alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50170

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MOHAMMED YASIN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:18-CR-1550-1

Before STEWART, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mohammed Yasin was convicted of possessing a quantity of marijuana 

with intent to distribute. On appeal, he argues that the district court 

erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence because the stop of his 

vehicle at the Ysleta Border Patrol checkpoint violated the Fourth 

Amendment. He contends that the Fourth Amendment violation occurred 

because the primary purpose of the checkpoint changed from the enforcement 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 30, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-50170 Document: 00515292902 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2020
No. 19-50170

2

of immigration laws to drug interdiction and because Border Patrol agents did 

not have individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. 

“When reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress evidence, this Court 

reviews factual findings for clear error and the ultimate constitutionality of 

law enforcement action de novo.” United States v. Robinson, 741 F.3d 588, 594 

(5th Cir. 2014). Ordinarily, a search or seizure is unreasonable “in the absence 

of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.” City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 

531 U.S. 32, 37 (2000). At a fixed checkpoint, however, which has as its 

primary purpose identifying illegal immigrants, vehicles may be briefly 

detained in furtherance of that purpose, and the occupants questioned, without 

either a warrant or any individualized reasonable suspicion. United States v. 

Jaime, 473 F.3d 178, 181 (5th Cir. 2006). Border Patrol agents may conduct a 

canine sniff to search for drugs or concealed aliens at immigration checkpoints 

so long as the sniff does not lengthen the stop beyond the time necessary to 

verify the immigration status of a vehicle’s passengers. United States v. 

Ventura, 447 F.3d 375, 378 (5th Cir. 2006).

Yasin fails to show that the district court erred in denying his motion to 

suppress evidence discovered after the stop. See Robinson, 741 F.3d at 594. 

The record establishes that the primary purpose of the checkpoint was the 

enforcement of immigration laws. See Jaime, 473 F.3d at 181. The record also 

reflects that Yasin was questioned at the same time that the canine sniff of the 

vehicle was being conducted and, as a result, the canine sniff did not prolong 

the immigration stop. See Ventura, 447 F.3d at 378. The judgment is therefore

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-50170 Document: 00515292902 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/30/2020
Fw: For OMB - Additional revision to Table 5-20 (LML table) 12/16/2011 12:25 PM

From: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov

Cc: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

----- Forwarded by RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US on 12/16/2011 12:25 PM

----- From: Amanda CurryBrown/RTP/USEPA/US To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Bryan Hubbell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jim DeMocker/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Susan Anenberg/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 12/16/2011 12:18 PM Subject: For OMB - Additional revision to Table 5-20 (LML table)

Hi Bob,

We've made a revision to table 5-20 in Chapter 5, reflected in the
attached document. The table has been reworked because we found the previous version potentially confusing. Could you forward this to Cortney? This is the only change to Ch. 5.

Amanda Curry Brown OAQPS/HEID/AEG
919.541.3808 CurryBrown.Amanda@epa.gov

New Table 5-20.docx
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

DAY ELEV

 996.59

 996.42

 996.26

 996.16

 995.88

 995.48

 995.11

 994.76

 994.49

 994.18

 993.84

 993.51

 993.22

 992.77

 992.35

 992.10

 991.77

 991.48

 991.26

 991.08

 990.53

 990.05

 989.68

 989.26

 988.90

 988.59

 988.27

 987.86

 987.56

 987.14

 2,755.0

 2,751.4

 2,747.9

 2,745.8

 2,739.8

 2,731.3

 2,723.5

 2,716.1

 2,710.4

 2,703.8

 2,696.7

 2,689.7

 2,683.6

 2,674.2

 2,665.4

 2,660.2

 2,653.3

 2,647.3

 2,642.7

 2,639.0

 2,627.6

 2,617.7

 2,610.0

 2,601.4

 2,594.0

 2,587.7

 2,581.1

 2,572.8

 2,566.7

 2,558.2

STORAGE

-3.4

-3.6

-3.4

-2.1

-6.0

-8.5

-7.9

-7.4

-5.7

-6.6

-7.2

-6.9

-6.1

-9.4

-8.8

-5.2

-6.9

-6.0

-4.6

-3.7

-11.4

-9.9

-7.6

-8.6

-7.4

-6.3

-6.5

-8.4

-6.1

-8.5

CHANGE

 3,423

 3,559

 3,083

 3,718

 2,896

 2,679

 1,877

 2,955

 3,407

 3,447

 3,014

 3,230

 3,603

 1,934

 2,198

 4,180

 2,739

 3,632

 3,908

 4,006

 1,485

 2,333

 3,371

 3,364

 3,782

 4,045

 4,154

 2,573

 3,382

 2,592

INFLOW

 4,756

 5,158

 4,536

 4,532

 5,698

 6,764

 5,654

 6,541

 6,066

 6,564

 6,441

 6,529

 6,460

 6,504

 6,435

 6,723

 6,008

 6,531

 6,012

 5,783

 6,998

 7,179

 6,998

 7,543

 7,321

 7,042

 7,256

 6,689

 6,263

 6,776

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

 390

 232

 270

 263

 207

 200

 187

 149

 218

 186

 186

 198

 216

 185

 190

 92

 196

 141

 202

 110

 225

 158

 212

 175

 187

 199

 198

 96

 180

 102

C.F.S.

 .62

 .37

 .43

 .42

 .33

 .32

 .30

 .24

 .35

 .30

 .30

 .32

 .35

 .30

 .31

 .15

 .32

 .23

 .33

 .18

 .37

 .26

 .35

 .29

 .31

 .33

 .33

 .16

 .30

 .17

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

SEPTEMBER 2002 SHASTA LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: October 21, 2002

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

RIVER

TOTALS -200.1 94,569 189,760 0 0 5,750 9.34 .00

ACRE-FEET -200,100 187,578 376,389 0 0 11,405

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 376,389

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 0

 376,389

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .00

JULY 1, 2002 .00

 2,758.4

Table 3
### §1930. Repealed. Pub. L. 86–108, ch. II, §205(j), July 24, 1959, 73 Stat. 250

Section, acts Aug. 26, 1954, ch. 937, ch. II, §410, 68 Stat. 846; July 8, 1955, ch. 301, §8(h), 69 Stat. 287; July 18, 1956, ch. 627, §8(h), 70 Stat. 558; Aug. 14, 1957, Pub. L. 85–141, §8(j), 71 Stat. 361; June 30, 1958, Pub. L. 85–477, ch. II, §205(h), ch. V, §501(14), 72 Stat. 267, 271, authorized appropriations for carrying out objectives of Mutual Defense Assistance Control Act of 1951, section 1611 et seq. of this title.
List of largest 25 CO2 Impacts

Annual

Unit Unit Fleet CO2

Heat Rate Heat Rate Heat Rate Emissions

Impact Impact Impact Impact

Unit Issue Btu/kwh % % Tons

Plant A Unit 2 HP Turbine Efficiency Upgrade 113 1.01 0.218 41623

Plant B Unit 2 Condenser Performance 337 3.14 0.199 37994

Plant A Unit 3 HP Turbine Efficiency Upgrade 93 0.85 0.185 35322Plant A Unit 3 ID Fan VFD Upgrade 91 0.81 0.176 33546Plant A Unit 2 ID Fan VFD Upgrade 93 0.82 0.176 33546Plant A Unit 1 HP Turbine Efficiency Upgrade 78 0.68 0.153 29212

Plant C Unit 5 Condenser Performance 106 1.02 0.140 26710

Plant C Unit 5 HP Turbine Efficiency 95 0.92 0.137 26158

Plant C Unit 5 Reduce Boiler Gas Path Air In-leakage 98 0.95 0.130 24798

Plant A Unit 3 Boiler RH Spray Flow 53 0.48 0.105 20087Plant A Unit 3 AH Exit Gas Temperature 48 0.44 0.095 18192Plant A Unit 2 AH Exit Gas Temperature 48 0.43 0.092 17659Plant A Unit 3 Reduce Boiler Gas Path Air In-leakage 42 0.38 0.086 16345

Plant C Unit 5 IP Turbine Efficiency 63 0.61 0.083 15884

Plant A Unit 1 Air Heater Exit Gas Temperature 38 0.33 0.075 14405Plant A Unit 1 Reduce Boiler Gas Path Air In-leakage 37 0.33 0.074 14194

Plant B Unit 2 Air Heater Exit Gas Temperature 125 1.16 0.074 14074

Plant A Unit 1 CW Pump VFD Upgrade 34 0.30 0.068 13030

Plant D Unit 8 AH Exit Gas Temperature 172 1.60 0.067 12886

Plant A Unit 2 Reduce Boiler Gas Path Air In-leakage 31 0.28 0.063 12044

Plant C Unit 3 Air Heater Exit Gas Temperature 392 3.35 0.059 11264Plant C Unit 4 Condenser Performance 217 1.85 0.058 11014Plant B Unit 2 Replace or Retube #1 FWH 96 0.89 0.056 10758

Plant A Unit 1 Feedwater Temperature 27 0.24 0.054 10235Plant A Unit 3 Condenser Performance 27 0.25 0.054 10233

Total CO2 Unit Issues Tons 511210Total CO2 Fleet Tons 19093077Total CO2 Fleet Issues % of Fleet Total 2.68

Note 1: Fleet is defined as Coal Units (Plants A, C and D) plus two natural gas fired units (Plant B)Note 2 : Any issue not identified as an upgrade describes CO2 reduction that would result 

in returning unit performance to original design performance.
#### George Chandler, Receiver, *v.*Robert Frost.

*Practice—amendment changing the parties plaintiff.*An action was commenced in the name of “George Chandler,receiver of the Lamar Insurance Company," to recover upon the subscription of the defendant to the capital stock of the company. It was *held*to be error to refuse leave to plaintiff to so amend the record that the cause should stand in the name of “ The Lamar Insurance Company,” instead of that of “ George Chandler, receiver.”

*560Appeal from the Circuit Court of Scott *county;*the Hon. Cyrus Epler, Judge, presiding.

Mr. John G. Henderson, for the appellant.

Mr. H. Case, for the appellee.

Per Curiam :

The only question in this case is, did the court below err in refusing leave to so amend the record that the cause should stand in the name of *“*The Lamar Insurance Company, as plaintiff, instead of that of George Chandler, receiver.” The suit was commenced in the name of *“*George Chandler, receiver of the Lamar Insurance Company,” as plaintiff, and the original declaration was based on the same decree, and was the same in form and substance, it is conceded, as the declaration in *Chandler*v. *Brown,*77 Ill. 333.

The amended count filed by leave of the court after the demurrer to the original declaration was sustained, does not appear to be objectionable, if the Lamar Insurance Company may be substituted for George Chandler as plaintiff therein,— at least no objection in other respects has been urged or is perceived.

That the name of the plaintiff may be changed, under the present practice act, was held in *Teutonia Life Ins. Co.*v. *Mueller et al.*77 Ill. 22, and *Challenor*v. *Niles, Admr.*78 Ill. 78, and it would seem difficult to distinguish, in principle, those cases from this.

We think it" is very plain that the *cause of action*is not different in the amended count, from that attempted to be declared on in the-original declaration. In all, it is the subscription of Frost to the capital stock of the Lamar Insurance Company—the decree of court, in the original declaration, being set out simply to establish a right in Chandler, as receiver, to prosecute for and recover that subscription.

The object, whether the suit is prosecuted by the corporation or by the receiver, is the same—namely, to add the amount due from the defendant to the cash assets of the corporation— *561and it is clear that any defense that might be interposed . against a receiver, lawfully suing, might also be interposed against the corporation, lawfully suing, or *vice versa.*

The amendment sought to be made is authorized by the statute, and it was error to disallow it.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

*Judgment reversed.*
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 22715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9814]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: June 6-7, 2011.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 7 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Legacy Hotel and Meeting Center, 1775 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Ranga Srinivas, PhD, Chief, Extramural Project 
Review Branch, EPRB, NIAAA, National Institutes of Health, 5365 
Fishers Lane, Room 2085, Rockville, MD 20852. (301) 451-2067. 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e794958e898e918695a78a868e8bc9898e8fc9808891"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4437362d2a2d3225360429252d286a2a2d2c6a232b32">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, 
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and 
Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, 
Alcohol Research Center Grants; 93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical 
Research and Research Support Awards, National Institutes of Health, 
HHS)

    Dated: April 14, 2011.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-9814 Filed 4-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 31.3


I, Mark E. Ellis, certify that:


1.    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Linn Energy, LLC; and


2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.


Date:  April 20, 2016


/s/  Mark E. EllisMark E. EllisChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
§ 641.240 Are SCSEP participants eligible for career and training services under title I of WIOA? ( a ) Although SCSEP participants are not automatically eligible for career and training services under title I of WIOA, local boards may deem SCSEP participants, either individually or as a group, as satisfying the requirements for receiving adult career and training services under title I of WIOA.
( b ) SCSEP participants who have been assessed and for whom an IEP has been developed have received a career service under 20 CFR 680.220(a) of the WIOA regulations. In order to enhance skill development related to the IEP, it may be necessary to provide training beyond the community service assignment to enable participants to meet their unsubsidized employment objectives. The SCSEP grantee or sub-recipient, the host agency, the WIOA program, or another One-Stop partner may provide training as appropriate and as negotiated in the MOU. (See § 641.540 for a further discussion of training for SCSEP participants.)
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsThe NASA Air Traffic Management Ontology: Technical DocumentationThis document is intended to serve as comprehensive documentation for the NASA Air Traffic Management (ATM) Ontology. The ATM Ontology is a conceptual model that defines key classes of entities and relationships pertaining to the US National Airspace System (NAS) and the management of air traffic through that system. A wide variety of classes are represented in the ATM Ontology, including classes corresponding to flights, aircraft, manufacturers, airports, airlines, air routes, NAS facilities, air traffic control advisories, weather phenomena, and many others. The Ontology can be useful in the context of a variety of information management tasks relevant to NAS, including information exchange, data query and search, information organization, information integration, and terminology standardization.Document ID20170006095Acquisition SourceAmes Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsKeller, Richard M.*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA United States)*Date AcquiredJuly 6, 2017Publication DateJune 1, 2017Subject CategoryDocumentation And Information ScienceReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2017-219526ARC-E-DAA-TN43770Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Keywordsinformation managementair traffic managementontologiesAvailable DownloadsNameType20170006095.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
### §286e–6. Vote against establishment of Council

The United States Governor of the Fund is directed to vote against the establishment of a Council authorized under Article XII, Section 1 of the Fund Articles of Agreement as amended, if under any circumstances the United States' vote in the Council would be less than its weighted vote in the Fund.

(July 31, 1945, ch. 339, §26, as added Pub. L. 94–564, §1, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2660.)
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00051-CR

Trimyian Barrow a/k/a Trymyian 

Barrow

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 297th District Court

of Tarrant County (1264797D)

March 28, 2013

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
### Part C—Technical Cooperation
§ 422.405 What notice will we send you about administrative wage garnishment? ( a ) *General.* Before we order your employer to collect a debt by deduction from your disposable pay, we will send you written notice of our intention to do so.
( b ) *Contents of the notice.* The notice will contain the following information: ( 1 ) We have determined that payment of the debt is past due;
( 2 ) The nature and amount of the debt;
( 3 ) Information about the amount that your employer could withhold from your disposable pay each payday (the payment schedule);
( 4 ) No sooner than 60 calendar days after the date of the notice, we will order your employer to withhold the debt from your disposable pay unless, within that 60-day period, you pay the full amount of the debt or take either of the actions described in paragraphs (b)(6) or (7) of this section;
( 5 ) You may inspect and copy our records about the debt (*see* § 422.420);
( 6 ) You may request a review of the debt (*see* § 422.425) or the payment schedule stated in the notice (*see* § 422.415); and
( 7 ) You may request to pay the debt by monthly installment payments to us.
( c ) *Mailing address.* We will send the notice to the most current mailing address that we have for you in our records.
( d ) *Electronic record of the notice.* We will keep an electronic record of the notice that shows the date we mailed the notice to you and the amount of your debt.
Exhibit 10.1


 



Fiscal Year 2019 Officer Bonus Plan


The Personnel and Compensation Committee
of the Board of Directors of Electromed, Inc. (the “Company”) has established the Fiscal Year 2019 Officer Bonus Plan
(the “Bonus Plan”) for officers of the Company, including its named executive officers. The Bonus Plan is effective
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019 and provides an opportunity for each participant to earn an annual cash bonus based on
Company revenue growth versus the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018 (subject to achievement of threshold earnings before interest
and taxes (“EBIT”)). The committee has established target payouts of 50.0% and 30.0% of annual base salary for our
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, under the Bonus Plan. The following summarizes the potential
payments under the Bonus Plan:


		·	Company revenue growth below minimum performance will not result in any payouts under the Bonus Plan.



		·	Company revenue growth between minimum and target performance will result in a potential bonus payout starting at 50.0% and
increasing in increments of 25.0% of the participant’s respective target payout for every whole percent of revenue growth
in excess of minimum performance.



		·	Company revenue growth equal to target performance will result in a potential bonus payout equal to 100.0% of the participant’s
respective target payout.



		·	Company revenue growth above target performance will result a potential bonus payout equal to 100.0% of the participant’s
respective target payout, plus additional increments of 8.0% of their target payout for every whole percent of revenue growth in
excess of target performance up to 200%, and additional increments of 5.0% of their target payout for every whole percent of revenue
growth in excess of 200% of target performance.



Notwithstanding the foregoing, Company
revenue growth also will not result in any payout unless EBIT also exceeds an established threshold amount. Company revenue growth
above target performance will only increase the resulting payout as a percent of target if EBIT also exceeds an amount equal to
the threshold EBIT amount plus an additional increment of 30.0% of threshold EBIT for every whole percent of revenue growth in
excess of target performance.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1







                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" in the Joint
Proxy Statement that is made a part of the Registration Statement (Form S-4) and
related Prospectus of Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin Inc. for the registration of
shares of its common stock and to the incorporation by reference therein of our
report dated April 28, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended March 31, 1998, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


                                             
                                            /s/ Ernst & Young LLP





Chicago, Illinois
April 27, 1999