alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2010035EN.01000301.xml

| 12.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

11 February 2010

2010/C 35/04

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3718 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 123,03 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4452 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87750 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,9598 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,4663 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0975 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,008 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 270,50 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7094 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0285 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,1045 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,0758 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5446 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4502 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,6590 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9633 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9377 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 585,77 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,5509 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,3757 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3163 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 850,95 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7018 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,404 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 41,3730 |
| THB | Thai baht | 45,496 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5342 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,9363 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 63,7900 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3718

JPY

Japanese yen

123,03

DKK

Danish krone

7,4452

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87750

SEK

Swedish krona

9,9598

CHF

Swiss franc

1,4663

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0975

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,008

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

270,50

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7094

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0285

RON

Romanian leu

4,1045

TRY

Turkish lira

2,0758

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5446

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4502

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,6590

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9633

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9377

KRW

South Korean won

1 585,77

ZAR

South African rand

10,5509

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,3757

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3163

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 850,95

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7018

PHP

Philippine peso

63,404

RUB

Russian rouble

41,3730

THB

Thai baht

45,496

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5342

MXN

Mexican peso

17,9363

INR

Indian rupee

63,7900

---

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

1

Source

---
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Reports. Users are requested to notify

the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be made

before the bound volumes go to press.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued November 18, 2004 Decided December 3, 2004

No. 03-5245

YVONNE BROWN,

APPELLANT

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,

APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 02cv00300)

Reuben Collins argued the cause and filed the brief for

appellant.

Alan Burch, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause for

appellees. With him on the brief were Kenneth L. Wainstein, U.S. Attorney, and Michael J. Ryan, Assistant U.S.

Attorney. R. Craig Lawrence and Brian J. Sonfield, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, entered appearances.

 Bills of costs must be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment.

The court looks with disfavor upon motions to file bills of costs out

of time.
2

Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and ROGERS and TATEL,

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed Per Curiam.

Per Curiam: The facts of this case are recounted in Brown

v. United States, 271 F. Supp. 2d 225, 226–28 (D.D.C. 2003),

and need not be repeated here.

On appeal Brown challenges only the district court’s dismissal of Counts I and III of her amended complaint, which

counts state claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.,

and for breach of contract, respectively. Brown alleges the

United States Department of Agriculture breached the terms

of its settlement agreement with her and that its breach

entitles her both to damages in excess of $10,000 and to the

reinstatement of her administrative complaint alleging discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII.

The Government points out, and Brown now agrees with

respect to Count III, this case should have been brought in

the Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Tucker Act

because she advances a contract claim against the United

States in excess of $10,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1). We

agree with the Government as to both counts.

In order for Brown either to pursue remedies for breach of

contract or to seek relief under Title VII, she must first prove

the Department breached the settlement agreement. And

because this contract question arises in a suit against the

United States for more than $10,000 in damages, jurisdiction

to decide whether the Department breached the settlement

agreement lies exclusively in the Court of Federal Claims.

See Shaffer v. Veneman, 325 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2003);

Massie v. United States, 166 F.3d 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Therefore, Counts I and III of Brown’s amended complaint

should have been dismissed without rather than with prejudice. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the district

court for the entry of an appropriate order.

So ordered.
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 23.1
                                  ------------
                                  

                        INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT



The Board of Directors
FIRSTFED AMERICA BANCORP, INC.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on
Form S-8 of FIRSTFED AMERICA BANCORP, INC. relating to First Federal Savings
Bank of America Employees Savings and Profit Sharing Plan and Trust of our
report dated April 30, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
FIRSTFED AMERICA BANCORP, INC. and subsidiaries as of March 31, 1998 and 1997,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders'
equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended March
31, 1998, which report is included in the March 31, 1998 annual report on Form
10-K of FIRSTFED AMERICA BANCORP, INC.



                                                      /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
June 25, 1998
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DERREL THOMAS, JR,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:11-cv-46-MP-GRJ

SECRETARY BUSS, and

JORAM PEREZ,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

ORDER

The Court previously directed Plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $17.89

based on the inmate account information previously provided. (Doc. 5.) The fee was

due by March 4, 2011 and as of this date the fee has not been paid. The Court issued

an Order To Show Cause on March 28, 2011 providing Plaintiff until April 15, 2011 to

show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with an Order

of this Court. (Doc. 6.)

In his response to the show cause order in a document entitled “Motion To Show

Cause” Plaintiff represents that his family has relocated and, due to this relocation,

Plaintiff has been unable to inform them of the time period within which he must pay the

partial filing fee of $17.89. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff also represents that he has not received

any monies from his family and that Plaintiff is currently unable to pay the initial filing

fee due to his financial problems. Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or filed any

documents advising the Court of the status of his attempts to pay the partial initial filing

fee since April. Accordingly, the Court will give Plaintiff until September 23, 2011 to

Case 4:11-cv-00046-MP-GRJ Document 10 Filed 09/08/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

either pay the partial initial filing fee of $17.89 or advise the Court in writing why he is

unable to pay the partial initial filing fee of $17.89, failing which the Court will

recommend that the case be dismissed.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff shall either pay the partial initial filing fee of $17.89 or advise the

Court in writing why he is unable to pay the partial initial filing fee of

$17.89 on or before September 23, 2011.

2. Failure to comply with this Order within the time allotted will result in a

recommendation to the district judge that this cause be dismissed for

failure to comply with an Order of this Court and for failure to prosecute.

DONE AND ORDERED this 8 day of September, 2011. 

th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 4:11-cv-46-MP-GRJ

Case 4:11-cv-00046-MP-GRJ Document 10 Filed 09/08/11 Page 2 of 2
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

579 

CAF 12-01027 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, AND LINDLEY, JJ. 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF JANIE JASCO, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAVID ALVIRA, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

 

COLUCCI & GALLAHER, P.C., BUFFALO (JOHN KEENAN OF COUNSEL), FOR

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Rosalie

Bailey, J.), entered April 23, 2012. The order, among other things,

confirmed the finding of the Support Magistrate that respondent

willfully violated a prior order of support. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order confirming

the finding of the Support Magistrate that he was in contempt of court

based on his willful violation of a prior order of support, and

incarcerating him. Initially, we agree with the father that, although

he has completed serving the sentence of incarceration, the appeal is

not moot because of the “enduring consequences [that] potentially flow

from an order adjudicating a party in civil contempt” (Matter of

Bickwid v Deutsch, 87 NY2d 862, 863; see Matter of Storelli v

Storelli, 101 AD3d 1787, 1788). 

The father’s further contention that Family Court lacked subject

matter jurisdiction is in actuality a contention that the petition was

not legally sufficient because it failed to allege that he willfully

failed to comply with a prior order requiring him to pay child

support. The father failed to preserve that contention for our review

(see generally Matter of Irene C. [Reina M.], 68 AD3d 416, 416; Matter

of Toshea C.J., 62 AD3d 587, 587; Matter of Kimberly Vanessa J., 37

AD3d 185, 185), and in any event it is without merit (see generally

Matter of Child Support Enforcement Unit v John M., 283 AD2d 40, 43). 

The petition included, in capital letters and large bold type on the

front page, the “warning” that a hearing was being requested, the

purpose of which was to punish the father for contempt of court. The

“warning” further advised the father that the sanction of imprisonment

could be imposed. Furthermore, the father admitted that he was in

willful violation of the prior order, and the Support Magistrate, “on

more than one occasion prior to the [admission by the father that he
-2- 579 

CAF 12-01027 

violated the prior order,] confirmed that the petition was for a

willful violation of the prior order[]” (Matter of Santana v Gonzalez,

90 AD3d 1198, 1199).

We reject the further contention of the father that he was not

afforded effective assistance of counsel (see Matter of Rothfuss v

Thomas, 6 AD3d 1145, 1146, lv denied 3 NY3d 603; Matter of Amanda L.,

302 AD2d 1004, 1004). We have considered the father’s remaining

contention and conclude that it is without merit.

Entered: June 7, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

NEW VIEW INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-174/RS-CJK

MCCRORY BUILDING CO. INC.

and TRAVELERS CASUALTY &

SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, 

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

ORDER

Before me are Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. 9), and Defendant 

Travelers’ Response in Opposition (Doc. 25). Defendant McCrory Building has not filed 

a response. 

Plaintiff is a subcontractor that preformed services for Defendant McCrory

Building on a construction project in Panama City Beach. Defendant Travelers provided 

a payment bond on behalf of Defendant McCrory Building for this project (Doc. 1, 

Attach.1, p. 3-4). Plaintiff asserts that the contract between Plaintiff and Defendant 

McCrory Building contained an arbitration provision (Doc. 9, p. 2) and that Defendant 

Travelers should be compelled to arbitrate according to the terms of this contract. 

Defendant Travelers was not a party to this contract. 

“A bond is regarded as a contract and is to be construed according to the fair 

import of the language used.” It is “construed to give true effect and meaning to its terms 

Case 5:11-cv-00174-RS-CJK Document 38 Filed 06/09/11 Page 1 of 2
and conditions and to give effect to the reasonable intention of the parties.” EMMETT C.

SOLE, THE LAW OF PAYMENT BONDS 76 (Kevin Lybeck and H. Shreves ed., ABA) 

(1998). Here, the payment bond (Doc. 25, Attach. 1) does not contain an arbitration 

provision. “The failure to include any reference to arbitration as part of the parties' 

primary agreement is substantial evidence of their intent not to require arbitration of 

claims.” Int'l Underwriters AG & Liberty Re-Insurance Corp., S.A. v. Triple I: Int'l Invs., 

Inc., 533 F.3d 1342, 1345 (11th Cir. 2008). The absence of an arbitration provision is 

dispositive and Defendant Travelers cannot be bound by the terms of a subcontract that it 

was not a party to. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. 9) is DENIED as to Defendant 

Travelers. 

2. The Motion to Compel Arbitration (Doc. 9) is GRANTED as to Defendant 

McCrory Building. They shall complete arbitration not later than November 

30, 2011, and shall file status reports every 45 days.

3. The case is stayed as to the claims against Defendant McCrory Building. 

ORDERED on June 9, 2011.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:11-cv-00174-RS-CJK Document 38 Filed 06/09/11 Page 2 of 2
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1881 

AN ACT 

To provide PreCheck to certain severely injured or disabled 

veterans, and for other purposes. 

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

†S 1881 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans Expedited 

3 TSA Screening Safe Travel Act’’ or the ‘‘VETS Safe 

4 Travel Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF PRECHECK PROGRAM TO CER6 TAIN SEVERELY INJURED OR DISABLED VET7 ERANS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 44927 of title 49, United 

9 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol10 lowing: 

11 ‘‘(g) AVAILABILITY OF PRECHECK PROGRAM TO

12 CERTAIN SEVERELY INJURED OR DISABLED VET13 ERANS.— 

14 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A veteran described in 

15 paragraph (2) is eligible for security screening under 

16 the PreCheck Program under section 44919 at no 

17 cost to the veteran if the veteran is able to meet the 

18 background check and other security requirements 

19 for participation in the program. 

20 ‘‘(2) VETERANS DESCRIBED.—A veteran de21 scribed in this paragraph is a veteran determined by 

22 the Secretary of Veterans Affairs— 

23 ‘‘(A)(i) to have had a loss, or loss of use, 

24 of a limb; 

25 ‘‘(ii) to have become paralyzed or partially 

26 paralyzed; or 
3 

†S 1881 ES

1 ‘‘(iii) to have incurred permanent blind2 ness; and 

3 ‘‘(B) as a result of that loss, paralyzation 

4 or partial paralyzation, or blindness, to require 

5 the use of a wheelchair, prosthetic limb, or 

6 other assistive device to aid with mobility.’’. 

7 (b) COORDINATION ON IMPLEMENTATION.—Not later 

8 than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

9 the Administrator of the Transportation Security Admin10 istration and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall joint11 ly— 

12 (1) develop and implement a process for pro13 viding the Transportation Security Administration 

14 with access to the data needed to validate the eligi15 bility of a veteran for the PreCheck Program under 

16 section 44927(g) of title 49, United States Code, as 

17 added by subsection (a); and 

18 (2) submit to Congress a report on the status 

19 of implementing the process required by paragraph 

20 (1). 

Passed the Senate September 10, 2019. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1881 

AN ACT 

To provide PreCheck to certain severely injured or 

disabled veterans, and for other purposes.
# C_2011146EN.01000101.xml

| 17.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6180 — CIE Management II/PHONES4U Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 146/01

On 18 April 2011, 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 English 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 32011M6180. 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 32011M6180. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
NIOSH Respiratory Protective Device Information

 NIOSH CA 2023-1068

 October 2023

 

Effective Immediately: Voluntary Rescission of 30 Dentec Safety Specialists 

Corp. Approvals
Document Number

NIOSH CA 2023 – 1068

Page 2 of 2

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has honored a request by Dentec 

Safety Specialists Corp. to voluntarily rescind 30 NIOSH respirator approvals issued to Dentec Safety 

Specialists Corp.

As of October 20, 2023, any respirator marked with a NIOSH approval label with the below approval 

numbers are no longer NIOSH approved. The NIOSH Certified Equipment List no longer includes 

these approval numbers:

23C-0264 23C-0266 23C-0268 23C-0270

23C-3306 84A-0905 84A-0907 84A-0909

84A-0911 84A-0944 84A-0946 84A-0948

84A-0950 84A-0952 84A-2011 84A-2012

84A-2568 84A-2569 84A-2570 84A-2571

84A-2572 84A-5282 84A-5283 84A-5284

84A-5285 84A-5286 84A-7843 84A-7845

84A-7847 84A-7849

Due to the voluntary rescission of these NIOSH approvals, respirators bearing these NIOSH approval 

numbers may no longer be used, manufactured, assembled, sold, or distributed.

Please reach out to Dentec Safety Specialists Corp. for additional details related to their decision to 

voluntarily rescind 30 approvals issued to Dentec Safety Specialists Corp. identified in this notice. The 

Certified Equipment List can be used to locate other NIOSH Approved® respirators.

NIOSH Approved® is a certification mark of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) registered in the 

United States and several international jurisdictions

Effective Immediately: Voluntary Rescission of 30 Dentec Safety Specialists Corp. 

Approvals
#### PRESSLEY v. CASUALTY CO.

No. 136 PC.

Case below: 14 N.C. App. 561.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 31 July 1972.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

NEWMONT GHANA GOLD LIMITED
etal.

Plaintiffs,

vs.
CASE NO. 3:11-cv-62-MCR/CJK.

HILLER SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant.

JOINT REPORT OF THE PARTIES ON MEDIATION
Plaintiff, Newmont Ghana Gold Limited, et al., and Defendant Hiller Systems, Inc., by

and through their undersigned counsel, hereby jointly file a report on their mediation efforts in
this matter.

The parties previously filed a Joint and Stipulated Motion for an Extension of the Current
Scheduling Order to Allow Time for the Parties’ to Proceed to Mediation. See DE#89.
Thereafter, the Court granted this Joint Motion and suspended and tolled for a period of ninety
(90) days all deadline dates in the lawsuit in order to allow the parties to proceed to complete
mediation. See DE#91. The Order granting the Joint Motion also directed the parties to submit a
status report at the end of the ninety (90) day period in order to advise the Court of the outcome
of the mediation. Jd.

The parties did engage in discussions about mediation following the entry of the Order
referenced above. The parties were able to agree upon a mediator, Robert S. Glenn, Jr., Esq.
with Ellis Painter Ratterree & Adams LLP. However, the parties were not able to schedule the
mediation before the expiration of the ninety (90) day deadline suspension and tolling period, but

the parties did schedule the mediation for Thursday, September 27, 2012. Accordingly, the


parties will immediately report to the Court the outcome following the conclusion of the
mediation on September 27, 2012. Furthermore, if the mediation is unsuccessful, the parties will
request that the previous deadline dates which were suspended and tolled for the ninety (90) day

period be reset and adjusted to commence to run as of September 28, 2012.

Dated: September 17, 2012
COZEN O’CONNOR

By: /s/Daniel C. Theven
Daniel C. Theveny, Esq.
Gerard Belz, Jr., Esq.
Cozen O’Connor
1900 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: 215-665-2000

Of counsel:

Richard M. Dunn, Esq.

Joshua R. Goodman, Esq.
Wachovia Financial Center
200 South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, FL 33131-2303
Telephone: 305-704-5940
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

BRADY RADCLIFF & BROWN LLP

/s/ Donald C. Radcliff, Esq. (w/permission)
Donald C. Radcliff, Esq.
dradcliff@brblawyers.com

P.O. Box 1668

Mobile, AL 36633

Telephone: 251-405-0071

Facsimile: 251-405-0076

Attorneys for Defendant Hiller Systems, Inc.