alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011026EN.01001701.xml

| 28.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/17

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

27 January 2011

2011/C 26/08

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3716 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 113,90 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4538 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85955 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,8452 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2940 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9230 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,240 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 272,90 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7055 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8985 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2670 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1660 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3845 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3651 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,6850 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7738 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7550 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 525,37 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,7097 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,0279 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4120 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 391,33 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1847 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,499 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,6428 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,266 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2892 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,4574 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 62,5530 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3716

JPY

Japanese yen

113,90

DKK

Danish krone

7,4538

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85955

SEK

Swedish krona

8,8452

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2940

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9230

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,240

HUF

Hungarian forint

272,90

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7055

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8985

RON

Romanian leu

4,2670

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1660

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3845

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3651

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,6850

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7738

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7550

KRW

South Korean won

1 525,37

ZAR

South African rand

9,7097

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,0279

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4120

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 391,33

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1847

PHP

Philippine peso

60,499

RUB

Russian rouble

40,6428

THB

Thai baht

42,266

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2892

MXN

Mexican peso

16,4574

INR

Indian rupee

62,5530

---

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

1

Source

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DAVID M. CAVINESS, SR.,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:11cv97/LAC/EMT

STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 March 18, 2011, this court

entered an order giving Plaintiff thirty (30) days in which to file an amended complaint (Doc. 7). 

Plaintiff was subsequently granted an extension to May 20, 2011 (Doc. 10). Plaintiff failed to file

an amended complaint within the allotted time; therefore, on May 31, 2011, 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. 13). The time for compliance with

the show cause order has now elapsed, with no response from Plaintiff. 

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 28 day of June 2011. th

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-00097-LC-EMT Document 15 Filed 06/28/11 Page 1 of 2
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: 3:11cv97/LAC/EMT

Case 3:11-cv-00097-LC-EMT Document 15 Filed 06/28/11 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit
      31.2**





**RULE
      13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS**





I, **Zhong
      Ya Li** , certify
      that:





1.  I
      have
      reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of GFR Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
      “Company”).





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 statement 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 Company as of, and for,
      the periods presented in this report;





4.  The
      Company’s other certifying officer(s) and I am responsible for establishing and
      maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
      Rules
      13a-15d-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company 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 Company, including its consolidates 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 Company’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 Company’s internal control over financial
      reporting that occurred during the Company’s fourth fiscal quarter that has
      materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s
      internal control over financial reporting; and





5.  The
      Company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
      recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s
      auditors and the audit committee of Company’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 Company’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 Company’s
      internal control over financial reporting.





Date:
      April 15, 2008




By:/s/Zhong
                  Ya Li**Zhong Ya Li**
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

GILBERTO T. ROLON, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10cv243-MP-GRJ

P. BUHLER, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and

Recommendation dated December 8, 2011. (Doc. 30). The parties have been furnished

a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de

novo determination of any timely filed objections. 

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. 

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows: 

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order. 

2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (doc. 26) is GRANTED and this case is

DISMISSED for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of January, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00243-MP-GRJ Document 31 Filed 01/17/12 Page 1 of 1
# C_2010357EN.01001601.xml

| 30.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/16

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6023 — Schweizerische Post/Österreichische Post/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 357/04

On 30 November 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M6023. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M6023. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-20878

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARMANDO MACIN-HERRERA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-359-ALL

Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Armando Macin-Herrera, federal prisoner # 88375-079,

appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to recall his

sentence. He argues that after he was convicted and sentenced, we

held that burglary of a building and unauthorized use of a motor

vehicle were not aggravated felonies under the amended version of

U.S.S.G. § 2L1. 2. See United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez

, 323

F.3d 317, 319 (5th Cir. 2003). He argues that under the amended United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D

April 9, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk2

version of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, his sentence, which was enhanced under

the prior version of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 bas ed on his prior convictions for burglary of a motor ve hicle and auto theft, should be

vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

The district court did not have authority to reduce

Macin-Herrera’s s entence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255, or Rule 35 of the Federal R ules of Criminal Procedure.

Because the amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 was not listed in

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(c), the amendment cannot be given retroactive

effect in the context of a 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2) motion. S ee

United States v. Drath

, 89 F.3d 216, 218 (5th Cir. 1996). Even if

the motion were liberally construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion,

the district court would not have had authority to consider or

grant it because it was not filed within the applicable one-year

statute of limitations. S ee United States v. Thomas

, 203 F.3d 350,

354-55 (5th Cir. 2000). Rule 35 provides for the correction of a

sent ence on remand, the reduction of a sentence for substantial

assistance upon the Government’s motion, and for the correction of

a sentence by the sentencing court within seven days after

imposition of the sentence. F E D

. R. C RIM

. P. 35. Therefore, Rule 35

was not applicable to Macin-Her rera’s motion. Macin-Herrera’s

motion was an unauthorized motion which the district court was

without jurisdiction to entertain. S ee United States v. Early

, 273

F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the district court’s

denial of Macin-Herrera’s motion is AFFIRMED

.
N OTE : This o rder is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

CURTIS BULLICK, Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AI R FORCE, Respondent.

______________________

2013

- 3121

______________________

Petition for review of an arbitrator's decision in No.

121103

- 00362

- 3 by Robert H. Brunner.

______________________ O R D E R

The petitioner having failed to respond to this court's October 30, 2013 order,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition is dismissed. Each side shall bear its

own costs. Case: 13-3121 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 11/22/2013BULLICK v. AIR FORCE 2

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court

s8

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: November 22, 2013 Case: 13-3121 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 11/22/2013
EXHIBIT 32.1



EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with this Quarterly Report of Independent Film Development Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),  Jeff Ritchie, the Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, certifies, 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:



1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.   The information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date: | July 24, 2008 | 
|----- | ------------- | 



|                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Jeff Ritchie                                                  
|Jeff Ritchie                                                      
|Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Director
# C_2011142EN.01002901.xml

| 13.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/29

---

Cancellation of the EU-US Atlantis Call for Proposals EACEA/36/10

2011/C 142/03

The EU-US Atlantis Call for Proposals EACEA/36/10 published on 5 January 2011 (1) and later amended by a corrigendum published on 7 April 2011 (2) has been cancelled.

1

2

---

(1)  OJ C 2, 5.1.2011, p. 2.

1

(2)  OJ C 108, 7.4.2011, p. 26.

2

---
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ANTHONY MARKIECE JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 3:11cv105/MCR/EMT

WALTER A. McNEIL, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated March 9, 2012 (doc. 27). Plaintiff has been furnished a copy of the

ReportandRecommendationandhas been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant

to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of

any timely filed objections.

Havingconsidered theReport andRecommendation, and anyobjections thereto timely

filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply

with an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of April, 2012.

s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-00105-MCR-EMT Document 28 Filed 04/09/12 Page 1 of 1
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 21, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00718

- CV

IN RE Thomas THIBEAUX

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bry an Marion, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

On November 1, 2016 R elator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court is of the

opinion that Relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of

mandamus is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a). The court’s opinion will issue at a later

date.

It is so ORDERED on December 21, 2016

.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 21st day of December, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle , Clerk

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2014

- CI

- 17823, styled In the Interest of A.T., E.T. and B.T., Children

, pending in the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Tex as, the Honorable Renée Yanta presiding.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CFO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Kevin T. Michaels, Chief Financial Officer of Powerwave
Technologies, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | the Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 30, 2007 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 780(d)); and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  |                             
|----- |  | -------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------------
|      |  |                |  | 
|Date: |  | April 23, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ KEVIN T. MICHAELS       
|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  | Kevin T. Michaels           
|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer     
|      |  |                |  |  |  |     |  | Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 24, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________

NO. 14-12-00314-CV

____________

MAREESHA DAVIS, Appellant

V.

EQUABLE ASCENT FINANCIAL, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 993236

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an attempted appeal from the denial of a no-evidence motion for summary 

judgment. Absent certain exceptions that do not apply here, an appellate court does not 

have jurisdiction to hear denied motions for summary judgment. Ackermann v. 

Vordenbaum, 403 S.W.2d 362, 365 (Tex.1966); William Marsh Rice Univ. v. Coleman, 

291 S.W.3d 43, 45 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, pet. dism’d); see also Tex. Civ. 

Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014. 
2

On April 27, 2012, the court notified the parties of its intent to dismiss the appeal for 

lack of appellate jurisdiction unless any party filed a response within ten days of the date of 

the letter demonstrating jurisdiction. Appellant’s response does not demonstrate that the 

court has jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Jamison, and McCally.
# C_2011005EN.01000901.xml

| 8.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/9

---

Special Report No 10/2010 ‘Specific measures for agriculture in favour of the outermost regions of the Union and the smaller Aegean islands’

2011/C 5/07

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 10/2010 ‘Specific measures for agriculture in favour of the outermost regions of the Union and the smaller Aegean islands’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://www.eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Communication and Reports Unit |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Communication and Reports Unit

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134193 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134193 

 COA: 277046 

Wayne CC: 05-011193-01

TYRONE ADAMS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 26, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0830 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 10, 2007 

 Clerk