alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2012400EN.01000501.xml

| 28.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 400/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 400/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

27 December 2012

2012/C 400/07

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3266 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 113,87 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4602 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,81990 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,6273 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2082 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,3760 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,115 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 291,43 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6971 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0688 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4215 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3757 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2782 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3156 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2834 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6183 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6212 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 422,42 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,2774 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2740 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5558 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 820,43 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0598 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 54,589 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,3706 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,660 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,7186 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,1939 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,9130 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3266

JPY

Japanese yen

113,87

DKK

Danish krone

7,4602

GBP

Pound sterling

0,81990

SEK

Swedish krona

8,6273

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2082

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,3760

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,115

HUF

Hungarian forint

291,43

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6971

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0688

RON

Romanian leu

4,4215

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3757

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2782

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3156

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2834

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6183

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6212

KRW

South Korean won

1 422,42

ZAR

South African rand

11,2774

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2740

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5558

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 820,43

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0598

PHP

Philippine peso

54,589

RUB

Russian rouble

40,3706

THB

Thai baht

40,660

BRL

Brazilian real

2,7186

MXN

Mexican peso

17,1939

INR

Indian rupee

72,9130

---

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

1

Source

---
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4337 

To direct the Joint Committee on the Library to accept a statue depicting 

Pierre L’Enfant from the District of Columbia and to provide for the 

permanent display of the statue in the United States Capitol. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 27, 2014 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To direct the Joint Committee on the Library to accept 

a statue depicting Pierre L’Enfant from the District 

of Columbia and to provide for the permanent display 

of the statue in the United States Capitol. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 

4 Congress finds the following: 

5 (1) Pierre L’Enfant was born in France in 

6 1754, and traveled to the United States to serve 

7 with the United States in the Revolutionary War. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4337 IH

1 (2) Pierre L’Enfant was an engineer and archi2 tect, and in 1791 he developed the unique and ex3 ceptional design for the Nation’s capital that laid 

4 the framework for the modern-day District of Co5 lumbia that is followed and maintained until today. 

6 (3) L’Enfant’s remarkable design envisioned a 

7 distinguishable federal and residential city with di8 agonal streets propelling from Congress and the 

9 President’s home, beautiful boulevards on local 

10 streets and neighborhoods, and open spaces for 

11 monuments, memorials, and historical structures, all 

12 of which largely remain intact, protected as a histor13 ical treasure. 

14 (4) The United States Capitol does not cur15 rently appropriately recognize the contributions of 

16 Pierre L’Enfant. 

17 SEC. 2. ACCEPTANCE OF STATUE OF PIERRE L’ENFANT FOR 

18 PLACEMENT IN UNITED STATES CAPITOL. 

19 (a) ACCEPTANCE.—Not later than 2 years after the 

20 date of the enactment of this Act, the Joint Committee 

21 on the Library shall accept from the District of Columbia 

22 the donation of a statue depicting Pierre L’Enfant, sub23 ject to the terms and conditions that the Joint Committee 

24 considers appropriate. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4337 IH

1 (b) PLACEMENT.—The Joint Committee shall place 

2 the statue accepted under subsection (a) in a suitable per3 manent location in the United States Capitol. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, David A. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer of PSS World Medical, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that the Companys Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 2, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ David A. Smith                   
|David A. Smith                       
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|                                     
|June 11, 2004
# Official Journal C 303A/15 S

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 303A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5815 September 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 303A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5815 September 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2015/C 303A/01 | Reserve list — Open competition — EPSO/AST-SC/02/14 — Internal security guards (SC 1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2015/C 303A/01

Reserve list — Open competition — EPSO/AST-SC/02/14 — Internal security guards (SC 1)

1

---

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

EN

---

V Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

| 15.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 303/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 303/1

---

Reserve list (1)

Open competition

EPSO/AST-SC/02/14 — Internal security guards (SC 1)

(2015/C 303 A/01)

| BACCOLINI | Riccardo Maria |
| --- | --- |
| BOGAERTS | Joachim |
| BOHY | Geert |
| BOTEA | Corina-Ionica |
| CORREIA NEVES CORDEIRO DE AZEVEDO | Rui |
| FERNANDEZ RAMOS | Pablo |
| ΙΟΑΝ | Aurelian Mihut |
| IVANOV | Catalin |
| JACOBS | Iris |
| MARINKOVIC | Vladimir |
| MATHIEU | Fabrice Amour Jenny |
| MURARU | Stefan Marian |
| NEGOITA | Adrian |
| NGELIAS | Nikolaos |
| NIEMINEN | Jörgen |
| PACHECO BERNARDINO | Sebastien |
| PACIFICO | Marco |
| PANS | Christophe |
| PAUSESCU | Alexandru |
| RUIZ LOZANO | Jose-Manuel |
| SARDELLI | Silvia |
| SCHNELL | Karine |
| STEFANAKAKIS | Constantin |
| STOIAN | Valeria |
| SZÉPLAKI | Florian |
| VERLEGH | Eric |
| VUKOSAV | Denis |
| ZIPIS | Emanuel |

BACCOLINI

Riccardo Maria

BOGAERTS

Joachim

BOHY

Geert

BOTEA

Corina-Ionica

CORREIA NEVES CORDEIRO DE AZEVEDO

Rui

FERNANDEZ RAMOS

Pablo

ΙΟΑΝ

Aurelian Mihut

IVANOV

Catalin

JACOBS

Iris

MARINKOVIC

Vladimir

MATHIEU

Fabrice Amour Jenny

MURARU

Stefan Marian

NEGOITA

Adrian

NGELIAS

Nikolaos

NIEMINEN

Jörgen

PACHECO BERNARDINO

Sebastien

PACIFICO

Marco

PANS

Christophe

PAUSESCU

Alexandru

RUIZ LOZANO

Jose-Manuel

SARDELLI

Silvia

SCHNELL

Karine

STEFANAKAKIS

Constantin

STOIAN

Valeria

SZÉPLAKI

Florian

VERLEGH

Eric

VUKOSAV

Denis

ZIPIS

Emanuel

The reserve list will be valid until 24 July 2018.

---

(1)  A successful candidate may explicitly have requested her/his name not be published.

---
---

|CERTIFICATION OF                             
|---------------------------------------------
|CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER                      
|PURSUANT TO                                  
|18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,                      
|AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO                       
|SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Douglas King, Chief Financial Officer of Greenlite Ventures
Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company, for
      the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006, and to which this
      certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the Report) fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                              

| | By:    | /s/ Douglas King       
| | ------ | -----------------------
| | Name:  | DOUGLAS KING           
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer
| | Date:  | November 13, 2006      

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
#### Tyrone J. SKEENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D03-1086.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 30, 2003.

PER CURIAM.

Tyrone J. Skeens appeals the trial court’s dismissal for untimefiness of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse and remand for the trial court to consider Skeens’ motion on the merits.

In 1996, Skeens was convicted by a jury of one count of sexual battery and one count of lewd and lascivious act upon a child under sixteen. He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison on each count to run concurrently. Skeens appealed and this court in *Skeens v. State,*733 So.2d 1094, 1096 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) *(Skeens I),*affirmed the sexual battery conviction, reversed the lewd and lascivious conviction, and remanded for resentencing.

In 1999, Skeens was resentenced under the 1995 sentencing guidelines to thirteen years in prison for the sexual battery. Skeens again appealed and this court in *Skeens v. State,*779 So.2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) *(Skeens II),*remanded the case back to the sentencing court for reconsideration in fight of *Heggs v. State,*759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000).

In 2000, Skeens was resentenced under the 1994 sentencing guidelines to nine years in prison for the sexual battery. He did not appeal this sentence. On October 21, 2002, Skeens filed a rule 3.850 motion which the trial court dismissed as untimely. The trial court ruled that the sexual battery conviction became final upon the issuance of this court’s mandate for *Skeens I*in 1999. The trial court also ruled that the sexual battery conviction could no longer be challenged by a rule 3.850 motion filed in 2002.

*495However, this court in *Snipes v. State,*843 So.2d 1043, 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), has recently held that the two-year time limitation of rule 3.850(b) cannot begin to run until the direct appeal process has concluded. We note that the *Snipes*opinion was not available to the trial court when it made its rulings in this case.

For Skeens, since his conviction was affirmed by his initial direct appeal *(Skeens I)*and he did not appeal the sentence imposed after his second direct appeal *(Skeens*II), the direct appeal process ended and his judgment and sentence became final on December 13, 2000, when the time expired for the filing of a direct appeal from his second resentencing. *See McGee v. State,*684 So.2d 241, 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (holding that a judgment and sentence which are not appealed become final when “the thirty-day period for taking an appeal has expired”).

Accordingly, Skeens had until December 13, 2002, to file a timely rule 3.850 motion. *See*Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). Skeens filed his motion with the circuit court on October 21, 2002. Skeens’ rule 3.850 motion was timely. The order of the trial court dismissing Skeens’ rule 3.850 motion as untimely is reversed and this case is remanded for the trial court to consider the motion on its merits.

Reversed and remanded.

SALCINES, STRINGER, and COVINGTON, JJ., concur.
NNN DURHAM OFFICE PORTFOLIO 1, LLC; James Osmond; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 2, LLC; James Sun Yu Lam; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 3, LLC; Gary F. Turtle; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 4, LLC; Sherry L. Turtle; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 5, LLC; Gregory R. Maloney; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 6, LLC; Sharon I. Maloney; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 7, LLC; Ray Miller, Trustee; Patricia M. Miller, Trustee; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 9, LLC; PCL Property, LLC; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 10, LLC; Frances H. Keiffer, Trustee; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 11, LLC; Frank A. Norman, Jr.; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 12, LLC; St. Kitts Investments, LLC; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 13, LLC; Fannie B. Blackwelder; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 14, LLC; Barbara L. Davidson, Trustee; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 15, LLC; Frederick J. Hornbacher, Trustee; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 16, LLC; Roberta MacGregor Masson, Trustee; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 17, LLC; William B. Wachter II, Trustee; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 18, LLC; Susan B. Wachter, Trustee; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 19, LLC; Pell/Cruz Investments, Inc. ; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 20, LLC; Jack R. Brown ; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 21, LLC; Patricia A. Brown; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 22, LLC; Jack D. Laflesch, Trustee; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 24, LLC; Muriel Sample, Successor Trustee; James K. Merrill, Successor Trustee; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 26, LLC; C.G.B.M.T. Enterprises, Inc.; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 27, LLC; Susan E. Wagner; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 28, LLC; Frederic J. Van Dis; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 29, LLC; Lawrence A. Wattson, Trustee; Stephanie T. Wattson, Trustee; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 30, LLC; Darrin A. Smith; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 32, LLC; Kenneth Deno McLamb; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 33, LLC; Cynthia L. McLamb; NNN Durham Office Portfolio 34, LLC; Mark B. Pista; and Carol E. Pista v. GRUBB & ELLIS COMPANY; Grubb & Ellis Realty Investors, LLC; Grubb & Ellis Securities, Inc. ; NNN Durham Office Portfolio, LLC ; and NNN Realty Advisors, Inc.

No. 218P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

Mr. Charles E. Raynal, IV, Ms. Jamie S. Schwedler, Ms. Catherine R.L. Lawson, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Grubb & Ellis Company, et al.

Mr. John L. Sarratt, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Grubb & Ellis Realty Investors, LLC, et al.

Mr. Thomas H. Stark, Chapel Hill, Mr. J. Anthony Penry, Mr. Seth Allen Neyhart, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for NNN Durham Office Portfolio 1, LLC, et al.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiffs on the 3rd of July 2017 in this matter for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 prior to a determination by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of September 2017."
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: ESTATE OF JOHN J. MCGARRY, 

DECEASED

PETITION OF: ROBERT A. KLEIN, 

ESQUIRE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS 

ADMINISTRATOR D.B.N. OF THE ESTATE 

OF JOHN J. MCGARRY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 115 EM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of February, 2020, the Application “for Leave to File 

Reply in Support of Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Power or Extraordinary 

Jurisdiction and for Oral Argument,” to the extent it seeks leave to file a reply, is 

GRANTED. In all other respect, the Application “for Leave to File Reply in Support of 

Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Power or Extraordinary Jurisdiction and for Oral 

Argument” is DENIED. 

The Application “to Supplement the Record and/or Conform the Record,” to the 

extent it seeks leave to file that submission in this Court, is GRANTED. In all other 

respects, the Application “to Supplement the Record and/or Conform the Record” is 

DENIED. 

The Application “for Exercise of Either King’s Bench Power or Extraordinary 

Jurisdiction” is DENIED. 

Justices Dougherty and Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision 

of this matter.
#### Application of Roger S. HUTTON.

Appeal No. 77-634.

United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

Jan. 27, 1978.

*1356LeRoy T. Rahn, Christie, Parker & Hale, Pasadena, Cal., for appellant.

Solicitor, U. S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, D. C., for Patent Office.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Having considered appellant’s MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD and affidavit attached thereto, OPPOSITION TO APPELLANT’S “MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD” by the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, and appellant’s REPLY thereto—

The court finds: (1) The entire article, entitled “Cavitational Tendencies of Control Valves for Paper Pulp Surface,” is of record in the application of the parent (as Appendix F to appellant's brief to the board of appeals involving the parent application) of the present application on appeal. (2) In the present application, only the first page of such article was physically inserted into the record as an attachment to appellant’s brief to the board of appeals. (3) Appellant specifically requested that the board consider the entire file of the parent application in reaching its decision and referenced drawing figures of the subject article not appearing on the first page of the article. (4) The Solicitor admits that the article was not considered by either the examiner or the board in arriving at a decision and was not mentioned by the board in either its original decision or its decision on reconsideration.

The court concludes that the entire article is part of “the evidence produced before the Patent and Trademark Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 144. The statute (35 U.S.C. § 144) contains no requirement that such evidence be contained in a single application file; moreover, the fact that the board did not actually consider the article or mention it is immaterial since evidence need not be physically introduced and *also*considered by a Patent and Trademark Office tribunal to be considered “evidence produced before the Patent and Trademark Office.” *Cf. Morgenstern v. Burton,*86 F.2d 341, 24 CCPA 734, 31 USPQ 377 (1936). The entire article is of record in appellant’s parent application, which is in the possession of the Patent and Trademark Office, and appellant requested that such article be considered in arriving at a decision on his present application. Finally, the board did not, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.195, question appellant’s inclusion of the first page of the article in his brief or his request that the entire file of his parent application be considered.

It is, therefore, ordered that the motion be granted. Appellant may supplement the record in this appeal by adding thereto the entire article entitled “Cavitational Tenden*1357cies of Control Valves for Paper Pulp Surface.”
<PAGE>   1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Winston Hotels, Inc. on Form S-3 (File Nos. 33-93516 and 333-32713) and Form S-8
(File No. 333-19197) of our report dated January 11, 1998, on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and the financial statement schedule of
Winston Hotels, Inc. as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and for each of the three
years in the period ended December 31, 1997, and of our report dated February 6,
1998, on our audits of the financial statements of Winston Hospitality, Inc. as
of October 31, 1997 and December 31, 1996, and for the ten months ended October
31, 1997 and the years ended December 31, 1996 and 1995, which reports are
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



/s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.


Raleigh, North Carolina
March 25, 1998
#### Edward E. LANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dr. Allen L. AULT, Etc., et al., Defendants-Appellants. Robert H. VEAL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dr. Allen L. AULT, Etc., et al., Defendants-Appellant. Hugh Don SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George SCHEER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 77-3181.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 28, 1978.

Edward E. Landers, pro se.

Robert H. Veal, pro se.

Hugh Don Smith, pro se.

Before JONES, GODBOLD and GEE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

These consolidated cases are companion cases to *Allen v. Ault, 564*F.2d 1198 (1977) and are controlled by it.

In each of these cases, as in *Allen v. Ault,*the motion for new trial was timely *served*but was not *filed*within the ten-day requirement of Rule 59(b).

In each case the order of dismissal is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for a determination whether the filing of the motion was timely within Rule 5(d), F.R.Civ.P.
STATE of North Carolina v. Shannon Dale ISOM

No. COA16-1052

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 5, 2017

NO ERROR.