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

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     QUARTERLY  REPORT  ON FORM  10-QSB  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
     REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             214
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             584
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      4,501
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             872
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               874
<LOANS>                                         19,008
<ALLOWANCE>                                        176
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,998
<DEPOSITS>                                      15,509
<SHORT-TERM>                                     2,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                750
<LONG-TERM>                                      4,950
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            24
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,765
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  25,998
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                    653
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  160
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    42
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                   855
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 327
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 457
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              399
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       38
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (28)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    370
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     41
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                          41
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        29
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.38
<LOANS-NON>                                         40
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   139
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        1
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  176
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               176
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0



</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIO JOSUE IRAHETA-LOPEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-73026 

Agency No. A205-513-353 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 9, 2020**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Mario Josue Iraheta-Lopez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 

* 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).

FILED

NOV 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-73026 

the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th 

Cir. 2014). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we 

remand.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Iraheta-Lopez 

failed to establish a protected ground was or would be one central reason for the 

harm he experienced or fears in El Salvador. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 

1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is 

established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on 

account of his membership in such group”); Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 

734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground 

represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Thus, 

Iraheta-Lopez’s asylum claim fails. 

As to withholding of removal, the agency did not have the benefit of 

Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that the “one 

central reason” standard applies to asylum but not withholding of removal). Thus, 

we grant the petition for review and remand Iraheta-Lopez’s withholding of 

removal claim to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this 

disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Iraheta-Lopez failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or 
3 15-73026 

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See 

Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of 

torture). 

Iraheta-Lopez’s removal is stayed pending a decision by the BIA. 

The government must bear the costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; 

REMANDED.
# C_2017065EN.01000401.xml

| 1.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

28 February 2017

(2017/C 65/03)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0597 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 118,83 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4332 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85305 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,5675 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0648 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,8693 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,021 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 308,25 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3148 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5202 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,8391 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3807 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3984 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,2252 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,4707 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4831 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 194,24 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,7910 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,2780 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4365 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 132,16 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7051 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,258 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 61,7550 |
| THB | Thai baht | 36,952 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,2810 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,0800 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,6290 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0597

JPY

Japanese yen

118,83

DKK

Danish krone

7,4332

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85305

SEK

Swedish krona

9,5675

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0648

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,8693

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,021

HUF

Hungarian forint

308,25

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3148

RON

Romanian leu

4,5202

TRY

Turkish lira

3,8391

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3807

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3984

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,2252

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,4707

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4831

KRW

South Korean won

1 194,24

ZAR

South African rand

13,7910

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,2780

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4365

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 132,16

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7051

PHP

Philippine peso

53,258

RUB

Russian rouble

61,7550

THB

Thai baht

36,952

BRL

Brazilian real

3,2810

MXN

Mexican peso

21,0800

INR

Indian rupee

70,6290

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Lubys, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended November 17, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Christopher J. Pappas, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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.



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: December 20, 2010 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Christopher J. Pappas            
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Christopher J. Pappas                
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



33
#### 242.771-1 Scope.

This section implements 10 U.S.C. 3762, Independent research and development costs: allowable costs; 10 U.S.C. 3763, Bid and proposal costs: allowable costs; and 10 U.S.C. 3847, Defense Contract Audit Agency: annual report.

[88 FR 6600, Jan. 31, 2023]
#### 243.204-70-2 Price ceiling.

Unpriced change orders shall include a not-to-exceed price.

[75 FR 48277, Aug. 10, 2010]
128 FY 2017 AGENCY FINANCIAL REPORT | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

The goal of the Grants Oversight and New Efficiency 

(GONE) Act of 2016 (Pub. L. No. 114-117) is to 

close out grants and cooperative agreements that 

are in manual closeout with zero dollars and undisbursed 

balances and whose period of performance has exceeded 

two years.

Starting with an October 3, 2016, baseline of 8,948 

grants and cooperative agreements totaling approximately 

$2 billion in various statuses of the closeout process, the 

Department achieved tremendous success as shown below.

While the Department succeeded in closing out over 99 

percent of the required grants and cooperative agreements 

during FY 2017, this was not accomplished without 

THE GRANTS OVERSIGHT AND NEW EFFICIENCY (GONE) 

ACT OF 2016

challenges. The Department’s most pressing challenges 

in the closeout process were: devotion of the time and 

resources of limited program office staff to the closeout 

process, while awarding grants and performing monitoring 

functions; delays in obtaining required final performance 

and financial reports and missing final reports; unresolved 

audit findings; and recording extensions in the 

Department’s grants management system.

The Department’s planned corrective actions to 

address these challenges include integrating a financial 

monitoring curriculum into the Department’s grants 

training and updating our grants management system.

Source: G5, grants management system linked to the Department’s general ledger system.

Category 2–3 Years >3–5 Years > 5 Years

Number of Grants/Cooperative Agreements 

with Zero Dollar Balances 3 - -

Number of Grants/Cooperative Agreements 

with Undisbursed Dollar Balances 7 - -

Total Amount of Undisbursed Balances $7,488,316 - -

Table 7.
Sixth Addendum to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.2 
 SIXTH ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS SIXTH
ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Sixth Addendum”) is made effective as of the 14th day of October, 2009, by and between Anworth Mortgage Asset Corporation, a Maryland corporation (“Anworth”), and Joseph Lloyd McAdams (the
“Executive”). 
 W I T N E S S E T H : 
 WHEREAS, the Executive and Anworth Mortgage Advisory Corporation (the “Company”) entered into an employment agreement dated
January 1, 2002, which was subsequently assumed by Anworth, and the Executive and Anworth have since entered into a number of addendums to such agreement (as amended to date, the “Agreement”); 
 WHEREAS, Anworth and the Executive desire to further modify the terms of the Executive’s employment under the Agreement. 
 NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby covenant and agree as follows: 
 1. Effective Date. This Sixth Addendum shall become effective on the date hereof. 
 2. Payments Under 2002 Incentive Compensation Plan. Section 7(b)(ii) of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the
second sentence within such section and replacing it with the following: 
 “Such amounts shall be paid in cash no less than
quarterly in accordance with the terms of the 2002 Incentive Compensation Plan.” 
 3. Consent to Amendment of 2002
Incentive Compensation Plan. Executive hereby consents to the amendment to the 2002 Incentive Compensation Plan approved by Anworth’s Board of Directors, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 
 4. Remaining Terms Unchanged. The parties agree that all terms and conditions of the Agreement (as modified by this Sixth
Addendum), including, but not limited to, all provisions pertaining to compensation, termination, choice of law and arbitration, shall remain in full force and effect as modified hereby. 
  

 1 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Sixth Addendum to Employment Agreement is executed as of the day
and year first above written. 
  

	
	Executive
	
	 /S/ JOSEPH LLOYD
MCADAMS

	 Joseph Lloyd McAdams


  

			
	 Anworth Mortgage Asset
 Corporation

		
	 By:
	 	 /S/ THAD M. BROWN

	 Name:
	 	Thad M. Brown
	 Title:
	 	Chief Financial Officer

  

 2
225.7702-1 Acquisition of small arms. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, when acquiring small arms for assistance to the Army of Afghanistan, the Afghani Police Forces, or other Afghani security organizations— ( 1 ) Use full and open competition to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 3201;
( 2 ) If use of other than full and open competition is justified in accordance with FAR Subpart 6.3, ensure that— ( i ) No responsible U.S. manufacturer is excluded from competing for the acquisition; and
( ii ) Products manufactured in the United States are not excluded from the competition; and
( 3 ) If the exception at FAR 6.302-2 (unusual and compelling urgency) applies, do not exclude responsible U.S. manufacturers or products manufactured in the United States from the competition for the purpose of administrative expediency. However, such an offer may be rejected if it does not meet delivery schedule requirements.
( b ) Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does not apply when— ( 1 ) The exception at FAR 6.302-1 (only one or a limited number of responsible sources) applies, and the only responsible source or sources are not U.S. manufacturers or are not offering products manufactured in the United States; or
( 2 ) The exception at FAR 6.302-4 (international agreement) applies, and United States manufacturers or products manufactured in the United States are not the source(s) specified in the written directions of the foreign government reimbursing the agency for the cost of the acquisition of the property or services for such government.
[73 FR 53153, Sept. 15, 2008. Redesignated and amended at 78 FR 59858, Sept. 30, 2013; 87 FR 76994, Dec. 16, 2022]
#### 225.772 Prohibition on acquisition of certain foreign commercial satellite services.
Attorney - Client Privileged and Confidential Off Road Vehicle Division 

# Comparative Metrics: J - Turn and Tilt Table CorrelationAttorney - Client Privileged and Confidential Off Road Vehicle Division



## TTA Hang Tag Would Provide Comparable Comparison of Vehicles 2 

# Correlation: J - Turn Ay and TTA

Return
#### Michael Cuomo et al., as Executors of Frances Cuomo, Deceased, Respondents, v. State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 35793.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims awarding claimants $673,215 as damages for the appropriation of 31.116 acres of land for the WantaghOyster Bay Expressway. It was stipulated that the highest and best use of the property at the time of the appropriation was for residential subdivision purposes. Comparable sales were used by the expert witnesses to establish their appraisals of claimants’ property. Claimants’ expert valued the property at $715,000 for an acreage value of $23,000, while the State reached a value of $583,500 based on a value of $18,750 per acre. The court valued the property at $657,850 which is approximately $21,150 per acre. The court also found that the value placed upon the land by the claimants’ expert was based upon completed development for residential purposes which would necessitate the preparing and filing of subdivision maps and incurring other development expenses in connection with clearing, draining, grading, paving and selling the plots in order to utilize the full value of the land. The court found the expenses would amount in the aggregate to $176,400. The cost of development if subtracted from the $715,000 value of claimants’ expert, or even from the highest per-aere value of the comparable sales, would result in a figure substantially below the value of $657,850 as found by the court. We agree with the appellant that the very real costs of subdividing must be subtracted from a value which is based on the value of the property for residential subdivision in order to obtain a fair and realistic market value *(Valley Stream Lawns*v. *State of New York,*9 A D 2d 149). Although the figure arrived at by the court is within the range of the expert testimony, this does not make it proper. The court is bound by -the evidence in the record (see *Matter of City of New York [A. & W. Realty Corp.],*1 N Y 2d 428). The value fixed by the court has no basis in the record and is inconsistent with its own findings. We find the value of the claimants’ property before the taking, based on residential subdivision purposes, to be $715,000. We further find that the cost of the necessary improvements to make the property suitable for such use would be $176,400, leaving a net value of $538,600. The State, however, concedes that the lowest sustainable value would be $583,500, which we accept, together with existing improvements of $15,365, making a total award of $598,865. Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, so as to reduce the award to $598,865, with appropriate interest, and as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.
#### 2416.603 Letter contracts.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Marvin H. Maurras Revocable Trust, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−03395

Honorable Gary Feinerman

Edgar M. Bronfman, Jr., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, October 25, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Gary Feinerman:Unopposed motion for entry of

Leadership Structure order [62] is granted in part and denied without prejudice in part.

Co−Lead Plaintiffs are Marvin H. Maurras Revocable Trust, Yongqian Zhao, and Susan

Chagnon. Co−Lead Counsel are Scott+Scott LLP, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, and Carney

Williams Bates Pulliam & Bowman PLLC. Co−Liaison Counsel are Freed Kanner

London & Millen, LLC, and Wexler Wallace LLP. The motion is denied without

prejudice to the extent it seeks relief for the hypothetical situation of later filed

shareholder derivative cases. Motion hearing scheduled for 10/29/2012 [64] is stricken.

The parties are requested to inform the court in a filed pleading by 11/1/2012 whether they

would like the court (1) to dismiss without prejudice the Zhao case, 12 C 6019, since Zhao

is now joining as a co−lead plaintiff in this case, 12 C 3395, which leaves no role for the

Zhao case, or (2) to consolidate the Zhao case with this case, which would require the

parties to designate both cases on all of their pleadings. Mailed notice.(jlj)

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-03395 Document #: 65 Filed: 10/25/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1210
#### 2152.232-70 Payments.

As prescribed in 2132.171, insert the following clause:

# Payments (OCT 2005)

(a) OPM will make available to the Contractor, in full settlement of its obligations under this contract, subject to adjustment based on actual claims and administrative cost, a fixed premium once per month on the first business day of the month. The premium is determined by an estimate of costs for the contract year as provided in Section ________ and is redetermined annually by mutual agreement of OPM and the Contractor. In addition, an annual reconciliation of premiums, benefits, and other costs is performed, and additional payment by OPM or reimbursement by the Contractor is paid as necessary.

(b) If OPM fails to fund the Letter of Credit (LOC) account for the full amount of premium due by the due date, a grace period of 31 days will be granted to OPM for providing any premium due, unless OPM has previously given written notice to the Contractor that the contract is to be discontinued. The contract will continue in force during the grace period.

(c) If OPM fails to fund the LOC account for any premiums within the grace period, the contract may be terminated at the end of the 31st day of the grace period in accordance with LIFAR 2149.002(a)(2). If during the grace period OPM presents written notice to the Contractor that the contract is to be terminated before the expiration of the grace period, the contract will be terminated the later of the date of receipt of such written notice by the Contractor or the date specified by OPM for termination. In either event, OPM will be liable to the Contractor for all premiums then due and unpaid.

(d) In accordance with LIFAR 2143.205 and LIFAR 2252.243-70, Changes, if a change is made to the contract that increases or decreases the cost of performance of the work under this contract, the Contracting Officer will make an equitable adjustment to the payments under this contract.

(e) In the event this contract is terminated in accordance with LIFAR part 2149, the special contingency reserve held by the Contractor will be available to pay the necessary and proper charges against this contract after other Program assets held by the Contractor are exhausted.

(End of clause)

[70 FR 41156, July 18, 2005]
**Docket Number FAA -**  **2014 -**  **0196**