alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014466EN.01000501.xml

| 30.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 466/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 466/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

24 December 2014

(2014/C 466/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2219 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 147,07 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4396 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,78650 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5400 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2025 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,1511 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,777 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 316,08 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,45280 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3078 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4628 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8410 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5053 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4164 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,4844 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5807 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6160 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 347,55 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,2498 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,5969 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6630 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 214,50 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2729 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 54,596 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 66,8863 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,169 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,2921 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,0123 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 77,5589 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2219

JPY

Japanese yen

147,07

DKK

Danish krone

7,4396

GBP

Pound sterling

0,78650

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5400

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2025

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,1511

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,777

HUF

Hungarian forint

316,08

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,45280

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3078

RON

Romanian leu

4,4628

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8410

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5053

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4164

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,4844

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5807

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6160

KRW

South Korean won

1 347,55

ZAR

South African rand

14,2498

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,5969

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6630

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 214,50

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2729

PHP

Philippine peso

54,596

RUB

Russian rouble

66,8863

THB

Thai baht

40,169

BRL

Brazilian real

3,2921

MXN

Mexican peso

18,0123

INR

Indian rupee

77,5589

---

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

1

Source

---
Citicorp Mortgage,       Mail Station 313
Inc.                     P.O. Box 790013
                         St. Louis, Missouri
A subsidiary of          63179-0013
Citicorp



                                                                  (logo)CITICORP








March 31, 1997
Investor #6121



Luis Rodriquez/Master Servicer
Norwest Bank
5325 Spectrum Drive
Frederick, MD 21701



                             OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE



RE:  Annual Statement as to Compliance:
     Pursuant to SASCOR Servicing Guide




Dear Mr. Rodriquez:

The  activities  of  Citicorp  Mortgage,  Inc.,  performed  under the  above
referenced  Servicing  Guide  during  the  preceding  calendar  year,  have been
conducted under my supervision.  Based upon a review of those  activities and to
the best of my  knowledge,  Citicorp  Mortgage,  Inc. has  fulfilled  all of its
obligations under this Servicing Guide.



Citicorp Mortgage, Inc.



By: /s/ Linda Whitaker
Linda Whitaker, Assistant Vice President
EXHIBIT 14.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-05670, No. 333-8824 and No. 333-12178) and in
the Registration Statements on Form F-3 (No. 333-12100 and No. 333-12236) of
Orckit Communications Ltd. of our reports dated February 22, 2004, relating to
the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appear in this
Form 20-F.






Tel-Aviv, Israel                                /s/ Kesselman & Kesselman
    April 19, 2004                         Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)





















Kesselman & Kesselman is a member of PricewaterhouseCoopers International
Limited, a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales.
REF ID-:-A70729 - ........ - ...;---

----=~ 

~ ~--STANDA l'O NO 8' "! c,. ( -::r::-:;---;-- .... ~ __ _ \. l \::( . _..,. 

i.... ._,..J -

Office Memorandum • UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 

t i 

J-.. TO 

~:'S 

r".,.t. FROM 

DATE 2J. J'e~ 1952 T ~1 -r .J 

~ 

~ SUBJECT 

1 The principal :machines an4 devices covered. lv app'licaticms aret 

a SIGABA {serial number 70,412 - Inventorsi Madman and Row.Lett) - ApproximatelJ' 3330 ot thepe machines were built at a cost of $5.925,000 end were 

videl.1' ll884. 

b. SIGCUM (serial number 1.431 320 - Inventorst !'riedman and Rowlett) - Appro:d.matel.T 3220 mch1nes were built at a cost o~ $1.17191325 05 and.~ widel-7 

used. 

c sm:ror (seri81 number 549,086 - Inventora Friedman) - Appro:d.ma~ 

121 000 maeMnes were 'buil.t at a cost ~ $1,617,a84 25 am were ~ pit into 

:tield use. 

.. _ 

~-­ ----

---- --- -- -=-- =--= 

c::---=- = -----

E

-.::---==-

- -

=-

- - f ___ -=- ---- -==---===--

-~ - --- -- - --- - -- - - - -- ---- -- ~ 

.... - - -- - --- = -::_-- -""=----- - - -- - :;::... ,_ -- - - ----- -- - -- - -- -- - - -- -:::::...._.-

-::.. - ........ 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 08-30-~01 ~ pursuantto E_p. 1352a- -=- - - -- -- --- - - - --- -

- --=-=- c -- --=--== -= -=- ==-.=--
= 

--

REF ID:A70729 

= ~--

:: -- - -- --==- -- ...... - - -=-- _-::.- - ::: --------==----=...... -- - - --- - _:-.: -£ --:--::::.: -=-=-_; 

=---:.. -:__ _ _;:__ -- --~ 

--- - : - -=-- -- -~ 

.:::..-=----.:.....:-.:.._-:-_--_- ::-: -----=- ;: =...: ----=--

-- --- -:--

r I - ,,.. r 

...... '- . 

2. App'ticat!on aerial numbers 682J096 and 1071244, cove:-ocI the early approaches 

to the SIG.lm. 'n>e machines 2'8Jll'esented 1:o>" these apPlicatians ~ J:IOt l!lllde 111 largu ql2allt1t!ea nor videl.7 usedJ total quantity, problbly, less than loo. 

3. lb.tent number 21.3951 863 CCJVSl's a strip ciJiiw device (M-13e) Wich w.s used to some extent but 'Was l'lOt Op&raticmally important. 

4. APPlicat!cm. serla1 numbs!" 4781193 (nov patmit mzm.ber 2_.552,548) discloses a 

retey...,!*'Bted 

signal 'With e d'UJlJrlV 

chctdt 

Bigml 

tor 

bJr' 

Pl'OVidittg 

so-called 

taoamn.e 

Vemmn addition. 

pr!_,,. Iv" 

T.his 

COlllb1il1ng 

device 

"" 

ws 

~ .never used. 

althOttgh Mi-. Fri~ feels that it provided. the basis for 2mlCh ot the late?- work in faetsimile ltt"ivac,r. 

.. - ..... ' ... 

HENRI B. STAUF.FER 

Heed• 302L 

- --:::: 

--------- -== --=-· 

_..,. __ 

..!I- -

t ~ ~ l. 

~r r11 >< \t c. - ...... ..,"'-).tr _.,. -- -r------.... 

----· ---· -~--- -==-.:=: ::..-:::=:::-.. -- -- :::----:: 

-- =..--::_ 

- - ---- --;:_ ==-~- - --~ - - - ----- ------ - - - :: 

=~ - =- --

-- - - -- --

- --- - - ":.. 

==-::... _:::;... __ - ..:- - --- =-=---==---=---=-=-- -- - -- -=---=~ _....:::_ -:....=....=-:..":..-:.. -

----- -- -
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2013-0797

 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM007AD

767-21-0245 --- 4/16/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
No. 12763 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1974 

MICHAEL MELVIN WITSOE, 

Petitioner, 

THE HONORABLE ROBERT J. NELSON et al., 

Respondent. 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING : 

Counsel of Record : 

For Petitioner: 

E. F. Gianotti argued, Great Falls, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Honorable Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, 

Montana 

J. Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana 

Norman L. Newhall I11 argued, Great Falls, Montana 

Submitted : June 14, 1974 

Decided : Ja 9 1 1974 

Filed: JUL 3 1 1974 
PER CURIAM: 

This is a petition for writ of certiorari seeking a 

review by this Court of the action of the Honorable R. J. 

Nelson, Judge of the Eighth Judicial District in Cascade County. 

The petitioner alleges that the trial judge erroneously ordered 

him to furnish names of alibi witnesses to the county attorney 

under circumstances wherein the petitioner was seeking to move 

the discretion of the trial judge for "good cause shown" to permit the defense of alibi under section 95-1803(d), R.C.M. 1947. 

Petitioner had been charged in justice court on October 

5, 1973, with sale of dangerous drugs. An information in three 

counts was filed; and on October 25, 1973, petitioner plead "not 

guilty". He also made a motion to dismiss count I11 on grounds 

that it did not specify time and place as definitely as it should 

be done. The motion was denied with the judge observing: 

"THE COURT: The name of the Informants is denied. 

If they can fix the date more accurately than the 

20th day of September through the 4th day of 

October they will be required to do so. Or if 

there is more than one sale, all right; but it 

will not be dismissed because they could just 

file it all over again. Good cause shown here 

that statutory rights of his have not been prejudiced at this time. If they can fix it more 

certainly for you they will do so. I am denying 

your motion on the name. The informant is denied." 

Again, on April 17, 1974, Judge Nelson heard further 

arguments. In that exchange, the transcript reveals that the 

state, on trial, will be relying on the defendant's own statements to some extent and on the statement or testimony of the 

person to whom the sale was made. At this stage, and with what 

little information we have it is difficult to understand what 

alibi defense is sought to be interposed. We are being asked to 

review the record. The record does not reveal any error at this 

time. It may well develop during trial that the state's case 
will develop a fact situation to which the defense of alibi 

may be pertinent or material. At that time, for good cause 

shown, the defendant may need some kind of relief but at this 

time we see no need to review the trial court's action. 

Accordingly, the petition for writ of review is denied, 

without prejudice. 

Honorable Thomas Dignan, District Judge, sat in place 

of Chief Justice James T. Harrison.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LY NGUYEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

RTS PACKAGING LLC

CONSOLIDATED PENSION PLAN; 

RTS PACKAGING, LLC,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-55688

D.C. No. 8:13-cv-00803-CJC-E

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 16, 2016** 

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Ly Nguyen appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in her action

alleging that defendants RTS Packaging LLC Consolidated Pension Plan (the

“Plan”) and RTS Packaging, LLC, violated the Employment Retirement Income

FILED

NOV 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) by denying her claim for surviving spouse

benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. 

Tremain v. Bell Indus., Inc., 196 F.3d 970, 975 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Nguyen’s claim

that the Plan’s duration-of-relationship requirement for survivor benefits was

discriminatory because Nguyen failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as

to whether defendants were state actors. See Lugar v. Edmonson Oil Co., 457 U.S.

922, 923-24 (1982) (Fourteenth Amendment only applies to state action); George

v. Pac.-CSC Work Furlough, 91 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)

(actions against private parties for violation of constitutional rights require a

showing that the private parties’ conduct constituted state action). 

AFFIRMED.

2 14-55688
December 20, 1996

Mr. Donald E. Ziegler
11005 Forest Oak Lane
Great Falls, Virginia 22066

Dear Donald:

     On behalf of Comtex Scientific Corporation (the "Company"),
I am pleased to offer you the position of Senior Vice President
and Chief  Financial Officer of the Company working for Charlie
Terry and me.  We would like you to begin on December 30, 1996.   

     The annual salary  accompanying this position is  $50,000
per annum paid bi-weekly.  The term of your employment is for one
year, subject to renewal annually, at the Company's discretion,
for two additional one-year terms; provided, however, the Company
shall have the right to terminate your employment with no further
obligation on the part of the Company if you are convicted of a
felony or a crime of moral turpitude or if you are guilty of
gross negligence or wilful misconduct.  In the event that the
Company terminates your employment or decides not to renew your
employment agreement for any reason other than those specified
above, you shall receive four months' severance pay, paid out
over four  months in full and complete satisfaction of any claim
you may have by virtue of such termination of or election not to
renew your agreement with the Company.  

     In the event your employment agreement is renewed, you shall
be entitled to an increase in annual salary which is commensurate
with the annual increase awarded to other executive officers of
the Company as determined by the Board of Directors.

     During the term of your employment, you shall be entitled to
participate, on the same terms and conditions as other executive
employees of the Company, in such major medical, dental, life
insurance, 401(k), and other employee benefits which the Company
now provides or in the future may provide to its executive
employees generally.  You shall be entitled to four weeks of paid
vacation per year.

     As part of  the Company's Stock Option Plan, you will be
provided with options to purchase 180,000 shares of Comtex stock,
pending approval of the Board of Directors, in accordance with
the Plan.  These options vest over three years and the option
price is determined as set forth in the Plan.  In addition, you
shall receive a car allowance in the amount of $140 per month. 
Furthermore, the Company will reimburse you for all reasonable
expenses incurred in the performance of your duties in accordance
with the Company's standard policy.

     Charlie Terry and I look forward to the opportunity to work
with you here at Comtex.  We believe you will find the position
challenging and worthy of your talents.


Very truly yours,


     
/S/ C.W. GILLULY
C.W. Gilluly, Ed.D.           Accepted: /S/ DONALD E. ZIEGLER
Chairman and                            Donald E. Ziegler
  Chief Executive Officer
Filed 2/12/15 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2015 ND 22

Kayla Rath, Plaintiff

v.

Mark Rath, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20140291

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable David E. Reich, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Mark Rath, self represented, 1021 W. Saint Benedict Drive, Bismarck, ND 58501, defendant and appellant; on brief.

Kayla Rath, plaintiff; no appearance.

Rath v. Rath

No. 20140291

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Mark Rath appeals from a district court order denying his Rule 60(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., motion to vacate the judgment and grant relief from all judicial rulings in his divorce. 

[¶2]Mark Rath and Kayla Rath were divorced in January 2013.  Mark Rath appealed the district court divorce judgment.  The appeal was voluntarily dismissed.  He also appealed two contempt orders.  See Rath v. Rath, 2013 ND 243, 840 N.W.2d 656; Rath v. Rath, 2014 ND 171, 852 N.W.2d 377.  On April 22, 2014, Mark Rath made a motion under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b) to vacate the divorce judgment and all orders in his case, arguing the district court failed to adhere to the rules, statutes and judicial obligations of the North Dakota and federal constitutions.  The district court denied the motion, finding that Mark Rath had no standing to assert his parents’ constitutional rights and that the motion was barred by res judicata.  Mark Rath appeals, arguing the judgment and orders are void because they violate his due process and First Amendment rights. 

[¶3]We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(1) and (7).  Matter of Estate of Schmidt, 1997 ND 244, ¶ 10, 572 N.W.2d 430 (explaining prior dismissal of an appeal renders the order final and res judicata of all issues therein); Wetch v. Wetch, 539 N.W.2d 309, 311 (N.D. 1995) (explaining res judicata precludes claims raised in prior actions between the same parties, which were resolved by final judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction); Rath, 2013 ND 243, 840 N.W.2d 656; Rath, 2014 ND 171, 852 N.W.2d 377.

[¶4]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Dale V. Sandstrom
# C_2015048EN.01000101.xml

| 11.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7491 — Lixil/Grohe)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 48/01)

On 2 February 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website 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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7491. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7491. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             517
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,261
<ALLOWANCES>                                       657
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,573
<PP&E>                                          15,304
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,963
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,850
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,743
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           12,863
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,825
<OTHER-SE>                                    (32,282)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,850
<SALES>                                          3,578
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,628
<CGS>                                            2,632
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,568
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,363
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (35)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 133
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,180)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        50
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,230)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,230)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.29)


</TABLE>
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LARAY J. BENTON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Civil Action No. 15-843 (JEB)

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 

et al.,

 Defendants.

ORDER

As set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Court ORDERS that:

1. The Bank Defendants’ [2] Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART;

2. The Ocwen Defendants’ [4] Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART;

3. Seterus’s [17] Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART;

4. Wilmington’s [21] Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART;

5. Plaintiffs’ [5] Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE; and

6. The case is TRANSFERRED to the District of Maryland.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ James E. Boasberg 

 JAMES E. BOASBERG

 United States District Judge

Date: February 9, 2016
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

Edge
Petroleum Corporation
Houston, Texas

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-143474) and Form S-8
(No. 333-141254, No. 333-113619, No. 333-106484, No. 333-61890, No. 333-93209, and
No. 333-22571) of Edge Petroleum Corporation (the "Company") of our reports dated March 16, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements and to the effectiveness
of Edge Petroleum Corporation's internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008. Our report
contains an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.

We
also consent to the reference to us under the caption "Experts" in the Prospectus.

/s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
Houston, Texas
March 16, 2009


---



QuickLinks