alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                             511,028
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   511,028
<PP&E>                                              91,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (36,766)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,209,691
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              267,568
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             2,017
<OTHER-SE>                                         135,869
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,209,691
<SALES>                                             15,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   146,189
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  27,770
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (158,959)
<EPS-BASIC>                                              0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Patrick Gorman, Relator, v. Hon. J. Harvey Bell and Others, as Police Commissioners of the City of Yonkers, New York, and as the Board of Police Commissioners of Said City, Respondents.

Reargument ordered and case set down for-Tuesday, February 25, 1908. Present — Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor and Miller, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1718

ZHAO WEN CHEN,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: November 16, 2011 Decided: December 13, 2011

Before KING, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per 

curiam opinion.

Michael Brown, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Tony West, 

Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant 

Director, Paul T. Cygnarowicz, Office of Immigration Litigation, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for 

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Zhao Wen Chen, a native and citizen of China, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (Board) denying his motions to reconsider and reopen. 

We have reviewed the administrative record and Chen’s claims and 

conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying 

Chen’s motion to reopen his asylum claim. See 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.2(a), (c) (2011). We accordingly deny the petition for 

review in part for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: 

Chen (B.I.A. June 2, 2010). We dismiss the petition for review 

in part for lack of jurisdiction with respect to Chen’s 

challenge to the Board’s denial of his motion to reopen and 

reconsider his claim for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2006). Finally, 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.

PETITION DENIED IN PART

AND DISMISSED IN PART
#### § 152.14 Removal of restrictions, Five Civilized Tribes, without application.

Section 2(b) of the Act of August 11, 1955 (69 Stat. 666), authorizes the Secretary to issue an order removing restrictions to an Indian of the Five Civilized Tribes without application therefor. When the Secretary determines an Indian to be competent, he shall notify the Indian in writing of his intent to issue an order removing restrictions 30 days after the date of the notice. This decision may be appealed under the provisions of part 2 of this chapter within such 30 days. All administrative appeals under that part will postpone the issuance of the order. When the decision is not appealed within 30 days after the date of notice, or when any dismissal of an appeal is not appealed within the prescribed time limit, or when the final appeal is dismissed, an order removing restrictions will be issued.
### WR-81,148-02 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 4/27/2015 3:52:01 PM Accepted 4/28/2015 8:54:43 AM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERK
EX-34.4
(logo) Grant Thornton


Audit * Tax * Advisory

Grant Thornton LLP
18400 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 900
Irvine, CA 92612-0525

T 949.553.1600
F 949.553.0168
www.GrantThornton.com


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


Board of Directors and Shareholders
Redwood Residential Acquisition Corporation

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria ("Management's
Report"), that Redwood Residential Acquisition Corporation (the "Company")
complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the servicing of the
Residential Mortgage Loans Platform (the "Platform") as of and for the year
ended December 31, 2012, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-(iv),
1122(d)(2)(i)-(ii), 1122(d)(2)(iv)-(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i)-(iv),
1122(d)(4)(i)-(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the
activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform. The Platform
consists of the asset-backed transactions and securities defined by management
in Schedule I of Management's Report. Management is responsible for the
Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility
is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria for the Platform based on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria for the Platform and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination
included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities constituting
the Platform and evaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities
related to those transactions and securities in compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria for the period covered by this report. Accordingly, our
testing may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed
transaction or security constituting the Platform. Further, our examination was
not designed to detect material noncompliance that may have occurred prior to
the period covered by this report and that may have affected the Company's
servicing activities during the period covered by this report. We believe that
our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination
does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Redwood Residential Acquisition
Corporation complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as
of and for the year ended December 31, 2012 for the Residential Mortgage Loans
Platform is fairly stated, in a11 material respects.

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

Irvine, California
March 11, 2013

Grant Thornton LLP
U.S. member firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17464]

[[Page 41178]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Chapter I

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0197; FRL-8880-7]
RIN 2070-ZA11

Pesticides; Policies Concerning Products Containing Nanoscale 
Materials; Opportunity for Public Comment; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed policy statement; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a proposed policy statement in the Federal Register 
of June 17, 2011, concerning possible approaches for obtaining 
information about what nanoscale materials are present in registered 
pesticide products. This document extends the comment period for 30 
days, from July 18, 2011, to August 17, 2011.

DATES: Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2010-0197, must be received on or before August 17, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES 
in the Federal Register document of Friday, June 17, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jed Costanza, Antimicrobials Division, 
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 
(703) 347-0204; fax number: (703) 308-8005; e-mail address: 
costanza.jed@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document extends the public comment 
period established in the Federal Register of June 17, 2011 (76 FR 
35383) (FRL-8877-9). In that document, EPA sought comment on several 
possible approaches for obtaining information about what nanoscale 
materials are present in registered pesticide products. Four requests 
for a 30-day extension of the comment period were submitted by CropLife 
America, the Biocides Panel of the American Chemical Council, the 
Chemical Producers & Distributors Association, and the International 
Center for Technology Assessment. These requests are in docket EPA-HQ-
OPP-2010-0197, accessible via http://www.regulations.gov. EPA is hereby 
extending the comment period, which was set to end on July 18, 2011, to 
August 17, 2011.
    To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the 
detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES in the June 17, 2011 
Federal Register document. If you have questions, consult the person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Nanotechnology, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: July 6, 2011.
 William R. Diamond,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2011-17464 Filed 7-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### James Gallagher *et al. v.*David R. Brandt *et al.*

1. Bill op *exceptions—its requisites.*Where the error assigned is, that the verdict is against tjie evidence, but the bill of exceptions in the case does not purport to embody all the evidence,'this court will not regard such assignment of error as properly before it.

Appeal to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Erastus S. Williams, Judge, presiding.

The opinion states the case.

Mr. H. M. Chase, for the appellants.

Mr. G. W. Brandt, for the appellees.

*81Mr. Justice Lawrence

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action of trespass, in which the plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment for one hundred dollars, and the defendants appealed. It is urged by appellees’ counsel that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence. That question, however, is not before us, for the bill of exceptions does not purport to embody all the evidence. Eo objection is urged by counsel to the ruling of the court upon the instructions, and we discover no error in regard to them.

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### § 103.1 What does this part do?

This part explains how to obtain and use a BIA loan guaranty or loan insurance agreement under the Program, and who may do so. It also describes how to obtain and use interest subsidy payments under the Program, and who may do so.
§ 6.5 Indexes, digests, and guides. ( a ) The Director of the Federal Register may order the preparation and publication of indexes, digests, and similar guides, based on laws, Presidential documents, regulatory documents, and notice materials published by the Office, which will serve users of the Federal Register. Indexes, digests, and similar guides will be published yearly or at other intervals as necessary to keep them current and useful.
( b ) Each index, digest, and guide is considered to be a special edition of the Federal Register whenever the public need requires special printing or special binding in substantial numbers.
[54 FR 9676, Mar. 7, 1989]
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PROFESSIONAL PAPER 560-G

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PLATE 3
RAUD- FEET METERS
FEET _ METERS GHALAISAN 1 aT HATAIN MAGWA 7-500
1000 | SHAWIYA 1 gumaita 24 zupair 2 BAHRAH 1 BURGAN 10004
Dammam and Rus Fry
ar KIFL 1 4. SAMAWA 1 = Evetretes RATAWI 1 1 19 2
ad Dibdibba i Kuwait
Ummer | Ax _ Ee = es aes Wat =SEA LEVEL+
+} SEA LEVEL Radhuma—{'X <= = Fats Erates = ES ES] =
sTionet Eup Ss eS) [es] eae Dammam
Tayarat pamm B presen oad = ae
1000 4 Shiranish ss Rus’ ess td 1000 4
2) =
= ii ghuma = Bd Umm er L500
F500 Hartha a umm er Ra Radhuma 2000 -+
2000 + Tanuma Ixy Tayarat
snes Sadi So a Shiranish Tayarat
3000 4 Rummaia-Anmadt Sy SNS Bahrah 3000 600
[1000 aacaaaa—Anmade ware Ee Martha ss hs
audau z madi
Nahr Umr ee -=; sz 40004
4000 + ‘Shuvaiba roe Sadi =a Cre mm
Zubair = Taouma——————_ Burgan
te ——————— Khasib
=] Se ra STI 1500
5000 +1500 Siig. Rata i Rumaila EZ Shusiba 5000 7"
Gothia ——__=
Najmah — EF2$ = Anes py uddud Zubair
6000 4 Nahr Umr 6000 +
| renee mre Shi Ib
F 2000
pane Ratawi and
7000 + ue 7000 +
Zubair
= 8000 +
4 —— L
in {| SS oe: “ ae
Yamams 9000 4
9000 =| lai ee z Gotnia
10,000 + 2°°° Guu Najmah ae 10,000 13000
et Sargelu and
ca Muhaiwir
sn000 Sargelu : == Tas (11,000 4
no Ratawi = Mus F 3500
= 12,000
Yamama = = x 1 Adaiyah
Sulaly Butmah 13,000 + 4000
EXPLANATION
x 1 14,0004
TENTATIVE SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHIC CORRELATION \ vit vue
. er
se. + 4500
SOUTHWESTERN IRAQ-KUWAIT Nor OR
“. Dolomite Conglomerate
Ghalaisan
SN Limestone Sandstone
Le. craw! Zubair 24 Cee
20 0 20 40 60 80 100 KILOMETERS. jShewiye re Zubair 19— J Cc
l 1 Ll i | i J i Raudhatain eenralh Chalk
. ahra
20 0 20 40 60 80 100 MILES ~*~. +. KUWAIT
n I n n n f | ~OT Magwa Reefoid limestone Shale
SS OBurgan

232-387 O - 66 {In pocket)
# C_2013060EN.01001001.xml

| 1.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 60/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/10

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

2013/C 60/05

1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

1

2.   Procedure

Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), N-105 8/20, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

2

4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Monosodium glutamate | The People's Republic of China | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 1187/2008 (OJ L 322, 2.12.2008, p. 1) | 3.12.2013 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry (3)

3

Monosodium glutamate

The People's Republic of China

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 1187/2008 (OJ L 322, 2.12.2008, p. 1)

3.12.2013

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

1

(2)  Fax +32 22956505.

2

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.

3

---
#### Catherine Bannister, Appellant, v. Michigan Mutual Life Insurance Company, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except Spring, J. , who dissented.
### §180. Service academy athletic programs: review board

(a) Independent Review Board.—The Secretary of Defense shall appoint a board to review the administration of the athletics programs of the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, and the United States Air Force Academy.

(b) Composition of Board.—The Secretary shall appoint the members of the board from among distinguished administrators of institutions of higher education, members of Congress, members of the Boards of Visitors of the academies, and other experts in collegiate athletics programs. The Superintendents of the three academies shall be members of the board. The Secretary shall designate one member of the board, other than a Superintendent of an academy, as Chairman.

(c) Duties.—The board shall, on an annual basis—

(1) review all aspects of the athletics programs of the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, and the United States Air Force Academy, including—

(A) the policies relating to the administration of such programs;

(B) the appropriateness of the balance between the emphasis placed by each academy on athletics and the emphasis placed by such academy on academic pursuits; and

(C) the extent to which all athletes in all sports are treated equitably under the athletics program of each academy; and

(2) determine ways in which the administration of the athletics programs at the academies can serve as models for the administration of athletics programs at civilian institutions of higher education.

(d) Administrative Provisions.—(1) Each member of the board who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for Executive Schedule Level IV under section 5315 of title 5, for each day (including travel time) during which such member is engaged in the performance of the duties of the board. Members of the board who are officers or employees of the United States shall serve without compensation in addition to that received for their services as officers or employees of the United States.

(2) The members of the board shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the board.

(Added Pub. L. 102–190, div. A, title V, §513(a), Dec. 5, 1991, 105 Stat. 1360; amended Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title X, §1066(a)(2), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 770; Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [[div. A], title X, §1087(a)(1)], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–290.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2000—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 106–398 substituted "section 5315" for "section 5376".

1999—Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 106–65 substituted "Executive Schedule Level IV under section 5376 of title 5" for "grade GS–18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5".
§ 134.4a Assessment and collection of additional construction costs. ( a ) Upon the completion of the construction of an Indian irrigation project, or unit thereof, subsequent to the determination of the partial per acre construction assessment rate which was fixed prior to July 1, 1957, pursuant to § 134.4 the Secretary of the Interior or his authorized representative shall determine such additional construction cost and distribute that cost on a per acre basis against all of the irrigable lands of the project, or unit thereof, and 1 ⁄ 40th of such per acre additional construction cost thus determined shall be assessed and collected annually from the non-Indian landowner of the project, or unit, thereof. The first installment shall be due and payable on November 15 of the year following the completion of such additional construction work or, if such additional construction work on the project, or unit thereof, has been completed prior to July 1, 1957, and the per acre annual rate determined, the first installment of the additional construction cost to be repaid by such non-Indian landowners shall be due and payable on November 15, 1958. This annual per acre rate shall be in addition to, and run concurrently with, the per acre construction rate assessed annually under § 134.4.
( b ) Project lands in Indian ownership are not subject to assessment for their proportionate share of the per acre construction cost of the project, or unit thereof, until after the Indian title to the land has been extinguished. At that time the total annual per acre assessment rate against non-Indian lands of the project, or unit thereof, shall be assessed against the former Indian lands for each and every acre of irrigable land to which water can be delivered through the project works, beginning on November 15 of the year following the extinguishment of the Indian title to the land and on November 15 of each year thereafter over a forty year period. In cases where the Indian title to project land was extinguished prior to July 1, 1957, the assessment rate shall be due and payable on November 15, 1958.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 20, 2015

NO. 03
- 11
- 00669
- CV

Tom Bennett and James B. Bonham Corp oration , Appellant s

v. Larry Wayne Grant, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 33RD DISTRICT COURT OF SAN SABA COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PEMBE RTON AND FIELD REFORMED AND, AS REFORMED, AFFIRMED ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on July 13, 2011. We withdraw the opinion dated August 13, 2014, and the supplemental opinion and judgment dated September 26, 2014, and substitute the following opinion and judgment i n their place. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was error in the trial court’s judgment , but that such error does not require the judgment to be reversed because Grant has filed a remittitur

. Therefore, the C ourt reforms the trial court’s judgment to award Larry Grant $512,109 i n exemplary damages against Tom Bennett and $512,109 in exemplary damages against the James B. Bonham Corporation . The Court affirms the judgment as reformed

. Each party shall bear his own court costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below

.