alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022070EN.01000301.xml

| 11.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

10 February 2022

(2022/C 70/03)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1439 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 132,42 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4404 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84248 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,5275 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0571 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 141,80 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,0693 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,350 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 354,02 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4921 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9451 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 15,4838 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5894 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4498 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,9142 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7076 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5345 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 367,52 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,3078 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,2722 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5275 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 390,21 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7855 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,583 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 85,0187 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,331 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,9668 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,3584 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 85,9373 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1439

JPY

Japanese yen

132,42

DKK

Danish krone

7,4404

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84248

SEK

Swedish krona

10,5275

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0571

ISK

Iceland króna

141,80

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,0693

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,350

HUF

Hungarian forint

354,02

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4921

RON

Romanian leu

4,9451

TRY

Turkish lira

15,4838

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5894

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4498

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,9142

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7076

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5345

KRW

South Korean won

1 367,52

ZAR

South African rand

17,3078

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,2722

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5275

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 390,21

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7855

PHP

Philippine peso

58,583

RUB

Russian rouble

85,0187

THB

Thai baht

37,331

BRL

Brazilian real

5,9668

MXN

Mexican peso

23,3584

INR

Indian rupee

85,9373

---

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

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of the Chief Executive OfficerPursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PRAECISPHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED (the “Company”) for the quarterly period endedMarch 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Malcolm L. Gefter, Ph.D., as Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to thebest of my knowledge:

 

1.  The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

2.  The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Malcolm L. Gefter, Ph.D. |                     |
|------------------------------|--------------------------|
| Name:                        | Malcolm L. Gefter, Ph.D. |
| Title:                       | Chief Executive Officer  |
| Date:                        | May 10, 2004             |
|                              |                          |  |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwiseadopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic versionof this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided toPRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED and will be retained by PRAECISPHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon request.

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent requiredby the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposesof Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

----
EXHIBIT 11.1

UNIFIED FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
EARNINGS PER SHARE CALCULATION


<TABLE>
<S>               <C>            <C>            <C>             <C>            <C>          <C>

                                                                         THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                              MARCH 31,
                                                                  -------------------------------
                                                                      2003                2002
                                                                  ------------        -----------

INCOME AVAILABLE TO COMMON STOCKHOLDERS
     Net income loss......................................        $     9,651         $    (7,048)
                                                                  -----------         -----------

CALCULATION OF COMMON STOCK
     Common shares outstanding at beginning
        of period.........................................          2,844,246           2,877,634
                                                                  -----------         -----------
     Repurchase of shares during period...................            (15,000)                 --
                                                                  -----------         -----------
        Common shares used in basic calculation...........          2,829,246           2,877,634
                                                                  -----------         -----------

     Common stock equivalent of dilutive options..........                 --                  --
                                                                  -----------         -----------
        Common shares used in fully diluted calculation...          2,829,246           2,877,634
                                                                  -----------         -----------

INCOME/(LOSS) PER SHARE
     Basic..................................................       $       --          $       --
                                                                   ==========          ==========
     Fully diluted........................................         $       --          $       --
                                                                   ==========          ==========
</TABLE>
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-14-00248-CR 

________________

ERNEST VARRIEN BURNS JR., Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 11-11968

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Ernest Varrien Burns Jr.1

pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery. The trial court found the evidence sufficient 

to find Burns guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Burns on community 

supervision for seven years, and assessed a fine of $500. The State subsequently 

filed a motion to revoke Burns’s unadjudicated community supervision. Burns 

 1

The trial court’s judgment indicates that Burns is also known as “Pinto” and 

“Ernest Varrien Burns[.]”
2

pleaded “true” to three violations of the conditions of his community supervision.

The trial court found that Burns violated the conditions of his community 

supervision, found Burns guilty of aggravated robbery, and assessed punishment at 

ten years of confinement. 

Burns’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional 

evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1978). On July 28, 2014, we granted an extension of time for Burns to file a pro se

brief. We received no response from Burns. We reviewed the appellate record, and 

we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. 

Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief 

the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.2

AFFIRMED.

_________________________

 STEVE McKEITHEN 

 Chief Justice

 2

Burns may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for 

discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3

Submitted on November 3, 2014

Opinion Delivered December 10, 2014

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 11, 2019

No. 04-19-00268-CR

Stacey James SPENCER,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR2340

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On June 26, 2019, Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief 

and a motion to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); High v. State, 

573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). 

In a certificate of counsel, appellate counsel certifies that she took the following steps:

(1) notified Appellant that counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to 

withdraw, and provided Appellant with a copy of the documents;

(2) advised Appellant of his right to review the appellate record and to file a 

pro se brief; and

(3) provided Appellant with a copy of the clerk’s and reporter’s records. 

See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Ex parte Owens, 206 

S.W.3d 670, 674 n.28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 688–89 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2006). 

The State filed a letter conditionally waiving its right to file a brief. 

Appellant’s pro se brief is due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.6(a). 
If Appellant files a pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief within THIRTY 

DAYS after Appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court. See id. R. 38.6(b).

If this court determines Appellant’s appeal is frivolous, Appellant may file a petition for 

discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. 

Appellant must file the petition with the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals within thirty 

days after this court issues its judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). The petition should be 

addressed to Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals, P.O. Box 12308, Austin, Texas 78711. 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is held in abeyance pending further order of this court.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 11th day of July, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM EUROTECH,
LTD. BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX
MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998.
</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>                                                        57 
<SECURITIES>                                                   0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  6 
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0 
<INVENTORY>                                                    0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              90 
<PP&E>                                                        30 
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               223 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      1,550 
<BONDS>                                                    6,000 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0 
<PREFERRED>                                                    0 
<COMMON>                                                       5 
<OTHER-SE>                                                (7,327)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 223 
<SALES>                                                        0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               0 
<CGS>                                                          0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             561 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         3,479 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           (5,427)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       (5,427)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0 
<CHANGES>                                                      0 
<NET-INCOME>                                              (5,427)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              (0.28)
                                               


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

KEVIN TRUDEAU, 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 03-C-3904 

Hon. Robert W. Gettleman 

NOTICE OF MOTION TO MODIFY THE 

RECEIVERSHIP ORDER TO PREVENT 

TRUDEAU FROM FUNDING HIS 

PERSONAL LIVING EXPENSES WITH 

ASSETS NEEDED TO COMPENSATE 

HIS VICTIMS

To: See Attached Service List 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Wednesday, September 4, 2013, at 9:15 a.m., or as 

soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, Plaintiff, Federal Trade Commission, shall appear 

before the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman, in the courtroom usually occupied by him, at the 

United States District Court, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois, and shall then and 

there present Plaintiff’s Motion To Modify the Receivership Order To Prevent Trudeau From 

Funding His Personal Living Expenses With Assets Needed To Compensate His Victims. 

Dated: August 30, 2013 

David O’Toole (dotoole@ftc.gov) 

Federal Trade Commission 

55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1825 

Chicago, Illinois 60603-5001 

Phone: (312) 960-5601 

Fax: (312) 960-5600 

Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/ Jonathan Cohen 

Michael Mora (mmora@ftc.gov) 

Jonathan Cohen (jcohen2@ftc.gov) 

Amanda B. Kostner (akostner@ftc.gov) 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. M-8102B 

Washington, DC 20580 

Phone: 202-326-3373; -2551 

Fax: 202-326-2558

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 745 Filed: 08/30/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:13189
 2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Jonathan Cohen, hereby certify that on August 30, 2013, I caused to be 

served true copies of the foregoing by electronic means, by filing such documents through the 

Court’s Electronic Case Filing System, which will send notification of such filing to: 

Kimball Richard Anderson 

kanderson@winston.com

Thomas Lee Kirsch, II 

tkirsch@winston.com 

Katherine E. Rohlf 

kcroswell@winston.com 

Blair R. Zanzig 

bzanzig@hwzlaw.com

/s/ Jonathan Cohen 

Jonathan Cohen (jcohen2@ftc.gov) 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Federal Trade Commission 

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 745 Filed: 08/30/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:13190
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
 Mycology and Nematology Genetic Diversity and Biology Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Search Collections
                        U.S. National Fungus Collections
                                    USDA Nematode CollectionSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BARC) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Mycology and Nematology Genetic Diversity and Biology Laboratory People & Locations







John David Hall
                        Mycology and Nematology Genetic Diversity and Biology Laboratory

                        




                        
                        Visiting Scientist
                        Phone: (301) 504-5270
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
#### Moreland *et al. v.*Walker *et al.*

July 13, 1915.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Beicl. Campbell superior court. September 1, 1914.

*J. F. Golightly, J. A. Drake,*and *J. H. Longino,*for plaintiffs.

*W. S. Burwell*and *Claude G. Smith,*for defendants.

Hill, J.

Under the allegations of the petition, the court did not err in sustaining the demurrer filed by certain of the defendants and in dismissing the ease as to them. ■

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21



                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Jurisdiction
Name of Subsidiary                      Of Incorporation   Doing Business As
------------------                      ----------------   -----------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                     <C>                <C>
First Commonwealth Limited Health           Illinois       First Commonwealth,
Services Corporation                                       Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Commonwealth of Illinois, Inc.        Illinois       First Commonwealth,
                                                           Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Commonwealth Reinsurance              Arizona        First Commonwealth,
Company                                                    Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Commonwealth Limited Health          Wisconsin       First Commonwealth,
Service Corporation                                        Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smileage Dental Services, Inc.             Wisconsin       First Commonwealth,
                                                           Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Champion Dental Services, Inc.              Missouri       First Commonwealth,
                                                           Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
#### BAUER v. YOST et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by Louis Bauer against George E. Yost and others.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
#### Miracle Armand et al., Plaintiffs, and Jennifer Cromwell, Appellant, v Mota Raman et al., Respondents.

[947 NYS2d 63]

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kibbie F. Payne, J.), entered June 24, 2011, which, in an action alleging serious injuries within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), denied plaintiff-appellant’s motion to vacate an order granting, upon plaintiffs’ default, defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants correctly served their notice of motion for summary judgment upon plaintiff’s former counsel, which continued as her attorney of record, given that plaintiff failed to change counsel in the manner prescribed by CPLR 321 (b) (1) *(see Vitale*
      *511
      *v City Constr. Mgt. Co.,*172 AD2d 326 [1991]; *see also Splinters, Inc. v Greenfield,*63 AD3d 717, 719 [2009]). In any event, even if plaintiff provided a reasonable excuse for her default, she failed to demonstrate that her action has merit *(see Carroll v Nostra Realty Corp.,*54 AD3d 623 [2008], *lv dismissed*12 NY3d 792 [2009]; *see also Vargas v Ahmed,*41 AD3d 328, 329 [2007]). Indeed, her affidavit asserting the existence of bulging or herniated discs is not, in and of itself, “evidence of serious injury without competent objective evidence of the limitations and duration of the disc injury” *(Rubencamp v Arrow Exterminating Co., Inc.,*79 AD3d 509, 510 [2010]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Catterson, Acosta, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.