alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015386EN.01000101.xml

| 20.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 386/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 386/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

19 November 2015

(2015/C 386/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0687 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 131,60 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4603 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69980 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3089 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0893 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,2556 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,025 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,26 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2500 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4438 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,0433 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4925 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4203 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,2829 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6404 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5129 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 241,54 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,1806 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,8244 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6310 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 714,18 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6314 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 50,259 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 69,4086 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,324 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,0154 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,8206 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,7800 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0687

JPY

Japanese yen

131,60

DKK

Danish krone

7,4603

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69980

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3089

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0893

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,2556

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,025

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,26

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2500

RON

Romanian leu

4,4438

TRY

Turkish lira

3,0433

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4925

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4203

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,2829

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6404

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5129

KRW

South Korean won

1 241,54

ZAR

South African rand

15,1806

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,8244

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6310

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 714,18

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6314

PHP

Philippine peso

50,259

RUB

Russian rouble

69,4086

THB

Thai baht

38,324

BRL

Brazilian real

4,0154

MXN

Mexican peso

17,8206

INR

Indian rupee

70,7800

---

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

1

Source

---
# C_2015323EN.01000201.xml

| 1.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 323/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 323/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7712 — KSPG/Hasco/Cosmo/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 323/03)

On 25 September 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 English 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 32015M7712. 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 32015M7712. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
# C_2014340EN.01000102.xml

| 30.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7268 — CSAV/HGV/Kühne Maritime/Hapag-Lloyd AG)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 340/02

On 11 September 2014, 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) 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 32014M7268. 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 32014M7268. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
#### Taylor vs. Williams.

J&.n application to this court, hy a defendant in error against whom a judgment ' for costshadheenrenderedhere, to have such judgment set off against a larger judgment in his favor obtained against the plaintiff in error in the circuit court, was granted under the circumstances of this case.

The circumstances under which an application to set off one judgment against another is usually allowed, considered^1 Cora, .J.

August 21.

*By the Court,*

Cole, J.

This is an application on the part of Williams, the defendant in error, to have a judgment for costs in this court against him set off against a larger judgment in his favor obtained against *Taylor*in the circuit court. The application is made upon motion and proper notice to the opposite party.

From the authorities cited in support of the motion, it would seem to be the practice in England to set off one judgment against another even when they are in different courts. *Hall vs. Ody,*2 Bos. & Pul., 29; *Bridges vs. Smyth,*8 Bing., 29; *Bristowe vs. Needham,*7 M. & G., 648. In this country the practice is not uniform. In New York such set-offs are allowed (1 Bur. Prac., 281; *Ross vs. Hicks,*11 Barb. (S. C.), 481, and cases there cited); while in Kentucky the practice is disapproved. *Tenant's heirs vs. Marmaduke,*5 B. Mon., 76. But even where the practice to set off one judgment against another obtains, such set-off is only allowed when parties are interested in the respective judgments in the same right, and the judgment is conclusive, and the rights of the parties are not doubtful, complicated or intricate, and the application is made in the court where the judgment against the moving party was recovered. *Ross vs. Hicks, supra.*Upon such conditions and qualifications, the practice may not be open to serious objection. Of course such an application is always addressed to the sound discretion of the court in which it is made, and we should not entertain one where the equities of the case were not clear, or where we should have to enter npon any extended examination to determine the facts of the case, or the rights of the parties. This motion to make the set-off is not serionsly resisted, although the counsel for *Taylor*suggested that it would *156be more correct to mate the application in the circuit court where the larger judgment existed. We suppose the de-J fendant in error could only make the motion here where thel judgment was against him, and applying to have the set-off made he will be bound by the order of this court, and musí see to it that the judgment of the circuit court is *pro tanto*discharged.

The motion is granted, but without costs.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

LEONEL MARIN-TORRES, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-30044

D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00038-HZ-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 9, 2016** 

Portland, Oregon

Before: McKEOWN, W. FLETCHER and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Leonel Marin-Torres appeals his conviction for assault with a dangerous

weapon with intent to do bodily harm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(3) and

7(3) and possession of prison contraband in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1791(a)(2),

FILED

NOV 28 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).
(b)(3), (d)(1)(B) and 7(3). Marin-Torres contends he was effectively denied his

right to represent himself in violation of the Sixth Amendment, see Faretta v.

California, 422 U.S. 806, 821 (1975), because the district court denied him

adequate access to discovery. Marin-Torres, whose is Spanish speaking, primarily

contests the district court’s denial of his request to have a complete set of translated

discovery and the court’s entry of a protective order prohibiting him from retaining

discovery materials in his cell. “We review de novo whether there has been a

violation of . . . the Sixth Amendment right to make a defense[,]” United States v.

Stever, 603 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.

Marin-Torres’ right to self-representation under Faretta necessarily includes

the right to prepare a defense. See Milton v. Morris, 767 F.2d 1443, 1446 (9th Cir.

1985). This right includes “time to prepare and some access to materials and

witnesses” but “is not unlimited.” Id. “Security considerations and avoidance of

abuse by opportunistic or vacillating defendants may require special adjustments.”

Id. 

Here, the district court appointed standby counsel, bilingual interpreters and

investigators to assist Marin-Torres with his review of discovery materials. The

district court also allowed Marin-Torres to have key documents translated into

Spanish. Prisoner and officer safety required restricting Marin-Torres’ ability to

2
retain and review materials outside of the presence of his defense team. These

“special adjustments” were based on legitimate security concerns. 

Marin-Torres responded to these accommodations by repeatedly obstructing

his defense team’s efforts to review discovery with him, electing to protest his

unrequited demands rather than work within the reasonable confines set by the

district court. To the extent Marin-Torres was not prepared to present a defense at

trial, it was the result of his own choices. We cannot fault the district judge, who

exhibited commendable patience in attempting to accommodate Marin-Torres’

requests and his right to present a defense. 

AFFIRMED. 

3
# CA2014297EN.01000501.xml

| 4.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 297/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 297/5

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OFFICIAL JOURNALS

2014/C 297 A/05

Please find below the list of C A Official Journals published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, the Official Journals are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |
| 176 | |
| 178 | |
| 180 | |
| 182 | |
| 185 | |
| 186 | |
| 188 | |
| 195 | |
| 207 | |
| 209 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 211 | |
| 217 | |
| 219 | |
| 242 | |
| 254 | |
| 255 | |
| 256 | (LV) |
| 258 | (RO) |
| 262 | (EN) |
| 267 | (SL) |
| 270 | (FR) |
| 272 | (DA) |
| 274 | (IT) |
| 277 | |
| 283 | |
| 289 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 293 | (NL) |
| 295 | (MT) |
| 297 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

163

164

176

178

180

182

185

186

188

195

207

209

(DE/EN/FR)

211

217

219

242

254

255

256

(LV)

258

(RO)

262

(EN)

267

(SL)

270

(FR)

272

(DA)

274

(IT)

277

283

289

(DE/EN/FR)

293

(NL)

295

(MT)

297

---
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Ex Parte Jose Luis Aguilera

Appellate case number: 01-16-00844-CR

Trial court case number: 1598995-A

Trial court: County Criminal Court at Law No. 13 of Harris County

On October 26, 2016, the trial clerk filed a letter of assignment in this Court 

attaching the notice of appeal filed on September 30, 2016, by counsel for Jose Luis 

Aguilera in the above-referenced appeal involving his application for a writ of habeas 

corpus. Aguilera is challenging the trial court’s order denying his habeas application, 

signed on September 29, 2016. On October 28, 2016, the clerk’s record was filed in this 

Court containing, among other things, the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order 

denying appellant’s habeas application, signed by the trial court on October 14, 2016.

On November 1, 2016, the Clerk of this Court requested the trial court’s 

certification of appellant’s right of appeal from the denial of his habeas application, 

which is expected to be filed in this Court by December 1, 2016. On November 17, 

2016, three volumes of the reporter’s records of the writ hearing, held on August 24, 

September 22 and 29, 2016, were filed in this Court. After a review of the records, the 

Court determines that it desires briefing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 31.1.

Accordingly, appellant’s brief is ORDERED to be filed no later than 20 days

from the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 31.1. The State’s brief, if any, is 

ORDERED to be filed no later than 20 days from the filing of the appellant’s brief.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes_

  Acting individually 

Date: November 29, 2016
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002


By signing below, the Principal Financial Officer hereby certifies pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, (i) this report on Form 10-QSB fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in this report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Hybrid Fuels Inc.



Signed this 21st day of May 2007:



By: /s/ Douglas Dickie
--------------------------------
Douglas Dickie
Principal Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Hybrid Fuels Inc. and will be
retained by Hybrid Fuels Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2015351EN.01000102.xml

| 23.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7602 — Deutsche Telekom Group/MET Holding/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 351/02)

On 19 August 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 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 32015M7602. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7602. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
REF ID:A66705 • 

!eP SEeH:l!?f - SEel:JRfi' y IHPeRMA!IeN ll February 1952 

TOP s~cr .. .._-{ 

MEMORANDUM FOR GENERAL CANINE 

SUBJECT: Report from the Head, Special Liaison, Office of Operations, 

Armed Forces Sec'..ll'ity Agency to the Deputy Coordinator, 

United States Communications Intelligence Board on an 

Estimate of the Communications Intelligence Capabilities of 

Western European Governments 

1. In response to your recent request for a comment on the subject 

report now in your possession, the specific purpose of the report was to 

provide RADM Wenger with a sue cinct outline of the knowledge available to 

the Office of Operations on the COMINT capabilities of the Western 

European Powers. 

2. The report has the further purpose of serving as an over-all, 

preliminary survey to which information may be added as it is accumulated. 

It is expected that from time to time pages may be issued which will be 

substituted for those in the present report so as to keep it more or less 

up to date. The subject report differs from previous reports in respect 

to (a) brevity, (b) limitation to current information,(c) its attempt to 

codif;}r the information and (d) a format which lends itself to the maintenance 

of the information on a current basis. 

4. I un:ierstan.d that there is available within AFSA additionaJ. 

information which should be correlated and added to certain of these 

individual reports, uhich therefore should not be considered in any sense 

as complete or final. 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

EO 3 . 3 ( h) ( 2 ) 

eclassifi ed and a 

~;11,~ ~.t. .. ...__. r-\'ilLLI.AM F. FRIEDMAN 

Cons tant 

ursuantt E .0. 1352
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                    INFORMATION MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, INC.


                             LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


          The subsidiaries of the Registrant are as follows:

<TABLE>
<S>                                                              <C>
Information Management Resources (India) Limited                 Organized in India
Information Management Resources (U.K.)
  Holding Company Limited                                        Organized in the United Kingdom
Information Management Resources, plc                            Organized in the United Kingdom
Information Management Resources (Northern Ireland) Limited      Organized in the United Kingdom
Information Management Resources (U.K.) Limited                  Organized in the United Kingdom
The Link Group Holdings Limited                                  Organized in the United Kingdom
Link Associates Limited                                          Organized in the United Kingdom
Contract Link Limited                                            Organized in the United Kingdom
Link Workgroup Solutions Limited                                 Organized in the United Kingdom
Information Management Resources (Australia)
  Pty. Ltd.                                                      Organized in Australia
Information Management Resources Canada Ltd.                     Organized in Canada
Movitone, Ltd.                                                   Organized in India
Information Management Resources IOR, Ltd.                       Organized in Mauritius
</TABLE>

          Each company does business in the name listed above.
# C_2015295EN.01000101.xml

| 8.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/1

---

Initiation of proceedings

(Case M.7566 — Mondi/Walki Assets)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 295/01)

On 2 September 2015, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the abovementioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).

1

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference No M.7566 — Mondi/Walki Assets, to the following address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---