alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022435EN.01001601.xml

| 16.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 435/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 435/16

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

15 November 2022

(2022/C 435/06)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0404 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 144,84 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4388 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87455 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,8081 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9790 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 149,90 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,3570 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,326 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 405,45 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,7073 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9116 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 19,3608 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5415 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3816 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,1430 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6897 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4238 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 365,61 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,8822 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,3299 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5459 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 164,78 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7208 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,532 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,939 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,5480 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,0795 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 84,1304 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0404

JPY

Japanese yen

144,84

DKK

Danish krone

7,4388

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87455

SEK

Swedish krona

10,8081

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9790

ISK

Iceland króna

149,90

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,3570

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,326

HUF

Hungarian forint

405,45

PLN

Polish zloty

4,7073

RON

Romanian leu

4,9116

TRY

Turkish lira

19,3608

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5415

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3816

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,1430

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6897

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4238

KRW

South Korean won

1 365,61

ZAR

South African rand

17,8822

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,3299

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5459

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 164,78

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7208

PHP

Philippine peso

59,532

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

36,939

BRL

Brazilian real

5,5480

MXN

Mexican peso

20,0795

INR

Indian rupee

84,1304

---

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

---
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Molecular Plant Pathology Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Databases
                        Alfalfa Transcription Factor Database
                                    iPhyClassifier - Phytoplasma Sequence ClassificationSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BARC) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Molecular Plant Pathology Laboratory People Anna Smigocki





- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People
- Con Baker
- Wei Wei
- Rosemarie Hammond
- Robert Davis
- John Hartung
- Ing Ming Lee
- Lev Nemchinov
- Anna Smigocki
- Yan Zhao
- The sugarbeet root maggot
- Reporter gene (uidA) in leaves
- Functional analysis of sugar beet resistance genes
- In vitro bioassay
- Cytokinin gene (ipt) mediated insect resistance
- Cytokinin-responsive genes
- Plant cytochrome P450 monooxygenases

The sugarbeet root maggotheadline bar Sugar beet maggot problem The sugarbeet root maggot, *Tetanops myopaeformis* Roder, is the major sugarbeet pest in United States and Canada.
# Official Journal C 425/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 425 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5727 November 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 425

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5727 November 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 425/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7407 — Lear Corporation/Everett Smith Group) (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 425/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7407 — Lear Corporation/Everett Smith Group) (1)

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 425/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| 2014/C 425/03 | Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (Luxembourg) — Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2013 | 3 |
| 2014/C 425/04 | European Police College — Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2013 | 3 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2014/C 425/02

Euro exchange rates

2

2014/C 425/03

Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (Luxembourg) — Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2013

3

2014/C 425/04

European Police College — Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2013

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 425/05 | Call for proposals EACEA/33/2014 under the Erasmus+ Programme — Key Action 3: Support for policy reform — Prospective initiatives — European Forward-Looking Cooperation Projects in the fields of education and training, and youth | 4 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2014/C 425/05

Call for proposals EACEA/33/2014 under the Erasmus+ Programme — Key Action 3: Support for policy reform — Prospective initiatives — European Forward-Looking Cooperation Projects in the fields of education and training, and youth

4

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
#### Julius Kacprowski et al., Respondents, v Richard Sorro et al., Defendants, and Utilities Mutual Insurance Company et al., Appellants.

—In a special proceeding pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law §29 (5) for permission to compromise an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the Utilities Mutual Insurance Company and the Special Funds Conservation Committee separately appeal from a resettled order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated November 19, 1984, which, *inter alia,*granted the motion of the plaintiffs-petitioners for leave to renew and reargue their application for permission to compromise the action, and thereupon granted the application.

Resettled order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Appellants claim that the proposed $22,500 settlement was inadequate and that it was an abuse of discretion for Special Term to have granted permission to settle the underlying action. However, in order for plaintiffs to have prevailed in that underlying action, they would have had to establish defendants’ liability for an attack by certain dogs. Further, to prove damages the plaintiffs would have had to convince a jury that the injuries sustained by plaintiff Julius Kacprowski in the attack on May 5, 1979, aggravated injuries sustained in a 1953 accident and precipitated the need for surgery. On the facts of this case, we find the liability and damage questions in the underlying action to be problematical and conclude that Special Term’s grant of permission to settle that suit for $22,500 was not an abuse of discretion. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Brown and Kooper, JJ., concur.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Great Basin Rangelands Research: Reno, NV
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Newsletter
                        Volume 1
                                    Volume 2Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Docsheadline bar Office staff
               Soil Science Lab
               welcome page
               Main


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Johnny Rucker, Appellant.

—Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.), both rendered April 8, 1980, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree under indictment No. 8083/78, and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under indictment No. 8084/78, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Judgments affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see, *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Gibbons, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 143 (Thursday, July 29, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 40801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16126]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 4

[PS Docket No. 15-80; Report No. 3179; FRS 39529]


Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Petition for Reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: A Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in 
the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by Ian P. Culver, on behalf of 
California Public Utilities Commission.

DATES: Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before August 
13, 2021. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before August 
23, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Saswat Misra, Attorney-Advisor, 
Cybersecurity & Communications Reliability Division, Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-0944 or via email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#acffcddfdbcdd882e1c5dfdecdeccacfcf82cbc3da"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="316250424650451f7c58424350715752521f565e47">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
document, Report No. 3179, released July 19, 2021. The full text of the 
Petition can be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not 
send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the 
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A), because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.
    Subject: In the Matter of Amendments to Part 4 of the Commission's 
Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications, published at 86 FR 
22796, April 29, 2021, in PS Docket No. 15-80. This document is being 
published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 
1.429(f), (g).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-16126 Filed 7-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2014184EN.01001101.xml

| 16.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/11

---

Action brought on 7 March 2014 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-112/14)

2014/C 184/14

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, L. Armati, agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Defendant:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that by adopting and maintaining tax legislation concerning attribution of gains to members of non-resident companies which provides for a difference in treatment between domestic and cross-border activities, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 EEA or, in the alternative, Article 49 TFEU and Article 31 EEA; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by adopting and maintaining tax legislation concerning attribution of gains to members of non-resident companies which provides for a difference in treatment between domestic and cross-border activities, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 EEA or, in the alternative, Article 49 TFEU and Article 31 EEA;

| — | order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The national legislation in issue

The national legislation in issue

Section 13 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 provides that where certain types of non-resident company earn profits, those profits are immediately taxable in the hands of shareholders and other participators who are residents of the United Kingdom, whether or not the latter in fact receive any income.

The main argument

The main argument

UK residents are liable for tax on the profits of certain non-resident companies in which they are participators, while would not be so liable if the companies concerned were resident in the United Kingdom. That difference in taxation is likely to discourage UK taxpayers from investing in such non-resident companies, contrary to Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 EEA.

The measure in issue may prevent certain types of tax avoidance and abuse. However, its application is not limited to hypotheses of tax avoidance or abuse and the measure is therefore not justified.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-5098

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LEWIS MURDOCK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-02-225)

Submitted: June 21, 2006 Decided: July 7, 2006

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Harry L.

Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Lewis Murdock appeals the revocation of his supervised

release and resulting twelve-month prison term. Finding no error,

we affirm.

Counsel for Murdock has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he states there

are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but presents for this

court’s review the issue of the propriety of Murdock’s prison

sentence. Although notified of his right to file a pro se

supplemental brief, Murdock has not done so.

Murdock admitted the substance of the conduct that

violated the terms of his supervised release, so there was an

adequate basis for revocation. The court considered the statutory

maximum, the advisory guideline range, and Murdock’s history of

violations, and imposed a sentence of twelve months, at the top of

the advisory range. We have reviewed the record and the parties’

briefs and find no reversible error in Murdock’s sentence.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for

appeal. We therefore affirm the revocation of Murdock’s supervised

release and the resulting term of imprisonment. This court

requires that counsel inform Murdock, in writing, of the right to

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

If Murdock requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
- 3 -

that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in

this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Murdock.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 140 (Monday, July 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 40043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15849]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP21-973-000.
    Applicants: Adelphia Gateway, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Adelphia Tariff Revisions July 
19 to be effective 8/19/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/19/21.
    Accession Number: 20210719-5139.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-974-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule FT--Section 
2.7--SEP Capacity (2) to be effective 8/19/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/19/21.
    Accession Number: 20210719-5179.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 20, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15849 Filed 7-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-1472-12

THE STATE OF TEXAS

v.

BRANDON CORNELIUS HARRIS, Appellant

ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

BRAZOS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Appellant was charged with murder under Texas Penal Code § 19.02(b)(2). He was

found guilty and sentenced to thirty years in prison. On appeal, he argued that the trial court

erred in failing to charge the jury on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter. The Court

of Appeals disagreed, holding that manslaughter can never be a lesser-included offense of
HARRIS - 2

murder under § 19.02(b)(2). Harris v. State, No. 10-11-00035-CR, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS

5201, at *8 (Tex. App.—Waco June 27, 2012) (not designated for publication) (citing

Cavazos v. State, 329 S.W.3d 838 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010, pet. granted)).

Appellant has filed a petition for discretionary review of this decision, noting that this

Court granted review in Cavazos. We recently handed down our opinion in Cavazos v. State,

No. PD-1675-10, 2012 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1387 (Tex. Crim. App. October 31, 2012).

In Cavazos, we held that manslaughter can be a lesser-included offense of murder under §

19.02(b)(2). Id. at *19.

The Court of Appeals in the instant case did not have the benefit of our opinion in

Cavazos. Accordingly, we grant Appellant’s petition for discretionary review on grounds

one and two, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to the Court

of Appeals in light of our opinion in Cavazos. Ground three of Appellant’s petition is

refused.

DATE DELIVERED: December 19, 2012

DO NOT PUBLISH
#### In re BRISTOW. TEALE, Respondent, v. STOLL, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 15, 1907.)

In the matter of the judicial settlement of the account of Henry Bristow, -public administrator, as administrator of the goods, chattels, and credits which were of Robert E. Boyd, deceased. Action by Charles E. Teále, public administrator and successor to Henry Bristow, against -Louis Stoll. .

No opinion. Motion to resettle order granted.