alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Miller, Appellant.

[772 NYS2d 809]

*193Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Visitacion-Lewis, J.), rendered January 23, 2002, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about June 6, 2002, which denied defendant’s motion to set aside the sentence, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The plea allocution satisfied constitutional requirements (see *Boykin v Alabama,*395 US 238 [1969]; *People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9 [1983]), and it establishes that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. The essence of defendant’s application was a patently meritless challenge to certain DNA evidence that constituted part of the extensive proof connecting him with the crime. The balance of defendant’s claims was conclusory and contradicted by the plea record.

The record establishes that defendant received effective assistance of counsel in connection with his plea *(see People v Ford,*86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). Given the meritless nature of the plea withdrawal application, nothing said by counsel in connection with that application was materially adverse to defendant’s interests, and there was no violation of his right to conflict-free representation *(see Cuyler v Sullivan,*446 US 335, 348-350 [1980]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Williams, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7030

JIHAD SHAHADDAH , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. DEPUTY GOTCHER, with Arlington County Sheriff ’ s Dept.; ARLINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF ’ S DEPARTMENT; BETH ARTHUR , Defendants

- Appellees , and
COUNTY OF ARLINGTON , Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. ( 1:18

- cv
- 00883

- TSE

- TCB )

Submitted : January 28, 2020 Decided: February 7, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Harsh Voruganti , THE VORUGANTI LAW FIRM, PLLC, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Alexander Francuzenko , Philip C

. Krone , COOK CRAIG &2 FRANCUZENKO, PLLC , Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee s
.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Jihad Shahaddah appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (201 8 ) complaint and related state law claims . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Shahaddah v. Gotcher , No. 1:18

- cv
- 00883

- TSE

- TCB (E.D. Va. filed June 17, 2019 & entered June 18, 2019) . 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
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Premium Valve Services, LLC v. Comstock Oil & Gas, Comstock Oil 

& Gas—Louisiana, LLC; and Certain Underwriters

Appellate case number: 01-15-00108-CV

Trial court case number: 2009-65461

Trial court: 270th District Court of Harris County

Party filing motion: Appellees

The panel voted unanimously to deny appellees’ motion for rehearing.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd 

 Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Bland, Brown, and Lloyd.

Date: December 1, 2016
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

DWAUNTAVIA THOMAS,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D16-1076

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed December 2, 2016

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Osceola County,

A. James Craner, Judge.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and 

Nicole Joanne Martingano, Assistant Public 

Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Allison Leigh Morris, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders1 appeal, we affirm the revocation of probation and the sentence 

without discussion. However, we remand with directions that the trial court enter an 

 

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
2

amended order revoking probation, specifying the conditions of probation that Thomas 

violated. Mack v. State, 694 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (citations omitted). Thomas 

need not be present for this clerical correction. Id. (citing Bontrager v. State, 678 So. 2d

518 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED, with instructions.

LAWSON, C.J., SAWAYA and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT32

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Accessory Specialists Incorporated (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Anthony N. DeMint, President and Chief AccountingOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

-  The    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andThe    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/Anthony N.DeMint                       

AnthonyN. DeMint

Presidentand Chief Accounting Officer

November 10,2004
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2011-0913 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-031-AD

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

To add diodes to 

the fuel crossfeed 

wiring.

4.0 $340.00 $40 $380.00 198 $75,240.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $75,240

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $
*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES NO 

Explanation:
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, John H. Karnes, certify that:     (1) I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Mariner Energy, Inc.;     (2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     (4) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)), for the registrant and have:     a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b. (Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986);     c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and     (5) The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):     a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: March 30, 2007              /s/ John H. Karnes   John H. Karnes,   Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officerand Treasurer
Alaska Administrative Code Title 18Environmental Conservation, Chapter 52Emissions Inspection and MaintenanceRequirements (18 AAC 52)
Exhibit 31.2

                           Certification of Controller
            Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Hilda Kwena, Controller, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31,
2004 of Comtex News Network, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

         (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;

         (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

         (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

         (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls over financial reporting.



February 14, 2005                               /s/ Hilda Kwena
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Hilda Kwena
                                                Controller
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

LAWRENCE BRANDON,

Petitioner

v.

TAX CLAIM BUREAU, DIRECTOR, JOANN 

RANCK,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 365 WAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of April, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2023 KW 0665

VERSUS

WILLIE MACK CAULEY, JR. SEPTEMBER 25, 2023

In Re: Willie Mack Cauley, Jr., applying for supervisory

writs, 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. 

Tammany, No. 593185. 

BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., CHUTZ AND LANIER, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. Relator does not seek review of a

ruling by the lower court or request mandamus relief for the court' s

failure to act. Thus, this writ presents nothing for this court

to review. 

JMG

WRC

WIL
From:•Tim Ragen <tragen@mmc.gov>

Sent:•Monday, November 05, 2012 11:11 AM

To:•Blundon, Cheryl

Cc:•Melissa Herman; Vicki Cornish

Subject:•Info collection BSEE Legacy Data Verification Process 1014-0009

Dear Ms. Blundon:

The Marine Mammal Commission has reviewed the Bureau of Safety and Environmental

Enforcement’s Federal Register notice regarding an information collection request to meet the

paperwork requirements of 30 C.F.R. Part 250, Subpart D, Oil and Gas Drilling and Operations (77 Fed.

Reg. 60714). The information collection request, termed the Legacy Data Verification Process, would

ensure lessees comply with reporting requirements for historical information regarding the location of

wellbores, records regarding well completion or any workover activity that “materially alters the

completion configuration or affects a hydrocarbon-bearing zone” (30 C.F.R. § 250.467(c)), and other

related reporting requirements.

Historical information on wellbore activities would assist the Bureau in evaluating and enhancing the

safety of offshore drilling operations—a critical step in preventing blowouts and loss of well control

that could cause “damage to the environment or to property or endanger life or health” (43 U.S.C.

1332(6)). The importance of collecting information on well operations and well integrity could help

prevent or at least better understand factors that contribute to catastrophic events such as the 2010

Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. The Commission therefore supports the Bureau’s

request that the Office of Management and Budget approve the collection of historical information

related to well operations to ensure that drilling operations in the Outer Continental Shelf are

conducted safely and responsibly.

Sincerely,

Timothy J. Ragen, Ph.D.

Executive Director

_____________________________________________________________

Tim Ragen, Executive Director, U.S. Marine Mammal Commission

4340 East-West Highway, Room 700, Bethesda, MD 20814

Tel: 301.504.0101 Mobile: 301.233.9179 Email: tragen@mmc.gov

_____________________________________________________________
# C_2016228EN.01000101.xml

| 24.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

23 June 2016

(2016/C 228/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1389 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 120,38 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4396 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,76595 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3030 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0876 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,2993 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,062 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 314,28 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3571 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5114 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2692 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5060 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4517 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8351 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5763 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5252 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 304,47 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,4651 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,4935 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5210 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 961,77 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5469 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,879 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,9548 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,101 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,8172 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,8305 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 76,6510 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1389

JPY

Japanese yen

120,38

DKK

Danish krone

7,4396

GBP

Pound sterling

0,76595

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3030

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0876

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,2993

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,062

HUF

Hungarian forint

314,28

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3571

RON

Romanian leu

4,5114

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2692

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5060

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4517

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8351

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5763

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5252

KRW

South Korean won

1 304,47

ZAR

South African rand

16,4651

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,4935

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5210

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 961,77

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5469

PHP

Philippine peso

52,879

RUB

Russian rouble

72,9548

THB

Thai baht

40,101

BRL

Brazilian real

3,8172

MXN

Mexican peso

20,8305

INR

Indian rupee

76,6510

---

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

1

Source

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-30975

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID TURNER,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CR-156-J

- - - - - - - - - -

August 22, 1996

Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Turner appeals the sentence following his guilty-plea

conviction to conspiracy to import marihuana and importation of

marihuana. Turner contends that the district court erred by

denying him a downward adjustment for acceptance of

responsibility and by declining to consider him a minimal or

minor participant. Because Turner attempted to minimize his

participation in the offenses of conviction, the district court
No. 95-30975

- 2 -

did not clearly err by denying him a downward adjustment for

acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Wilder, 15

F.3d 1292, 1299 (5th Cir. 1994). Because the offense conduct

demonstrates that Turner was more culpable than he indicated, the

district court did not clearly err by declining to award him a

downward adjustment for being a minor or minimal participant. 

See United States v. Zuniga, 18 F.3d 1254, 1261 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 115 S. Ct. 214 (1994).

AFFIRMED.
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 30, 2016

Order 

Clerk

November 30, 2016

151439(69)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 151439

v COA: 318680

Wayne CC: 13-005130-FC

PHILLIP JOSEPH SWIFT, a/k/a PHILLIP

JOSEPH SWIFT, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellee to extend the time

for filing its supplemental brief is GRANTED. The supplemental brief will be accepted 

as timely filed if submitted on or before January 16, 2017.
# C_2016084EN.01000101.xml

| 4.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

3 March 2016

(2016/C 84/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0901 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 124,23 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4565 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,77435 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3620 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0840 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4245 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,057 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 308,94 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3339 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4584 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,1920 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4852 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4644 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,4755 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6257 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5158 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 322,61 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,1245 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1298 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6015 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 427,47 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4962 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,211 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 80,0845 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,677 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,1949 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,5122 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 73,3365 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0901

JPY

Japanese yen

124,23

DKK

Danish krone

7,4565

GBP

Pound sterling

0,77435

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3620

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0840

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4245

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,057

HUF

Hungarian forint

308,94

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3339

RON

Romanian leu

4,4584

TRY

Turkish lira

3,1920

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4852

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4644

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,4755

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6257

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5158

KRW

South Korean won

1 322,61

ZAR

South African rand

17,1245

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1298

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6015

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 427,47

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4962

PHP

Philippine peso

51,211

RUB

Russian rouble

80,0845

THB

Thai baht

38,677

BRL

Brazilian real

4,1949

MXN

Mexican peso

19,5122

INR

Indian rupee

73,3365

---

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

1

Source

---