alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011035EN.01000301.xml

| 4.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

3 February 2011

2011/C 35/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3745 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 112,46 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4557 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84865 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,8800 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2987 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8585 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,088 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 269,75 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7015 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9147 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2630 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,1885 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3582 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3596 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,6990 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7821 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7493 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 518,90 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,8951 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,0511 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4207 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 436,82 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1634 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,383 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,3630 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,431 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2917 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,5427 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 62,6700 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3745

JPY

Japanese yen

112,46

DKK

Danish krone

7,4557

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84865

SEK

Swedish krona

8,8800

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2987

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8585

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,088

HUF

Hungarian forint

269,75

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7015

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9147

RON

Romanian leu

4,2630

TRY

Turkish lira

2,1885

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3582

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3596

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,6990

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7821

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7493

KRW

South Korean won

1 518,90

ZAR

South African rand

9,8951

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,0511

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4207

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 436,82

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1634

PHP

Philippine peso

60,383

RUB

Russian rouble

40,3630

THB

Thai baht

42,431

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2917

MXN

Mexican peso

16,5427

INR

Indian rupee

62,6700

---

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

1

Source

---
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5504 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 4801 West Van Giesen Street in West Richland, Washington, as the ‘‘Sergeant Dietrich Schmieman 

Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5504 EH

1 SECTION 1. SERGEANT DIETRICH SCHMIEMAN POST OF2 FICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 4801 West Van Giesen Street 

5 in West Richland, Washington, shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Sergeant Dietrich Schmieman Post Office 

7 Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

11 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sergeant Dietrich 

12 Schmieman Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 16, 2018. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5504 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostBuilding’’. ‘‘Sergeant Dietrich Schmieman Post Office Street in West Richland, Washington, as the al Service located at 4801 West Van Giesen
# C_2011219EN.01000101.xml

| 23.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 219/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 219/1

---

2011/C 219/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 211, 16.7.2011

OJ C 211, 16.7.2011

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 204, 9.7.2011

OJ C 194, 2.7.2011

OJ C 186, 25.6.2011

OJ C 179, 18.6.2011

OJ C 173, 11.6.2011

OJ C 160, 28.5.2011

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
Exhibit 31.1  Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of HPC POS System, Corp.;  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. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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) Designed such internal controls over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;   (c) 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   (d) 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5. 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 the 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.    Dated:  August 22, 2011  /s/ Melvin W. Coles Melvin W. Coles Title: Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

CLIFFORD SHELTON,

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 4:11cv175-SPM/WCS

WALTER A. MCNEIL

WARDEN TOMLINSON,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court for consideration of the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 7) which recommends that Plaintiff’s

complaint be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff has been afforded an

opportunity to file objections. No objections were filed. Upon consideration, I

have determined that the Report and Recommendation is accurate and should

be adopted. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 7) is

adopted and incorporated by reference into this order; and

2. This case is dismissed without prejudice.

3. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

Case 4:11-cv-00175-SPM-WCS Document 8 Filed 10/11/11 Page 1 of 2
DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of October, 2011.

S/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

2

Case 4:11-cv-00175-SPM-WCS Document 8 Filed 10/11/11 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DANIEL L. HODGES,

Petitioner, 

vs. Case No. 3:10cv359/LAC/CJK

KENNETH S. TUCKER,

Respondent.

________________________________________________________________

O R D E R

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

Recommendation dated October 29, 2012. (Doc. 37). 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 objections filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed

objections thereto, 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. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1), challenging the

conviction and sentence in State of Florida v. Daniel Lee Hodges, Jr. in the Circuit

Court for Santa Rosa County, Florida, Case No. 07-1734 is DENIED, and the clerk

is directed to close the file.
Page 2 of 2

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19 day of November, 2012.

th

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 3:10cv359LAC/CJK
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 9, 2007)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 1133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-67]



[[Page 1131]]

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

Part IV





The President





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



Memorandum of January 5, 2007--Assignment of Functions Regarding the 
Citizens Health Care Working Group


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 1133]]

                Memorandum of January 5, 2007

                
Assignment of Functions Regarding the Citizens 
                Health Care Working Group

                Memorandum for the Secretary of Health and Human 
                Services

                By virtue of authority vested in me as President by the 
                Constitution and laws of the United States, including 
                section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, the 
                functions of the President under section 1014(o)(1) of 
                the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and 
                Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173) are 
                assigned to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

                You are authorized and directed to publish this 
                memorandum in the Federal Register.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, January 5, 2007.

[FR Doc. 07-67
Filed 1-8-07; 11:11 am]
Billing code 4110-60-M
Exhibit 14.3
 
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 The Board of Directors Emperor Mines Limited:
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in Amendment No.4 to the Registration Statement, No.333-102800, of DRDGOLD Limited on Form F-3 and Registration Statement, No.333-121386, of DRDGOLD Limited on Form F-4 of our report dated December 13, 2005, with respect to the consolidated statements of financial position of Emperor Mines Limited and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of financial performance and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended June 30, 2005, which report appears in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of DRDGOLD Limited for the year ended June 30, 2005.
    Sydney, Australia December 13, 2005
ex-10.20

 

 

 

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
 

 This Acknowledgement is made as of July 7, 2014 and is
 

 Between:
 

 SIX CAPITAL LTD., a Hong Kong company
 

 (the "Purchaser")
 

 And:
 

 PREMIER FINANCIAL AND MARKETING CO. LTD., a Hong Kong company
 

 (the " Seller")
 

 And:
 

 BIOSHAFT WATER TECHNOLOGY, INC., a US company
 

 (the "Borrower")
 

 

 On July 7, 2014, the Purchaser purchased a loan receivable balance from the Seller.
 

 All parties subject to this agreement wish to acknowledge the following terms of the purchase of a loan receivable from the Seller by the Purchaser:
 

 1)
 The Borrower's debt owing to the Seller is now deemed paid in full ;
 

 2)
 The Borrower is no longer subject to a conversion of debt whereby they must issue 20,000,000 shares in exchange for the Principal owing on the debt;
 

 3)
 The Purchaser and Seller acknowledge that full consideration has been paid between the parties in order for the Purchaser to acquire the debt from the Seller.
 

 In witness whereof the patties hereto have executed this Loan Agreement as of the day and year first above written.
 

 

 


 
 

 SIX CAPITAL LTD.
 

 For and on behalf of
 Six Capital Ltd.
 By: ORIENT INVESTMENTS LIMITIED
 

 

 /s/         
 Authorized Signatory(ies)
 

 

 

 PREMIER FINANCIAL AND MARKETING CO. LTD.
 

 

 /s/       
 Authorized Signatory(ies)
 

 

 

 BIOSHAFT WATER TECHNOLOGY, INC.
 

 By: /s/      
 Authorized Signatory
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7173 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

STANLEY HOBEREK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-99-13)

Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 7, 2005

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Hoberek, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. McWilliams, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Hoberek, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)

(West 2000 & Supp. 2005) motion, construed by the court as a

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be

taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will

not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Hoberek has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
Filed 3/21/19 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2019 ND 88

Interest of D.M.H., a child

State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee

v.

D.M.H., child, J.D.H., father, J.H.T., 

guardian, L.H.T., guardian, and Lisa 

Larsen, Lay Guardian Ad Litem, Respondents

and

S.L.S., Respondent and Appellant

No. 20180313

Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central

Judicial District, the Honorable Jay D. Knudson, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Per Curiam.

Nancy D. Yon, Assistant State’s Attorney, Grand Forks, N.D., for petitioner

and appellee; submitted on brief.

Rhiannon L. Gorham, Grand Forks, N.D., for respondent and appellant;

submitted on brief.
Interest of D.M.H.

No. 20180313

Per Curiam.

[¶1] S.L.S., the mother of D.M.H., a minor child, appeals from the juvenile court’s

order appointing the child’s paternal grandparents as legal guardians for D.M.H. The

juvenile court did not establish a visitation schedule for S.L.S. Her parental rights

have not been terminated. S.L.S. argues the juvenile court should have included a

visitation schedule in its order rather than delegate visitation decisions to the child’s

guardians. The State agrees with S.L.S. and joins her request for a remand for the

juvenile court to establish a visitation schedule.

[¶2] We summarily reverse under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(b) and remand for further

proceedings. Interest of G.L., 2018 ND 176, ¶ 15, 915 N.W.2d 685 (holding a juvenile

court may not delegate parental visitation to a child’s guardian). We remand for a

determination by the juvenile court whether visitation “is likely to endanger the

child’s physical or emotional health.” Id. at ¶ 14; N.D.C.C. § 14-05-22(2). If the

juvenile court finds that visitation between S.L.S. and D.M.H. is not a danger to the

child, it must order an appropriate visitation schedule.

[¶3] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Jerod E. Tufte

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Donovan J. Foughty, D.J.

[¶4] The Honorable Donovan J. Foughty, D.J., sitting in place of Jensen, J.,

disqualified.

1
#### LEWIS VAN LEUVEN v. AKERS MOTOR LINES, INC., a Corporation.

(Filed 28 March, 1962.)

Appeal and Error § 39—

Where the Justices are equally divided in opinion, one Justice not participating, the order of the Superior Court appealed from will be affirmed, without becoming a precedent.

Sharp, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

PlaiNtipf's appeal from *Patton, J.,*August 14, 1961, “B” Regular Civil Term, Mecklenburg Superior Court.

According to the allegations and evidence, the plaintiff owns a house and lot on Little Rock Road, a State highway in Mecklenburg County. The lot, which is 115 feet in width, is subject to a highway easement extending 30 feet from the center of the highway. The right of way covers the hard surface, the shoulder, and the ditch line of the highway for the width of plaintiff’s lot. The plaintiff installed a pipe or culvert to carry surface drainage along the ditch line and constructed a fill over the pipe for entrance and exit purposes between the house and the highway.

The defendant is a corporation engaged in freight transportation by motor trucks. In connection with its business it has constructed terminal facilities at a cost of $840,000 near the plaintiff’s house. The operation of the terminal requires sewer facilities. The defendant obtained permission from, and approval of, the State Plighway & Public Works Commission and the Public Health Service to lay a small sewer line underground along the shoulders of the highway from the terminal to a disposal plant already in operation. Plaintiff’s lot is in the line. After the defendant began installing the line, the plaintiff instituted this ac-ton for a permanent order restraining the installation through his *611lot. Judge Clarkson issued a temporary order which, upon hearing, was dissolved. After motions and hearing, the plaintiff was allowed to amend his complaint which he did by alleging the line actually had been constructed through his frontage without his authority and over his objection. He demanded a mandatory order requiring the defendant to remove the line. He did not request damages. After hearing, Judge Patton sustained a demurrer to the evidence and dismissed the action. From the order to that effect, the plaintiff appealed.

*Parker Whedon for plaintiff appellant.*

*L. B. Hollowell, Helms, Mulliss, McMillan & Johnston, By Fred B. Helms for defendant appellee.*

Per Curiam.

The Justices participating are equally divided on the question whether the mandatory order should be issued compelling the defendant to remove the sewer line already installed on the plaintiff’s lot. Therefore, the decision of the Superior Court denying the mandatory injunction is affirmed without the decision becoming a precedent. *Sharp, J.,*while Superior Court Judge, heard a preliminary motion in this proceeding, and for that reason does not participate in this decision.

Affirmed.