alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016349EN.01000501.xml

| 24.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

23 September 2016

(2016/C 349/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1214 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 113,02 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4552 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,86435 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5820 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0887 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,1028 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,022 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 305,51 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2869 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4475 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,3059 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4685 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4625 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6979 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5435 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5231 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 235,78 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,2370 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,4797 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5005 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 663,99 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6028 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,881 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 71,2201 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,834 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,5931 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,0086 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 74,7110 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1214

JPY

Japanese yen

113,02

DKK

Danish krone

7,4552

GBP

Pound sterling

0,86435

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5820

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0887

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,1028

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,022

HUF

Hungarian forint

305,51

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2869

RON

Romanian leu

4,4475

TRY

Turkish lira

3,3059

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4685

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4625

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6979

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5435

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5231

KRW

South Korean won

1 235,78

ZAR

South African rand

15,2370

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,4797

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5005

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 663,99

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6028

PHP

Philippine peso

53,881

RUB

Russian rouble

71,2201

THB

Thai baht

38,834

BRL

Brazilian real

3,5931

MXN

Mexican peso

22,0086

INR

Indian rupee

74,7110

---

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

1

Source

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40154

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO-MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:15-CR-929-1

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Victor Manuel 

Romero-Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Romero-Martinez has not filed a 

response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

 

* 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 6, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40154 Document: 00513786420 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2016
No. 16-40154

2

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 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.

 Case: 16-40154 Document: 00513786420 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2016
| (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. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                |   |                                                                                                                     |
|---------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                |   |                                                                                                                     |   |
| April      14, 2008 | By:    | /s/ John      R. Cheney                                                                              |   |
|                |   |                                                                                                                     |   |
|                |   | Chief      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Executive and      Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |
|                |   |                                                                                                                     |   |
[Crim. No. 2529.

Second Appellate District, Division One.

July 17, 1934.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. LaRONE MAINARD, Appellant.

Gladys Towles Root for Appellant.

U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and Frank Richards, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

*730HOUSER, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment which, followed his conviction of each of the crimes of robbery and assault with caustic chemicals. He also appeals from an order by which his motion for a new trial was denied. The action was tried before the court sitting without a jury.

Notwithstanding that which is palpable error in the statement made by appellant regarding the specification of alleged error upon which he relies for a reversal of the judgment and the order herein, it will be assumed that in reality his point is that the evidence adduced on the trial of the action was insufficient to sustain the judgment. In that regard, it is manifest that no useful purpose would be served by a recital herein of such evidence. Suffice it to say that the complaining witness testified to facts which, if believed by the judge of the trial court, were sufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction of defendant. But that was not all of the evidence upon which the conviction ■ of defendant depended. In several important particulars the testimony given by the complaining witness was corroborated by other independent evidence. The fact that defendant denied his guilt and that both he and other witnesses contradicted much of the testimony given by the witnesses for the prosecution has the effect only of presenting a conflict in the evidence adduced by the respective parties to the action. In such circumstances, the rule is well established that an appellate tribunal will not interfere with the judgment rendered by the lower court.

The judgment and order by which defendant was deniéd a new trial are affirmed.

Conrey, P. J., and York, J., concurred.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A2044. JARED MEYER et al. v. STATE OF GEORGIA, EX REL. TRACY

G. LAWSON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE CLAYTON COUNTY

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.

The plaintiff, the State of Georgia ex rel. Tracy G. Lawson, filed a complaint for

relief and notice of seizure under the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act against the defendants, Jared Meyer, US Recycle of Georgia, LLC,

and US Recycle Group Consulting, LLC.1 Meyer and US Recycle of Georgia, LLC

filed answers 64 days after being served.2 The plaintiff then filed motions for default

judgment against Meyer and US Recycle of Georgia, LLC, which the trial court

granted.3 Meyer and US Recycle of Georgia, LLC subsequently filed a demand for a

jury trial on the issue of damages. The trial court ultimately denied the request for a

jury trial, finding there was no issue concerning monetary damages and the default

judgments constituted final judgments on the issue of forfeiture. Meyer and US

Recycle of Georgia, LLC then filed this direct appeal. The plaintiff has moved to

dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

“In a case involving multiple parties or multiple claims, a decision adjudicating

fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of less than all the parties is not a

1 US Recycle of Georgia, LLC and US Recycle Group Consulting, LLC were

served through the same registered agent.

2

 US Recycle Group Consulting, LLC did not file an answer.

3 The plaintiff did not seek a default judgment against US Recycle Group

Consulting, LLC.

December 05, 2016
final judgment.” Shoenthal v. Shoenthal, 333 Ga. App. 729, 729 (776 SE2d 663)

(2015) (punctuation omitted). “In such circumstances, there must be an express

determination under OCGA § 9-11-54 (b) or there must be compliance with the

interlocutory appeal requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). Where neither ofthese code

sections [is] followed, the appeal is premature and must be dismissed.” Id. Here, the

plaintiff’s action remains pending as to US Recycle Group Consulting, LLC. Thus, the

trial court’s order did not dispose of all of the parties, nor did it direct the entry of

judgment pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-54 (b). Further, Meyer and US Recycle of

Georgia, LLC did not comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures ofOCGA§ 5-6-

34 (b). Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss is granted and this appeal is

hereby DISMISSED as premature.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

12/05/2016
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.5a AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
CHANGE OF CONTROL SEVERANCE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, Matthew S. Melius(Executive) and Metris Companies Inc. (Company) (collectively,
the Parties) entered into a Change of Control Severance Agreement dated April 21, 1998
(Agreement); and WHEREAS, Section 10.6 of the Agreement provides that such Agreement may be amended by written
instrument executed by the Company and the Executive; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement in certain respects; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED that Section 5.1(d) of the Agreement is amended effective
March 10, 2005, to substitute the word two for the word one where the latter appears therein;
and IT IS FURTHER AGREED that Section 2.6(a) of the Agreement is amended effective March 10, 2005,
to substitute 50% for 25% where the latter appears therein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive and the Company have executed this Agreement this
10th day of March, 2005. EXECUTIVE
    
    METRIS COMPANIES INC./s/Matthew S. Melius
    
    /s/David D. WesselinkMATTHEW S. MELIUS
    
    DAVID D. WESSELINKChairman and CEO
CAPITOL OFFICE


State Capitol


201 West Capitol Avenue


Jefferson City, MO 65101-6806


Tele: (573) 751-4415 

Fax: (573) 751-9758 

E-Mail:


Jamilah.Nasheed@senale.mo.gov

DISTRICT ADDRESS 

4710 Lee Street 

St. Louis. MO 63115 

Tele: (314)-385-6293 

Gina McCarthy, Administrator 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Mail Code: 1101A 

Washington, DC 20460

Jamilah Nasheed 

State Senator


District 05 

July 29, 2014

COMMITTEES:


General Laws


Governmental Accountability and


Fiscal Oversight


Gubernatorial Appointments


Jobs, Economic Development and


Local Govemment 

^

rr_i 

o ^ r 

c7 C

^ 

, sA —, 

Ci.C^ ^ 

C-- J —i-i 

3 J —,

'O 

^ ^ zz 

.^: 

^i O

RE: Protecting Missouri communities from smog pollution 

Dear Administrator McCarthy: 

As the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers updated protections from dangerous smog 

(ground-level ozone) pollution, protection of public health and peer-reviewed science must be the 

standards used in making this decision. Health experts, epidemiologists, and numerous medical 

organizations have clearly stated that the existing Bush-era standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) is not 

adequate to protect public health, particularly vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly and 

those with breathing ailments like asthma. These same experts report that smog pollution at levels as low 

as 55 or 60ppb can trigger asthma attacks and send children to the hospital. A 12-city EPA analysis 

showed that reducing the level of smog pollution to 60 parts per billion would save 4-5 times as many 

lives conipared to a weaker standard of 70 parts per billion. 

In order to best protect our public health, particularly children's health, I strongly urge you to set the 

standard at 60ppb. Missouri residents deserve to know if their air is clean or not, and so we are counting 

on EPA to use the best available science to set an accurate standard. 

Since the Clean Air Act was enacted into law more than 40 years ago, big polluters have tried at every 

turn to mislead the public and elected officials with doom and gloom economic scenarios. While they 

continue to cry wolf, the reality is that the Clean Air Act has been one of the most successful statutes ever 

signed into law. Their claims of economic catastrophe have never materialized. 

Thank you for your consideration, the opportunity to comment and for all EPA's work to protect 

communities from dangerous pollution. 

Sincerely yours, 

(^.,,uG^L ^aa^Za^^ 

Ja^m/ilah Nasheed
T4

_ ^ 

IS O 

qw 

"do 

CD

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ O 

^/^	 (^ ^ 1 ^ ^C^ U 

^ ^^^ -^^	, 

^ ^ 

^ ^ O ^ ^ 

^ ^ ^ ^ d 

^ ^^^^ 

^o 

^^ o ^^-^^ 

z^ ^ 

i ^^y ^ ^^
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">James D. Harmon, Jr. &amp; Jeanne Harmon, Petitioners-Landlords-Appellants, <br><br>against<br><br>Cheryl Mervine, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Landlords appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Michelle D. Schreiber, J.), dated February 2, 2012, which granted tenant's motion to dismiss the petition in a holdover summary proceeding.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Appeal from order (Michelle D. Schreiber, J.), dated February 2, 2012, dismissed, without costs, as moot.</p><p>This appeal from the February 2012 grant of tenant's motion to dismiss the underlying owner use holdover proceeding is moot, since landlord thereafter tendered a renewal lease to tenant without any reservation of rights and then sold the building, and tenant subsequently vacated the premises. The circumstances presented do not warrant addressing the issues under an exception to the mootness doctrine (<i>see Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne</i>, 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 [1980]).</p><p>In any event, were we not dismissing the appeal, we would affirm, since landlords admitted during the proceedings below that their granddaughter, the family member identified in the nonrenewal notice as the intended occupant of the apartment, would not be living at the premises due to an unforseen serious illness.Nor could landlords subsequently designate their grandson as the intended occupant, since their intent to have their grandson occupy the apartment was obviously formulated only after this holdover proceeding was commenced, and well past the time when landlords would have been obligated to tender a renewal lease (<i>see Short v Graves</i>, 109 Misc 2d 672 [1981], <i>affd</i> 88 AD2d 796 [1982]). In this type of situation, subsequently identified family members should not be treated as "interchangeable or fungible" with one who is designated in the nonrenewal notice as the intended occupant of the apartment (<i>Caine v Carreker</i>, 116 Misc 2d 419 [1982]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: December 08, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
From: Bob Smith [mailto:bsmith@federalpacific.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 5:34 PM 

To: Brian Coffey 

Cc: Michael Rivest; 'Christopher Bolduc'; Matthew Nardotti; 'John Cymbalsky'; 'Richard Parker'; 'Wes 

Patterson'; 'Rob Greeson'; 'Eric Petersen' 

Subject: RE: MVDT Scaling 

Brian: 

Rob is on vacation until next Thursday, 12/29/11; so I am reporting his findings for the Federal 

Pacific 25 KV- 125 KV BIL, three phase designs. 

The best optimized MVDT Ventilated design at this level, that Rob could obtain, had losses that 

were 18% (not 10%) above the “equivalent” 95 KV BIL design. The 10% was mentioned 

hurriedly as an estimate in one of our last MVDT meetings in Washington. Before we adopt the 

“increase of 10% in losses” rule for 125 KV BIL, I would like to see at least one of our other 

manufacturing members either confirm or correct Rob’s findings. Rob did not investigate the 35 

KV, 150 KV BIL; but it would only be much, much higher than 10%: and if mandated @ 10% 

above 95 KV BIL, it probably would not be buildable as a MVDT Ventilated Design. 

Regards, 

Bob Smith, PE 

Product Manager 

Federal Pacific

601 Old Airport Road

Bristol, VA 24201 

 

TEL: (276) 645-8836

FAX: (276) 645-8956

CELL: (276) 591-6143

Email: bsmith@federalpacific.com

The information contained in this message and any attachments is intended only for the use of the individual or 

entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from 

disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, you are prohibited from copying, 

distributing, or using the information. Please contact the sender immediately by return e-mail and completely delete 

the original message from your system. 
From: Brian Coffey [mailto:brian.coffey@navigant.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 3:28 PM 

To: John Cymbalsky; Richard Parker; Wes Patterson; Rob Greeson; Bob Smith; Eric Petersen 

Cc: Michael Rivest; Christopher Bolduc; Matthew Nardotti 

Subject: MVDT Scaling 

Team, 

I’ve attached a draft write-up of the last Friday’s MVDT scaling discussion, as I’ve remembered 

it. Once we have reviewed and edited this draft, we can distribute to the committee at-large. 

Have I omitted any email addresses from the call? 

Best, 

Brian 

This communication is from Navigant Consulting Inc. E-mail text or attachments may contain information 

which is confidential and may also be privileged. This communication is for the exclusive use of the 

intended recipient(s). If you have received this communication in error, please return it with the title 

"received in error" to NCISecurity@navigant.com, and then delete the email and destroy any copies of it. 

In addition, this communication is subject to, and incorporates by reference, additional disclaimers found 

in Navigant Consulting's "Email Disclaimer" section at www.Navigant.com. 

Navigant Consulting, Inc. 

Company Registration Number: UK Ltd. 3641719 

Registered in Delaware, USA 

Registered Office Address: 30 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3400, Chicago, Illinois 60606
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Fibroblast Growth Factor And Aging.                    

*Date:*                         May 1, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Suite 2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Alicja L. Markowska, Ph.D., DSC., Scientific Review Branch, National Institute On Aging, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2c212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-9666,                         *markowsa@nia.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: March 26, 2015.

Melanie J. Gray,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-07338 Filed 3-31-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Order entered December 6, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00160-CR

DEJUAN MCLEMORE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-1271083-V

ORDER

Appellant’s motion to inspect record for purposes of appeal is DENIED. See Ex parte 

Trainer, 181 S.W.3d 358 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD 

NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY 

PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
	

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

Blue Ridge Electric Cooperative, Inc., Petitioner, 

v. 

Kathleen J. Gresham, Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2015-001836 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 

Appeal From Greenville County 

R. Lawton McIntosh, Circuit Court Judge 

Memorandum Opinion No. 2016-MO-032 

Submitted November 15, 2016 – Filed December 7, 2016 

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY 

GRANTED 

Larry C. Brandt, of Larry C. Brandt, P.A., of Walhalla; 

Steven W. Hamm and Jo Anne Wessinger Hill, both of 

Richardson Plowden & Robinson, P.A., of Columbia; all 

for Petitioner. 

Kathleen Jennings Gresham, of Landrum, Pro Se 

Respondent. 
 

PER CURIAM: We granted Blue Ridge Electric Cooperative, Inc.'s 

petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in 

Blue Ridge Elec. Coop. v. Gresham, Op. No. 2015-UP-031 (S.C. Ct. App. filed 

Jan. 14, 2015). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. 

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. 

PLEICONES, C.J., BEATTY, HEARN and FEW, JJ., concur. 

KITTREDGE, J., not participating.