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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          10,326
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             128
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,625
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     15,677
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        189,602
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (2,610)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 230,819
<DEPOSITS>                                     189,879
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             13,549
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,974
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,417
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 230,819
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 18,464
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,061
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   644
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                20,169
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,742
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,854
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           13,315
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      530
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  46
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,053
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,725
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,725
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,805
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .58
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   11.83
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,388
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,083
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       10
<RECOVERIES>                                         7
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,610
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,610
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,847
        

</TABLE>
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications (CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in theevent that publications are no longer available from the original publishingagency site. (Historical purposes)

**Title:** Design and construction of PCC pavements

V.1, V.2, V.3

 
SuDoc:TD 2.30:98-113 (volume 2); TD 2.30:98-127 (volume 3); TD2.30:98-052 (volume 1)
Item Number:0982-G-11 (online)
CGP system Number:001057969
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA ELENA ARAUJO-BULEJE, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-70486 

Agency No. A200-877-702 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 11, 2018**

Portland, Oregon

Before: WARDLAW and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and LEFKOW,*** District 

Judge.

Maria Elena Araujo-Buleje, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Joan H. Lefkow, United States District Judge for the 

Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

FILED

AUG 3 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. As the parties 

are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We dismiss in part and 

deny in part the petition for review.

Even assuming that Araujo-Buleje was credible and that her asylum 

application was timely, we lack jurisdiction to consider Araujo-Buleje’s claim that 

she is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal on account of her 

membership in the particular social group of her family. Araujo-Buleje argues that 

the BIA erred in deeming her family claim abandoned, but fails to cite any place in 

the record where she raised it to the BIA. Because Araujo-Buleje failed to exhaust 

her family claim before the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Arsdi v. 

Holder, 659 F.3d 925, 928-29 (9th Cir. 2011) (“We have repeatedly held that 

failure to raise an issue in an appeal to the BIA constitutes a failure to exhaust 

remedies with respect to that question and deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear 

the matter.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

In addition, Araujo-Buleje has waived any challenge to the BIA’s rejection 

of her claim that she is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal on account 

of her membership in the particular social group of pharmacists who refuse to 

participate in drug trafficking by failing to argue the issue in her brief to this court. 

See Diego v. Sessions, 857 F.3d 1005, 1015 n.4 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that issues

not “specifically and distinctly argued and raised” in an opening brief are waived
3 

(citation omitted)). Likewise, Araujo-Buleje has waived any challenge to the 

BIA’s determination that she abandoned her claim under the Convention Against 

Torture. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN 

PART.
Exhibit 15.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-111310) pertaining to the Employees’ Stock Option Plans of Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. of our report dated June 25, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Elron Electronic Industries Ltd included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007.

Tel-Aviv, Israel


KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERERJune 25, 2008


A Member of Ernst & Young Global


---
> CERTIFICATIONS

I, Leanora Homrig, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer of Cusac Gold Mines Ltd., certify that;

(1)       I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Cusac Gold Mines Ltd.;

(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;

(3)       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4)       The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)       Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)       Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, 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 financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

(5)       The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)       All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b)       Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.  

Date:    June 28, 2006

/s/ Leanora Homrig

                                                  

By:     Leanora Homrig
### **CHAPTER 52—FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION**
#### Ella Coban, Respondent, v. Wil-Sade Realties, Inc., Appellant.

Order, entered on January 8, 1963, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute “unless plaintiff serves and files a note of issue for the March, 1963 term”, unanimously modified -on the law and on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to grant the motion to dismiss the complaint unconditionally, -and las so modified affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant; and judgment directed to be entered in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint, with costs. Plaintiff did not demonstrate a reasonably substantial excuse for the 32 months of delay in the prosecution of this action. (See *Boon*V. *Blumenihal,*18 A D 2d 905, 906; *Hutnik*v. *Brodsky,*17 A D 2d 808; *Cassieri*v. *Houston Motors Auto Leasing,*16 A D 2d 632; *Krell*v. *Pelham Syndicate,*14 A D 2d 845.) Failure of defendant to show that it was prejudiced by the delay is immaterial. (See *Garcia*v. *Sentry-H orden Oil é Heating Go.,*18 A D 2d 789.) Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
Exhibit 21.1

PMC-SIERRA, INC.

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|1. | PMC-Sierra Ltd., organized under the laws of British Columbia, doing business only under its official name, PMC-Sierra.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | PMC-Sierra US, Inc., organized under the laws of Delaware, doing business only under its official name, PMC-Sierra, or under PMC-Sierra, Inc.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | Palau Acquisition Corporation, organized under the laws of Delaware, doing business only under its official name, PMC-Sierra, or under PMC-Sierra, Inc.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|4. | Passave, Inc., organized under the laws of Delaware, doing business only under its official name, PMC-Sierra, or under PMC-Sierra, Inc.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|5. | PMC-Sierra International, Inc., organized under the laws of Barbados, doing business only under its official name, PMC-Sierra.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 6 

Identify any Previous Treatment As A State 

Determinations (TAS) 

See Attachment C of TAS: 

+ GRIC CAA 105 TAS
# C_2008197EN.01003703.xml

| 2.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 197/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/37

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 June 2008 — Kröppelin v Council

(Case F-2/05)

(2008/C 197/73)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.

---
Exhibit 13.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Elron Electronic Industries, Ltd. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Ari Bronshtein, -Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(i)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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




Date: March 10, 2011

/s/ Ari BronshteinAri BronshteinChief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Antonio Lekic, Also Known as Anthony Lechich, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered December 4, 1959 after a trial by jury, convicting Mm of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to serve a term of 40 years to life. Judgment affirmed. Defendant contends: (1) that he was deMed a fair trial because of prejudicial remarks by the Trial Judge and because of prejudicial conduct by the Assistant District Attorney during the trial; (2) that the trial court erred in ruling on questions of law; (3) that two preliminary motions were erroneously decided; and (4) that the sentence was excessive. Defendant was indicted and tried for murder in the first degree for the shotgun slaying of his uncle. He admitted the killing but pleaded insanity as a defense. Two attorneys were assigned to defend Mm, two phyehiatrists were retained for him, and an interpreter was provided for him at the trial — all at the expense of the People of the State of New York. In our opinion, the record does not support defendant’s claim that he did not receive a fair trial. The court consistently instructed the jury to disregard the incidental derogatory remarks of counsel, and admonished both prosecution and defense on numerous occasions. The instructions do not appear to us inadequate, nor do the admonitions appear to have been less deserved by defense counsel than by the prosecutor. We find that the trial court by its course of conduct throughout the trial demonstrated its patience, its fairness to both sides, and a fine decorum, especially in view of the provocative conduct at times of both counsel and prosecutor. We also believe that the court’s rulings, including the refusals to grant a mistrial and the disposition of the pretrial motions, were proper. However, even if it be assumed that some error was committed at this long trial, such error did not affect any substantial right of the defendant and may be disregarded (Code Grim. Pro., § 542). We do not consider the sentence to be excessive in view of the circumstances surrounding the brutal slaying of the victim — one who was the defendant’s principal benefactor. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                     
<ARTICLE>                                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                              1,000
                           
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       71
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                            15,330
<ALLOWANCES>                                749
<INVENTORY>                              19,970
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         36,855
<PP&E>                                    4,806
<DEPRECIATION>                           11,199
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           47,357
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    29,957
<BONDS>                                       0
<COMMON>                                  2,346
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                               22,882
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             47,357
<SALES>                                  22,440
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         22,440
<CGS>                                    16,976
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            16,976
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          4,096
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          281
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           1,265
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       1,265 
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                              1,265 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              0.20 
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.19   

        


</TABLE>
### §10210. Reporting requirement

Not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this chapter, the Secretary shall prepare and transmit to Congress a report on the operation of this chapter. The report shall include—

(1) an assessment of the effectiveness of this chapter with respect to efforts of the Secretary to recruit and retain well-qualified personnel; and

(2) recommendations for any legislation or administrative action which the Secretary considers appropriate.

(Added Pub. L. 111–282, §2(a), Oct. 15, 2010, 124 Stat. 3038.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The date of the enactment of this chapter, referred to in text, is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 111–282, which was approved Oct. 15, 2010.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective on first day of first pay period which begins after Oct. 15, 2010, see section 5 of Pub. L. 111–282, set out as an Effective Date of 2010 Amendment note under section 5102 of this title.
Documentation of Phone Calls to Tribes Affected By California Reclassifications for 8-Hour Ozone 

Colleen McKaughan, Associate Director, Air Division, called Steven Estrada of the Santa Rosa Band of 

Cahuilla Mission Indians and Marshall Cheung of the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Luiseño Mission Indians 

on Tuesday, Dec. 1, 2009. Colleen communicated to both tribes that we had inadvertently omitted 

them from the list of tribes who would be impacted by the reclassification of the Coachella Valley NAA 

from Serious to Severe-15. Region 9 had been communicating with both tribes regarding the 

reclassification action for their tribal lands located in other nonattainment areas, but did not realize that 

both tribes had tribal lands in Coachella Valley as well. 

Marshall Cheung of Twenty-Nine Palms requested a copy of EPA's July 31, 2008, letter in which we 

invited consultation with tribes on the reclassifications, as he did not remember receiving it. Colleen 

committed to emailing Marshall a copy of the letter. 

(Note: Per the paragraph above, Rory Mays emailed the copy of the letter to Marshall Cheung on 

Tuesday, Dec. 1, 2009.)
Exhibit 32.2

EAGLE EXPLORATION COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted

Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Paul M. Joeckel, the Secretary/Vice President Operations of Eagle Exploration Company, (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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 February 12, 2008



/s/ Paul M. JoeckelName: Paul M. JoeckelTitle: Secretary/Vice President Operations
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-59100, 333-69389, 333-72622, 333-72624 and 333-120485) ofHandleman Company of our report dated June 29, 2007 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Detroit, Michigan 

June 29, 2007