alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015330EN.01000201.xml

| 7.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

6 October 2015

(2015/C 330/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1224 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 135,07 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4612 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,73990 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3121 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0936 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,3765 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,109 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 313,58 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2487 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4186 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,3576 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5781 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4701 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6987 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7293 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5986 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 311,31 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,3607 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1358 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6135 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 970,48 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8962 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,091 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,6872 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,768 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,4209 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,8647 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 73,3854 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1224

JPY

Japanese yen

135,07

DKK

Danish krone

7,4612

GBP

Pound sterling

0,73990

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3121

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0936

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,3765

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,109

HUF

Hungarian forint

313,58

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2487

RON

Romanian leu

4,4186

TRY

Turkish lira

3,3576

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5781

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4701

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6987

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7293

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5986

KRW

South Korean won

1 311,31

ZAR

South African rand

15,3607

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1358

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6135

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 970,48

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8962

PHP

Philippine peso

52,091

RUB

Russian rouble

72,6872

THB

Thai baht

40,768

BRL

Brazilian real

4,4209

MXN

Mexican peso

18,8647

INR

Indian rupee

73,3854

---

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

1

Source

---
_______________________________________ __ 

### Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



## October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r 

## 136824 Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices 

## PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 136824 COA: 274541 Washtenaw CC: 05-000770-FC AARON MICHAEL OLLILA, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 13, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1020 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 27, 2008

Clerk
Exhibit 32

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 Midway Games Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David F. Zucker, Chief Executive 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:

(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.

|                                                                         |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/DAVID F. ZUCKERDavid F. Zucker
Chief Executive Officer
March 11, 2005 |  | 

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 Midway Games Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas E. Powell, 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:

(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.

|                                                                           |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/THOMAS E. POWELLThomas E. Powell
Chief Financial Officer
March 11, 2005 |  | 

---



QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7107
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BYRON JONES, a/k/a Carl Lee, a/k/a "B", Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-92-153-P, CA-95-109-3-P) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 11, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Byron Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Robert James Conrad, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Robert Jack Higdon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Jones , Nos. CR-92-153-P; CA-95-109-3-P (W.D.N.C. June 14, 1995). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and 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
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


By signing below, the Principal Executive Officer hereby certifies pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, (i) this report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Hybrid
Fuels Inc.

Signed this 16th day of February 2004:



By: /s/ Alan Urschel
-------------------------------------
Alan Urschel
Chief Executive Officer and President
(Principal Executive Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Hybrid Fuels Inc. and will be
retained by Hybrid Fuels Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
March 4, 2016 

Requested amendment to Section 333 exemption petition 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-4063 

Submitted September 21, 2015. 

Indiana UAS Services, LLC 

2216 Osman 

Greenfield, IN 46140 

1_. 

<;·•: 

...... ! . ·.,, f i ~ 

We ask that you consider the following amendments to the existing exemption petition. 

'-' '· ; I t 

1) Addition of a DJI Phantom 4 to the Indiana U AS Services fleet. This is a stock ready to fly 

system and is comparable to the Blade QX350 included in the existing exemption petition. 

2) Addition of a Yuneec Typhoon H to the Indiana UAS Services fleet. This is a stock ready to 

fly system and is comparable to the Blade QX350 included in the existing exemption petition. 

There has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that 

were the basis for the original exemption petition. 

.·. '-

Thank you for your consideration of this amendment request. I have been advised that it was not 

necessary to attach the operations manual for each UAV as long as they were stock equipment 

and the information was readily available online. 

Please let me know if there is any additional information required. 

We are looking forward to expanding our operations in a safe and legal manner. 

Jack Morton 

Indiana UAS Services, LLC 

r' 

·.. : -~ .l ".
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 06, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 06, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17I0089. REGULATORY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. STATE OF GEORGIA, EX. REL 

RALPH T. HUDGENS, COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE OF THE STATE OF 

GEORGIA.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2001CV32953
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

REGGIE WILLIAMS-SMITH,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 136 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of July, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350
of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), each of the undersigned
officers of NCO Group, Inc. (the "Company") does hereby certify with respect to
the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2005 (the "Report") 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: March 16, 2006                     /s/ Michael J. Barrist
                                         ------------------------------
                                         Michael J. Barrist
                                         Chief Executive Officer


Date: March 16, 2006                     /s/ Steven L. Winokur
                                         ------------------------------
                                         Steven L. Winokur
                                         Chief Financial Officer


         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report
or as a separate disclosure document.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA - 2014 - 0121 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM151AD

A330 - 53 - 3152, R02 --- 7/27/11 A330 - 53 - 3152, R01 --- 5/5/09

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-85,106-01

EX PARTE BETTIE RUTH RAMIREZ, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 10-09 IN THE 2 25TH DISTRICT COURT nd

FROM GONZALES COUNTY

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of murder, serious

bodily injury to a child, and injury to a child, and sentenced to life in prison for the murder charge,

ninety-nine years’ imprisonment for the serious bodily injury to a child charge, and ten years’

imprisonment for the injury to a child charge, to be served concurrently. The Thirteenth Court of

Appeals affirmed her convictions. Ramirez v. State, No. 13-09-00073-CR (Tex. App. —Corpus

Christi–Edinburg, Aug. 31, 2010) (not designated for publication).

On September 21, 2016, this application was remanded to the trial court to make findings as

to whether Applicant’s plea as to Count II was involuntary, whether her convictions violate double
2

jeopardy, and whether trial counsel’s performance was deficient. 

On October 12, 2016, the prior remand order was stayed and this application was remanded

to the trial court for a live hearing to determine whether or not Applicant’s application, specifically,

the sworn inmate’s declaration, was signed by Applicant. At the evidentiary hearing, Applicant

testified under oath that the signatures appearing in her original writ application were not hers and

she did not sign the writ application. The trial court finds that Applicant did not sign the writ

application. 

Though the application was appropriately filed in the trial court, the application was not

properly verified by Applicant, nor did the petitioner verify the writ application by way of the oath

before a notary public or complete the appropriate “Petitioner’s Information”. This rendered the

habeas application non-compliant with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Ex parte Rendon, 326

S.W.3d 221 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).

Therefore, we now withdraw the orderissued on September 21, 2016 and dismissthe habeas

application as non-compliant. Applicant is free to file another writ application that is compliant with

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

Filed: December 7, 2016

Do not publish
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

SHERRY GREENWOOD, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D15-3553 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Respondent. ) ) Opinion filed October 14, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Prohibition to the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Chris Helinger, Judge. Wade M. Whidden of Whidden Law P.L., Tampa, for Petitioner. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Susan M. Shanahan, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM. Sherry Greenwood petitions this c ourt for a writ prohibiting Ci rcuit Court Judge Chris Helinger from presiding over her criminal prosecuti on in Pinellas County Circuit Court case number 14-11063-CF. We grant the petition. Ms. Greenwood, through counsel, filed a motion to disqualify Ju dge Helinger from presiding over her case. At the beginning of a p retrial hearing, Judge-2- Helinger provided counsel with an order denying the motion to d isqualify as legally

insufficient. The order does not comment on the truth of the f acts presented in the motion. However, during the hearing, Judge Helinger improperly attempted to refute facts that Ms. Greenwood alleged as a basis for believing that she would not receive a fair trial or sentencing before Judge Helinger. See Fla. R. Ju d. Admin. 2.330(f); Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla. 1978) ("When a judge has loo ked beyond the mere legal sufficiency of a suggestion of prejudice and attempted to refute the charges of partiality, he has then exceeded the proper scope of his inquir y and on that basis alone established grounds for his disqualification."). Accordingly, we grant Ms. Greenwood's petition, we vacate the stay of the proceedings in case number 14-11063-CF previously imposed by this court, and we order the Chief Judge of the Sixt h Judicial Circuit to assign a successor judge pursuant to rule 2.215(b)(4) to presid e over the case. Petition granted.

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Document Headings

                    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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This document provides notice of the availability of the application package for the 2016 Community Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) Matching Grant Program.

# DATES:

Application instructions are available electronically from the IRS on May 1, 2015 by visiting: IRS.gov (key word search—“VITA Grant”). Application packages are available on May 1, 2015 by visiting Grants.gov and searching with the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 21.009. The deadline for submitting an application to the IRS through Grants.gov for the Community VITA Matching Grant Program is May 31, 2015. However, because this date falls on a non-workday the deadline is being extended until Monday, June 1, 2015. All applications must be submitted through Grants.gov.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Internal Revenue Service, Grant Program Office, 401 West                               ( print page 17823)                            Peachtree St. NW., Suite 1645, Stop 420-D, Atlanta, GA 30308.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Grant Program Office via their email address at                         *Grant.Program.Office@irs.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for the Community Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) Matching Grant Program is contained in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Public Law 113-235, signed December 16, 2014.

Dated:  March 23, 2015.

Mikki Betker,

Chief, Grant Program Office, IRS, Stakeholder Partnerships, Education & Communication.

[FR Doc. 2015-07589 Filed 4-1-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE CODE 4830-01-P
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2840 

To permit civil actions against the United States for COVID–19 vaccination 

mandates. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2021 

Mr. LEE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To permit civil actions against the United States for 

COVID–19 vaccination mandates. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Don’t Jab Me Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

6 In this Act: 

7 (1) AGGRIEVED INDIVIDUAL.—The term ‘‘ag8 grieved individual’’ includes— 

9 (A) an individual who received a COVID– 

10 19 vaccine as a result of Executive Order 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2840 IS

1 14043 to prevent the termination, or any other 

2 adverse consequence, of the employment of the 

3 individual with the Federal agency; 

4 (B) an individual who is required to receive 

5 a COVID–19 vaccine as a result of Executive 

6 Order 14043 to prevent the termination, or any 

7 other adverse consequence, of the employment 

8 of the individual with the Federal agency; 

9 (C) an individual who received a COVID– 

10 19 vaccine as a result of a Federal agency re11 quirement (or required by their employer who is 

12 acting pursuant to a Federal requirement) as a 

13 condition of new or continued employment; and 

14 (D) an individual who is required by a 

15 Federal agency (or required by their employer 

16 who is acting pursuant to a Federal require17 ment) to receive a COVID–19 vaccine, or be 

18 faced with an adverse consequence, as a condi19 tion of new or continued employment. 

20 (2) EXECUTIVE ORDER 14043.—The term ‘‘Ex21 ecutive Order 14043’’ means Executive Order 14043 

22 (86 Fed. Reg. 50989; relating to requiring coronavi23 rus disease 2019 vaccination for Federal employees). 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2840 IS

1 SEC. 3. CIVIL ACTIONS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES FOR 

2 COVID–19 VACCINATION MANDATES. 

3 Any aggrieved individual may commence an action in 

4 an appropriate district court of the United States against 

5 the United States seeking declaratory or injunctive relief 

6 and to recover compensatory damages for injuries sus7 tained as a result of a COVID–19 vaccination mandate. 

8 SEC. 4. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

9 Nothing in this Act may be construed to permit or 

10 otherwise authorize a COVID–19 vaccine mandate under 

11 Federal law (including regulations). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS