alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.1

        AGGREGATE TOTALS FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 2003 TO DECEMBER 31, 2003



PRINCIPAL COLLECTIONS INFORMATION IN AUD (AND USD WHERE INDICATED) AGGREGATED
 TO THE DATE OF THE LAST PAYMENT

Principal amount of each class of USD notes as at the first day after the
payment date occurring during the collection period.
Class A2: USD 693,547,781
Class B1: USD14,333,321

Aggregate coupon interest paid to noteholders of each class of notes
Class A2: USD5,418,851
Class B1: USD155,835

Aggregate of Principal payments made in respect to each class of notes:
Class A2: USD 77,568,883
Class B1: USD 1,603,090

Aggregate Mortgage Principal Repayments received for the period:
Scheduled       AUD 3,996,966
Unscheduled     AUD 191,899,024

Aggregate of all redraws on housing loans:
AUD 51,367,399

Aggregate of outstanding balance of housing loans at the end of the period:
AUD 1,216,994,587

Aggregate Income of the trust for the period:        AUD 44,912,819
Aggregate Expenses of the trust for the period:      AUD 37,934,198

Interest rates for the period:

Class A2 Notes (average):  1.4250%
Class B1 Notes (average):  2.0050%

Delinquency and loss statistics with respect to the housing loans:

Loss:                   Nil
Delinquency:            0-29 days        1.54%
                        30 -59 days      0.50%
                        60+ days         0.32%
#### XIU ZHEN WANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-70172.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2007 *.

Filed March 19, 2007.

Douglas G. Ingraham, Esq., Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Virginia Lum, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Xiu Zhen Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of *602the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, *Chebchoub v. INS,*257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), we deny the petition for review.

Wang testified that she was beaten by Chinese police due to her practice of Falun Gong, yet she omitted this event from her asylum application. Whether Wang was beaten by the police goes to the heart of her claim and is a significant omission. *See Li v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004). Therefore, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. *See id.*

Because Wang cannot meet the lower standard of eligibility for asylum, she has failed to show that she is entitled to withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Because Wang’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony that was found not credible, and she points to no other evidence that the IJ should have considered in making the CAT determination, her CAT claim also fails. *See id.*at 1157.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
|   | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                |   |                                                         |   |
|---------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated: May 14, 2010 |   | /s/ Richard Astrom                                      |   |
|                |   | Richard Astrom                                               |   |
|                |   | Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer, Principal Financial |   |
|                |   | Officer and Principal Accounting Officer                |   |
### §32. Acting Director

The Secretary of the Interior may authorize one of the geologists to act as Director of the United States Geological Survey in the absence of that officer.

(July 31, 1894, ch. 174, §1, 28 Stat. 197; Pub. L. 102–154, title I, Nov. 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 1000.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

"United States Geological Survey" substituted in text for "Geological Survey" pursuant to provision of title I of Pub. L. 102–154, set out as a note under section 31 of this title.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out under section 1451 of this title.
Editorial Note on Part 3282
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3282 appear at 78 FR 60199, Oct. 1, 2013.

§ 3282.308 State participation in monitoring of primary inspection agencies. ( a ) An SAA may provide personnel to participate in joint team monitoring of primary inspection agencies as set out in subpart J. If an SAA wishes to do so, it must include in its State plan a list of what personnel would be supplied for the teams, their qualifications, and how many person-years the State would supply. All personnel will be subject to approval by the Secretary or the Secretary's agent. A person-year is 2,080 hours of work.
( b ) If an SAA wishes to monitor the performance of primary inspection agencies acting within the State, it must include in its State plan a description of how extensively, how often, and by whom this will be carried out. This monitoring shall be coordinated by the Secretary, or the Secretary's agent with monitoring carried out by joint monitoring teams, and in no event shall an SAA provide monitoring where the State is also acting as a primary inspection agency.
§ 4.30 Procedure upon discovery of a violation. ( a ) *In general.* When an alleged violation of Section 103 or this subpart B comes to the attention of any person, including an employee, he or she may either: ( 1 ) Contact the HUD Ethics Law Division to provide information about the alleged violation; or
( 2 ) Contact the HUD Office of Inspector General to request an inquiry or investigation into the matter.
( b ) *Ethics Law Division.* When the Ethics Law Division receives information concerning an alleged violation of Section 103, it shall refer the matter to the Inspector General stating the facts of the alleged violation and requesting that the Inspector General make an inquiry or investigation into the matter.
( c ) *Inspector General.* When the Inspector General receives information concerning an alleged violation of Section 103 or this subpart B, he or she shall notify the Ethics Law Division when the Inspector General begins an inquiry or investigation into the matter.
( d ) *Protection of employee complainants.* ( 1 ) No official of the Ethics Law Division, after receipt of information from an employee stating the facts of an alleged violation of this part, shall disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of that employee. The Inspector General, after receipt of information stating the facts of an alleged violation of this part, shall not disclose the identity of the employee who provided the information without the consent of that employee, unless the Inspector General determines that disclosure of the employee's identity is unavoidable during the course of an investigation. However, any employee who knowingly reports a false alleged violation of this part is not so protected and may be subject to disciplinary action.
( 2 ) Any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend or approve a personnel action is prohibited from threatening, taking, failing to take, recommending, or approving any personnel action as reprisal against another employee for providing information to investigating officials.
### §315k. Cooperation with governmental departments; coordination of range administration

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to cooperate with any department of the Government in carrying out the purposes of this subchapter and in the coordination of range administration, particularly where the same stock grazes part time in a grazing district and part time in a national forest or other reservation.

(June 28, 1934, ch. 865, §12, 48 Stat. 1274.)
§ 1000.48 Are Indian or tribal preference requirements applicable to IHBG activities? Grants under this part are subject to Indian preference under section 7(b) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450e(b)) or, if applicable under section 101(k) of NAHASDA, tribal preference in employment and contracting. ( a ) ( 1 ) Section 7(b) provides that any contract, subcontract, grant, or subgrant pursuant to an act authorizing grants to Indian organizations or for the benefit of Indians shall require that, to the greatest extent feasible: ( i ) Preference and opportunities for training and employment shall be given to Indians; and
( ii ) Preference in the award of contracts and subcontracts shall be given to Indian organizations and Indian-owned economic enterprises as defined in section 3 of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452).
( 2 ) The following definitions apply: ( i ) The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act defines “Indian” to mean a person who is a member of an Indian tribe and defines “Indian tribe” to mean any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village or regional or village corporation as defined or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians.
( ii ) In section 3 of the Indian Financing Act of 1974, “economic enterprise” is defined as any Indian-owned commercial, industrial, or business activity established or organized for the purpose of profit, except that Indian ownership must constitute not less than 51 percent of the enterprise. This act defines “Indian organization” to mean the governing body of any Indian tribe or entity established or recognized by such governing body.
( b ) If tribal employment and contract preference laws have not been adopted by the Indian tribe, section 7(b) Indian preference provisions shall apply.
( c ) Exception for de minimis procurements. A recipient shall not be required to apply Indian preference requirements under Section 7(b) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act with respect to any procurement, using a grant provided under NAHASDA, of goods and services with a value less than $5,000.
[77 FR 71523, Dec. 3, 2012]
### §42. Distribution of maps and atlases, etc.

The Director of the United States Geological Survey is authorized and directed, on the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, to dispose of the topographic and geologic maps and atlases of the United States, made and published by the United States Geological Survey, at such prices and under such regulations as may from time to time be fixed by him and approved by the Secretary of the Interior; and a number of copies of each map or atlas, not exceeding five hundred, shall be distributed gratuitously among foreign governments and departments of our own Government to literary and scientific associations, and to such educational institutions or libraries as may be designated by the Director of the Survey and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. On and after June 7, 1924, the distribution of geological publications to libraries designated as special depositaries of such publications shall be discontinued.

(Feb. 18, 1897, No. 13, §1, 29 Stat. 701; June 7, 1924, ch. 303, 43 Stat. 592; Pub. L. 102–154, title I, Nov. 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 1000.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

The first sentence is from Joint Res. Feb. 18, 1897; the second sentence is from act June 7, 1924.

Joint Res. Feb. 18, 1897 superseded a provision contained in act June 11, 1896, ch. 420, 29 Stat. 436, authorizing the sale of topographical maps with text at cost and ten per centum added.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

"United States Geological Survey" substituted in text for "Geological Survey" pursuant to provision of title I of Pub. L. 102–154, set out as a note under section 31 of this title.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out under section 1451 of this title.
Exhibit 31.4**CERTIFICATIONS**I, W. Carl Whitmer, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Amendment to the annual report on Form 10-K of IASIS Healthcare LLC;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:January 28, 2008                                                                      /s/ W. Carl Whitmer   W. Carl Whitmer   Chief Financial Officer
#### Flora Turnbull, as Mother and Natural Guardian of Linda R. Turnbull, an Infant, et al., Appellants, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 53274.)

Appeal from a judgment, entered February 5, 1974, upon a decision of the Court of Claims. On December 13, 1969 at 4:20 p.m., the then 19-year-old claimant, Linda Turnbull, was driving east on Routes 206 and 41 about two miles east of the Hamlet of Coventry when she collided with a concrete bridge parapet. Claimants allege the accident occurred because the curve on the approach to the bridge was improperly banked, there was an inadequate shoulder between the edge of the highway and the parapet, and the curve, bridge and shoulder were not properly marked. The posted speed limit was 50 miles per hour. The Court of Claims found, and expert testimony in the record indicates, that the curve and bridge could be safely negotiated at 60 miles per hour. Furthermore, the photographs showing the approach to the bridge support the court’s conclusion that a reasonably careful driver would have seen the signs marking the bridge and been able to avoid it. The previous accidents at the same site do not compel a contrary conclusion since they both involved intoxicated drivers. Although the narrow space between the road edge and the parapet may have been a hazard, it would have been seen and avoided on a dry road by a prudent driver. The accident was the result of driver negligence or some other cause (such as vehicle malfunction) not attributable to the State (see *Jennings v State of New York,*55 AD2d 745; *Chalone v State of New York,*53 AD2d 961). Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 2205

TANESHIA LAVERNE MIDDLETON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. Bruce H. Hendricks , District Judge. ( 8:15

- cv
- 00299

- BHH )

Submitted : May 31, 2017 Decided: June 23, 2017

Before AGEE, FLOYD, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Taneshia Laverne Middleton, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit

.2 PER CURIAM:
Taneshia Laverne Middleton appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and upholding the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Middleton v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin. , No. 8:15

- cv
- 00299

- BHH (D.S.C. Aug. 19, 2 016 ). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and leg al contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
### §9904. Establishment of block grant program

The Secretary is authorized to establish a community services block grant program and make grants through the program to States to ameliorate the causes of poverty in communities within the States.

(Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, §675, as added Pub. L. 105–285, title II, §201, Oct. 27, 1998, 112 Stat. 2730.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 9904, Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, §675, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 513; Pub. L. 97–115, §17(a)(2), (b), Dec. 29, 1981, 95 Stat. 1609; Pub. L. 98–558, title II, §203(a)–(c), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2885; Pub. L. 99–425, title IV, §§403(a)(1), (b), 404(b), Sept. 30, 1986, 100 Stat. 968, 969; Pub. L. 101–501, title IV, §404(a), (b), Nov. 3, 1990, 104 Stat. 1252; Pub. L. 101–624, title XVII, §1772(h)(6), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3809; Pub. L. 103–94, §6, Oct. 6, 1993, 107 Stat. 1005; Pub. L. 103–252, title II, §202(c)–(g), May 18, 1994, 108 Stat. 652–654, related to applications and requirements for community block grant program, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 105–285.
### §58. Transcripts from records of Louisiana

Any copy of a plat of survey, or transcript from the records of the office of the former surveyor general of Louisiana, duly certified, shall be admitted as evidence in all the courts of the United States and the Territories thereof.

(R.S. §2225.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

The word "former" was inserted in text before "surveyor general" because of the discontinuance of the office of surveyor general in Louisiana.

R.S. §2225 derived from act Mar. 3, 1831, ch. 116, §5, 4 Stat. 493.
---

Exhibit 13.a

906 CERTIFICATION OF 20-F REPORTOFKIMBER RESOURCES INCFOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2010 In connection with the annual report of Kimber Resources Inc. on Form 20-F for the year ended June 30, 2010 (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code: that 1.
     the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and2.
     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Kimber Resources, Inc. This Certification is executed as of September 27, 2010. /s/ Gordon Cummings
Gordon Cummings
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
/s/ Lyn B. Davies
Lyn B. Davies
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


---
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY BENDER,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR

CORP.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C09-1151 JSW (BZ)

INITIAL DISCOVERY ORDER

All discovery in this matter has been referred to United

States Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman. 

In the event a discovery dispute arises, the parties

shall meet in person or, if counsel are outside the Bay Area,

by telephone and make a good faith effort to resolve their

dispute. Exchanging letters or telephone messages about the

dispute is insufficient. The Court will not read subsequent

positioning letters; parties shall instead make a

contemporaneous record of their meeting using a tape recorder

or a court reporter.

 In the event they cannot resolve their dispute, the

parties must participate in a telephone conference with the

Court before filing any discovery motions or other papers. 

Case 3:09-cv-01151-JSW Document 48 Filed 02/09/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

The party seeking discovery shall request a conference in a

letter filed electronically not exceeding two pages (with no

attachments) which briefly explains the nature of the action

and the issues in dispute. Other parties shall reply in

similar fashion within two days of receiving the letter

requesting the conference. The Court will contact the parties

to schedule the conference.

After the conference with the Court, if filing papers is

deemed necessary, they should be filed electronically with the

Clerk’s Office, with one hard copy delivered directly to

Magistrate Judge Zimmerman’s Chambers (Room 15-6688). A

chambers copy of all briefs shall be submitted on a diskette

formatted in WordPerfect or e-mailed to the following address:

bzpo@cand.uscourts.gov

Dated: February 9, 2010

 Bernard Zimmerman

United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\BENDER V. NATL.SEMICONDUCTOR\INITIAL DISC ORDER.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-01151-JSW Document 48 Filed 02/09/10 Page 2 of 2