alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016347EN.01000301.xml

| 22.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

21 September 2016

(2016/C 347/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1150 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 112,49 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4546 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85693 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5698 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0883 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,2318 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,022 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 308,55 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2915 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4495 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,3168 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4665 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4653 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6472 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5170 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5147 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 240,60 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,2889 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,4384 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5080 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 646,08 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6125 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,301 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 71,7138 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,713 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,6137 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,0065 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 74,6800 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1150

JPY

Japanese yen

112,49

DKK

Danish krone

7,4546

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85693

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5698

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0883

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,2318

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,022

HUF

Hungarian forint

308,55

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2915

RON

Romanian leu

4,4495

TRY

Turkish lira

3,3168

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4665

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4653

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6472

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5170

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5147

KRW

South Korean won

1 240,60

ZAR

South African rand

15,2889

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,4384

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5080

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 646,08

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6125

PHP

Philippine peso

53,301

RUB

Russian rouble

71,7138

THB

Thai baht

38,713

BRL

Brazilian real

3,6137

MXN

Mexican peso

22,0065

INR

Indian rupee

74,6800

---

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

1

Source

---
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2828 

To authorize U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to process employment-based immigrant visa applications after September 30, 2021, and 

to award such visas to eligible applicants from the pool of unused 

employment-based immigrant visas during fiscal years 2020 and 2021. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2021 

Mr. TILLIS (for himself, Ms. COLLINS, and Mr. PAUL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL 

To authorize U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to 

process employment-based immigrant visa applications 

after September 30, 2021, and to award such visas to 

eligible applicants from the pool of unused employmentbased immigrant visas during fiscal years 2020 and 

2021. 

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 ‘‘Preserving Employ5 ment Visas Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2828 IS

1 SEC. 2. PRESERVATION OF EXPIRING EMPLOYMENT-BASED 

2 VISAS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi4 sion of law, for fiscal year 2022, the worldwide level of 

5 employment-based immigrants authorized under section 

6 201(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

7 1151(d)) shall be increased by the number computed 

8 under subsection (b) with respect to such worldwide levels. 

9 (b) COMPUTATION.—The number computed under 

10 this subsection is the difference (if any) between— 

11 (1) the sum of the worldwide levels authorized 

12 under the section 201(d) of the Immigration and 

13 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(d)) for fiscal years 

14 2020 and 2021; and 

15 (2) the sum of the number of aliens who were 

16 issued employment-based immigrant visas or who 

17 otherwise acquired the status of aliens lawfully ad18 mitted to the United States for permanent residence 

19 under section 203(b) of the Immigration and Na20 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(b)) during the fiscal 

21 years referred to in paragraph (1). 

22 (c) ALLOCATION.—The Secretary of State, in con23 sultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall 

24 allocate the visas made available as a result of the increase 

25 authorized under subsection (a) on a proportional basis, 

26 in accordance with subsections (b) and (e)(1) of section 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2828 IS

1 203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

2 1153). 

3 (d) AVAILABILITY.—Each visa made available under 

4 this section shall remain available for use in fiscal year 

5 2022 or in any subsequent fiscal year, until the Secretary 

6 of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland 

7 Security, determines that such visa has been issued and 

8 used as the basis for an application for admission into the 

9 United States. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Extent Of Relief that the Operator seeks

.

Extent of Relief that the Operator seeks regarding Section 61.113 (a) and (b) Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations Relief from Section 61.113 (a) and (b) is requested to allow a Pilot in Command holding a current Private Pilots Certificate to operate Brian J. McCall's Phantom 3 Professional. The flight would be complimented by a Visual Observer who, along with the pilot, will maintain Visual Line of Sight with the Phantom 3 Professional at all times. AII operations conducted will be incidental to the Operator. The Phantom 3 Professional is not able to carry passengers.

2. Extent of Relief that the Operator seeks in regards to Section 91.7(a)

Civil Aircraft Airworthiness Relief from Section 91.7(a) is requested to allow the Operator to determine airworthiness of the Phantom 3 Professional. As part of this determination the following will be adhered to:

a. Prior to the Phantom 3 Professional's flight, the PIC will inspect the UA to ensure it is in a condition that will be conducive for a safe flight.

b. The Operator will follow the DJI Phantom 3 Professional's aircraft/component, maintenance, overhaul, replacement, inspection and life limit requirements.

c. The Operator will comply with all DJI manufacturer Safety Bulletins.

3. Extent of Relief that the Operator seeks in regards to Section 91.119 Minimum Safe Altitudes General relief from 91.119 is requested to allow the Operator to operate the Phantom 3 Professional at altitudes not to exceed 400' AGL over private property at a distance at or greater than 5NM from the nearest airport as depicted on current Aeronautical Charts. The Operator also wishes to be granted exemption to' operate at an altitude not greater than 50' AGL(below tree level) between 1 NM and 5NM from the nearest airport as depicted on current Aeronautical Charts. The Operator will adhere to the following in order to maintain an acceptable level of safety associated with operations over private property: (a) The Operator will not allow the Phantom 3 Professional to operate at a speed greater than 10kts. (b) The Operator will require the UAS operator (PIC) to be fully trained on the Phantom 3 Professional by adhering to the recommendations contained within the Phantom 3 Professional's operating manual.
**Exhibit
      13.2**


**CARTHEW
        BAY TECHNOLOGIES INC.**
  **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 Carthew Bay Technologies Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed
        with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
        I, Brian Clewes, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, and Treasurer of the
        Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to
        Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:
  (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 result of operations of the Company.
 /s/
                    Brian ClewesBrian
                    ClewesChief
                    Financial OfficerNovember
                      4, 2008
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NC/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JESUS ANDRADE, AKA Shorty,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-50373

D.C. No. 8:07-cr-00202-DOC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 15, 2009** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Jesus Andrade appeals from the 151-month sentence imposed following his

guilty-plea conviction for being a member of a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

FILED

JAN 11 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
NC/Research 2 08-50373

Organizations enterprise, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a), (b)(1)(A), and 846. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

and we affirm.

Andrade contends that the district court committed plain error by imposing

an impermissibly vague and overbroad supervised release condition, which, among

other things, prohibits him from associating with persons known to him to be

associated with Florencia 13 gang members. Because the condition is neither

impermissibly vague nor overbroad, the district court did not plainly err. See

United States v. Soltero, 510 F.3d 858, 866 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam); United

States v. Ross, 476 F.3d 719, 721-23 (9th Cir. 2007). 

AFFIRMED.
* 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

April 27, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10466

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

MARK A SMITH

Defendant - Appellant

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

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:05-CR-3

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

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mark A. Smith appeals from the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a

firearm. Smith’s plea agreement contained an appeal waiver,

which the Government seeks to enforce. Smith’s attempt to

construe the sentencing court’s statements regarding his right to

appeal as an interpretation of the appeal waiver provision lacks

merit. The sentencing court’s erroneous statements regarding

Smith’s right to appeal did not negate an otherwise knowing and

voluntary waiver. See United States v. Gonzalez, 259 F.3d 355,
No. 06-10466

-2-

358 (5th Cir. 2001). Moreover, the Government has not waived

enforcement of that waiver. See United States v. Acquaye, 452

F.3d 380, 382 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Melancon, 972

F.2d 566, 568 (5th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, Smith’s appeal

seeking to challenge the district court’s application of a

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) adjustment is barred by his appeal waiver. 

See Melancon, 972 F.2d at 568.

AFFIRMED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 140 (Tuesday, July 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42500-42501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17338]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: United States Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Amended Notice of Briefing and Business Meeting.

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

DATE AND TIME: Friday, July 25, 2014; 9:00 a.m. E.S.T.

PLACE: 1331 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425.

Briefing Agenda--9:00 a.m.-1:30 p.m.

    This briefing is open to the public.
    Topic: Enforcement of Sexual Harassment Policy at Educational 
Institutions by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil 
Rights (OCR) and the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice 
(DOJ).

I. Introductory Remarks by Chairman Castro
II. Issue Panel I--9:05 a.m.-10:15 a.m.: OCR/DOJ Guidance Speakers' 
Remarks and Questions from Commissioners
III. Issue Panel II--10:15 a.m.-11:10 a.m.: OCR/DOJ Guidance Speakers' 
Remarks and Questions from Commissioners
IV. Issue Panel III--11:10 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Data on Sexual Harassment 
Speakers' Remarks and Questions from Commissioners
V. Issue Panel IV--12:00 p.m.-1:30 p.m.: Pros/Cons on OCR/DOJ Guidance 
Speakers' Remarks and Questions from Commissioners
VI. Adjourn Briefing

Business Meeting Agenda--2:00 p.m.

I. Program Planning
    a. Discussion and Vote on Part A & Part B of the briefing report: 
Increasing Compliance with Section 7 of the NVRA
    b. Consideration and Vote on Commission letter regarding Federal 
Response to the Unaccompanied Minor Immigrants
    c. Discussion and Vote on the FY2015 Statutory Enforcement Report 
topic
    d. Discussion and Vote on two briefing topics for FY2015
II. Management and Operations

[[Page 42501]]

     Staff Director's Report
III. State Advisory Committee (SAC) Appointments
     Arizona
     Missouri
     Virginia

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, 
Public Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591.
    Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the briefing and require 
the services of a sign language interpreter should contact Pamela 
Dunston at (202) 376-8105 or at signlanguage@usccr.gov at least seven 
business days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

    Dated: July 18, 2014.
Marlene Sallo,
Staff Director.
[FR Doc. 2014-17338 Filed 7-18-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
#### Smith vs. Chicago & North-Western Railway Company.

The sureties in an undertaking on appeal to the supreme court must be resident householders or freeholders in this state.

The sureties in such an undertaking in this case not being residents of the state, this court, on motion, ordered the appeal to be dismissed, unless, within twenty days, the appellant should file a new undertaking with sufficient sureties, and pay the costs of the motion, including ten dollars attorney’s fee.

*90APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Rode*County.

*Bldridge & Pease,*for appellant.

*Mai H. Carpenter,*for respondent.

*By the Court,*

Downer, J.

A motion is made to dismiss the appeal in this action because the sureties in the undertaking on appeal are not residents of this state: and it is admitted and proved by the record that they reside in the state of Illinois.

It is argued that there is no statute requiring the sureties to reside in this state. Section 30, ch. 264, Laws of 1860, provides that sureties on appeal, when their sufficiency is excepted to, shall justify before a judge of the court below or county judge as prescribed in sections 19 and 20, ch. 127, R. S. These sections relate to the justification of bail taken on arrest; and on such justification each of them must state that he is a resident and householder or freeholder within this state, and is worth the amount specified in the order of arrest, exclusive of property exempt from execution. It is obvious that the qualifications of sureties on appeal are the same as those of bail on arrest, varying only as to the amount in which they must justify.

The motion must be granted, unless the appellant, within twenty days, files a new undertaking with sufficient sureties,and pays the costs of the motion, including ten dollars attorney’s fee.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In connection with the accompanying  Annual Report of Radale Imports,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form  10-KSB for the fiscal  year ended March 31, 2006 (the
"Report"),  I, Lee D. Dodson,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  hereby
certify that to my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(d)); and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.


Dated:  March 26, 2007


                                                         /s/ Lee D. Dodson
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Lee D. Dodson
                                                         Chief Executive Officer


     The above  certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350) and is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.














                                                                      Exhibit 32
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) The Boeing Company ) ASBCA No. 59218 ) Under Contract No. FA8617-04-C-6153 

### et al. ) APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT: Andrew E. Shipley, Esq. Seth H. Locke, Esq.

Perkins Coie LLP Washington, DC APPEARANCES FORTHE GOVERNMENT: E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. DCMA ChiefTrial Attorney Arthur M. Taylor, Esq.

Trial Attorney Defense Contract Management Agency Chantilly, VA ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Dated: 16 February 2016

Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59218, Appeal ofThe Boeing Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
[Civ. No. 5101.

Third Appellate District.

June 6, 1934.]

#### CITY OF LONG BEACH (a Municipal Corporation), Appellant, v. MAY E. ANDERSON et al., Defendants; ERNEST V. PRATT et al., Respondents.

Nowland M. Reid, City Attorney, and Edmund J. Calla-way, Deputy City Attorney, for Appellant.

Louis N. Whealton and Raymond J. Kirkpatrick for Respondents.

THOMPSON, J.

This is -an appeal from an order refusing to retax costs. The facts are exactly the same as those which were involved in the case of *City of Long Beach, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant,*v. *May E. Anderson et al., Defendants; Edison Securities Company, a Corporation, Respondent*(Civil No. 5092), *ante,*p. 130 [33 Pac. (2d) 875], in which an opinion of this court was this day filed, except that the expert witness fees which were allowed in this case amounted to the sum of $95.80.

*790Upon the .authority of that ease, the order in this case is reversed, with direction to the court to retax costs in accordance therewith.

Pullen, P. J., and Plummer, J., concurred.

A petition by respondent to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on August 2, 1934.
# C_2014372EN.01000101.xml

| 20.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 372/1

---

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

Official Journal of the European Union

2014/C 372/01

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 361, 13.10.2014

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 351, 6.10.2014

OJ C 339, 29.9.2014

OJ C 329, 22.9.2014

OJ C 315, 15.9.2014

OJ C 303, 8.9.2014

OJ C 292, 1.9.2014

These texts are available on:

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

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 30, 2016

No. 04-14-00389-CR

Paul Anthony GARCIA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 5397

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

ORDER

This appeal is on remand from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The State filed its 

supplemental brief on remand on October 27, 2016. Appellant’s brief on remand was due 

November 28, 2016. Appellant has filed a motion to extend time to file his brief, asking for an 

additional thirty days. After review, we GRANT appellant’s motion and ORDER appellant to 

file his supplemental brief on remand in this court on or before December 28, 2016. We remind 

appellant that his supplement brief should address the issues in light of the decision rendered by 

the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. We further remind appellant that this is a consolidated 

matter. Therefore, in the future, and pursuant to or consolidation order, any new filings, 

including the brief, should include both cause numbers in a single document.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 30th day of November, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
### Opinion issued October 13 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals
For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— 

### NO. 01

- 16

- 00612

- CR

——————————— IN RE KEVIN DEMOND S COTT , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Kevin Demond Scott seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to consider and rule on a motion for diligent participation credit. 1 See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 42.12, §15(h) (West Supp. 2016 ). We deny the petition. Any pending motions are denied as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Brown. Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Kevin Scott , cause number 1502773, pending in the 228th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Frank C. Price, sitting for the Honorable Marc Carter, 228th District Court.