alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016105EN.01001001.xml

| 19.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 105/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 105/10

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2016/C 105/08)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country
  : Andorra

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : 20 years in the Council of Europe

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : The design shows at the centre left the coat of arms of Andorra followed by the inscription ‘20’ where the zero is stylised to represent the Council of Europe’s flag. At the top are the inscriptions ‘ANDORRA’ and underneath ‘AL CONSELL D’EUROPA’. The year ‘2014’ appears at the bottom left followed by an oblique line.

Description of the design

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued
  :

Number of coins to be issued

Date of mintage
  : February 2016

Date of mintage

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
Opinion filed November 30, 2016

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-16-00179-CR

___________

BRIAN KEITH WALL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 15-4640

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant has filed in this court a motion to withdraw his notice of appeal. In 

the motion, Appellant states that he “no longer wish[es] to pursue the matter before 

this court and respectfully request[s] withdrawal of the Appeal.” The motion is

signed by both Appellant and his counsel in accordance with TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2.

The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. 

November 30, 2016 PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
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

LESTER GRAY,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D16-2379

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

AND STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellees.

________________________________/

Opinion filed December 2, 2016

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Orange County,

Keith F. White , Judge.

Lester Gray, Perry, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Wesley Heidt, Assistant 

Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellee, State of Florida. 

No appearance for other Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Lester Gray appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We affirm.

Gray, who was convicted in the Circuit Court of Orange County, is currently 

incarcerated in Taylor County. The trial court incorrectly denied Gray’s petition, 
2

concluding that it should have been filed in Taylor County. As the Third District explained 

more than ten years ago in Broom v. State, 907 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005):

The circuit court of the county in which a defendant is 

incarcerated has jurisdiction to consider a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus when the claims raised in the petition concern 

issues regarding his incarceration, but not when the claims 

attack the validity of the judgment or sentence. Only the court 

in which the defendant was convicted and sentenced has 

jurisdiction to consider collateral attacks on a judgment or 

sentence, and such an attack must be brought pursuant to 

Rule 3.800 or 3.850, not by petition for writ of habeas corpus.

(Internal citations omitted). Because the petition collaterally attacks the validity of Gray’s 

conviction and sentence, Orange County had jurisdiction to review the habeas petition. 

Notwithstanding, we affirm the denial of the habeas petition because the trial judge 

reached the right result, albeit for the wrong reason. Gray has previously filed several 

postconviction motions. An extraordinary writ petition is not a second appeal, and cannot 

be used to litigate or relitigate issues that were or could have been raised on direct appeal 

or in prior postconviction proceedings. See Denson v. State, 775 So. 2d 288, 289 (Fla. 

2000). Habeas corpus may not be used to file successive rule 3.850 motions or to raise 

issues that would be untimely if considered as a motion for postconviction relief under 

that rule. Baker v. State, 878 So. 2d 1236, 1245-46 (Fla. 2004). Any concerns that Gray 

had regarding his conviction and sentence needed to have been raised in his previous 

postconviction motions. 

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
---

---

Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO

18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Orckit Communications Ltd. (the
Company) for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Aviv
Boim, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)        The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
               Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)        The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

March 12, 2006

| |  | BY: /S/ Aviv Boim
Aviv Boim, Chief Financial Officer
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
**CERTIFICATION      OF **

**CHIEF      EXECUTIVE OFFICER **

**PURSUANT      TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (i) | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company, for the fiscal                quarter                ended June 30, 2006, and to which this certification is attached                as                Exhibit 32.1 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of                Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as                amended;                and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii) | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|         |            |                               |
|--------------|-----------------|------------------------------------|
|    |       |                          |
|         | By:   | /s/ Jay              Sargeant |
|         | Name:           | Jay              Sargeant          |
|         | Title:          | Chief Executive Officer       |
|         | Date:           | August 23, 2006                    |
|         |            |
|         |            |

*A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained      by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its      staff upon request.*

*This      certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which it relates, is not deemed      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated      by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933      or      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date      of      the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained      in such filing.*
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

DANNY LEWIS FROST,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-30355

D.C. No. 1:15-cr-00018-SPW-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 16, 2016** 

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

Danny Lewis Frost appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges

the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy to possess with intent to

FILED

NOV 25 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).
distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Frost argues that the district court erroneously determined that he was

ineligible for safety valve relief because he had failed to disclose truthfully all of

the information he had about the offense. We review for clear error, see United

States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2007), and find none. 

After expressing an unwillingness to name his customers during his first debrief,

Frost provided vague information about only three of his customers during his

second debrief. Under these circumstances, the court did not clearly err in finding

that Frost had not truthfully provided the government all information he had about

the offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5); United States v. Ferryman, 444 F.3d

1183, 1186 (9th Cir. 2006) (“We accept the lower court’s findings of fact

[regarding safety valve] unless we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a

mistake has been made.”)

AFFIRMED.

2 15-30355
FAX 719-542-5243 

11a'`

f~ ~~'~i'~~ ~ C'+(~r~ L ~ ` • o ' . ~ 

~J_~ ._J 

719-542-8278 

13th & Erie Streets 

P.O. Box 533 

Pueblo, Colorado 81002-0533 

April 19, 2013 

Alex Cristafaro, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

David Rostker, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy 

Cortney Higgins, U.S. Office of Management and Budget 

Dear Mr. Cristafaro, Mr. Rostker, and Ms. Higgins: 

I am writing today as the President of a small brick manufacturing company that has the potential to be 

significantly impacted by the upcoming MACT standard for major sources in the brick and structural clay 

processing industry. We are not a forma) Small Entity Representative (SER) in the current review panel 

being conducted under the Small Business Regulator Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). We are also 

not niembers of the Brick Industry Association (BIA). However, all of our industry is working together 

with the BIA on this critical rulemaking and they are keeping us apprised of the activities on this rule. 

We consider them to be speaking on all industry's behalf as they work with you. 

We have really struggled the last six years due to the poor economy and have only operated 50% of the 

time during 2011 and 2012. We believe that the proposed MACT standard would put us out of business. 

Everi duririg a booming economy it would be difficult to obtain financing and would increase the cost of 

our brick 18 to 25°lo due to our sr7iall size. This would make it very difficult to compete with other 

materials and larger plants. 

Sincerely, 

seph C. Welte 

President 

JCW/kac
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

152035

CITY OF HUNTINGTON WOODS and CITY

OF PLEASANT RIDGE,

Plaintiffs/

Counter-Defendants-Appellants,

SC: 152035

v COA: 321414

Oakland CC: 2013-135842-CZ

CITY OF OAK PARK,

Defendant/

Counter-Plaintiff-Appellee, 

and

45TH DISTRICT COURT,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, at the request of the special mediator, Court of 

Appeals Chief Judge Michael J. Talbot, the briefing periods shall begin to run from the 

date of the special mediator’s final report concluding that settlement efforts have 

concluded without successfully resolving all of the issues raised in the application for 

leave to appeal.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.$

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                                2,597
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                             7
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      2,735
<PP&E>                                  265
<DEPRECIATION>                          114
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        3,029
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   660
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                  5
<OTHER-SE>                            2,364
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          3,029
<SALES>                                  21
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        137
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           130
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      4,824
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        9
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (4,562)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (4,562)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                         (4,562)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (0.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.98)



</TABLE>
Re: Exemption No. 12123 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-1589 

To whom it may concern: 

Rise Above Images LLC. is requesting amendments to their existing 333 exemption as listed 

and described below. The purpose for the amendments is to be able to offer the services as 

listed in the existing 333 exemption. Each amendment will serve to increase the functionality 

and usefulness of UASs and the increased functionality will serve to create safer working 

environments in the industries in which they are deployed. 

1. Relief from restriction #2 for filming in closed set movie or television production 

Rise Above Images LLC. has extensive video and film production experience and would like to 

be able to use UASs for such purposes as called out in the 333 exemption. It is therefore 

__ ___,r'-""e~qu.esting relief 1ro_m_restriction #2. Qn the 333 elC~mption_j()r gperation in clo§e<t§eL __ _u ___ _ 

environments for movie and television production. Rise Above Images proprietary Motion 

Picture and Television Flight Operations for Unmanned Aerial Systems·and if requested will be 

mailed directly to 333exemptions@faa.gov. 

2. Relief from restriction #15 prohibiting night flight. 

Rise Above Images would like the ability to perform roof inspections on large commercial 

buildings with flat roofs. In warmer seasons/climates, spots of a roof that are leaking have 

collected water that retains the day's heat for a few hours longer than the rest of the roof that 

has not been compromised. The traditional method for locating leaks, or wet spots on large flat 

roofs is to use a handheld thermal imaging camera shortly after nightfall and have the technician 

walk the roof to identify leaks. While many safety features are in place, every year, several 

people become distracted and accidentally walk off an edge in the dark resulting in serious 

injury or death. This is a very dangerous job that commercial roofing companies would like to 

make much safer and even save lives by using UASs. Since the thermal imaging needs to be 

done shortly after sunset, and after several hours does not yield results, Rise Above Images is 

requesting only partial relief from limitation #15 and seeking permission to operate up to 4 hours 

after sunset. Rise Above Images will still maintain visual flight rules and only fly under VFR 

conditions.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          53,838
<SECURITIES>                                     2,450
<RECEIVABLES>                                  109,346
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,657
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               169,477
<PP&E>                                          31,108
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,739
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 265,442
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           88,715
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           321
<OTHER-SE>                                     132,416
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   265,442
<SALES>                                        144,478
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               144,478
<CGS>                                           61,076
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   61,076
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                73,720
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,666
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,457
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,209
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,209
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24



</TABLE>
T. O., A Child,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-1571

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 9, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Henry E. Davis, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven Seliger, Assistant Public Defender,

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
# C_2014371EN.01000601.xml

| 18.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

17 October 2014

(2014/C 371/05)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2823 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,45 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4460 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,79550 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1532 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2074 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,3815 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,492 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 307,40 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2318 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4195 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8817 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4597 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4416 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,9478 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6140 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6326 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 362,20 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,2040 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8546 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6650 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 502,40 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1958 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,513 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 52,3111 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,521 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,1491 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,3136 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 78,7717 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2823

JPY

Japanese yen

136,45

DKK

Danish krone

7,4460

GBP

Pound sterling

0,79550

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1532

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2074

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,3815

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,492

HUF

Hungarian forint

307,40

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2318

RON

Romanian leu

4,4195

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8817

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4597

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4416

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,9478

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6140

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6326

KRW

South Korean won

1 362,20

ZAR

South African rand

14,2040

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8546

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6650

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 502,40

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1958

PHP

Philippine peso

57,513

RUB

Russian rouble

52,3111

THB

Thai baht

41,521

BRL

Brazilian real

3,1491

MXN

Mexican peso

17,3136

INR

Indian rupee

78,7717

---

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

1

Source

---