alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2015274EN.01000201.xml

| 19.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 274/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

18 August 2015

(2015/C 274/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1060 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 137,44 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4633 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,70420 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4282 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0798 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,1555 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,021 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,01 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1626 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4211 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,1954 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5065 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4494 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5764 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6800 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5514 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 307,94 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,2847 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,0720 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5585 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 277,87 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,5240 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,161 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 72,6810 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,308 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,8564 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,1860 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,2384 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1060

JPY

Japanese yen

137,44

DKK

Danish krone

7,4633

GBP

Pound sterling

0,70420

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4282

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0798

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,1555

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,021

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,01

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1626

RON

Romanian leu

4,4211

TRY

Turkish lira

3,1954

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5065

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4494

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5764

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6800

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5514

KRW

South Korean won

1 307,94

ZAR

South African rand

14,2847

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,0720

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5585

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 277,87

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,5240

PHP

Philippine peso

51,161

RUB

Russian rouble

72,6810

THB

Thai baht

39,308

BRL

Brazilian real

3,8564

MXN

Mexican peso

18,1860

INR

Indian rupee

72,2384

---

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

1

Source

---
#### City of New York, Appellant, v Three Good Fellows Inc. et al., Respondents.

[773 NYS2d 388]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered May 20, 2003, which denied plaintiffs motion to allow its undercover witnesses to testify in a manner that would prevent the revelation of their identities, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the motion granted, and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

In this in rem nuisance abatement action, plaintiff City of New York alleges that the subject night club is the scene of ongoing and pervasive illegal narcotics activity. The City, intending to prove the existence of such activity through the testimony of active undercover police officers, moved to allow the witnesses to testify in a manner that would preserve their anonymity. The City suggested that this goal could be achieved without closing the courtroom if the witnesses were permitted to testify while sitting behind a screen, while wearing a disguise, or while facing away from the courtroom audience. Supreme Court denied the motion.

We reverse. The City’s submissions establish the existence of reasonable concern for the safety and continued effectiveness of the officers in the event their identities are exposed as a result of their testimony in this action. In this regard, we note that the officers continue to conduct undercover operations in the vicinity of the subject night club, and that the club’s popularity (reportedly 4,000 patrons nightly) suggests that the proceedings may receive significant public attention. Moreover, defendants have not demonstrated any legitimate countervailing interest in disclosure of the witnesses’ identities. Accordingly, on remand, the court is directed to determine what narrowly tailored measures, short of closing the courtroom, will be employed to permit the undercover witnesses to testify without revealing their identities *(see People v Sanabria,*301 AD2d 307, 308 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 632 [2003]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Williams, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1   CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ACTING
               PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL 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 and Acting Principal Financial
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 21st day of May 2004:



By: /s/ Paul Warkentin
--------------------------------
Paul Warkentin
President/CEO/Acting CFO
(Principal Executive Officer and Acting Principal Financial 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.
**UNITED STA TES ENVIRONMENTA**  **L PROTECTION A GENCY**  WA SHINGTON D.C., 20460

[Date ] [Recipient Name] [Recipient Company ] [Recipient Address ] [Recipient City, State, and Zip Code ] Dear [Mr. or Ms.] [Recipient Name] : As part of an ongoing project investi gating formaldehyde emissions from composite or pressed wood products, EPA is surveying all U.S. pressed wood manufacturers to learn more about formaldehyde emissions, how those emissions might be reduced, and at what cost. For the purpose of this survey, EPA is defining pressed wood as: engineered wood flooring, glulam, hardboard, I

- joists, medium density fiberboard, oriented strandboard, particleboard, plywood (both hardwood and softwood), and structural composite lumber (including laminated veneer lumb er, laminated strand lumber, parallel strand lumber, and oriented strand lumber). A staff member from Abt Associates Inc. (a research and consulting firm working under contract to assist EPA with this survey) will call your plant to determine whether yo u manufacture one of the pressed wood products included in the survey. If you do manufacture pressed wood, they will ask for the name of a contact person at your company to receive the survey questionnaire, and verify your address and other facility information. EPA will then send the questionnaire to the contact person. Itis important that you respond to the phone call and take part in the survey . EPA needs information from all companies (including those making products with low formaldehyde emissio ns and those with no added formaldehyde ) to determine whether further action is needed, and to understand the impact of potential actions on manufacturers. Your participation will help EPA understand your company and the industry as a whole. If you have any questions about the survey , please contact me at silagi.william@epa.gov or at (202) 564

- 8788. Sincerely,

William Silagi
#### Moll vs. Benckler.

*New trial*— Res *acljudicata.*

After denying a motion for new trial, the circuit court should not, at a subsequent term, entertain a second motion of the same kind on the same grounds.

APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for *Washington*County.

Trespass *guare clausum.*At tbe October term of tbe court, 1870, tbe jury, by tbe direction of tbe court, found a verdict for tbe plaintiff, assessing bis damages at six cents. Tbe defendant, at tbe same term, and before judgment rendered, moved for a new trial for errors in tbe rulings of tbe court as to tbe admission of evidence, and in giving tbe jury tbe direction aforesaid. Tbe motion was denied, and judgment rendered on tbe verdict. At tbe March term, 1871, tbe defendant moved tbe court, upon tbe bill of exceptions as settled, to set aside tbe judgment and verdict and grant a new trial, upon tbe same grounds above stated. Prom an order granting tbis motion, plaintiff appealed. *

*Frisby & Weil,*for appellant,

cited 15Wis., 474 ; 20 id., 265; 28 id., 692; 12 Wend., 290; *Branger v. Buttrick,*ante, p. 450; and to tbe point that tbe basing of tbe second motion on “ tbe bill of exceptions ” did not affect tbe rule, so long as tbe *grounds*of tbe motion were tbe same, tbey cited *Bay v. Gonnor,*3 Edw., 478; *Simpson v. Hart,*1 Johns. Ch., 93; *Dodd v. Astor,*2 Barb. Ob., 395.

*Thorp & Frisby,*for respondent.

DixoN, C.' J.

Tbe case of *Branger v. Buttrick,*ante, p. 450, is decisive of tbis appeal. Tbe decision of tbe court below upon tbe first motion for a new trial was *res adjudicóla,*and conclusive, so that no second motion upon tbe same grounds could be entertained by that court. If tbe defendant felt aggrieved by tbe decision upon that motion, bis remedy was by *612appeal to this court from the order, or by writ of error or appeal from tbe judgment, tbe ruling of tbe court upon tbe motion having been regularly excepted to, and tbe exception embodied in tbe bill.

*By the Court.*— Order reversed, and cause remanded.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

LLANO FINANCING GROUP LLC, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-5087 ) GARY NEESE, an individual; and ) MICHAEL L. KRONENBERGER, an ) individual, ) ) Appellees. ) ) Opinion filed June 8, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County; John E. Duryea, Jr., Judge. Robert J. Hauser of Pankauski Hauser PLLC, West Palm Beach, for Appellant. Alex Tirado-Luciano, Joan Carlos Wizel, and Sandra Ferrin of Lydecker Diaz, Miami, for Appellee Gary Neese. No appearance for Appellee Michael L. Kronenberger. PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Llano Fin. Grp., LLC v. Yespy, 228 So. 3d 108 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); Llano Fin. Grp., LLC v. Petit, 230 So. 3d 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017).

SILBERMAN, KELLY, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          16,106
<SECURITIES>                                    22,756
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,931
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,160
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,593
<PP&E>                                         276,925
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,546
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 316,969
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,361
<BONDS>                                        171,190
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     106,418<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   316,969
<SALES>                                            517
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   527
<CGS>                                              517
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,095
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,868<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0<F3>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (31,436)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (31,436)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (31,436)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Represents Total Partners' Capital.
<F2>Net of Equity in losses of affiliates and interest income.
<F3>$24,060 if interest expense was Capitalized.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1   CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ACTING
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL 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 and Acting Principal Financial
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 on Form 10-QSB 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 14th day of February 2006:



By: /s/ Paul Warkentin
--------------------------------
Paul Warkentin
President/CEO/Acting CFO
(Principal Executive Officer and Acting Principal Financial 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.
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 State

          - [Public Notice 9071]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “China: Through the Looking Glass,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, from on or about May 7, 2015, until on or about August 16, 2015, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505, telephone (202-632-6471), or email at                         *section2459@state.gov.*

Dated: March 20, 2015.

Kelly Keiderling,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2015-07074 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
It is time for a better analysis ofthe algae situation 

### ! ! !!! ! The Lake Erie scientists have done a finejob ofquantifyingthe flow of phosphorus intothe lake and predicting probable affects. What has not happened is identifyingthe reason for excessive fertilizer discharges tothe river. Corn cropping is a measure source offertilizer use and loss. The demand for corn has been increased greatly by a federal law requiring ethanol be added to gasoline at a 10 percent level.(passed in 2007).Ethanol is corn liquor made by converting the starch in the corn to ethanol. The act resulted in about 100 plants being built in the major corn growing states Corn growers increased their production to meetthis new demand .There was a doubling ofcorn prices. Which encouraged more production through new land use, more intense planting, and resultant increase in fertilizer use. Corn production is approaching 200 bushels per acre compared to about 30 to SO bushels per acre SO years ago. This waste (use) of land and fertilizer to make a fuel for automobiles should be questioned as not a desirable use of limited resources as well as its affect on aquatic environments. Other undesirable affects have been identified. Where are the environmental scientists willing to identifythis major cause ofthe degradation of our aquatic environments??? George Newell 1041 Avondale Ave. Columbus, Ohio 43212:stansncs 1Kl'A: Kenewable Fuels Association Page 2 of3 

### £Tit C{



### "'~ ( 1982 350 1983 415 1984 510 1985 617 1986 712 1987 819 1988 831 1989 843 1990 848 1991 866 1992 985 1993 1,154 1994 1,289 1995 1,358 1996 1,088 1997 1,288 1998 1,405 1999 1,465 

### r h 

### /7?,., s)

**t-~.t** 

### A I

**~if** Q 13 

### ioc

# . .,.., 2000 1,622 2001 1,765 2002 2,140 C). "7 2003 2,810 /1., 7- 2004 3.404

**~-0** 2005 3,904 

### o, l 2006 4,884 

## ;,

# ,-
2007 6,521 /, D 2008 9,309 In),... 2009 10,938 :J"'.o 2010 13,298 **fs,~D** 2011 13,929 /0, 0 I,. e;, 2012 13,218 2013 13,312 

## 'fI. "J2014 14,340 

### &,.8 ' 

### q,.o IF:- -ti

**"'1~**

### t"'
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of D.R.W., a child, * From the 318th District Court

of Midland County,

Trial Court No. FM 49,579.

No. 11-16-00143-CV * November 30, 2016

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., 

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
# C_2015150EN.01000101.xml

| 7.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 150/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 150/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7552 — Mitsui Chemicals/SK Holdings/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 150/01)

On 30 April 2015, 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 32015M7552. 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 32015M7552. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
<PAGE>
                                                            EXHIBIT 21.1

                    SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

1.  CCI Group, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Missouri.

2.  POSNET Computers, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of 
    California.

3.  Javelin Systems (Europe) Limited, a corporation organized under the laws 
    of England.

4.  Javelin Systems International Pte Ltd., a corporation organized under the 
    laws of Singapore.

5.  Aspact IT Services (Singapore) Pte Ltd., a corporation organized under 
    the laws of Singapore, and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Javelin Systems
    International Pte Ltd.

6.  Javelin Systems Australia Pty Limited, a corporation organized under the 
    laws of Australia.