of the Notification and Federal Employee Anti-discrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002. The main components of this training will focus on what anti-discrimination and whistleblower protection laws protect employees, how to file a complaint alleging discrimination, retaliation, or a violation of the laws.

USDA No Fear Act Report Information

##   No Fear Act Quarterly Reports

NRCS No Fear Act FY24 Quarter 2 Report(1.02 MB)

NRCS No Fear Act FY24 Quarter 1 Report (1.02 MB)

NRCS No Fear Act FY23 Quarter 4 Report(27.25 KB)

NRCS No Fear Act FY23 Quarter 3 Report(249.43 KB)

NRCS No Fear Act FY23 Quarter 2 Report(248.99 KB)

NRCS No Fear Act FY23 Quarter 1 Report (248.62 KB)

NRCS No Fear Act FY22 Quarter 4 Report(157.41 KB)

NRCS No Fear Act FY22 Quarter 3 Report(290.2 KB)

NRCS No Fear Act FY22 Quarter 2 Report(319.17 KB)

NRCS No Fear Act FY22 Quarter 1 Report(418.79 KB)
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-40898

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Gregory Villanueva, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:21-CR-319-1

Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gregory 

Villanueva has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Villanueva has not filed a response. 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 6, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-40898 Document: 00516383266 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2022
No. 21-40898

2

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from 

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 21-40898 Document: 00516383266 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2022
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff for Knowledge Management

# Three Mile Island Accident of 1979 Knowledge Management Digest (NUREG/KM-0001)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, July 07, 2022
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Ex parte Patrick Hawthorne

, * From the 259 th District Court

of Jones County

Trial Court No. 024014

.

No. 11

- 16

- 00337

- CR * December 31 , 2018

* Memorandum Opinion by Wright, S.C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.

, Gray, C.J., sitting by assignment,

and Wright, S.C.J., sitting by

assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that t here

is no error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGIONIX PRO1

75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 June 14, 2012 Gary Chandler President, Pio Pico Energy Center, LLC P.O. Box 95592 2542 Singletree Lane South Jordan, Utah 84095 Re: Completeness Determination for Clean Air Act Prevention
of Significant Deterioration Permit Application for No Pico Energy Center Dear Mr. Chandler: This letter concernsthe application completeness statusof your application for aClean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that would authorize the construction and operation ofthe Pio Pico Energy Center in San Diego County, California. The application

is for a300 MW simple cycle natural gas-fired power plant. We received your preliminary PSD application materials
in April 2011. You have since provided EPA with
astand-alone PSD application

aswell as supplemental information necessaryfor processing the PSD permit application onnumerousoccasions. We received the final information necessaryfor processing the application onJune 5, 2012. Pursuant
to40 CFR sections 52.21 and 124.3,EPA has determined the application

tobe complete. If youhave any questions concerning this matter, please contact Roger Kohn at415- 972-3973
or kohn .rogerepa.gov.
Sincerely, /‘j..‘ (3erardo C. Rios Chief, Permits Office cc:Steve Hill. Sierra Research Torn Weeks, San Diego County Air Pollution Control District Eric K. Solorio, California Energy Commission Michael Tolistrup, California Air Resources Board

PrinredonRecycled Paper