alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014267EN.01000201.xml

| 14.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

13 August 2014

(2014/C 267/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3360 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,89 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4556 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,79970 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1884 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2135 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2375 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,839 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 314,08 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1945 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4361 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8830 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4375 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4593 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3555 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5825 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6701 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 376,14 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,1787 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2216 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6320 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 621,81 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2658 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,690 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 48,4324 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,749 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0374 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,5363 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 81,8300 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3360

JPY

Japanese yen

136,89

DKK

Danish krone

7,4556

GBP

Pound sterling

0,79970

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1884

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2135

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2375

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,839

HUF

Hungarian forint

314,08

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1945

RON

Romanian leu

4,4361

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8830

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4375

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4593

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3555

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5825

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6701

KRW

South Korean won

1 376,14

ZAR

South African rand

14,1787

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2216

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6320

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 621,81

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2658

PHP

Philippine peso

58,690

RUB

Russian rouble

48,4324

THB

Thai baht

42,749

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0374

MXN

Mexican peso

17,5363

INR

Indian rupee

81,8300

---

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

1

Source

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6810
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KENNETH EUGENE BARRON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CR-94-306-WMN, CA-96-3620-WMN) Submitted: October 20, 1997 Decided: November 7, 1997 Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Eugene Barron, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Barron , Nos. CR-94-306-WMN; CA-96-3620-WMN (D. Md. May 12, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                              28
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,128
<ALLOWANCES>                                       168
<INVENTORY>                                      6,691
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,766
<PP&E>                                           1,883
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,296
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     587
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,671
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,089
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            42
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,840)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,022
<SALES>                                          4,388
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,388
<CGS>                                            3,282
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,568
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (3)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 345
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (522)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (522)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (557)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)


</TABLE>
******Exhibit 99.2**

******Auditors' Report to the Board of Directors
on Financial Statement Schedules**

Our audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our report to
the shareholders
dated January 25, 2002, except for Note 13.B dated as of February 6, 2002, appearing in the 2001
Annual Report on Form 10-K also included an audit of the financial statement schedule II listed
in Item 14(a)2 of this Form 10-K. In our opinion, this financial statement schedule represents
fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein when read in conjunction with the
related consolidated financial statements.

|*/s/PricewaterhouseCooper LLP* |                                                  
|------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------
|PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP     | Ottawa, Canada                                   
|Chartered Accountants          | January 25, 2002,                                
|                               | except for Note 13.B dated as of February 6,
2002
·U. S. Department ofTransportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Av:e.; SE . · Washington, DC 20590 .. 3/23/2016

.Re: Amendment to DT Aerial Photography, LLC

## ~~~n1~QioJ**#** 1fJls

# it3 ihZRegulatory Docket No. FAA2015-3504 . Dear Sir or Madam:

. DTAerial Photography LLC hereby requests an amendment to exemption # 13 513 to allow for

additional types ofunmanned aircraft systems (UAS) that fully comply with the conditions ofthe Petition for Exemption. DTAerial Photography wishes to operate the following vehicles under the same terms and conditions contained in exemption#13513:
• 3D Robotics Quadcopter • Tarot 650Pro X8

. . . •· DJI Phantom·2 

## • ·nn Phantom 3


## . . 

## •'bJi Inspire 

### 1 All

### oper~tions ofthe additional UAS will be in full compliance with the terms ofexemption #13513. As this is an amendment to an existing exemption asking for only the addition ofother types of unmanned aerial vehicles, DT

### Aerial**Photo~:raphy** 

### LLC respectfully submits that eood cause exists so that notice does not need to be published in the Federal Reeister for the requested amendment. Please contact the undersigned should you have any questions concerning this request for an amendment to exemption #13513. Sincerely yours,
Douglas W La Farge President/CTO (928) 699-0663 DTAerial Photography LLC 1630A 30th Street Suite 246 Boulder, CO 80301
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE 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 Executive 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 19th day of May 2008:



By: /s/ Douglas Dickie
--------------------------------
Douglas Dickie
Principal Executive 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.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

**PURSUANT TO 18 UNITED STATES CODE §1350**

 

Each of the undersignedhereby certifies that to his knowledge the quarterly report on Form 10-Q forthe fiscal period ended March 31, 2005 of Allstate Life Insurance Company filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations of AllstateLife Insurance Company.

 
| May 6, 2005 | /s/ Casey J. Sylla                                 |   |
|-------------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|        | Casey  J. Sylla                                    |
|        | Chairman  of the Board and President               |
|        |                                               |
|        | /s/  John C. Pintozzi                              |   |
|        | John  C. Pintozzi                                  |
|        | Senior  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|             |                                                    |        |  |

 

E-5

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JESSIE JAMES,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 362 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13th day of December, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 11--STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)

MEDICAL GRAPHICS CORPORATION

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED           NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                             SEPTEMBER 30                SEPTEMBER 30
                                                          1995         1994          1995           1994
                                                       -----------  -----------  --------------  -------------
<S>                                                    <C>          <C>           <C>             <C>
PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED:
Weighted average shares outstanding                      2,443,533    2,409,636      2,441,490      2,401,050
Net effect of dilutive stock options--based on the
 treasury stock method using year-end market price,
 if higher than average market price                            --       92,631             --         79,355
                                                      -------------  ----------     ----------    -----------
    TOTAL                                                 2,443,533   2,502,267      2,441,490      2,480,405
                                                      -------------  ----------     ----------    -----------
                                                      -------------  ----------     ----------    -----------

Net income (loss)                                      $   (214,555) $  126,414    $(1,566,899)   $   585,836
                                                      -------------  ----------    ------------   -----------
                                                      -------------  ----------    ------------   -----------
Net income (loss) per share of Common Stock            $       (.09) $      .05    $       (.64)  $       .24
                                                      -------------  ----------    ------------   -----------
                                                      -------------  ----------    ------------   -----------
</TABLE>


                                      (9)
# C_2015008EN.01000201.xml

| 13.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7403 — CSSC Investment/Wärtsilä Dutch Holding/Wärtsilä Switzerland)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 8/03)

On 5 January 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 32015M7403. 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 32015M7403. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.16

                            ABACUS DIRECT CORPORATION
                                8774 Yates Drive
                           Westminster, Colorado 80030


                                                     December 3, 1998


Mr. Daniel C. Snyder
c/o 8774 Yates Drive
Westminster, Colorado 80030

Dear Dan:

         This letter shall set forth our mutual understanding and agreement in
connection with certain matters relating to your employment as follows:

         1. Reference is hereby made to that certain Employment Agreement (the
"Employment Agreement"), dated as of August 6, 1996, between you and Abacus
Direct Corporation (the "Company"). You and the Company hereby acknowledge and
agree that your job title set forth in Section 1(b) of the Employment Agreement
shall be changed to "President-New Markets and Chairman-Abacus Europe" and that
all references to "President and Chief Operating Officer" shall be deleted in
their entirety from the Employment Agreement and replaced with "President-New
Markets and Chairman-Abacus Europe" in lieu thereof.

         2. Reference is hereby made to that certain Stock Option Agreement (the
"Option Agreement"), dated as of September 15, 1998, between you and the
Company. As you know, the Option Agreement grants the Company certain repurchase
rights which terminate in 20% increments (each such 20% increment, a "Repurchase
Share") on each anniversary of the date of grant. This shall serve to confirm
that in the event the Company terminates your Employment Agreement for any
reason other than for Cause (as defined in the Employment Agreement) prior to
September 15, 1999, the Company shall be deemed to have waived a pro rata
portion of the Repurchase Share which would have terminated on September 15,
1999, based upon the amount of time you were employed by the Company during the
12 month period ending on such date.

         3. Except as expressly set forth in this letter agreement, each of the
Employment Agreement and the Option Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect as the same was in effect immediately prior to the date of this letter
agreement.

         Kindly indicate your agreement with the foregoing by signing in the
space marked "ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED" below.


                                            ABACUS DIRECT CORPORATION

                                            By: /s/ CARLOS SALA
                                               ----------------------------
                                                Name:  Carlos Sala
                                                Title: CFO


ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:

/s/ DANIEL C. SNYDER
----------------------------
Daniel C. Snyder
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

 Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 

November 23, 2016

s1116

Order 

Clerk

November 23, 2016

152916

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 152916

COA: 321200

Genesee CC: 13-032919-FH

TMANDO ALLEN DENSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

By order of June 22, 2016, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the 

application for leave to appeal the October 1, 2015 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On 

order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for leave to appeal is 

again considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the 

application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1). We further ORDER the Genesee 

Circuit Court, in accordance with Administrative Order 2003-03, to determine whether 

the defendant is indigent, and if so, to appoint Jonathan B.D. Simon, if feasible, to 

represent the defendant in this Court. If this appointment is not feasible, the trial court 

shall, within the same time frame, appoint other counsel to represent the defendant in this 

Court. The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days following the 

appointment of counsel addressing: (1) whether the trial court erred when it admitted 

evidence under MRE 404(b) of the circumstances underlying defendant’s 2002 

conviction for assault with intent to do great bodily harm and, if so, (2) whether the error 

was harmless. The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application 

papers.
#### Eldredge vs. Austin and another.

Equity. *Fraud in, conveyance of land: Evidence.*

This court, differing from the trial court, is of opinion that there is no sufficient evidence that the purchase price of land here sought to he subjected to the payment of plaintiff's judgment against A., was paid by A., and not by his codefendant, or that the conveyance of said land to such codefendant, instead of to A., was made in fraud of A.’s creditors.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Dane*County.

*Welch &*Botkin, for the defendants, who were also appellants.

*Rufus B.*Smith, for respondent.

Cole, J.

The object of this action is to subject the real estate described in the complaint to the payment of certain judgments recovered by the plaintiff against the defendant *Austin.*In March, 1871, and before the recovery of these judgments, the property had been conveyed by Isaiah Prescott and wife to the other defendant, *Emily E. Dodge.*But. the allegation in the complaint is, that the real estate was actually purchased by *Austin*and paid for by him with his own money, and that he caused the conveyance to be made to *Miss Dodge*for the purpose of placing the property beyond the reach of his creditors. It is also alleged that *Miss Dodge*was a party to this intended *538fraud, and that she never paid any portion of the purchase money; and that therefore the conveyance should be adjudged void as against the plaintiff.

The circuit court found that these allegations were sustained by the evidence, and granted the relief demanded. After a careful consideration of the testimony in the case, we have been unable to reach the conclusion that the conveyance is fraudulent. It is true, quite an effort was made on the part of the plaintiff to establish the fact that *Miss Dodge*was in destitute circumstances, and could not have paid for the property with her own means. If it could be shown that *Austin*actually paid for the property, it would tend strongly to raise a presumption that the transaction was fraudulent. But while there is evidence which tends to support such a presumption, yet we think the weight of testimony is against it. And we think it a fair and legitimate inference from the whole testimony, that *Miss Dodge*had sufficient means — moneys which she had earned by her own labor, and the proceeds of the sale of her mother’s household effects, — to pay for this real estate, and that she did in fact pay the purchase money. These facts, we think, are established by the weight of evidence. At all events, the opposite conclusion is not sustained by any such clear and satisfactory evidence as to justify the court in holding that the deed is fraudulent as to the creditors of *Austin. We*shall enter upon no discussion of the testimony, but merely state our conclusion from it. In the state of the proof we are unable to say that the conveyance is fraudulent, and that the property was purchased and paid for by *Austin.*

*By the Court.*■ — • The judgment of the circuit'court is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint.