alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of January 8, 2007: 

A Closed Meeting will be held on Thursday, January 11, 2007 at 2 p.m. 

Commissioners, Counsels to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present. 

The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (4), (5), (7), (8), (9)(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a) (3), (4), (5), (7), (8), (9)(ii), and (10) permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting. 

Commissioner Nazareth, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session. 

The subject matters of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 11, 2007 will be:

Formal orders of investigation; 

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; 

Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; 

An adjudicatory matter; 

A regulatory matter regarding a financial institution; 

Amicus consideration; and 

Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. 

For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: 

The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400. 

Dated: January 4, 2007. 

Nancy M. Morris, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 07-62 Filed 1-5-07; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
# C_2010353EN.01001401.xml

| 28.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 353/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 353/14

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

23 December 2010

2010/C 353/11

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3064 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 108,95 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,453 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,8482 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,963 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2553 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,837 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,305 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 278,43 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7094 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9798 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2888 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,0302 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3049 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3273 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,1629 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7531 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7069 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 510,51 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,8216 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,6785 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,39 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 824,28 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,0675 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,703 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,0035 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,401 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2226 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,1027 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 58,97 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3064

JPY

Japanese yen

108,95

DKK

Danish krone

7,453

GBP

Pound sterling

0,8482

SEK

Swedish krona

8,963

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2553

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,837

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,305

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

278,43

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7094

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9798

RON

Romanian leu

4,2888

TRY

Turkish lira

2,0302

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3049

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3273

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,1629

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7531

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7069

KRW

South Korean won

1 510,51

ZAR

South African rand

8,8216

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,6785

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,39

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 824,28

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,0675

PHP

Philippine peso

57,703

RUB

Russian rouble

40,0035

THB

Thai baht

39,401

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2226

MXN

Mexican peso

16,1027

INR

Indian rupee

58,97

---

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

1

Source

---
# C_2010337EN.01001501.xml

| 14.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/15

---

Special Report No 9/2010 ‘Is EU Structural Measures spending on the supply of water for domestic consumption used to best effect?’

2010/C 337/05

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 9/2010 ‘Is EU Structural Measures spending on the supply of water for domestic consumption used to best effect?’ 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.

---
# C_2010112EN.01000401.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

30 April 2010

2010/C 112/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3315 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 125,81 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4425 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87030 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,6217 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,4341 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8445 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,527 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 266,82 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7074 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9163 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,1300 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9757 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4292 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3379 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,3367 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8254 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,8217 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 475,46 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,7628 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,0878 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2530 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 996,54 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2402 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,188 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 38,8390 |
| THB | Thai baht | 43,081 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2959 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,2460 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 59,0650 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3315

JPY

Japanese yen

125,81

DKK

Danish krone

7,4425

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87030

SEK

Swedish krona

9,6217

CHF

Swiss franc

1,4341

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8445

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,527

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

266,82

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7074

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9163

RON

Romanian leu

4,1300

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9757

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4292

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3379

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,3367

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8254

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,8217

KRW

South Korean won

1 475,46

ZAR

South African rand

9,7628

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,0878

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2530

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 996,54

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2402

PHP

Philippine peso

59,188

RUB

Russian rouble

38,8390

THB

Thai baht

43,081

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2959

MXN

Mexican peso

16,2460

INR

Indian rupee

59,0650

---

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

1

Source

---
#### Robert C. CONEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 78-2649

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 20, 1978.

Robert C. Coney, pro se.

H. M. Ray, U. S. Atty., Alfred E. More-ton, III, Asst. U. S. Atty., Oxford, Miss., for respondent-appellee.

Before GODBOLD, RONEY, and RUBIN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; *see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

BY THE COURT:

The Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is GRANTED. The Mo*348tion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED because briefing and argument on the appeal are unnecessary. *See Lewis v. Bragan,*5 Cir. 1978, 576 F.2d 678. The appellant’s new set of pleadings was, in effect, a second motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. It raised a claim of mental incompetency at the time the guilty plea was entered, a new claim not presented in the original Section 2255 motion. This claim should be considered on the merits, and the case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing on that issue. *Sanders v. United States,*1963, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148.

With respect to the claims for denial of assistance of counsel, failure to hold a sanity hearing, excessiveness of the sentence, and involuntariness of the guilty plea, the decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

The case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.

AFFIRMED IN PART and REMANDED IN PART.
**Exhibit 32.2**

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

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of BPZ Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) forthe year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Edward G. Caminos, as VicePresident — Finance and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to thebest of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| */s/**Edward G. Caminos*                                    | * * | * * |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------|----------|
| Edward G. Caminos                                           |     |     |
| Vice President — Finance and Chief Accounting  Officer |     |     |
|                                                        |     |     |
| March 16, 2007                                              |     |     |
|                                                             |          |          |  |

 

 

----
#### Paul W. SANDERS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Janet RENO, United States Attorney General; et al., Defendants, U.S. Department of Justice; U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service; U.S. Border Patrol, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 99-50285

Summaiy Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 9, 1999.

Tomas Antonio Guajardo, Law Office of T.A. Guajardo, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Gary Layton Anderson, San Antonio, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before POLITZ, SMITH and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

POLITZ, Circuit Judge:

Paul W. Sanders, Jr. appeals the Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b) dismissal of his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Our de novo review discloses no reversible error.

*685After Sanders, a federal employee, was not selected for a lateral transfer, he claimed that he was discriminated against based on his age and in retaliation for protected activity, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. and Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The Department of Justice issued a Final Agency Decision (“FAD”) in favor of Sanders, finding that Ms employer, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, had unlawfully discriminated against him based on his age. Thereafter, the INS offered Sanders the position he desired and commenced the process of re-employment. Before the process could be completed, counsel for Sanders wrote the INS advising that Sanders accepted the position offered and requested re-employment with various benefits. Without awaiting a response from the INS, Sanders filed the instant suit, demanding, in effect, that the INS comply with the FAD. Subsequently, Sanders resumed working in the position offered.

Sanders failed to satisfy the requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(a), which directs that “[i]f [a] complainant believes that [an] agency has failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement or decision, the complainant shall notify the EEO Director, in writing, of the alleged noncomplianee within 30 days of when the complainant knew or should have known of the alleged noncompliance.” We reject Sanders’ contention that his counsel’s letter constitutes substantial compliance. That letter was not addressed to the EEO Director and did not allege noncompliance. Under these circumstances, we lack jurisdiction herein. We also reject as meritless counsel’s contention that Sanders was not required to exhaust remedies 1 or that his constitutional rights have somehow been violated by our enforcement of the exhaustion requirement. Accordingly, the judgment below is AFFIRMED.

1

. We do not hold, contrary to Sanders’ suggestion, that a federal employee must exhaust remedies before bringing an ADEA claim. Rather, we hold that a federal employee seeking enforcement of a FAD must exhaust remedies.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7387
RANDY SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus JOHN J. LAMANNA, Warden of FCI-Edgefield, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-05-1223-9) Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 2, 2006 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Randy Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Randy Smith, a federal prisoner, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), raising a claim under United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Although the district court construed the § 2241 petition as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), Smith clearly intended to file a § 2241 petition. Smith argues on appeal that § 2255 is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of his detention, contending that his Booker claim should be considered in the context of his § 2241 petition. Because Smith does not meet the standard under In re Jones , 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000), we affirm the denial of relief. 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.

AFFIRMED
Order entered September 18, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01303-CV

JOHN WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

DART TRANSIT, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-14-00720-B

ORDER

We DENY appellant’s September 15, 2015 pro se motion for speedy trial. The appeal 

will be submitted in due course.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF A.H., A CHILD §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00101

- CV

Appeal from the

65th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2021DCM2369)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below.

It appearing to this Court that Appellant is indigent for purposes of appeal, this Court makes

no oth er order with respect thereto. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023.

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
Case 1:11-cr-00011-MP-GRJ   Document 131   Filed 03/29/12   Page 1 of 8

Case 1:11-cr-00011-MP-GRJ   Document 131   Filed 03/29/12   Page 2 of 8

Case 1:11-cr-00011-MP-GRJ   Document 131   Filed 03/29/12   Page 3 of 8

Case 1:11-cr-00011-MP-GRJ   Document 131   Filed 03/29/12   Page 4 of 8

Case 1:11-cr-00011-MP-GRJ   Document 131   Filed 03/29/12   Page 5 of 8

Case 1:11-cr-00011-MP-GRJ   Document 131   Filed 03/29/12   Page 6 of 8

Case 1:11-cr-00011-MP-GRJ   Document 131   Filed 03/29/12   Page 7 of 8

Case 1:11-cr-00011-MP-GRJ   Document 131   Filed 03/29/12   Page 8 of 8
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00822-CR

IN RE Kevin P. BONNER

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 15, 2010

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On November 12, 2010, relator Kevin Bonner filed a petition for writ of mandamus, 

complaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his pro se motion to withdraw from plea 

bargain agreement and motion to enter judgment and sentence nunc pro tunc. However, counsel 

has been appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court for 

which he is currently confined. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. 

See Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State, 906 

S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). A trial court has no legal duty to rule on pro se

motions or petitions filed with regard to a criminal proceeding in which the defendant is 

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CR-12380, styled State of Texas v. Kevin P. Bonner, pending in the 

227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Philip Kazen presiding.
04-10-00822-CR

-2-

represented by counsel. See Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at 922. Consequently, the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion by declining to rule on relator’s pro se motions filed in the criminal 

proceeding pending in the trial court. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal Nos. 08-21]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification.  This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 08-21 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

Dated: December 26, 2007.

L.M. Bynum,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 472)          ( print page 473)          ( print page 474)          ( print page 475)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[FR Doc. 07-6263 Filed 1-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

OCTAVIO AMARO

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 14

- 00052

- CR

Appeal from the

346th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20120D04658)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
           (pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
                 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2005 of Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited (the "Company") as filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") on the date
hereof (the "Report") and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Nomfundo Vuyiswa
Lila Qangule, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, that:

      (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: November 2, 2005

                                      /s/ Nomfundo Vuyiswa Lila Qangule
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Nomfundo Vuyiswa Lila Qangule
                                      Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited and will be retained by it and
furnished to the Commission or its staff upon request.