alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.19




 Certain confidential information contained in this document, marked by brackets and
asterisk, has been omitted pursuant to Item 601(b)(10)(iv) of Regulation S-K, because the Company customarily and actually treats such information as private or confidential and the omitted information is not material. 

Exhibit 10.19 
 Planet Labs Inc. - Pricing
Reference ID: [*****] 
 CONFIDENTIAL ~ [*****] 

Amendment No. 1 to Google Cloud Platform Addendum 

This Amendment (“Amendment”) is between Google LLC (“Google”) and the Customer in the signature block below
(“Customer”) and amends the Google Cloud Platform License Agreement previously entered into by the parties with an effective date on December 15, 2016 (as amended, the “Agreement”). Such Agreement includes the
Google Cloud Platform Addendum entered into by the parties with an effective date on February 13, 2020 (as amended, the “Addendum”). Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment have the meaning given to them in the
Agreement. This Amendment will be effective from the date countersigned by the last party (“Amendment Effective Date”). 
  

	 	1.	 Amendments to the Agreement. 



 

	 	A.	 Effective within five business days after the Amendment Effective Date, the following table of Services and
SKUs is appended [*****]: 


 [*****] 

  
 



 













	 	2.	 Miscellaneous. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged and in full force and
effect. If the Agreement and the Amendment conflict, the Amendment will govern. This Amendment is subject to the Governing Law section in the Agreement. 



Signed by the parties’ authorized representatives. 
  

									
	GOOGLE	  		  	CUSTOMER: Planet Labs Inc.
					
		 	 /s/ Philipp Schindler
	  		  		  	
	Name:	 	Philipp Schindler	  	2020.05.27	  	By:	  	 /s/ William Marshall

	Title:	 	Authorized Signatory	  	08:40:03 -07’00’	  	Name:	  	William Marshall
		 		  		  	Title:	  	CEO/Co-Founder
					
	Date:	 		  		  	Date:	  	22 May 2020
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">65-60 Realty Company, LLC, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Towaki Komatsu, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Inez Hoyos, J.), entered January 5, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied tenant's motion to vacate a default final judgment in a holdover summary proceeding.</p><p>ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>In this holdover proceeding, tenant failed to appear on an adjourned trial date, and, following an inquest, a default final judgment was entered awarding landlord possession and arrears. Tenant appeals from an order of the Civil Court denying his motion to vacate the default final judgment.</p><p>It is well settled that a defendant seeking to vacate a default judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1) must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and the existence of a meritorious defense (<i>see Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co.</i>, 67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; <a href="../2003/2003_19489.htm" target="_blank"><i>Scarlett v McCarthy</i>, 2 AD3d 623</a> [2003]). The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the motion court's sound discretion (<a href="../2004/2004_06324.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Santiago v New York City Health &amp; Hosps. Corp.</i>, 10 AD3d 393</a>, 394 [2004]; <i>Roussodimou v Zafiriadis</i>, 238 AD2d 568, 569 [1997]). Here, the Civil Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in finding that tenant's unsupported assertions did not constitute a reasonable excuse for tenant's failure to appear on the adjourned trial date (<a href="../2012/2012_00406.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Matter of Evan Matthew A. [Jocelyn Yvette A.]</i>, 91 AD3d 538</a> [2012]; <i>Guerre v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of NY</i>, 300 AD2d 29 [2002]; <i>Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. v Glauber</i>, 39 Misc 3d 142[A], 2013 NY Slip Op 50768[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2013]).</p><p>In view of the lack of a reasonable excuse for the default, it is unnecessary to consider whether tenant sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a meritorious defense (<i>see Levi v Levi</i>, 46 AD3d 519 [2007]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.</p><p>Pesce, P.J., Weston and Aliotta, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: December 07, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-50101

Conference Calendar

 

JOHN EARL SIMMONS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DAVID MOYA; ET AL.,

Defendants,

HAROLD A. REICHEL; TIMOTHY W. ROPPLE,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-99-CV-117

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

October 30, 2002

Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John Earl Simmons, Texas prisoner # 528686, has filed a

motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the

district court’s dismissal of his claims as frivolous and for

failure to state a claim and the district court’s denial of IFP

upon certifying that Simmons’ appeal was not being taken in good
No. 02-50101

- 2 -

faith. Simmons states that he is financially unable to pay the

filing fees. However, he does not challenge the district court’s

reasons for denying him IFP status for his appeal; nor does he

demonstrate that his appeal would not be frivolous. He has not

made the requisite showing for IFP status for his appeal. Baugh

v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); Jackson v. Dallas

Police Dep't, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986). 

His motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED. His appeal

is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; FED.

R. APP. P. 42.2. Simmons is advised that the district court’s

dismissal of his case and this court’s dismissal of his appeal

constitute two strikes. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). If he

accumulates three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he may not

proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 5, 2016

No. 04-16-00501-CV

BORAIN CAPITAL, LLC,

Appellant

v.

Syed HASHMI,

Appellee

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-11798

The Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on November 7. 2016. The 

appellant’s first motion for extension of time was granted, extending the deadline for filing the 

brief to December 7, 2016. On December 2, 2016, the appellant filed a motion requesting an 

additional extension of time to file the brief until January 6, 2017, for a total extension of sixty 

days. The motion is GRANTED. THIS IS THE FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME THAT 

THE APPELLANT WILL BE GRANTED. The appellant’s brief must be filed by January 6, 

2017.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of December, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2938 Engrossed Amendment House (EAH)]

<DOC>
                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 18, 2022.
    Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 2938) entitled ``An Act 
to designate the United States Courthouse and Federal Building located 
at 111 North Adams Street in Tallahassee, Florida, as the `Joseph 
Woodrow Hatchett United States Courthouse and Federal Building', and 
for other purposes.'', do pass with the following

                               AMENDMENT:

            Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

SECTION 1. JOSEPH WOODROW HATCHETT UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE AND FEDERAL 
              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The United States Courthouse and Federal Building 
located at 111 North Adams Street in Tallahassee, Florida, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Joseph Woodrow Hatchett United States 
Courthouse and Federal Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the United States 
Courthouse and Federal Building referred to in subsection (a) shall be 
deemed to be a reference to the ``Joseph Woodrow Hatchett United States 
Courthouse and Federal Building''.

SEC. 2. LYNN C. WOOLSEY POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 120 4th Street in Petaluma, California, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Lynn C. Woolsey Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lynn C. 
Woolsey Post Office Building''.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2938

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
```
# C_2015376EN.01000201.xml

| 13.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 376/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 376/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

12 November 2015

(2015/C 376/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0726 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 131,92 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4602 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,70640 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3009 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0769 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,3240 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,031 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 312,25 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2270 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4430 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,0938 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5073 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4293 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,3132 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6447 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5246 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 245,87 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,2929 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,8330 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6170 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 615,93 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6819 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 50,475 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 70,9230 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,528 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,0793 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,0004 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 71,1282 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0726

JPY

Japanese yen

131,92

DKK

Danish krone

7,4602

GBP

Pound sterling

0,70640

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3009

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0769

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,3240

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,031

HUF

Hungarian forint

312,25

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2270

RON

Romanian leu

4,4430

TRY

Turkish lira

3,0938

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5073

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4293

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,3132

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6447

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5246

KRW

South Korean won

1 245,87

ZAR

South African rand

15,2929

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,8330

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6170

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 615,93

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6819

PHP

Philippine peso

50,475

RUB

Russian rouble

70,9230

THB

Thai baht

38,528

BRL

Brazilian real

4,0793

MXN

Mexican peso

18,0004

INR

Indian rupee

71,1282

---

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

1

Source

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7891

JOHN DASTA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GARY RICHARDS; KATHY JONES; BOBBY SHEARIN; HARLEY G. LAPPIN; ISAM ELAYAN; DR. MOUBAREK; LEONARDO F. GIRON; LORI SINES; POISINAIRE; W.I. LEBLANC, JR.; BERNIE RICHARDS; JORGE CASTENADA; JOHN ASHCROFT; TODD GENZER; JULIE HAYES; TOM HEFFELFINGER; DR. R. ILVEDSON; ALICIA R. SOUVIGNIER; UNKNOWN U.S. MARSHALS, Defendants, In Their Official and Individual Capacities; HOWARD NELSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:08- cv-00387-AMD)

Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 22, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Dasta, Appellant Pro Se. Ariana Wright Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

John Dasta appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Dasta v. Richards , No. 1:08-cv-00387-AMD (D. Md. filed

Sept. 8, 2009, entered Sept. 9, 2009). 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
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40108

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE LARA-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CR-9-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after removal, Jose 

Lara-Garcia was sentenced within the recommended guidelines range to 46 

months of imprisonment. Lara-Garcia argues that the district court erred by 

convicting, sentencing, and entering judgment against him pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based upon its determination that his 2012 conviction for 

aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in violation of Texas Penal Code 

 

* 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

December 5, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40108 Document: 00513784133 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2016
No. 15-40108

2

§ 22.02(a)(2) qualified as a conviction for a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 16(b) and thus one for an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F). 

Relying primarily on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), he

argues that the definition of a crime of violence in § 16(b), as incorporated by 

reference into the definition of an aggravated felony in § 1101(a)(43)(F), is 

unconstitutionally vague on its face. He further contends that this court 

cannot apply § 16(b) in this case without violating due process. 

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary 

affirmance, urging that Lara-Garcia’s arguments are foreclosed by our decision 

in United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), 

petition for cert. filed (Sept. 30, 2016) (No. 16-6259). The Government is correct 

that Gonzalez-Longoria forecloses Lara-Garcia’s facial vagueness challenge to 

§ 16(b) and his challenge to our application of § 16(b) on due process grounds.1 

See id. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and 

the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternate 

motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

 

1 The recent grant of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court on the issue 

whether § 16(b) is unconstitutional in light of Johnson in Lynch v. Dimaya, ___ S. Ct. ___, 

2016 WL 3232911 (Sept. 29, 2016), does not alter the analysis. This court is bound by its own 

precedent unless and until that precedent is altered by a decision of the Supreme Court. See 

Wicker v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 155, 157-58 (5th Cir. 1986).

 Case: 15-40108 Document: 00513784133 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2016
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of Directors 

Tumbleweed Communications Corp.: 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-84683, 333-43194, 333-48636, 333-49492, 333-61076, 333-101018, 333-103043, 333-106913, 333-114340, 333-114780, and 333-138236) on Form S-8 of Tumbleweed Communications Corp. of ourreport dated March 14, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Tumbleweed Communications Corp. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’equity and comprehensive loss, and cash flows, for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2007, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, which report appears in theDecember 31, 2007, annual report on Form 10-K of Tumbleweed Communications Corp. 

**/s/    KPMGLLP**

Mountain View, California 

March 14, 2008
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-21074

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MYRA “MARIA” GONZALEZ, 

also known as Maria Gonzalez-Gonzalez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

CONSOLIDATED WITH

No. 03-41500

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARIA ELENA RINCON-MACARENA, 

also known as Maria Myra Gonzalez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC Nos. H-00-CR-726-5

 B-03-CR-432-ALL

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

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 23, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 03-21074

c/w 03-41500

-2-

Myra “Maria” Gonzalez appeals her guilty-plea conviction and

sentence for being found illegally present in the United States

after deportation. She argues, pursuant to Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), that the “felony” and “aggravated

felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are elements

of the offense, not sentence enhancements, making those

provisions unconstitutional. She concedes that this argument is

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224

(1998), and she raises it for possible review by the Supreme

Court. 

This argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S.

at 235. We must follow the precedent set forth in

Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself

determines to overrule it.” United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d

979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation and citation

omitted).

Gonzalez does not brief any argument concerning how or why

any potential reduction in her sentence for the 8 U.S.C. § 1326

conviction would have any bearing on the sentence the district

court imposed upon revocation of her supervised release for her 

8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) conviction. She has therefore

abandoned her appeal from the revocation of her supervised

release. United States v. Valdiosera-Godinez, 932 F.2d 1093,

1099 (5th Cir. 1991).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2015348EN.01000201.xml

| 21.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

20 October 2015

(2015/C 348/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1373 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,16 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4597 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,73520 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4235 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0823 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,2355 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,080 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,33 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2466 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4252 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2882 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5612 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4788 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8141 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6664 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5791 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 283,93 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,0119 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,2201 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6267 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 565,42 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8534 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,741 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 70,6090 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,268 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,3898 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,7711 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 73,9899 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1373

JPY

Japanese yen

136,16

DKK

Danish krone

7,4597

GBP

Pound sterling

0,73520

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4235

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0823

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,2355

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,080

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,33

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2466

RON

Romanian leu

4,4252

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2882

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5612

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4788

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8141

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6664

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5791

KRW

South Korean won

1 283,93

ZAR

South African rand

15,0119

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,2201

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6267

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 565,42

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8534

PHP

Philippine peso

52,741

RUB

Russian rouble

70,6090

THB

Thai baht

40,268

BRL

Brazilian real

4,3898

MXN

Mexican peso

18,7711

INR

Indian rupee

73,9899

---

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

1

Source

---