alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2021418EN.01000501.xml

| 15.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

14 October 2021

(2021/C 418/05)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1602 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 131,65 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4406 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84618 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,0138 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0686 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 149,60 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,7928 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,387 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 359,00 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5693 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9500 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 10,6104 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5644 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4361 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,0244 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6506 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5642 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 375,51 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,1620 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,4683 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5127 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 353,05 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8195 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,778 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 83,1225 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,524 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,3528 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,8458 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 87,3355 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1602

JPY

Japanese yen

131,65

DKK

Danish krone

7,4406

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84618

SEK

Swedish krona

10,0138

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0686

ISK

Iceland króna

149,60

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,7928

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,387

HUF

Hungarian forint

359,00

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5693

RON

Romanian leu

4,9500

TRY

Turkish lira

10,6104

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5644

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4361

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,0244

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6506

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5642

KRW

South Korean won

1 375,51

ZAR

South African rand

17,1620

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,4683

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5127

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 353,05

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8195

PHP

Philippine peso

58,778

RUB

Russian rouble

83,1225

THB

Thai baht

38,524

BRL

Brazilian real

6,3528

MXN

Mexican peso

23,8458

INR

Indian rupee

87,3355

---

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

---
<TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11.1


<CAPTION>
                                        ARTERIAL VASCULAR ENGINEERING, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                                 COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                                                (In thousands, except per share data)


                                                                              Three Months Ended               Nine Months Ended
                                                                                    March 31,                      March 31,
                                                                             -----------------------         -----------------------
                                                                              1997            1996            1997            1996
                                                                             -------         -------         -------         -------
<S>                                                                          <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>    
Primary
     Weighted average common shares
       outstanding                                                            30,974          25,310          30,932          21,752
     Weighted average common equivalent
       shares assuming conversion of stock
       options under the treasury stock method                                   614             992             671           2,771
     Common and common equivalent shares
       pursuant to Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 83                             --             1,211            --             2,824

                                                                             -------         -------         -------         -------
Shares used in per share calculation                                          31,588          27,513          31,603          27,347
                                                                             -------         -------         -------         -------

Net income                                                                   $ 4,633         $ 3,101         $17,004         $12,728
                                                                             =======         =======         =======         =======

Net income per share                                                         $  0.15         $  0.11         $  0.54         $  0.46
                                                                             =======         =======         =======         =======

Net  income  per share is  presented  under the  primary  basis as the effect of
dilution under the fully diluted basis is less than 3%.
</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 00-2091

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

BRIAN EUGENE MESERVE,

Defendant, Appellant.

The opinion of this court issued on November 16, 2001,

should be amended as follows:

On the cover sheet: replace "[Hon. George Z. Singal, U.S.

District Judge]" with "[Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District

Judge]".
#### Ezell ANDERSON, Jr., DBA Mom’s Choice Meats, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15403

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed February 13, 2018

Ezell Anderson, Jr., Pro Se

Alyson Anne Berg, Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Fresno, CA, Edward Alan Olsen, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, US-SAC — Office of the US Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ezell Anderson, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action seeking judicial review under the Food Stamp Act of 1964 (the “Act”) of the United States Food and Nutrition Service’s permanent disqualification of Mom’s Choice Meats from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson,*363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Anderson failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether personnel of Mom’s Choice Meats trafficked in SNAP benefits. *See*7 C.F.R. § 271.2 (defining “trafficking" under the Act as including “buying or selling” SNAP benefits “for cash or consideration other than eligible food”), § 278.6(e)(l)(i) (providing that a firm shall be disqualified permanently if “[personnel of the firm have trafficked” in SNAP benefits); *Kim v. United States,*121 F.3d 1269, 1273 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that under the Act “even innocent owners” may be disqualified permanently for trafficking violations).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Anderson’s motion for recusal because Anderson failed to establish any basis for recusal. *See United States v. Johnson,*610 F.3d 1138, 1147-48 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and discussing grounds for recusal).

*416We reject as without merit Anderson’s contentions regarding his former counsel’s allegedly improper conduct and the mailing of the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to Anderson’s former counsel.

We do not consider arguments and allegations' raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); *Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999).

Anderson’s requests to remand this action for an award of attorney’s fees, sanctions, or an investigative hearing, set forth in the opening brief, are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# Official Journal C 78A/31 M

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 78A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4931 March 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 78A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4931 March 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Notices |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 078A/1 | Competition Directorate-General (COMP) — Publication of a vacancy for a Chief Competition Economist (Grade A*14) — Brussels — Post for a temporary agent pursuant to Article 2(a) of the Conditions of employment of other Servants — COM/2006/10019 | 1 |
| 2006/C 078A/2 | Joint Research Centre (JRC) — Publication of a vacancy for a Deputy Director-General (grade A*15) — Brussels — Appointment of an official under Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations — COM/2006/10021 | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Notices

Commission

2006/C 078A/1

Competition Directorate-General (COMP) — Publication of a vacancy for a Chief Competition Economist (Grade A*14) — Brussels — Post for a temporary agent pursuant to Article 2(a) of the Conditions of employment of other Servants — COM/2006/10019

1

2006/C 078A/2

Joint Research Centre (JRC) — Publication of a vacancy for a Deputy Director-General (grade A*15) — Brussels — Appointment of an official under Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations — COM/2006/10021

2

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE JUNE 30,
1998 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,360
<SECURITIES>                                    34,180
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,291
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                55,845
<PP&E>                                           2,654
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  67,426
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,753
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,478
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    67,426
<SALES>                                         19,946
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,946
<CGS>                                           10,911
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,911
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,746
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,943)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,307)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,636)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,636)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.31)
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin SANDOVAL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50440

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 19, 2018

Eric J. Beste, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael Emerson Lasater, Esquire, U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, Colin M. McDonald, Assistant U.S. Attorney, US Department of Justice, Southern District of California, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Benjamin P. Lechman, Esquire, Attorney, Lechman & Lechman, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Martin Sandoval appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for á sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

As an initial matter, Sandoval’s release from custody did not render this appeal moot because he is currently serving a five-year term of supervised release. *See United States v. D.M.,*869 F.3d 1133, 1137-38 (9th Cir. 2017).

Sandoval contends that the district court was required to conduct a hearing prior to ruling on the motion and that it erred by failing to do so. “A district court has broad discretion in how to adjudicate § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, including whether to hold a hearing.” *United States v. Mercado-Moreno,*869 F.3d 942, 955 (9th Cir. 2017). The district court did not abuse its discretion here because, contrary to Sandoval’s contention, its decision was based entirely on findings rendered during Sandoval’s original sentencing hearing and the evidence in the record at that time. *See id.*(“When the district court does not consider any evidence outside of the record at sentencing, an evidentiary hearing will not always be necessary.”). *t*

The district court appropriately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and Sandoval has failed to demonstrate that the district court applied the wrong law or relied on clearly erroneous findings of fact. *See United States v. Dunn,*728 F.3d 1151, 1159 (9th Cir. 2013).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
IV

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 307

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the nuclear weapons stockpile.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 23, 1998

Mr. MARKEY submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on National Security

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the nuclear

weapons stockpile.

Whereas it is in the best interests of the Nation and the

world to ban nuclear tests forever;

Whereas the nuclear weapons arsenal of the United States

has been extensively tested in the past, and the President

again certified its safety and reliability on February 11,

1998;

Whereas the nuclear weapons stockpile can be maintained

without nuclear explosive testing;

Whereas there exists an ongoing stockpile evaluation and

maintenance program that has ensured the safety and reliability of the arsenal for decades;

Whereas the priority of the stewardship program should be

the safety of the arsenal, and the United States should
2

•HCON 307 IH

not design or develop nuclear weapons with new military

capabilities or modify the nuclear explosive package in existing weapons;

Whereas the proposed stockpile stewardship program, funded

at $4,500,000,000 annually over ten years, is not needed

to maintain the arsenal and many of its programs and

facilities are unnecessary and hence a waste of taxpayer

dollars;

Whereas the proposed stockpile stewardship program is provocative to both nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear

weapon states, and it runs counter to the obligations of

the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

to pursue negotiations in good faith on cessation of the

nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament;

Whereas nuclear weapons laboratories intend to use the current stockpile stewardship program to maintain and significantly enhance scientific and technical capabilities for

undertaking ‘‘development of advanced new types of nuclear weapons’’ (as stated in the United States Department of Energy Stockpile Stewardship and Management

Plan, 1996); and

Whereas a number of less costly and more appropriate alternatives exist that can fulfill the stockpile maintenance requirements of the United States while complying with the

obligations of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: Now, therefore be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) the nuclear weapons stockpile can be main4 tained with a program that is far smaller, is less ex-
3

•HCON 307 IH

1 pensive, and does not require facilities or experi2 ments that are likely to be used for warhead design

3 or development; and

4 (2) the Secretary of Energy should direct the

5 Department of Energy program for custodianship of

6 the nuclear weapons arsenal toward less costly, less

7 provocative methods and cease the current stockpile

8 stewardship plans of the Department.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                                  1,000

<S>                                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                            JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                                       27,209
<SECURITIES>                                                 10,926
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   809
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                                     319
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             39,815
<PP&E>                                                        2,941
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               43,569
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         2,293
<BONDS>                                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             0
<PREFERRED>                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                        129
<OTHER-SE>                                                   69,130
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 43,569
<SALES>                                                       2,536
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              2,536
<CGS>                                                           245
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   245
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             (7,211)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     27
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         (7,238)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                                (7,238)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                (0.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                (0.57)


</TABLE>
**Docket Number FAA -**  **2014 -**  **0582**

9. Contacts. Wi th whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?
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.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

The Commission gives notice that it intends to terminate the following agreement pursuant to 46 CFR 501.17(h)(2) thirty days from publication of this notice.

*Agreement No.:*                     012022.                

*Agreement Name:*                     Discovery Cruise Line/Bernuth Lines Space Charter and Sailing Agreement.                

*Reason for termination:*                     Parties no longer registered Vessel Operating Common Carriers.                

*Location: https://www2.fmc.gov/​FMC.Agreements.Web/​Public/​AgreementHistory/​1866.*

Dated: March 22, 2022.

William Cody,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-06308 Filed 3-24-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-02-P