alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2005138EN.01000101.xml

| 7.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

6 June 2005

(2005/C 138/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2272 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 131,44 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4395 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67480 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1357 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5319 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 79,38 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8725 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5746 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 30,163 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 249,36 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6959 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0893 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 36 208 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,47 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,739 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,6741 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6104 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5284 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,5504 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7372 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0405 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 237,63 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,2938 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,1569 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3320 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 772,53 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,663 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 66,910 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,8820 |
| THB | Thai baht | 49,790 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2272

JPY

Japanese yen

131,44

DKK

Danish krone

7,4395

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67480

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1357

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5319

ISK

Iceland króna

79,38

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8725

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5746

CZK

Czech koruna

30,163

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

249,36

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6959

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0893

ROL

Romanian leu

36 208

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,47

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,739

TRY

Turkish lira

1,6741

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6104

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5284

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,5504

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7372

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0405

KRW

South Korean won

1 237,63

ZAR

South African rand

8,2938

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,1569

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3320

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 772,53

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,663

PHP

Philippine peso

66,910

RUB

Russian rouble

34,8820

THB

Thai baht

49,790

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
•

• •

a • •

•

a

TC? SECT

-Mt NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.C.

awkrierm

a

0411510E OF THE DIRECTOR

June 15, 1966

•

In connection with the first sentence of paragraph 3

of the minute, let me call attention to the NRO report.

It poses for consideration certain aspects of the risks

and costs involved in any assessment or judgment on

political sensitivity but does not, in fact, make a

judgment of the technical threshold at which political

sensitivity begins. This I also emphasized in my remarks

at the meeting. Specifically, the report at the end of

paragraph 3a, page 7, states that '

For the broad spectrum of military intelligence

targets, the threshold appears to be at a value

of resolution between twenty and thirty meters.

It is not clear whether this threshold for

military target information relates closely to

a threshold for political sensitivity.

My next concern relates to the last sentence of paragraph 3 on page 2 which reads in part:

•

Dr. Flax said that if the question were posed

in terms of releasability of products, without

declassifying equipment, the general technical

threshold could probably be placed at about 5

to 10 feet resolution, rather than the 10 meters

earlier cited.

11111111k •101401711111 MOMS M(S NOT WW1

saassu Her a •itousuls

OT sEcnsi

445-6•

son Man

.4"••••=1......1• "4" •

••••••••n••nn•••••n••••••••••••n •nn••••n•n••n•

El

(1 U. Alexis Johnson

The Honorable

Room 7207

Washington, D. C. El

The State Department

Dear Alex:

May I clarify certain portions of the last minutes

of the NSAM 156 Ad Hoc Committee (Nay 25, 1966) wherein

reference is made to the National Reconnaissance Office

report which was discussed at the meeting and to my

views.
TO? SECIZET

•

This may leave the impression that I proposed the release

of the products of NE-4 which was not the case. The question posed was at what level of resolution mould photography, if released, permit inferences as to the state of

the art which the NRO considers would not significantly

aid the opposition. I offered, tentatively, that this •

might be at a resolution of five to ten feet--an opinion

which I indicated I would want to confirm with careful '

study. In fact, at the meeting you requested that the

NRO make such a study of technical security considerations,

which we have under way and hope . to transmit to you shortly.

I 'would appreciate it if you would make thin clarifition available to the other members of the Committee.

Sincere

A exander N. Flax

•

TO? SELF 7 ISCIIMOSID Mit seseesee 111,41•4111a0

sss 11101anli 111110411 seas lief IMO

411111111p2A1A=0
PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# NRO releases Electro-Optical Commercial Layer RFP

By Staff

On Nov. 3, NRO released the EOCL RFP. This moves the agency closer to delivering the next generation of commercial imagery to meet the intelligence, defense, and federal civil agency user communities’ mission needs. The NRO’s Commercial Systems Program Office worked with the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency to gather and finalize user requirements from across the community. This process determines the scope of the eventual EOCL contracts, and ensures that community needs are clearly understood and prioritized.

Click here to read the story

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

News Article
Form of Amendment to Common Stock Purchase Warrant



 Exhibit 4.4 
 AMENDMENT TO COMMON STOCK PURCHASE WARRANT 
 This Amendment (the “Amendment”) is effective as of
August 24, 2006, by and among
                                         
                    (the “Holder”) and Spheric Technologies, Inc., an Arizona corporation (the “Company”). All capitalized terms in
this Amendment shall have the same meanings as such terms have in the Common Stock Purchase Warrant (the “Warrant”), dated
                    , 200    , issued by the Company to the Holder. 
 RECITALS 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Holder
desire to amend the Warrant in accordance with the terms set forth in this Amendment. 
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual
promises and conditions set forth, the parties agree as follows: 
 AGREEMENT 
 1. The first Paragraph of the Warrant shall be amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 
 Spheric Technologies, Inc. (“Company”), an Arizona corporation, hereby certifies that, for value received of $.01 per Warrant,
                                         
                                         
                   (the “Holder”), whose address is
                                         
                   , is entitled, subject to the terms set forth below at any time or from time to time after the date hereof and before the Expiration
Date (as defined below), to purchase from the Company              shares (“Shares”) of Common Stock, $.001 par value, at a price of $1.00 per Share (the purchase price per
Share, as adjusted from time to time pursuant to the provisions hereunder set forth, is referred to in this Warrant as the “Purchase Price”). 
 2. This Amendment shall become effective on the date written above. 
 3. The Warrant shall be deemed amended
to the extent set forth in this Amendment. The Warrant, as amended by the Amendment, shall constitute one agreement. All other terms and provisions of the Warrant shall remain in full force and effect. If there is any inconsistency with the terms of
the Warrant and the Amendment, the terms of the Amendment shall govern over the Warrant. This Amendment is intended to be a final expression of the parties’ agreement to amend the Warrant and is intended to be a complete and exclusive statement
of their agreement and understanding with respect to such amendment. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been entered into as of the day and year first above written. 

 

			
	HOLDER
	
	  

	Signature
		
	Print Name	 	  

	
	COMPANY



			
	
	SPHERIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
		
	By	 	  

		
	Its
PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# NRO achieves unprecedented 15th clean financial audit

NRO achieves unprecedented 15th clean financial audit.

 See the Press Release

 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2167 

To provide for no net increase in the total acreage of certain Federal land 

under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, the National 

Park Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, or the Forest 

Service, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2017 

Mr. GRIFFITH (for himself, Mr. LAMALFA, and Mr. GOSAR) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, 

and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 

such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for no net increase in the total acreage of certain 

Federal land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of 

Land Management, the National Park Service, the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, or the Forest 

Service, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Acre In, Acre Out 

5 Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2167 IH

1 SEC. 2. NO NET INCREASE IN CERTAIN FEDERAL LANDS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—For acquisition of land by the 

3 Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture 

4 that would result in a net increase of total land acreage 

5 under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, the 

6 United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of 

7 Land Management, or the Forest Service, the Secretary 

8 concerned shall offer for sale an equal number of acres 

9 of Federal land that is under the same jurisdictional sta10 tus. 

11 (b) EXEMPTIONS.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to 

12 easements acquired— 

13 (1) by the Secretary of the Interior to facilitate 

14 management of Federal lands; or 

15 (2) by the Secretary of Agriculture to facilitate 

16 management of Federal lands. 

17 (c) CONSIDERATION.— 

18 (1) IN GENERAL.—Land sold pursuant to sub19 section (a) shall be offered for sale— 

20 (A) at fair market value (based on local 

21 comparable sales); and 

22 (B) at a price that is reduced by 10 per23 cent each month if the land is not sold or under 

24 contract to be sold by the date that is 6 months 

25 after the land was first offered for sale. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2167 IH

1 (2) EXCEPTION.—Time periods during which 

2 land is under contract for sale or withdrawn from 

3 the market shall not be counted for the purposes of 

4 price reduction under paragraph (1)(B). 

5 (d) EXISTING RIGHTS.—The sale of Federal lands 

6 pursuant to this section shall be subject to valid existing 

7 rights. 

8 (e) PROCEEDS OF SALE OF LANDS.—All net proceeds 

9 from the sale of Federal lands pursuant to this section 

10 shall be deposited directly into the Treasury for reduction 

11 of the public debt. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
- 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
sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

April 18, 2011

Ms. Dorothy Beard Chief-Docket Operations U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Delta/Virgin Blue Group Antitrust Immunity Pr oceeding

Docket OST-2009-0155

Dear Ms. Beard:

The Joint Applicants are pleased to report that on April 17, 2011, the Virgin Blue Group successfully upgraded its reservation system to Nav itaire New Skies version 3.3.1. The compatible systems and procedures are now in place to support automated codesharing across the Delta/Virgin Blue Group networks under the prop osed joint venture, including the display of DL* code on flights operated by Virgin Blue and Pac ific Blue.

Sincerely,

Alexander Van der Bellen Managing Director, Government Affairs

and Associate General Counsel

cc: Anita Mosner, Counsel for the Virgin Blue Grou p
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 18

- 00614

- CV

Dennis BUXTON and Son Chu Buxton,

Appellants

v.

UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION and Reed Whiting,

Appellees

From the 224th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016

- CI

- 20679

Honorable Rosie Alvarado , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the motion to dismiss filed by

appellants Dennis Buxton and Son Chu Buxton is GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED

.

We order that appellees United Services Automobile Association and Reed Whiting

recover their costs of this appeal, if any, from appellants.

SIGNED August 26, 2020.

_____________________________ Beth Watkins, Justice
Order entered June 12, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01562-CR

PAUL ANGELO ESCOBAR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. -12-62912-Q

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On April 22, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the clerk’s 

and reporter’s records had not been filed. On April 24, 2014, we received the reporter’s record 

and on June 10, 2014, we received the clerk’s record. Therefore, in the interest of expediting the 

appeal, we VACATE the April 22, 2014 order requiring findings.

Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 8660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03257]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    The meeting announced below concerns NIOSH Member Conflict Review, 
PA 07-318, initial review. These applications would normally be 
reviewed by the Safety and Occupational Health Study Section; however 
some of the applications were submitted by Study Section members, thus 
creating conflicts of interest for the Study Section members. To avoid 
conflicts of interest, these applications will be reviewed by a group 
other than the Safety and Occupational Health Study Section.
    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:
    Time And Date: 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m., March 17, 2015 (Closed).
    Place: Teleconference.
    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with 
provisions set forth in Section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., 
and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services 
Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
    Matters For Discussion: The meeting will include the initial 
review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response 
to ``NIOSH Member Conflict Review, PA 07-318.''
    Contact Person For More Information: Nina Turner, Ph.D., Scientific 
Review Officer, 1095 Willowdale Road, Morgantown, WV 26506, Telephone: 
(304) 285-5976.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to 
announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, 
for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency 
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Catherine Ramadei,
Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2015-03257 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
```
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Pugsley Chiropractic, PLLC, as Assignee of Oraude Boston, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>Citiwide Auto Leasing, Inc., Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Gary Tsirelman, P.C. (Darya Klein, Esq.), for appellant.Miller, Leiby &amp; Associates, P.C. (Melissa M. Wolin, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered December 19, 2014. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's assignor had failed to appear for duly scheduled independent medical examinations.</p><p>For the reasons stated in <i>Village Med. Supply, Inc., as Assignee of Stephane Philogene v Citiwide Auto Leasing Ins. Co.</i> (__ Misc 3d ___, 2017 NY Slip Op _____ [appeal No. 2015-962 K C], decided herewith), the order is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: December 22, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
### 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. 03-10-00600- CV
In re Jason Miears
ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM B EXAR COUNTY M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N The Court’s mandamus jurisdiction does not extend to the responde nt Be x ar County district j u d ge. S

ee Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(b)( 1) (West 2004). The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(a) .

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and He nson Filed: September

9, 2010
DDe

•

V Deeember 3954

I. ally Johnson

Chief Engineer

Lockheed Airesitt ON panties

thrlifornia Division

Barbs*, California

Dear lellp

In seoemknos with our telephone sonversation of 20 re-ii,,

I haw obtained acme preliminary information co the J411 swiss. This inforastion is the latest estimate as of yesterday morning.

However, Wrightntero is in Waidegton tentingwith the development

people today, and saw of thews imbue ney be dasniged slightly. I

must agdississ the Wand and papose of submitting information of

this type. Although it is deal:able to review various mins ego.

Witten with future possibilities, there Is no intention to jeoperdiss

the oonsept of our present project. This data should be used for

advanced planning information Gay, end should not delay our present

Use mdiedu3a on the adating projeat.

Derived than Beittah Bristol 01a. J&7 is In larger aims -

22$ asses airflow vs. 175 for 01311410116 A post deal of dowloPoolt, modification, and obseriossisatione required.

Two spool, oonsentris shafto, MO pressure retie 0.0.5.14

annidar ocubustion chamber, afterburner, variablo area renvergent41n

versant nosals.

Moderately high turbine in.lat temp - 1500oF

Ousramteed ratings. sea Laval /Matta

Condition Thrust

Mt (AB) 21500 2.05

Military 13200. .795

Noma 11700 .760

Altitude.

Ths epee states that both the absolute and operational

altitude shall not be less than 65000 feat. The porforaanoo data is

fawn to 65030 fast, lionavers oinoo it is a high promise ratio anew,

it will probably operate at least at 70000 toots, probably to 75000 hots

not Om.

•
(A1111.04$

Dna*boat Statues

S. g total of no boom ot raulag bas been aeonagated, sa

6 sr 7 =glees at MGM lies.

au operated at WOW milk AB

140001, AB at speratAng

MOO/ imenind)*.

k

be The mem is inemel‘st, ad lel main so. %Bp=

might is 51,00, with AD, braver, prototypes will be J600400(0, sod

150 boor =glum will be 540C1f.

e• Difficaties be boa esosirdend Am tutting blade.

tsdlures (tublas vlbautdos), lesquat taupe:sten diatelbstios

bubble, 1st ps oarpreseer atoll ad an%

d. 5thednlos

9.922i IMAM Set 

50. w' test Tab•ause 1955 did 191

1304soir Wet Oat 39554* 1956 Am

Predestlea Late

1 1

.,

I I.

protelppe Tafaisil seglass are convected te*t

For thesellailbes been obligated, t : I

g in late 1956 bin bees planed. Ibis lasolsas a peak rate .

. b. A product:Lam prawn for 2000 =Om with itallarles startin 4

I.

Prop by Wri

to 240001 throat with AB, 15200/ adlitarr.

Proposals be. been by ght for growth et Ur seats\

%

ale year latommtlau I base amide arreagomata for special' Intl I,

.. -....

handling. &naafi*, please mead all mil to the WIGAN add:sass i 

11.

‘

..*!..?1

Colson 0. i. MUM i

il: . . ..-..

...

eh Rosa 421066 .

Tbe Peategea WeebIngtoo 25, De C.

i. \ A ..;.

i n I\ :".:

I 1. ,

p ; .. 1

)! I 1 't - .;

/ .

1i

..: •

•

Cootrastural States.

335 =glass per seatb.

•• ;Z.;
Distributions

1 copy •• 1 eopy ••

•

••

•

•

•••••;••••

:‘•

,•1•.;

Ma in the nod ohongo with regard to oar oxwoopoodt000 dowsods.

0. J. ISTLIM)

Moon, tea ; •

•

• • •

•

1111111=P
#### Zimmerman and wife, Appellants, vs. Fox River Improvement Company, Respondent.

For the appellants: *T. L. Doyle,*attorney, and *Cecilia Doyle*of counsel, both of Fond du Lac.

For the respondent: *Duffy & Duffy*of Fond du Lac, attorneys, and *Bird, Smith, Okoneski & Puchner*of Wausau of counsel.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.

Fowler, J., took no part.