alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016073EN.01000201.xml

| 25.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

24 February 2016

(2016/C 73/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0981 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 122,86 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4621 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,78935 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3636 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0914 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,5858 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,047 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,55 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3680 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4775 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2336 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5319 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5197 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5333 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6620 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5478 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 359,58 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,0655 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1794 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6260 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 766,34 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6603 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,346 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 84,6894 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,213 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,3793 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,0815 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 75,2885 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0981

JPY

Japanese yen

122,86

DKK

Danish krone

7,4621

GBP

Pound sterling

0,78935

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3636

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0914

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,5858

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,047

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,55

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3680

RON

Romanian leu

4,4775

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2336

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5319

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5197

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5333

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6620

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5478

KRW

South Korean won

1 359,58

ZAR

South African rand

17,0655

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1794

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6260

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 766,34

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6603

PHP

Philippine peso

52,346

RUB

Russian rouble

84,6894

THB

Thai baht

39,213

BRL

Brazilian real

4,3793

MXN

Mexican peso

20,0815

INR

Indian rupee

75,2885

---

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

1

Source

---
BRANDON WARNER,

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. 1D16-1114

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 6, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Angela C. Dempsey, Judge.

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

Allen Beard, Assistant Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Thomas Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, 

and Tayo Popoola, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-392]
 ACTION: Notice of application.
 DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before May 26, 2015.
 ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA 
                        **Federal Register**
                         Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Request for hearings should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R. In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on March 20, 2014, Apertus Pharmaceuticals, 331 Consort Drive, St. Louis, Missouri 63011, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances: Controlled substance
ScheduleMarihuana (7360)
ITetrahydrocannabinols (7370)
I
 The company plans to divide the synthesized cannabidiol, with a portion going for sale as an API in nabiximol. The raw material will be used to synthesize dronabinol. Therefore, they anticipate consuming and purchasing small quantities of CS for generating data to support the Drug Master File with the FDA including validation batches, standards and stability studies. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration. Dated: March 20, 2015. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2015-06966 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
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

ROBERTO CARRILLO, JR.,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D16-2167

SARAH JEAN CARRILLO INDIVIDUALLY 

and O/B/O J.L., S.C. and S.C. CHILDREN,

Appellee.

_____________________________________/

Opinion filed December 9, 2016

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Seminole County,

Michael J. Rudisill, Judge.

Mark A. Skipper, of Law Office of 

Mark A Skipper, P.A., Orlando, for 

Appellant.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Robert Carrillo, Jr., appeals the trial court's entry of final judgment of injunction for 

protection against domestic violence in favor of Sarah Jean Carrillo. The record in this 

case reflects that the trial court, which also presided over three other cases involving the 

parties, relied primarily on non-record evidence from those cases to support the final 

judgment of injunction. We do not suggest that a trial court cannot rely on records from 
2

other cases involving the same parties to a subsequent injunction proceeding, but it must 

follow the procedure for taking judicial notice of those records outlined in section 

90.204(1), Florida Statutes (2016). "[P]rocedural safeguards are necessary to ensure that 

respondents in these petitions are on notice of the claims against them and of the 

evidence that will be used to decide those claims and that the evidence is made part of 

the record." Coe v. Coe, 39 So. 3d 542, 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). As in Coe, the trial 

court's failure in this case "to formally take judicial notice of these files and to make them 

part of the record in this case to support the ruling is fatal." Id. at 545 (footnote omitted). 

Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment of injunction because no competent, 

substantial evidence in the record before us supports the trial court's findings.

REVERSED.

LAWSON, C.J., TORPY and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON



### O RDER 

### W ITHDRAWING 

### M EDIATION 

### O RDER

Court of Appeals N umber: 01

- 19

- 00629

- CV

Style: Elmer Rivera, Kassandra Morales Rodriguez and Isreal Morales v.

City of Houston and Veronica Romero

Tria l Court Case Number: 2018

- 87546

Trial Court: 270th District Court of Harris County

Type of Motion: Objection to Mediation

Party Filing Motion: Appellee



### Appellee has objected to mediation. The Court’s m ediation o rder dated October 4,

2019 is with drawn.

Judge's signat ure: /s/ Sarah Beth Landau

Acting individually

Date: October 16, 2019

* Absent emergency or a statement that the motion is unopposed, must wait ten days before acting on motion except for

motion to extend time to file a brief. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 10.3(a).

Note : Single justic e may grant or deny any request for relief properly sought by motion, except in a civil case a single justice

should not: (1) act on a petition for an extraordinary writ or (2) dismiss or otherwise determine an appeal or a mot ion

for rehearing. T EX

. R. A P P

. P. 10.4(a).
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**




**DANZIGER
      & HOCHMAN CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS**


202
      Bentworth Avenue


Toronto,
      Ontario


M6A
      1P8





Tel
      416-730-8050


Fax
      416-730-8382


www.danzigerhochman.ca


info@danzigerhochman.ca








February
      21, 2006








Board
      of
      Directors


Astris
      Energi Inc.


2175-6
      Dunwin Drive


Mississauga,
      Ontario, Canada


L5L
      1X2





Dear
      Sirs:





This
      letter is to constitute our consent to include the Independent Auditors’ Report
      dated April 26, 2005 except for Note 15, as to which the date is December 15,
      2005 of Astris Energi Inc. as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 in the Annual Report
      filed on Form 20-F/A contemporaneously herewith and subject to any required
      amendments thereto.








Yours
      very truly,





**DANZIGER
      & HOCHMAN**




/s/
      David
      Danziger


David
      Danziger










Lugowy
      Associates


Chartered
      Accountants


Effort Square, Suite 306, 105 Main St.
              East
            Tel
                (905) 322-4977 Fax (905) 528-5333Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8N 1G6
            E-mail:
                DALCACPA@aol.com








February
      21, 2006








Board
      of
      Directors


Astris
      Energi Inc.


2175-6
      Dunwin Drive


Mississauga,
      Ontario, Canada


L5L
      1X2





Dear
      Sirs:





This
      letter is to constitute our consent to include the Independent Auditors’ Report
      dated May 25, 2005, as of December 31, 2002 and 2001 in the Annual Report filed
      on Form 20-F/A contemporaneously herewith and subject to any required amendments
      thereto.




Yours
      very truly,





**Lugowy
      Associates**




/s/
      Dennis A. Lugowy


Dennis
      A.
      Lugowy, B.A., C.A., C.P.A
The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the

1

District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2099

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * District of Minnesota.

Everett C. Gilbertson, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: November 28, 1997

 Filed: December 10, 1997

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After a jury trial, Everett C. Gilbertson was convicted of filing false tax returns

in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). The district court sentenced him to 18 months in 1

prison. Gilbertson appeals, and we affirm.

We reject as completely meritless Gilbertson&s argument that the United States

District Court lacked jurisdiction over his prosecution for tax crimes. See United States
-2-

 v. Watson, 1 F.3d 733, 734 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (in prosecution for fraudulent

tax returns, district court had jurisdiction, because 18 U.S.C. § 3231 “provides district

courts with original jurisdiction of all violations of federal law”; rejecting claim that

“free citizen” of Oklahoma was not United States citizen); United States v. Gerads, 999

F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (federal income tax is not voluntary;

rejecting appellants& argument that “Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota” were

not United States citizens subject to taxes), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1193 (1994).

Similarly meritless is Gilbertson&s claim that the federal jury statute discriminates

against Minnesota citizens like him who are not “federal citizens.” 

As Gilbertson&s under-reporting of income for the years 1991 and 1992 was

clearly prohibited by the statute under which he was convicted, we find no merit to his

generalized argument regarding the vagueness of the Internal Revenue Code. See 26

U.S.C. § 7206(1); United States v. Kaylor, 877 F.2d 658, 661 (8th Cir.) (due process

requirements), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 871 (1989). We further hold that Gilbertson has

failed to show any extra-judicial source of bias to warrant the trial judge&s recusal, and

that the district court properly denied his motion for release pending appeal. 

Because Gilbertson&s arguments regarding freedom of information and civil

removal statutes are unrelated to his criminal convictions, we do not address those

issues in this criminal appeal.

Gilbertson&s “Motion to Correct Transcript of Sentencing Hearing” is denied, and

the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

E R R A T A

March 29, 2006

Appeal No. 04-1616, In Re Kahn

Precedential Opinion

Decided: March 22, 2006

Page 18, footnote 4, “Spinnoble” should be spelled “Sponnoble.”
**EXHIBIT 32.6**

 

**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 Quarterly Report of Iomega Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 2, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Preston Romm, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

 

Preston Romm

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

August 10, 2006

 

This certification accompanies this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that Iomega Corporation specifically incorporates it by reference.
#### Geer and others, Respondents, vs. Booth, Appellant.

*March IS*—

March *27, 1896.*

*Geer v. Holcomb, ante,*p. 661, followed.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Waushara ■county: Ohas. M. Webb, Circuit Judge.

Peve'rsed.1 '

For the appellant there was a brief signed'by *S. A. Corning,*and oral argument by *Mr. Corning*and *Mr. Geo. W. Bird.*

' ■ For the respondents there was a brief by *Cate, Sanborn, Lamofeux dc Park,*and oral argument by *A. W. Sanborn.*

*664Cassoday,. C. J.

The facts in this case are the same as in the case of *Geer v. Holcomb, ante,*p. 661. For the reasons given in that case the judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded with direction to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, the same as if the complaint had never been amended.
CERTIFICATIONS

I, Jay Sargeant, Chief Executive Officer of EYI Industries, Inc.
(the "Registrant"),certify that;

(1)	I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of EYI
Industries, 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 officers 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, including its consolidated subsidiaries, 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(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial
reporting, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
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 control 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 control over financial reporting.

Date:  	May 20, 2005



	/s/ Jay Sargeant
By: 	Jay Sargeant
Title:	Chief Executive Officer
From: Nicholas Ammann [mailto:nammann@me.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 1:26 PM

To: Exparte Communications

Subject: Ex parte communication: Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–TP–0043 / RIN 1904–AD36 

RE: DOE Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Amend the External Power Supply Test Procedure; 

Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–TP–0043 / RIN 1904–AD36 

On 12/19/2014, Apple Inc. met with DOE to discuss the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to 

Amend the External Power Supply Test Procedure. Below is a summary of the topics 

Discussed. 

1. Power factor measurement as an additional data point collection at each loading point

2. Adaptive Charging requirements

3. 10% loading point and data collection

Nicholas Ammann

Apple

Federal Government Affairs

(o) 202.772.9509
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

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 of Firearms Training Systems, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended
March 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Ronavan Mohling, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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; and

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

| |  |                                                          
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Ronavan
Mohling                                      
| |  | Ronavan Mohling                                          
| |  | Chairman of the Board of DirectorsChief Executive Officer
| |  | August 14, 2002
Opinion issued November 22, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-16-00364-CV

———————————

ELDA LUMBRERAS, Appellant

V.

ALLY FINANCIAL INC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1045333

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Elda Lumbreras filed a notice of appeal on May 3, 2016, stating 

that she desired to appeal a judgment signed on December 11, 2015. Appellant filed

a motion for new trial on January 11, 2016. Because the notice of appeal was not 

timely filed, we dismiss.
2

As a general rule, a notice of appeal is due within thirty days after the signing 

of the judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. The deadline is extended to ninety days 

after the judgment is signed if a party files a timely post-judgment motion under 

Rule 329b, or in some cases, a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

See id.; TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(a), (g). 

Appellant’s notice of appeal is untimely. The motion for new trial extended 

the deadline for filing the notice of appeal to March 11, 2016. The notice of appeal 

filed on May 3, 2016 was more than 140 days after the date of judgment and more 

than 50 days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. Without a timely filed 

notice of appeal, this court lacks jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1. We notified 

appellant of our intent to dismiss and allowed an opportunity to respond, but 

appellant filed no response. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3.

Because we have no jurisdiction, we dismiss this appeal.* TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(a); 43.2(f). Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Massengale, Brown, and Huddle.

 

* The appeal in cause number 01-16-00235-CV of the February 9, 2016 order 

dismissing the bill of review is unaffected by this opinion and judgment and 

remains pending.