alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016315EN.01000101.xml

| 30.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

29 August 2016

(2016/C 315/01)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1170 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 114,24 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4451 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85476 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4940 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0937 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,2731 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,023 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 308,76 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3314 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4576 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,3048 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4790 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4536 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6637 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5438 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5212 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 254,70 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,2300 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,4608 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4852 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 819,24 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5183 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,829 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,6695 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,647 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,6710 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,7643 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 75,0335 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1170

JPY

Japanese yen

114,24

DKK

Danish krone

7,4451

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85476

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4940

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0937

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,2731

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,023

HUF

Hungarian forint

308,76

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3314

RON

Romanian leu

4,4576

TRY

Turkish lira

3,3048

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4790

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4536

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6637

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5438

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5212

KRW

South Korean won

1 254,70

ZAR

South African rand

16,2300

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,4608

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4852

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 819,24

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5183

PHP

Philippine peso

51,829

RUB

Russian rouble

72,6695

THB

Thai baht

38,647

BRL

Brazilian real

3,6710

MXN

Mexican peso

20,7643

INR

Indian rupee

75,0335

---

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

1

Source

---
# CA2015288EN.01000101.xml

| 2.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 288/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 288/1

---

ADDENDUM TO THE RESERVE LISTS (1)

1

OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AST-SC/01/14

ASSISTANTS (SC 1/SC 2)

IN THE SECRETARIAL FIELD

(2015/C 288 A/01)

Having French as their main language (SC 1)

Having French as their main language (SC 1)

| BURZIC | Azra |
| --- | --- |
| CARRERA MURILLO | Sonia |
| GUEZ | Léa |

BURZIC

Azra

CARRERA MURILLO

Sonia

GUEZ

Léa

This addendum will be valid until 17 July 2016.

17 July 2016

---

(1)  A successful candidate may explicitly have requested her/his name not be published.

1

---
June Term, 1860.

#### Grinnell vs. Denison and others.

A party to an action cannot recover fees for his own attendance and mileage, as a witness therein in his own behalf.

*403APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for *Jackson*County.

At tbe trial of tbis cause tbe plaintiff was nonsuited. clerk, in taxing tbe defendants’ costs, disallowed certain fees claimed by them, for travel and attendance as witnesses on their own bebalf. On appeal from tbis taxation, tbe court directed tbe costs to be taxed as claimed by tbe defendants, from wbicb decision tbe plaintiff appealed.

*W. H.*Tucker, for appellant.

July 30.

*By the Court,*

Paine, J.

Since this appeal was taken, tbe defendant *Wm. Denison*has died. No steps have been taken to make bis administrator a party to tbe suit, and it was suggested that no administrator bad been appointed. Sec. 4, cbap. 135, R. S., 1058, provides that on tbe death of any of several defendants or plaintiffs, where tbe cause of action survives, it shall be prosecuted by tbe surviving plaintiffs or against tbe .surviving defendants, as tbe case may be. We shall not attempt to determine what effect should be given to tbis section, as there was no argument upon tbe question, and no appearance here by any of tbe defendants.

Tbe only question presented on tbe appeal is, as to tbe right of parties who swear in their own bebalf under tbe statute, to tax their fees as witnesses in their own favor. And we think they have not such right. Tbe statute allowing parties'so to swear, makes a radical change in tbe law in that respect, and however beneficial it may be in tbe provisions which it makes, yet we do not think any effect should be given to it beyond what its provisions require. It does not provide that parties swearing in their own bebalf may tax fees for themselves as witnesses. And it is obvious that there is a clear distinction between them and other witnesses in tbis respect. For where tbe party is obliged to procure tbe attendance of another witness, tbe law presumes that be has to pay him tbe legal fees, as be cannot compel bis attendance without. But tbe party generally attends at tbe trial of bis own case for other purposes besides that of being a witness. And although tbe law has allowed him to swear in bis own bebalf, that does not indicate an intention on tbe part of tbe legislature to place him on tbe same footing with *404an ordinary witness in all respects, and allow Mm to tax Ms mileage and *per diem*for traveling to, and attending upon, the trial of Ms own case. If tMs right were allowed, we think, without some statutory provisions regulating it more perfectly, it would be liable to frequent abuse.

We are therefore of the opinion that the clerk was right in rejecting those items, and that the circuit court erred in allowing them. Eor these reasons, the order appealed from is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded, though we make no decision as to the effect of this judgment upon the rights of the representatives of the deceased defendant.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 20, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-50549

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

THURMAN D. PAYNE,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-01-CR-899-3

--------------------

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Thurman D. Payne has moved for

leave to withdraw from this appeal and has filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Payne has filed a

response to the motion, contending that the district court’s

determination of drug quantity was arbitrary, that he should have

been granted an offense-level reduction as a minimal participant,

that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at

sentencing, and that his counsel had a conflict of interest. 
No. 02-50549

-2-

Payne moves for leave to file supplements to his Anders response,

in which he asserts additional sentencing and counsel-conflict

issues; those motions are GRANTED. 

Our independent review of the brief, the record, and Payne’s

response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Payne

waived the right to appeal his sentence except upon limited

grounds. The sentencing issues he asserts are waived. See

United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 567 (5th Cir. 1992). 

Although Payne’s appeal waiver excepted his claims pertaining to

ineffective assistance of counsel, including his conflict-ofinterest claim, we decline to address those issues on direct

appeal, without prejudice to Payne’s right to assert such claims

in a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Massaro v. United

States, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S. Ct. 1690, 1694 (2003); see also

United States v. Bounds, 943 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1991).

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA F I L E D
; DEC 1- 2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptey
) Courts for the District of Columbia
)
v. ) Case No: 10-cr-0006-RCL
)
ALTON D. TAYLOR )
)
)
Defendant. )
)

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Robinson,
and the lack of objection thereto, the Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and
ADOPTED.

By separate order this date, defendant’s term of supervised release will be revoked. The
minimum sentence under the guidelines of 24 months incarceration will be imposed, which the
guidelines provide will be consecutive to the Maryland sentence currently being served. No
additional term of supervised release will be imposed. The Court finds the recommended
guideline sentence is appropriate, having considered all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors.

The motion [22] to lift detainer is GRANTED, and the Writ of Habeas Corpus ad
Prosequendum is now dismissed.

It is SO ORDERED.

Date: Qremadiar, ! _,2016 G. c Konkel

RoyclC, Lamberth
United States District Judge
# C_2016007EN.01000101.xml

| 11.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2016/C 007/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 429, 21.12.2015.

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 414, 14.12.2015

OJ C 406, 7.12.2015

OJ C 398, 30.11.2015

OJ C 389, 23.11.2015

OJ C 381, 16.11.2015

OJ C 371, 9.11.2015

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6125

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TYRONE NOBLE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District 

Judge. (3:06-cr-00748-JFA-9)

Submitted: October 26, 2010 Decided: November 23, 2010

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrone Noble, Appellant Pro Se. Julius Ness Richardson, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Noble appeals from the district court’s orders 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006) motion for reduction of 

sentence and his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed 

the record and the arguments of the parties, and we affirm the 

denial of Noble’s § 3582 motion for the reasons stated by the

district court. United States v. Noble, No. 3:06-cr-00748-JFA-9 

(D.S.C. Dec. 2, 2009). Regarding Noble’s motion for 

reconsideration, although we affirm the district court’s denial 

of the motion, we conclude that the district court had no 

jurisdiction to consider Noble’s motion. See United States v. 

Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 

3530 (2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Mack B. Yates v. Harris County

Appellate case number: 01-16-00086-CV

Trial court case number: 2014-67727

Trial court: 113th District Court of Harris County

On April 22, 2016 and August 31, 2016, appellant filed motions requesting that the 

appellate record be filed without cost to appellant. On October 6, 2016, this court issued an order 

directing that the clerk’s record and reporter’s record be filed without cost to appellant. The clerk’s 

record has been filed and the reporter has filed an information sheet stating that a reporter’s record 

was not taken. Accordingly, appellant’s motions are dismissed as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

 Acting individually

Date: December 1, 2016
**EXHIBIT 32.1**






**CERTIFICATION**




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
      302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Impart Media Group,
      Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      Joseph F. Martinez, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
      the
      Company, hereby certifies, 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 results of operations of the Company.








Date:
                November 21, 2006
            By:
            /s/Joseph
                F. MartinezJoseph
                F. MartinezChief
                Executive Officer andChief
                Financial Officer








This
      certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
#### Spraggon and another vs. McGreer.

Where the notice of *Us gendms*filed in a foreclosure suit fails to describe correctly the mortgaged premises, the mortgagor, against whom judgment has been rendered for want of an answer, is ‘entitled to have the judgment set aside upon an .affidavit or other proper proof showing that defect.

*Ma/n,ning i>. MoGlurg, antep.*350, followed.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Portage*County.

This was an appeal from an order of the circuit court re fusing to set aside a -judgment, taken by default, foreclosing a mortgage executed by the defendant. The affidavit of the defendant upon which the motion was based, showed, among other things, that the notice of *lis pendens*filed in the action did not correctly describe the mortgaged premises.

*Hanchett &*Raymond, for appellant.

*Park é*Sharpstein, for respondents.

December 11.

*By the*Court,

Paine, J.

Notwithstanding what was said in the case of *Boyd vs.*Weil, 11 Wis., 58, on the subject of filing a notice of *lis*pendens, we have at the present term, in *Manning vs. McClurg,*held that a failure to file such notice properly, is a defect of which the mortgagor may take advantage. We there held that under our statutes the proof of the filing is no part of the record, and that where the judgment recited that proper proof was’ given, it could not be reversed unless it appeared of record that it was not so. It follows that in such cases, unless the mortgagor is present and objects to the proof and makes his objection and the proof offered a part of the record, the proper way for him to take advantage of the defect, is to move to set the judgment *440as^e’ on tibe facts, as was done in this case. The affidavit showing that the *lis pendens*which was filed did not describe the lands mentioned in the mortgage, it is as though no notice at all was filed, and the judgment ought to have *%*been set aside for that reason.

The order denying the motion is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
# C_2016210EN.01000302.xml

| 11.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 210/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 210/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7999 — Hearst Corporation/Advance Publications/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 210/06)

On 7 June 2016, 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 32016M7999. 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 32016M7999. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATMENTS OF IMPSAT CORPORATION AND ITS CONSOLIDATED
SUBSIDIARIES AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          97,507
<SECURITIES>                                   225,690
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,176
<ALLOWANCES>                                    19,820
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               179,026
<PP&E>                                         382,198
<DEPRECIATION>                                 244,024
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 828,332
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          243,150
<BONDS>                                        399,415
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          149,035
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       221,729
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   828,332
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               228,451
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  324,637
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,042
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                16,375
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              55,561
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (144,484)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    20,733
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (131,543)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.31)


</TABLE>
# C_2015428EN.01000401.xml

| 19.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 428/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 428/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

18 December 2015

(2015/C 428/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0836 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 131,60 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4613 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,72666 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2660 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0768 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,5000 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,030 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 314,25 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2806 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5160 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,1581 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5206 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5123 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,4005 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6160 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5300 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 280,16 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,2998 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,0274 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6495 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 096,10 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6440 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,253 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 77,1005 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,175 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,2265 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,4429 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 71,9550 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0836

JPY

Japanese yen

131,60

DKK

Danish krone

7,4613

GBP

Pound sterling

0,72666

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2660

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0768

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,5000

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,030

HUF

Hungarian forint

314,25

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2806

RON

Romanian leu

4,5160

TRY

Turkish lira

3,1581

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5206

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5123

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,4005

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6160

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5300

KRW

South Korean won

1 280,16

ZAR

South African rand

16,2998

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,0274

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6495

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 096,10

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6440

PHP

Philippine peso

51,253

RUB

Russian rouble

77,1005

THB

Thai baht

39,175

BRL

Brazilian real

4,2265

MXN

Mexican peso

18,4429

INR

Indian rupee

71,9550

---

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

1

Source

---