alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2004311EN.01000401.xml

| 16.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 December 2004

(2004/C 311/03)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3383 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 139,51 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4340 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69115 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9963 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5282 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 84,74 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2260 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5788 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 30,608 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 245,75 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6891 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4320 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1576 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 39 197 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,83 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,755 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 898 100 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7561 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6479 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,4051 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8705 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1954 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 420,07 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,6875 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3383

JPY

Japanese yen

139,51

DKK

Danish krone

7,4340

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69115

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9963

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5282

ISK

Iceland króna

84,74

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2260

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5788

CZK

Czech koruna

30,608

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

245,75

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6891

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4320

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1576

ROL

Romanian leu

39 197

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,83

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,755

TRL

Turkish lira

1 898 100

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7561

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6479

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,4051

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8705

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1954

KRW

South Korean won

1 420,07

ZAR

South African rand

7,6875

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
EXHIBIT 11

                                    KSW, INC.

                         STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION
                           OF INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                  Three Months          Three Months           Nine Months          Nine Months
                                                     Ended                 Ended                  Ended               Ended
                                                  Sept. 30, 2003        Sept. 30, 2002        Sept. 30, 2003       Sept. 30, 2002
                                                  --------------        --------------        --------------       --------------

<S>                                              <C>                   <C>                   <C>                  <C>
Net income (loss)                                 $    166,000           $    120,000          $    (37,000)        $ (1,574,000)
                                                  =============          =============         =============        =============


Income (Loss) Per Share - Basic
-------------------------------
Weighted average shares outstanding during
the period                                           5,470,311              5,470,311             5,470,311            5,470,311
                                                  =============          =============         =============        =============


Income (loss) per common share -
basic                                             $        .03           $        .02          $       (.01)        $       (.29)
                                                  =============          =============         =============        =============

Income (Loss) Per Share - Diluted
---------------------------------
Weighted average shares outstanding during
the period                                           5,470,311              5,470,311             5,470,311            5,470,311


Effect of stock options dilution                             0                      0                     0                    0
                                                  -------------          -------------         -------------        -------------


Total shares outstanding for purposes of
calculating diluted earnings                         5,470,311              5,470,311             5,470,311            5,470,311
                                                  =============          =============         =============        =============


Income (loss) per common and common
equivalent share-diluted                          $        .03           $        .02          $       (.01)        $       (.29)
                                                  =============          =============         =============        =============

</TABLE>
# C_2005065EN.01000101.xml

| 17.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

16 March 2005

(2005/C 65/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3373 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 139,33 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4472 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69600 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0900 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5462 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 78,71 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2010 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5828 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 29,850 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 246,08 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4325 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0691 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 36 153 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,70 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,461 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7783 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6906 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6094 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,4305 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8065 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1683 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 342,38 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,1594 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3373

JPY

Japanese yen

139,33

DKK

Danish krone

7,4472

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69600

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0900

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5462

ISK

Iceland króna

78,71

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2010

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5828

CZK

Czech koruna

29,850

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

246,08

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4325

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0691

ROL

Romanian leu

36 153

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,70

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,461

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7783

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6906

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6094

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,4305

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8065

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1683

KRW

South Korean won

1 342,38

ZAR

South African rand

8,1594

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# C_2004262EN.01002301.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/23

---

Action brought on 2 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-376/04)

(2004/C 262/40)

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Shotter, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

1

| — | Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for the transposition of the directive into national law expired on 31 October 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 201 of 31.7.2002, p. 37.

1

---
# C_2004262EN.01000902.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/9

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 9 September 2004

in Case C-72/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria di Massa): Carbonati Apuani Srl v Comune di Carrara (1)

1

(Charges having effect equivalent to a customs duty - Tax levied on marble excavated in the territory of a municipality on its being transported across the boundaries of the municipal territory)

(2004/C 262/18)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-72/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Commissione tributaria di Massa Carrara (Italy), by decision of 11 December 2002, registered at the Court on 18 February 2003, in the proceedings brought by Carbonati Apuani Srl v Comune di Carrara — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 9 September 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | A tax proportionate to the weight of goods, levied in one municipality of a Member State only and imposed on one class of goods when those goods are transported beyond the territorial boundaries of that municipality, constitutes a charge having effect equivalent to a customs duty on exports within the meaning of Article 23 EC, despite the fact that it is imposed also on goods the final destination of which is within the Member State concerned. |
| --- | --- |

1.

A tax proportionate to the weight of goods, levied in one municipality of a Member State only and imposed on one class of goods when those goods are transported beyond the territorial boundaries of that municipality, constitutes a charge having effect equivalent to a customs duty on exports within the meaning of Article 23 EC, despite the fact that it is imposed also on goods the final destination of which is within the Member State concerned.

| 2. | Article 23 EC cannot be relied on in support of claims for refunds of sums levied by way of the marble tax before 16 July 1992, except by claimants who had, before that date, initiated legal proceedings or raised an equivalent claim. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 23 EC cannot be relied on in support of claims for refunds of sums levied by way of the marble tax before 16 July 1992, except by claimants who had, before that date, initiated legal proceedings or raised an equivalent claim.

---

(1)  OJ C 83 of 5.4.2003.

1

---
Argued and submitted August 24,

sentences vacated, remanded for resentencing September 28, 1983

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*GEORGE JOHN TURNER, *Appellant.*

(C82-01-33474, C82-05-35241; CA A25892, A25893)

669 P2d 388

Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Thomas H. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.

PER CURIAM.

*721PER CURIAM.

The state concedes, we think correctly, that these cases must be remanded for resentencing.

Sentences vacated; remanded for resentencing.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

Pensacola Aviation Center, LLC, Complainant 

### v. Pensacola International Airport, City ofPensacola, FL Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FAA Docket No. 16-12-12

NOTICE 

### OF EXTENSION OF TIME
This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16 (Rules of Practice). Pursuant to the Rules of Practice, §16.11(a), the date by which the Director, FAA Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis will issue a Director's Determination in this matter is hereby extended to on or before June, 2 1 2016. 

# f/161/ Date

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 26 , 2016, I served via Certified mail a true copy of the FAA ' s Notice ofExtension ofTime, addressed to:
Counsel for Complainant: Leonard D. Kirsch, Esq. McBreen & Kopko 500 North Broadway Jericho, New York 11753 Tel : (516) 364

- 1095 Fax: (516) 364-0612
Counsel for Respondent: Robert J. Williams, Esq
. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis , LLP Fifth Avenue Place 120 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2700 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-3001 Tel: (412) 577

- 5223 Fax: (412) 765

-3858 Copy to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, (AC0- 1 00) 

# 1 1 "\



# ~~~~

Offtce ofAirport Compliance and

Management Analysis
Order filed February 10, 2015.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________
NO. 14

- 14

- 00572

- CV

____________
RICHARD ALAN HAASE , Appellant

V.

ABRAHAM, WATKINS, NI CHOLS, SORRELS AND F RIEND, LLP AND

RANDY SORRELLS , Appellee s

On Appeal fr om the 80th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2011

- 17970



### ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due October 20, 2014. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. On December 18, 2014, the official court reporter, Michelle Tucker,

filed one v olume of the reporter’s record covering the hearing on appellant’s
motion for new trial on June 20, 2014. On February 5, 2015, appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file his brief until a supplemental reporter’s recordfrom the March 28, 2014, hearing has been filed. To date, the court has been

unable to confirm whether a record was made of a hearing held on or about March 28, 2104. Accordingly, we issue the following order:

We order Mi chelle Tucker , the offi cial court reporter, to provide writt en

responses or before February 20, 2015 , to the following requests for information :

1. Did the trial court conduct a hearing in this case on or about March 28, 2014 ? 2. If so, was the hearing reported?
3. If the hearing was reported, was it reported by the official court reporter or a substitute court reporter?
4. If the hearing was reported by a substitute court reporter, identify the substitute reporter and provide his/her contact information.
If the requested hearing was reported, w e further order Mi chelle Tucker to

file , or ensure that the substitute reporter files, a supplemental reporter’s record from the hearing held on or about March 28, 2014

, with the clerk of this court on
or before March 6, 2015

. Appellant’s brief shall be due seven days afte r the supplemental reporter’s
record is filed, or if no record was made of the requested hearing, the brief shall be due seven days after written confirmation of that fact is filed by the official court

reporter.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justi ce Frost and Justices Boyce and McCally.
# C_2005070EN.01001101.xml

| 22.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/11

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3584 — Hutchison Whampoa/North DN)

(2005/C 70/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 10 March 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3584. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3584. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case No. COMP/M.3414 Apax/CapMan/Solid)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2004/C 155/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 395, 30.12.1989 p. 1; corrigendum: OJ L 257, 21.9.1990, p. 13.

(2)OJ L 180, 9. 7. 1997, p. 1; corrigendum OJ L 40, 13.2.1998, p. 17.

(3)OJ C 217, 29.7.2000, p. 32.

----
#### State, v*.*Dick, a slave.

From Edgecombe.

At common law, Rape was a felony, but the *offence*was afterwards changed to amisdemeanor before the statute of Westminster. 1. By that statute, the *punishment*was mitigated ; but by Statute Westminster’, 2. The *offence*was again changed to a felony, and thence its present existence *as a*felony, is by statute : an indictment for Rape must therefore conclude *contra fannam statuti.*

*Indictment for a Rape*in the following words :

Tbejurors for the State, upon their oath present, that negro Dick, (the property of Mrs. Blount) late of Edge-combe county, on the twenty-first day of July, in the year of our Lord, one thousaud, eight hundred and seventeen, at and in the county of Edgecombe, in and upon Judah Wilkins, spinster, in the peace of God and the State, then and there being, violently and feloniously, did make an assault, and her the said Judah Wilkins, then and there, violently and against her will, feloniously did ravish ari^ carnally know, against the peace and dignity of the State.

The prisoner was found guilty, and the case was transmitted to this Court upon the indictment and finding, to determine whether any, and if any, what judgment shall be pronounced.

SeaweIíI Judge,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

At common law, Rape was a felony, but the *offence*was afterwards changed to a misdemeanor, before the statute of Westminster the 1st. By that statute, the *punishment*which then was castration and loss of eyes, was mitigated: but by the statute of Westminster the 2d, the offence was again changed to a felony, and hence, its present existence *as a felony,*is in virtue of that statute ; the indictment must therefore conclude *contra formam slatuii.*Lord Coke, Lord Hale, and Hawkins, all concur in the necessity of such a conclusion : and in second *389
      *Institute*180, a clear history of the offence is to beftnrd. It is true Mr. *East,*in his Crown Law, is of a contrary opinion, but we cannot feel ourselves justified, in so important a case, to depart from what has been by the great men above mentioned, considered in settled law, in complaisance to the opinion of any writer however respectable : more especially, as all the precedents have such a conclusion. The judgment must therefore stand arrested.
# C_2004263EN.01000702.xml

| 26.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3530 — TELIASONERA/ORANGE DK)

(2004/C 263/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 24 September 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/) free of charge. This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 32004M3530. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. (http://europa.eu.int/celex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document number 32004M3530. CELEX is the computerized documentation system of European Community law. (http://europa.eu.int/celex)

---
Eric C. Scroggins

Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary

eric.scroggins@allisontransmission.com

317-242-7017 ~ direct dial

317-503-6796 ~ cell

317-242-5759 ~ fax

P.O. Box 894 Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-0894 (317)242-5000 www.allisontransmission.com

February 4, 2011

Ms. Gina McCarthy

Assistant Administrator

Office of Air and Radiation

Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

Mr. David L. Strickland

Administrator

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.W.

West Building

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Request for Extension of Comment Period Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and 

Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles.” 75 

Fed. Reg. 74,152 (November 30, 2010) (“Proposed Rules”). 

On January 25, 2011, Allison Transmission, Inc. submitted a request for an extension of the 

comment period for the proposed rules for “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel 

Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles.” 75 Fed. Reg. 74,152 

(November 30, 2010) (“Proposed Rules”). Based on further discussions with EPA's Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality, Allison withdraws this request.

Sincerely,

/s/ Eric C. Scroggins

Eric Scroggins