alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004084EN.01013401.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/134 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/134

---

(2004/C 84 E/0172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4029/03

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   Euro-dollar exchange rate

Subject:

The rise of the euro against the dollar is reaching levels which threaten the recent timid resumption of economic growth in the EU. The 6 % fall in German exports registered from September to October 2003 is seen by analysts as a clear consequence of the euro's appreciation.

Some experts think the ECB may be obliged to reduce its rates if the European currency goes on rising. The Commission, in its autumn forecasts, had to scale back its growth forecast for the Community economy, to 0,8 % for 2003 and 2 % for 2004.

Does the Commission believe the euro will continue to appreciate over the coming months? Does it believe that a level exists for the euro-dollar exchange rate which would reflect the real bases of both EU and US economies? Are the Commission's most recent economic growth forecasts for the next two years still valid?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

(11 February 2004)

The Commission believes that a stable exchange rate is in Europe's interest. The Commission also shares the concerns of the euro-area Finance Ministers and the President of the ECB concerning excessive exchange rate movements (as expressed in the Eurogroup statement of 19 January 2004).

The euro has undergone an appreciation of around 25 per cent against the dollar since the start of 2003. However, the euro-area real effective exchange rate — which is what matters for competitiveness — has only appreciated by around 8 per cent since then (when deflated by nominal unit labour costs). The real effective exchange rate is based on the evolution of the euro against a basket of currencies, weighted according to their importance in the external trade of the euro area. It also takes into account differences in inflation rates.

Both survey data and hard indicators confirm that the Commission services Autumn 2003 forecast is still on track. Indeed, the euro-area real effective exchange rate has only appreciated by around 41⁄2 per cent since the forecast was published. It is also worth noting that the latest available (January 2004) private-sector Consensus forecast for GDP growth in the euro area in 2004 is the same as that given in the Commission Services forecast — 1,8 %.

The Commission does not have an official position concerning whether or not the euro will continue to appreciate over the coming months. Similarly, the Commission does not have an official position concerning what exchange rate of the euro against the dollar would best reflect the economic fundamentals of the United States and euro-area economies.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6552
GEORGE TIMOTHY JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ROBERT E. WARD, Warden; CHARLES MOLONY CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-2812-2-20AJ) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 17, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. George Timothy Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).1 Orpiano v. Johnson , 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). 2 Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. 1 Despite this warning, Appellant failed to specifically object to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. 2 Appellant has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny acertificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate.3We 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
• 

REF ID:A40254 ~~--~---------

-

25 •ovembei-- 1943 

MEMORANDUM TO. Seouri t,- Of'ticer• 

SUBJECTS Aotion that maybe taken against violatona or 

Seour1t7 Regulations. 

l. Under the Espionage Aot, 50 USC 32, in order to 

oonv1ct, the person muat have intended or bad reason to 

i'l1eve that the 1ntorm.at1on dlaaloaea iOu"i'd'"be used~ b.e injury ot the u. s. or to the advantage or a roreign nation. 

s. The violation ot the oath• as adm1n1atored to the 

01v1l1an Personnel, could not be aubjeot to or1minal 

proaeout1on, as it 1a not authorized by law. 

z. Under Civil Service Regulation• OPR 80.2, Civilian 

Peraonn•l, working under Civil Service, can be di•oharged 

tor cauae, "wherever delinquenoy or m1aconduct if involved 

and •er1oua otteneea are CO!Qmitted, re•ulting in embarr• 

••am.ent to the departmenta•1 or tor "repeated, intentional 

T1olat1ons ot aatety rules and regulat1onanJ or ror failure 

to observe any written regulation presor1bed by competent authority", but the employee must have knowledge ct the 

writter regulation. 

(a) 5 use 652 provides the procedure by which a 

Civil Sert1oe Emplo7ee may be removed. Thia act require• that a statement or the charge, stating time, place, and 

nature ot otf'ense committed, be prepared) that notice or 

the charge•• with a oop7 thereot muat be delivered to 

person accused, who 1• given a reasonable time, not to be 

le•a than 5 da78, to tile an anewer, The charges and the 

answer ma~ be aupported by Atf1dav1ta and Cerm.eicates. 

'lhe Comm-.nd1ng Otf'icer, ot his repreeentative reviews the 

i'tcol"fls ~d ru.lea on whether or not to dieoharge the employee. A hearing 1• not required it employee 1a to be discharged, the Oppo1nt1ng Officer prepares the form provided and:111n41 

a cop7 or the proceedings to Civil Service Comm.iae1on. 

(b) List or atandard penalties tor violation or 

Adm1n1etrative Regulations where sa~ety ot persons or 

property 1a not endangereda 

pproved for Release by NSA on 09-27-2013 pursuant to E. 0. 

26 \ - -
REF ID:A40254 

lat of't•n•• (ll Written reprimand, or 

(B 1 da7 auapena1on without pay. or 

(3 Removal 

2nd ottense 

,.....-

(l) 2 to 5 days auspena1on without pay, or 

(2) Removal 

ard offense 

(1) 6 to 10 day auspension without pa7• or 

(2) Removal 

Por violations o.r Adm1n1atrat1ve Regulation& where aatet7 ot persona or prope~ty is endange~ed1 

let o.tf'ense 

(1) l to 10 day auapena1on (2) Rem.ova:1 

2nd otf ense 

Removal 

\
# C_2014258EN.01003201.xml

| 8.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 258/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 258/32

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

7 August 2014

(2014/C 258/08)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3368 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,76 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4556 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,79400 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2334 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2150 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,3700 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,853 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 315,80 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2038 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4409 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8900 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4414 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4615 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3613 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5783 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6730 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 385,30 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,3322 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2359 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6520 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 769,21 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2875 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,798 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 48,6417 |
| THB | Thai baht | 43,139 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0406 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,6959 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 81,8556 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3368

JPY

Japanese yen

136,76

DKK

Danish krone

7,4556

GBP

Pound sterling

0,79400

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2334

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2150

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,3700

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,853

HUF

Hungarian forint

315,80

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2038

RON

Romanian leu

4,4409

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8900

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4414

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4615

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3613

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5783

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6730

KRW

South Korean won

1 385,30

ZAR

South African rand

14,3322

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2359

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6520

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 769,21

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2875

PHP

Philippine peso

58,798

RUB

Russian rouble

48,6417

THB

Thai baht

43,139

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0406

MXN

Mexican peso

17,6959

INR

Indian rupee

81,8556

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6564

BRUMAN STALIN ALVAREZ,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CORIZON, LLC, f/k/a Correctional Medical Services, 

Incorporated, Regional; MOTTI MULLETA, M.D., Medical Provider;

BARBARA STEEL, Supervisor Medical Provider; JOHN MOSS, P.A. 

Physician Assistant; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INCORPORATED,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. 

(1:10-cv-00179-WDQ)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruman Stalin Alvarez, Appellant Pro Se. Gina Marie Smith, Amy E. 

Askew, Ryan Alexander Mitchell, MEYERS, RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, 

Riverdale, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bruman Stalin Alvarez appeals the district court’s orders

granting the Defendants’ motions to dismiss or for judgment on the 

pleadings and dismissing Alvarez’s civil complaint. In his 

informal appellate brief, Alvarez fails to challenge the district 

court’s reasons for dismissing his complaint. Accordingly, 

Alvarez has waived appellate review of those issues. See 4th Cir. 

R. 34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in 

the informal brief.”). Because Alvarez does not have a 

constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel during his 

civil proceedings, his claim that appointed counsel committed a 

fraud upon the court by filing an inadequate complaint is without 

merit. See Pitts v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1279, 1284-85 (Fed. Cir. 

2012). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. We 

deny Wexford Health Sources’ motion to dismiss. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7442

JOHN J. RICH, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-96-2882-3-13BC)

Submitted: May 29, 1998 Decided: June 23, 1998

Before ERVIN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John J. Rich, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Lauri J. Soles, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

John J. Rich, Jr. seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Rich v. State of SC, No. CA-96-2882-

3-13BC (D.S.C. Sept. 8, 1997). Rich’s motion to supplement the record is denied. 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
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17I0073. LASHUNDA HARVARD v. THE STATE.

Lashunda Harvard sought the recusal of the trial judge to whom her case had

been assigned. By order entered October 24, 2016, the trial judge denied the motion.

Harvard sought a certificate for immediate review in accordancewith OCGA § 5-6-34

(b), but that request was denied. Harvard nonetheless filed this application for

interlocutory appeal requesting review of the denial of her motion to recuse in

accordance with Braddy v. State, 316 Ga. App. 292 (729 SE2d 461) (2012). 

In Braddy, thisCourt held that an order denying a motion to recuse was directly

appealable under the collateral order doctrine and therefore no certificate of

immediate review was required. Braddy, supra at 293 (1). However, Braddy was

explicitly overruled by this Court in Murphy v. Murphy, 322 Ga. App. 829, 831-832

(747 SE2d 21) (2013) (finding the collateral order doctrine does not apply to motions

to recuse because OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) provides that “the denial of a defendant’s

motion to recuse in a criminal case” requires a certificate of immediate review.) Thus,

Harvard wasrequired to obtain a certificate of immediate review for appellate review

of the order denying her motion to recuse. Harvard’s failure to comply with the

interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b) deprives this Court of

jurisdiction to consider this application, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/09/2016

November 09, 2016
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 0 9

- 2 0 6 4 3 S u m m a r y C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v
. L U I S H U M B E R T O A R R E D O N D O

- S I L V A , a l s o k n o w n a s L u i s H u m b e r t o A r r e d o n d o , a l s o k n o w n a s L u i s H u m b e r t o A r r e d o n d o S i l v a , a l s o k n o w n a s L u i s A r r e d o n d o - S i l v a , a l s o k n o w n a s L u i s H u m b e r t o A r r e d o n o d o S i l v a , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o
. 4 : 0 9

- C R

- 2 0 6

- 1

B e f o r e K I N G , G A R Z A , a n d S T E W A R T , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : *
T h e F e d e r a l P u b l i c D e f e n d e r a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t L u i s H u m b e r t o A r r e d o n d o - S i l v a h a s m o v e d f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n

a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. A r r e d o n d o - S i l v a h a s f i l e d a r e s p o n s e
. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d , c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f , a n d A r r e d o n d o - S i l v a ’ s r e s p o n s e d i s c l o s e s n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f

o r a p p e a l

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D August 19, 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 09-20643 Document: 00511208997 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/19/2010N o
. 0 9

- 2 0 6 4 3

A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s

e x c u s e d f

r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

.

2 Case: 09-20643 Document: 00511208997 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/19/2010
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

KAREN LOUISE BURNETT

,

Appellant

,

v.

THOMAS REFINE BURNETT

,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 21

- 00 103

- CV

Appeal from the

388 th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 95

- 13356 )

O R D E R

On June 7 , 2021 , Appellant filed notice of appeal in the above

- styled and numbered cause. The

notice of appeal is late, but it was filed within fifteen days after the deadline for the notice of appeal to

be filed. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied w hen an appellant, acting in good faith,

files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by T EX .R.A PP .P. 26.1 but within the fifteen

- day grace

period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959

S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). However, an appellant must still provide the Court with a reasonable

explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal before the Court may accept the appeal.

Accordingly, Appellant is ordered to respond in writing and provide the Court with a reasonable

explanation for filing the notice of appeal late. See T EX .R.A PP .P. 10.5(b)(1)(C), 26.3; Verburgt , 959

S.W.2d at 617. The explanation is due to be filed no later than June 19 , 2021

. If Appellant fails to

comply with this order, the appeal is subject to dismissal without further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 9 th day of June , 2021.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       6,416,354
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      30,075,487
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            12,350,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      15,499,865
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        15,437,254
<LOANS>                                     52,012,604
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,319,451
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             121,695,322
<DEPOSITS>                                 105,999,043
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,096,284
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,994,796
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,705,199
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             121,695,322
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,375,009
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              708,450
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,083,460
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             587,219
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             587,219
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,496,241
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                927,711
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                758,252
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     758,252
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   446,124
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .96
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                        736
<LOANS-PAST>                                       631
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,319,451
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,319,451
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,319,451
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
REF ID:A54995 -

--- r - --- --· -:~- --- .. 

- ?ti, 7hdt.1:2uiV1 a "'t~ 

k~f'f 1t--t /l!,-, rr-1d'4<df/I 1 .:S' OtUVI 

$4_.fe. 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 05-20-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a