alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011123EN.01000201.xml

| 21.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

20 April 2011

2011/C 123/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4515 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 120,13 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4576 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,88670 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9011 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2944 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,7895 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,174 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 264,05 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7093 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9723 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,0873 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,2056 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3611 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3808 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,2843 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8206 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7988 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 567,35 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,8519 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,4716 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3578 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 554,66 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3734 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,680 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,8375 |
| THB | Thai baht | 43,472 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2700 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,8795 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 64,3450 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4515

JPY

Japanese yen

120,13

DKK

Danish krone

7,4576

GBP

Pound sterling

0,88670

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9011

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2944

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,7895

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,174

HUF

Hungarian forint

264,05

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7093

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9723

RON

Romanian leu

4,0873

TRY

Turkish lira

2,2056

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3611

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3808

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,2843

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8206

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7988

KRW

South Korean won

1 567,35

ZAR

South African rand

9,8519

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,4716

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3578

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 554,66

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3734

PHP

Philippine peso

62,680

RUB

Russian rouble

40,8375

THB

Thai baht

43,472

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2700

MXN

Mexican peso

16,8795

INR

Indian rupee

64,3450

---

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

1

Source

---
Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 4:10cr72-SPM

JOSE LUIS REYES-SOLANO, 

 

Defendant.

 /

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendant proposed to enter a guilty plea to Counts One and Two of this

indictment. The district judge referred this matter to me for purposes of hearing

Defendant's proposed change of plea pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 and to enter a

report and recommendation as to whether to accept the change of plea. All parties

consented to this procedure, and the written consent has been entered. After hearing, it

is found that:

1. Defendant understands the nature of the charge or charges as to which the

plea is offered.

2. Defendant understands the right to trial by jury, to persist in a plea of not

guilty, to assistance of counsel at trial, and to confront and cross examine adverse

witnesses, and understands the right against compelled self-incrimination.
Page 2 of 3

3. Defendant understands the maximum possible sentence if the guilty plea is

accepted, including the effect of a supervised release term, understands that the

sentencing guidelines are advisory, and understands that the court has discretion to

depart from those guidelines and sentence up to the statutory maximum sentence.

4. The plea of guilty by the Defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made,

and is not the result of force or threats, or of promises except for promises contained in

the written plea agreement between the parties.

5. Defendant is competent to plead guilty.

6. Defendant understands that answers given by the Defendant during the plea

colloquy, which were under oath, may be later used against the Defendant in

prosecution for perjury or false statement.

7. There is a factual basis for Defendant's guilty plea.

8. There is a plea agreement which should be accepted by the court. Defendant

understands the terms of the plea agreement.

9. Defendant has voluntarily consented to go forward with this plea of guilty

before me. Defendant knowingly and voluntarily has waived the ten day period for filing

objections to this report and recommendation, and agrees that written objections, if any,

must be filed within twenty-four hours from receipt of a copy of this report and

recommendation. The United States also consents to this procedure, including the

shorter period for objections.

Case No. 4:10cr72-SPM
Page 3 of 3

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the court ACCEPT the plea agreement

and defendant's plea of guilty.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on January 10, 2011. 

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 24 hours after receiving a copy of this report and

recommendation.

Case No. 4:10cr72-SPM
Exhibit 31.2  CERTIFICATION  I, Christine M. Applegate, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-Q of Porfavor, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  August 19, 2009    By: /s/ Christine M. Applegate Christine M. Applegate CFO, Controller, Treasurer, Secretary, Director
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JEFFREY ANDERSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 84 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of July, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 2 3

- 2490

_____________________________
R ONNIE M ICHAEL T AYLOR , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Timothy Register , Judge

. September 11, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. See McCray v. State , 71 So. 3d 848, 865

– 66 (Fla. 2011) (holding that a hearing under Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806 (1975), is unnecessary when a defendant makes an ambiguous statement about self

- representation rather than an unequivocal request for self

- representation) ; see also Waterhouse v. State , 596 So. 2d 1008, 1014 (Fla. 1992).

R OBERTS , B ILBREY , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Kathleen Pafford , Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Benjamin L. Hoffman
, Assistant Attorney General
, Tallahassee , for Appellee

.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, Mauricio Beltran, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge,
ESL Teachers Inc.'s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of ESL Teachers Inc.

Date: February 16, 2010


                     /s/ Mauricio Beltran
                     -----------------------------------------------------------
                     Mauricio Beltran
                     President, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer
                     and Director
                     (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Accounting Officer)



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to ESL Teachers Inc. and will be retained by ESL Teachers Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE v. DONALD RAY NEWTON. and STATE v. JAMES BASS ROBERSON Alias JIMMIE ROBERSON.

(Filed 3 November, 1965.)

Appeal by defendants from *Hall, J.,*March, 1965 Criminal Session, VANCE Superior Court.

The defendants were separately indicted but tried together for the common law robbery of Fred Ray Carlisle and the felonious taking from him of the sum of $75.00 in money. At the trial the victim tes*565tified that the defendants forcibly took from him $75.00 after threats and putting him in fear of his life and safety. The evidence disclosed the parties and others had been drinking beer together. The victim’s testimony was positive and complete. The defendants’ denials were equally so. The defendants offered testimony of another witness, corroborating to a limited extent, their story. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. From a judgment and sentence that each of the defendants be committed to prison for not less than two years and not more than three years, each appealed.

*T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, Harry W. McGalliard, Deputy Attorney General for the State.*

*Sterling G. Gilliam for defendant appellants.*

Per Curiam.

The testimony of the prosecuting witness made out a case of common law robbery against the defendants. The testimony of the defendants made out a defense. Judge Hall submitted the issue under proper instructions. The jury resolved the conflict by accepting the victim’s version.

No error.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CITIZENS STATE BANK, 

a Florida corporation, f/k/a

THE CITIZENS BANK OF 

PERRY, a Florida corporation,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-224-SPM-GRJ

DIXIE COUNTY, a political 

subdivision of the State of Florida

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion For

Enlargement Of Time. (Doc. 76.) Plaintiff requests an extension of time until October

10, 2011 to respond to Defendants’s pending motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 70.) 

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(B), Plaintiff’s counsel represents Defendant’s counsel has

been contacted and Defendant does not oppose the requested extension.

Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion For Enlargement Of Time (Doc. 76) is

GRANTED. 

(2) Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc.

76) on or before October 10, 2011.

 DONE AND ORDERED this 27 day of September, 2011. 

th 

s/ Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:10-cv-00224-SPM-GRJ Document 77 Filed 09/26/11 Page 1 of 1
TRUSTMARK NATIONAL BANK

, Appellant,

v.

CLASSIC INVESTMENTS OF FLORIDA MAGNOLIA, LLC A/K/A CLASSIC INVESTMENTS OF FLORIDA MAGNOLIA, L.L.C., PETER ABT, MICHAEL G. KENT, CHARLES K. McEACHE R N, AND JOHN RITENOUR

, Appellee s

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 4687

____________________________/

Opinion filed April 21, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County

. William F. Stone , Judge

. Stephen A. Pitre and Robert J. Powell of Clark, Partington, et al., Pensacola , for Appellant.

D. Michael Chesser and Tara A. Hagan of Chesser & Barr, P.A., Shalimar , for Appellee s

.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.2 WETHERELL
, ROWE

, and OSTERHAUS

, J J

. , CONCUR.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JUSTIN WILLIS,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv426/RV/EMT

DAVID MORGAN, SHERIFF, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Plaintiff commenced this action

by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). On October 28, 2010, this court

entered an order denying Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and giving him twenty-eight

(28) days in which to pay the filing fee (Doc. 4). Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to reconsider

the October 28, 2010, order, which the court denied (see Docs. 5, 6). Plaintiff failed to pay the filing

fee; therefore, on December 1, 2010, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause,

within twenty-one (21) days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with an

order of the court (Doc. 7). The time for compliance with the show cause order has now elapsed,

and Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an

order of the court.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 3rd day of January 2011.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 2 of 2

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only. A copy of objections shall be

served upon all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of

factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir.

1988).

Case No: 3:10cv426/RV/EMT
Exhibit 4.14


 



 





eFleets Corporation


7660 Pebble Drive


Fort Worth, Texas 76118


 


August 22, 2014


 


New September, LLC


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


Reference is made to
the following Promissory Note issued by Good Energy Conservation, Inc. (the “Company”) to New September, LLC (“Holder”):


 


	Date of Promissory Note	Original Principal Amount of Promissory Note
	 	 
	August 15, 2011	$250,000


 


For good and valuable consideration the
receipt of which is hereby received, the Company and the Holder hereby agree that the maturity date of the August 15, 2012 Note
shall be extended from August 15, 2014 to August 15, 2015 and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Note all interest
and principal due on the Note shall be deferred and payable on the new respective maturity date of the Note. In consideration for
the extension granted by the holder, the Company will issue to the holder warrants to purchase 9,951 shares of Common Stock with
an exercise price of $1.89 per share and an expiration date of August 15, 2019 and agreed to extend the expiration on the previously
awarded warrants to August 15, 2019. It is agreed this agreement is effective August 15, 2014.


 


Except as set forth
herein, all other terms set forth in the Notes shall remain unchanged. This extension agreement shall be governed by the laws of
the State of Texas, excluding its conflict of laws rules. The exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the any legal action instituted
by any party to this extension shall be the Circuit Court of Tarrant County, Texas.


 





	 	Very truly yours,	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	GOOD EARTH ENERGY CONSERVATION, INC. 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By: 	 	 
	 	 	James R. Emmons	 
	 	 	President	 


 








	Agreed and Accepted	 
	 	 	 
	New September LLC	 
	 	 	 
	By: 	 	 
	 	Name:	 
	 	Title:
# C_2010158EN.01000701.xml

| 18.6.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.6.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/7

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

17 June 2010

2010/C 158/06

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2363 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 112,89 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4387 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83490 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5740 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,3778 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8705 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,731 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 279,21 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7076 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0756 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2355 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9308 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4281 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,2668 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,6299 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7627 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7205 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 499,72 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,3646 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,4428 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2050 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 281,05 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0235 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,102 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 38,2140 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,062 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2002 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 15,5187 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 57,2470 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2363

JPY

Japanese yen

112,89

DKK

Danish krone

7,4387

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83490

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5740

CHF

Swiss franc

1,3778

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8705

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,731

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

279,21

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7076

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0756

RON

Romanian leu

4,2355

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9308

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4281

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,2668

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,6299

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7627

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7205

KRW

South Korean won

1 499,72

ZAR

South African rand

9,3646

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,4428

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2050

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 281,05

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0235

PHP

Philippine peso

57,102

RUB

Russian rouble

38,2140

THB

Thai baht

40,062

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2002

MXN

Mexican peso

15,5187

INR

Indian rupee

57,2470

---

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

1

Source

---
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

LAWRENCE JAMES TAYLOR,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-00214-RH-GRJ

PAGE AUGUSTINE,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s motion to supplement his pending

28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. (Doc. 33). Upon due consideration, the motion is

GRANTED to the extent that the Court construes the pleading as a supplemental

memorandum in support of the petition.

DONE AND ORDERED this 25 day of July 2012. 

th

s/ Gary R. Jones

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:10-cv-00214-RH-GRJ Document 34 Filed 07/25/12 Page 1 of 1