alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23.1




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 
 The Board of Directors
 China Shen Zhou Ming & Resources, Inc and Subsidiaries:
 
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-171243) of China Shen Zhou Mining and Resources, Inc., on Form S-3, of our report dated March 25, 2011, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of China Shen Zhou Mining and Resources, Inc., for the year ended December 31, 2010. We also consent to the reference to our firm under the heading “Experts” in the registration statement.
 
 
 
 /s/ Sherb & Co., LLP
 Sherb & Co., LLP
 New York, NY
 March 28, 2011
§ 361.730 What is the State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism? ( a ) Consistent with sec. 121(h)(1)(A)(i)(II) of WIOA, if the Local WDB, chief elected official, and one-stop partners in a local area do not reach consensus agreement on methods of sufficiently funding the costs of infrastructure of one-stop centers for a program year, the State funding mechanism is applicable to the local area for that program year.
( b ) In the State funding mechanism, the Governor, subject to the limitations in paragraph (c) of this section, determines one-stop partner contributions after consultation with the chief elected officials, Local WDBs, and the State WDB. This determination involves: ( 1 ) The application of a budget for one-stop infrastructure costs as described in § 361.735, based on either agreement reached in the local area negotiations or the State WDB formula outlined in § 361.745;
( 2 ) The determination of each local one-stop partner program's proportionate use of the one-stop delivery system and relative benefit received, consistent with the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR part 200, including the Federal cost principles, the partner programs' authorizing laws and regulations, and other applicable legal requirements described in § 361.736; and
( 3 ) The calculation of required statewide program caps on contributions to infrastructure costs from one-stop partner programs in areas operating under the State funding mechanism as described in § 361.738.
( c ) In certain situations, the Governor does not determine the infrastructure cost contributions for some one-stop partner programs under the State funding mechanism. ( 1 ) The Governor will not determine the contribution amounts for infrastructure funds for Native American program grantees described in 20 CFR part 684. The appropriate portion of funds to be provided by Native American program grantees to pay for one-stop infrastructure must be determined as part of the development of the MOU described in § 361.500 and specified in that MOU.
( 2 ) In States in which the policy-making authority is placed in an entity or official that is independent of the authority of the Governor with respect to the funds provided for adult education and literacy activities authorized under title II of WIOA, postsecondary career and technical education activities authorized under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, or VR services authorized under title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (other than sec. 112 or part C), as amended by WIOA title IV, the determination of the amount each of the applicable partners must contribute to assist in paying the infrastructure costs of one-stop centers must be made by the official or chief officer of the entity with such authority, in consultation with the Governor.
( d ) Any duty, ability, choice, responsibility, or other action otherwise related to the determination of infrastructure costs contributions that is assigned to the Governor in §§ 361.730 through 361.745 also applies to this decision-making process performed by the official or chief officer described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 864

 871

 867

 893

 862

 823

 832

 822

 845

 859

 898

 916

 951

 970

 994

 998

 1,011

 1,055

 1,071

 1,087

 1,063

 1,068

 1,068

 1,060

 1,056

 1,064

 1,057

 1,035

 1,030

 1,034

 1,047

 443

 434

 412

 402

 397

 391

 374

 365

 340

 330

 310

 301

 297

 302

 278

 266

 266

 258

 249

 244

 242

 241

 242

 233

 234

 236

 245

 238

 242

 239

 244

 574

 627

 587

 591

 551

 535

 533

 537

 536

 535

 550

 575

 619

 611

 532

 515

 511

 517

 522

 535

 543

 530

 543

 540

 552

 589

 566

 529

 542

 477

 498

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JANUARY 2004 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE:February 4, 2004

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 371

 403

 379

 381

 357

 347

 345

 348

 347

 347

 356

 371

 399

 394

 345

 334

 332

 336

 339

 347

 352

 344

 352

 350

 357

 380

 366

 343

 351

 311

 324

TOTAL 17,002

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT HEADWORKS
#### § 686.5 Enrollment status for students taking regular and correspondence courses.

(a) If, in addition to regular coursework, a student takes correspondence courses from either his or her own institution or another institution having an arrangement for this purpose with the student's institution, the correspondence work may be included in determining the student's enrollment status to the extent permitted under [paragraph (b)](/on/2024-08-29/title-34/section-686.5#p-686.5(b)) of this section.

(b) Except as noted in [paragraph (c)](/on/2024-08-29/title-34/section-686.5#p-686.5(c)) of this section, the correspondence work that may be included in determining a student's enrollment status is that amount of work that—

(1) Applies toward a student's degree or post-baccalaureate program of study or is remedial work taken by the student to help in his or her TEACH Grant-eligible program;

(2) Is completed within the period of time required for regular coursework; and

(3) Does not exceed the amount of a student's regular coursework for the payment period for which enrollment status is being calculated.

(c)

(1) Notwithstanding the limitation in [paragraph (b)(3)](/on/2024-08-29/title-34/section-686.5#p-686.5(b)(3)) of this section, a student who would be a half-time student based solely on his or her correspondence work is considered a half-time student unless the calculation in [paragraph (b)](/on/2024-08-29/title-34/section-686.5#p-686.5(b)) of this section produces an enrollment status greater than half-time.

(2) A student who would be a less-than-half-time student based solely on his or her correspondence work or a combination of correspondence work and regular coursework is considered a less-than-half-time student.

(d) The following chart provides examples of the application of the regulations set forth in this section. It assumes that the institution defines full-time enrollment as 12 credits per term, making half-time enrollment equal to six credits per term.

| Under [§ 686.5](/on/2024-08-29/title-34/section-686.5) | No. of credit hours regular work | No. of credit hours correspondence | Total course load in credit hours to determine enrollment status | Enrollment status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| (b)(3) | 3 | 3 | 6 | Half-time. |
| (b)(3) | 3 | 6 | 6 | Half-time. |
| (b)(3) | 3 | 9 | 6 | Half-time. |
| (b)(3) | 6 | 3 | 9 | Three-quarter-time. |
| (b)(3) | 6 | 6 | 12 | Full-time. |
| (b)(3) and (c) | 2 | 6 | 6 | Half-time. |
| (c) \* | | | | Less-than-half-time. |
| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| \* Any combination of regular and correspondence work that is greater than zero, but less than six hours. | | | | |

(Authority: [20 U.S.C. 1070g](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/20/1070g), *et seq.*)
§ 628.46 How shall a grantee calculate the amount of endowment fund income that it may withdraw and spend? A grantee shall calculate the amount of endowment fund income that it may withdraw and spend at a particular time as follows: ( a ) On each date that the grantee plans a withdrawal of income, it must— ( 1 ) Determine the value of endowment fund income by subtracting the endowment fund corpus from the current total value of the endowment fund on that date; and
( 2 ) Calculate the amount of endowment fund income previously withdrawn from the endowment fund.
( b ) If the value of endowment fund income in the endowment fund exceeds the aggregate amount of previously withdrawn endowment fund income, the grantee may withdraw and spend up to 50 percent of that excess fund income.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1065)
[49 FR 28521, July 21, 1984, as amended at 52 FR 11258, Apr. 8, 1987]
### §3497. Account as evidence of embezzlement

Upon the trial of any indictment against any person for embezzling public money it shall be sufficient evidence, prima facie, for the purpose of showing a balance against such person, to produce a transcript from the books and proceedings of the Government Accountability Office.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 836; Pub. L. 108–271, §8(b), July 7, 2004, 118 Stat. 814.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§179, 355; section 668 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Judicial Code and Judiciary (R.S. §887; Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §§93, 225, 35 Stat. 1105, 1133; June 10, 1921, ch. 18, §304, 42 Stat. 24).

This section is a consolidation of section 179 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with similar provisions of section 355 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., and section 668 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Judicial Code and Judiciary, with changes of phraseology only except that "General Accounting Office" was substituted for "Treasury Department".

Other provisions of said section 355 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., are incorporated in section 1711 of this title.

Words in second sentence of said section 355 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., which preceded the semicolon therein and which read "Any failure to produce or to pay over any such money or property, when required so to do as above provided, shall be taken to be prima facie evidence of such embezzlement" were omitted as surplusage, because such failure to produce or to pay over such money or property constitutes embezzlement. (See sections 653 and 1711 of this title.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2004—Pub. L. 108–271 substituted "Government Accountability Office" for "General Accounting Office".
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0354 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-SW-072-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 182

 208

 345

 475

 766

 704

 551

 498

 425

 446

 310

 292

 304

 290

 334

 291

 300

 275

 311

 322

 362

 394

 414

 334

 346

 298

 314

 270

 307

 310

 364

 166

 170

 172

 176

 184

 191

 191

 196

 197

 196

 190

 185

 180

 178

 176

 177

 183

 175

 179

 180

 179

 182

 183

 184

 182

 183

 183

 187

 187

 188

 190

 172

 180

 194

 219

 266

 280

 280

 278

 275

 286

 228

 206

 200

 200

 203

 199

 214

 205

 208

 221

 230

 232

 231

 220

 226

 219

 213

 208

 203

 207

 215

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MAY 2004 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 8, 2004

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 2,097

 2,141

 2,203

 2,288

 2,419

 2,561

 2,701

 2,833

 2,957

 3,087

 3,154

 3,197

 3,232

 3,264

 3,295

 3,314

 3,334

 3,320

 3,262

 3,203

 3,153

 3,107

 3,063

 2,997

 2,995

 3,008

 3,021

 3,029

 3,029

 3,037

 3,038

 150

 153

 157

 163

 173

 183

 193

 202

 211

 221

 225

 228

 231

 233

 235

 237

 238

 237

 233

 229

 225

 222

 219

 214

 214

 215

 216

 216

 216

 217

 217

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
### SUBCHAPTER I—APPROVAL OF, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO, THE USMCA
§ 303.204 Application's definition of at-risk infants and toddlers and description of services. If the State provides services under this part to at-risk infants and toddlers through the statewide system, the application must include— ( a ) The State's definition of at-risk infants and toddlers with disabilities who are eligible in the State for services under part C of the Act (consistent with §§ 303.5 and 303.21(b)); and
( b ) A description of the early intervention services provided under this part to at-risk infants and toddlers with disabilities who meet the State's definition described in paragraph (a) of this section.
(Approved by Office of Management and Budget under control number 1820-0550) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1437(a)(4))
Order entered March 17, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 15 - 00244 - CV DELORIS PHILLIPS, Appellant

V. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC - 14 - 06421 - B



### O RDER We DENY appellant’s March 3, 2015 motion to supplement the record on appeal.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7657

JOSEPH J. RITCH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GEORGIA PERDUE, R.N.; RAZAAK ENIOLA, Dr.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-00-

880-MJG)

Submitted: March 8, 2001 Decided: March 16, 2001

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph J. Ritch, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Melton Andrews, Michael

Joseph Lentz, KRAMON & GRAHAM, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph J. Ritch appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Ritch v. Perdue, No. CA-00-880-MJG (D. Md. Oct. 31,

2000). 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
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000789945
<NAME> LOTUS PACIFIC, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997             JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          268679                  213082
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                271033                  213082
<PP&E>                                         1593161                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   26623                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 8220791                  385477
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           164109                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          4                       4
<COMMON>                                         40737                   26937
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   8220791                  385477
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                409991                   40098
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   324944                   17934
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  85047                   22164
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (123842)                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     43390                   22164
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-2208

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. David Alan Tafolla lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Western

____________ Submitted: August 29, 2022 Filed: September 1, 2022 [Unpublished]

____________ Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. David Alan Tafolla appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and

1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the

reasonableness of Tafolla’s prison sentence. Having reviewed the record under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review, see Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007), we conclude Tafolla’s prison sentence was not substantively unreasonable. The district court considered the statutory sentencing factors and did not overlook a relevant factor, give significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commit a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Feemster , 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); see also United States v. Vaca , 38 F.4th 718, 724 (8th Cir. 2022). Furthermore, the district court did not err when it declined to vary downward based on Tafolla’s policy disagreement with the relevant United States Sentencing Guidelines for methamphetamine offenses. See United States v. Sharkey , 895 F.3d 1077, 1082 (8th Cir. 2018) (per curiam). Finally, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-