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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1177

BRENDA COLEMAN GILLIS,

Debtor - Appellant,

v.

SUZANNE E. WADE,

Trustee - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:20-cv-00019-JAG)

Submitted: July 23, 2020 Decided: July 27, 2020

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brenda Coleman Gillis, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Brenda Coleman Gillis appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis in her appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order vacating 

confirmation of her Chapter 13 plan. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Gillis v. Wade, 

No. 3:20-cv-00019-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 30, 2020). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
###### Editorial Note on Part 1951

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Some of the exhibits referenced in this part 1951 are not published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Exhibits are available in any Rural Development office.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1951 appear at 80 FR 9890-9894, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1951.251 Purpose.

This subpart prescribes the policies to be followed when analyzing a direct borrower's need for continued Agency supervision, further credit, and graduation. All loan accounts will be reviewed for graduation in accordance with this subpart, with the exception of Guaranteed, Rural Development Loan Funds, and Rural Rental Housing loans made to build or acquire new units pursuant to contracts entered into on or after December 15, 1989, and Intermediary Relending Program loans. The term “Agency” used in this subpart refers to theRural Housing Service (RHS), or Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), depending upon the loan program discussed herein. This subpart does not apply to Farm Service Agency, Farm Loan Programs and to RHS direct single family housing (SFH) customers. In addition, this subpart does not apply to Water and Waste Programs of the Rural Utilities Service, Watershed loans, Resource Conservation and Development loans, which are serviced under part 1782 of this title.

[72 FR 55018, Sept. 28, 2007, as amended at 72 FR 64123, Nov. 15, 2007]
OPM.gov / Retirement / Publications & Forms / Pamphlets

Skip to main content

### In this section

- My Annuity and Benefits Toggle submenu   - Services Online
  - Life Events
  - Annuity Payments
  - Healthcare & Insurance
  - Medicare
  - Thrift Savings Plan
  - Related Federal Benefits
  - Retirement Eligibility Surveys
  - Representative Payees
- CSRS Information Toggle submenu   - Eligibility
  - Computation
  - Creditable Service
  - Planning and Applying
  - Types of Retirement
  - Survivors
  - Military Retired Pay
  - Service Credit
  - Former Employees
- FERS Information Toggle submenu   - Eligibility
  - Computation
  - Creditable Service
  - Planning & Applying
  - Types of Retirement
  - Survivors
  - Military Retired Pay
  - Service Credit
  - Former Employees
- Phased Retirement
- Retirement Statistics
- Special Notices
- Federal Ball Park Estimator
- FEGLI Calculator
- Tax Information for Annuitants
- Publications & Forms Toggle submenu   - Pamphlets
  - Retirement & Insurance Forms
  - Benefits Administration Letters
  - Financial Management Letters
  - Payroll Office Letters
  - CSRS/FERS Handbook
- Benefits Officers Center Toggle submenu   - List of Benefits Officers
  - Tools
  - Aids
  - FERS Election Options
  - Training
  - Reference Materials
- Pre-Retirement
- Post-Retirement
- Leaving the Government
- Survivor Benefits
- How to Make a Payment
- Quick Guide
- Contact Retirement
- Retirement Information Center
- Application Tips

### Resources For

          - New / Prospective Employees
          - Federal Employees
          - Retirees or Family Members
          - Benefits Officers

# Pamphlets

# Retirement Pamphlets and Publications

                - Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) Publications
                - Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) Publications
                - Retirement and Insurance Publications
                - Other Retirement Publications
                - Publicaciones en español
                - Federal Long Term Care Insurance
                - Health Benefits
                - Life Insurance

# Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) Publications

Publications concerning the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) are listed below. Select one to read more.

# Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) Publications

Publications concerning the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) are listed below. Select one to read more.

# Retirement and Insurance Publications

Browse and download your choice of publication(s) used to process retirement and insurance benefits.

Back to Top

# Other Retirement Publications

                - Benefits For Former Spouses Under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program
                - Participating State Tax Offices

# Publicaciones en español
###### Editorial Note on Part 1942

#### Editorial Notes:

Nomenclature changes to part 1942 appear at 80 FR 9878, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1942.110 Strategic economic and community development.

Applicants with projects that support the implementation of Strategic Community Investment Plans are encouraged to review and consider 7 CFR part 1980, subpart K, which contains provisions for providing priority to projects that support the implementation of Strategic Community Investment Plans on a multi-jurisdictional and multi-sectoral basis.

[85 FR 59393, Sept. 22, 2020]
Editorial Note on Part 1942
Editorial Notes: Nomenclature changes to part 1942 appear at 80 FR 9878, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1942.107 Priorities. ( a ) Eligible applications must be selected for processing in accordance with § 1942.17(c) of subpart A of this part 1942.
( b ) The District Director must score each eligible application in accordance with § 1942.17(c)(2)(iii) of subpart A of this part 1942. The District Director must then notify the State Director of the score, proposed loan amount, and other pertinent data. The State Director should determine as soon as possible if the project has sufficient priority for further processing and notify the District Director. Normally, this consultation should be handled by telephone and documented in the running record.
( c ) Applicants who appear eligible but do not have the priority necessary for further consideration at this time should be notified that funds are not available, requested to advise whether they wish to have their application maintained for future consideration and given the following notice:
You are advised against incurring obligations which would limit the range of alternatives to be considered, or which cannot be fulfilled without Agency funds until the funds are actually made available. Therefore, you should refrain from such actions as initiating engineering and legal work, taking actions which would have an adverse effect on the environment, taking options on land rights, developing detailed plans and specifications, or inviting construction bids until notified by RD to proceed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Henry Giovani Perez

- Escobar,

Petitioner,

v.

Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 21

- 713

Agency No. A205

- 312

- 939

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 14, 2023 **

Pasadena, California

Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, and MILLER , Circuit Judges

.

Henry Giovani Perez

- Escobar , a native and citizen of Guatemala,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ (BIA) decision

denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)

. We review de novo questions of law. Ahmed v. Holder

, 569 F.3d

* 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

MAR 21 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We review the agency’s factual findings for

substantial evidence. Shrestha v. Holder

, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039, 1048 (9th Cir.

2010). Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite only those

necessary to decide the petition.

As to withholding of removal, Perez

- Escobar asserts that he was targeted

based on a particular social group defined by resisting recruitment by gangs.

But this court has made clear that general “ resistance ” to gang recruitment

,

alone, is not a protected ground. See Barrios v. Holder

, 581 F.3d 849, 855 (9th

Cir. 2009) (holding that “ young men in Guatemala who resist gang recruitment ”

was not a cognizable social group), abrogated in part on other grounds by

Henriquez

- Rivas v. Holder

, 707 F.3d 1081 , 1092

– 93 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc)

( distinguishing the social visibility of those who testify against gang members

in open court )

. The BIA correctly determined that Perez

- Escobar’s proposed

social group was not cognizable. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A).

T he BIA concluded that Perez

- Escobar was ineligible for CAT relief

because he did n ot show he is more likely than not to be tortured if return ed to

Guatemala

. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). It reached that conclusion because the

past violence Perez

- Escobar experienced

— a single fight in which he received a

two

- inch stab wound o n his arm

— did not amount to torture and because Perez

Escobar was able to safely relocate within Guatemala for several months after

the fight. This conclusion is supported by substantial evidence.

The motion for a stay of removal (Dkt. No. 3) is denied.3 PETITION DENIED.
§ 1734.4 Applicant eligibility and allocation of funds. To be eligible to receive a grant, loan and grant combination, or loan under this subpart: ( a ) The applicant must be legally organized as an incorporated organization, an Indian tribe or tribal organization, as defined in 25 U.S.C. 450b(b) and (c), a state or local unit of government, a consortium, as defined in § 1734.3, or other legal entity, including a private corporation organized on a for-profit or not-for profit basis. Each applicant must provide written evidence of its legal capacity to contract with RUS to obtain the grant, loan and grant combination, or the loan, and comply with all applicable requirements. If a consortium lacks the legal capacity to contract, each individual entity must contract with RUS in its own behalf.
( b ) The applicant proposes to utilize the financing to: ( 1 ) Operate a rural End-User Site for the purpose of providing Distance Learning or Telemedicine services; or
( 2 ) Deliver distance learning or telemedicine services to entities that operate a rural community facility or to residents of rural areas at rates calculated to ensure that the benefit of the financial assistance is passed through to such entities or to residents of rural areas.
EXHIBIT 15.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:



(1)

Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-146790) pertaining to the 2003 Equity Compensation Plan of China Resources Development, Inc., the predecessor to China Natural Resources, Inc. (the Company), and



(2)

Form F-3 (Registration No. 333-163702) of the Company;



of our reports dated April 29, 2013, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of the Company, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of the Company, included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2012.









/s/ Ernst & Young

Certified Public Accountants

Hong Kong



April 29, 2013
§ 1c.108 IRB functions and operations. ( a ) In order to fulfill the requirements of this policy each IRB shall: ( 1 ) Have access to meeting space and sufficient staff to support the IRB's review and recordkeeping duties;
( 2 ) Prepare and maintain a current list of the IRB members identified by name; earned degrees; representative capacity; indications of experience such as board certifications or licenses sufficient to describe each member's chief anticipated contributions to IRB deliberations; and any employment or other relationship between each member and the institution, for example, full-time employee, part-time employee, member of governing panel or board, stockholder, paid or unpaid consultant;
( 3 ) Establish and follow written procedures for: ( i ) Conducting its initial and continuing review of research and for reporting its findings and actions to the investigator and the institution;
( ii ) Determining which projects require review more often than annually and which projects need verification from sources other than the investigators that no material changes have occurred since previous IRB review; and
( iii ) Ensuring prompt reporting to the IRB of proposed changes in a research activity, and for ensuring that investigators will conduct the research activity in accordance with the terms of the IRB approval until any proposed changes have been reviewed and approved by the IRB, except when necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to the subject.
( 4 ) Establish and follow written procedures for ensuring prompt reporting to the IRB; appropriate institutional officials; the department or agency head; and the Office for Human Research Protections, HHS, or any successor office, or the equivalent office within the appropriate Federal department or agency of ( i ) Any unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects or others or any serious or continuing noncompliance with this policy or the requirements or determinations of the IRB; and
( ii ) Any suspension or termination of IRB approval.
( b ) Except when an expedited review procedure is used (as described in § 1c.110), an IRB must review proposed research at convened meetings at which a majority of the members of the IRB are present, including at least one member whose primary concerns are in nonscientific areas. In order for the research to be approved, it shall receive the approval of a majority of those members present at the meeting.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
#### Jose Bermudez, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Diana Bermudez, et al., Respondents, v White Castle Systems, Inc., Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered May 22, 1979, modified, on the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered on the issue of damages recoverable on the cause of action interposed on behalf of the infant plaintiff Jose Bermudez, unless, within 30 days after service upon them of a copy of the order herein, with notice of entry, plaintiffs serve and file in the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court, a written stipulation consenting to reduce the judgment in favor of the infant to $80,000 and to the entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith. Except, as so modified, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. If plaintiffs so stipulate, the judgment, as so amended, and reduced, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The damages proven on behalf of the infant plaintiff warranted an award no greater than the $80,000 to which that plaintiff’s recovery should be limited. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Bloom and Silverman, JJ.

Markewich and Ross, JJ.,

dissent in a memorandum as follows: We consider the amount to which the judgment has been reduced to be grossly inadequate to compensate a small boy for injuries, the effect of which will be felt for an entire lifetime.
§ 201.77 Length of stand requirements. ( a ) *Alfalfa.* Limitations on the age of stand and certified seed classes through which a given variety may be multiplied both inside and outside its region of adaptation shall be specified by the originator or his designee. Certified seed production outside the region of adaptation shall not exceed 6 years if not otherwise specified by the originator, or his designee.
( b ) *Red clover.* Only two seed crops are permitted of all certified seed classes.
( c ) *White and alsike clover.* Only two successive seed crops are permitted following the year of establishment for Foundation and Registered classes, but 2 additional years are permitted if the field is reclassified to the next lower class. Four successive seed crops following seeding are permitted if the first and succeeding crops are of the Certified class, provided the stand of perennial plants is maintained.
( d ) *Sainfoin.* All certified seed classes are eligible to produce five successive seed crops following seeding.
[38 FR 25664, Sept. 14, 1973]
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 19

- 11273 Summary Calendar

**Richard Warner,** Joint Pro Se Plaintiff **,**
Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus

**United States of America,**

Defendant

— Appellee

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19

- CV

- 796

Before **King, Smith,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per**  **Curiam :**  *
Richard Warner, federal prisoner # 43448

- 177, along with 44 other
inmates incarcerated at the Bureau of Prisons’ Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth Texas, filed a civil lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of

18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D). The district court sua sponte determined that

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  **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 cuit**  **R ule**  **47.5** .4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 26, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-11273 Document: 00515758351 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/26/2021No. 19

- 11273

2 the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 required each prisoner to file a separate complaint asserting his individual claims, as well as paying a filing fee. The district court, therefore, orde red Warner’s complaint to continue and ordered the complaints of the other 44 inmates to be severed into separate actions. That order is the subject of this appeal.
“This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987).
We conclude that we lack appellate jurisdiction over the instant appeal because the district court’s severance order is not a final, appealable decision ,

a qualifying interlocutory order , or a reviewabl e collateral order. See

28 U.S.C. § § 1291 , 1292; Acevedo v. Allsup’s Convenience Stores, Inc. , 600 F.3d 516, 520 (5th Cir. 2010) ; In re Lieb , 915 F.2d 180, 184 (5th Cir. 1990)

. Accordingly, the appeal is **DISMISSED** for lack of jurisdiction. Case: 19-11273 Document: 00515758351 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/26/2021
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00304-CV

In the Interest of M.R. and X.R., children

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law of Aransas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. A-18-7036-FL

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and remanded to 

the trial court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED AND 

REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Appellee, TEXAS

DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, is exempt from all costs.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 22, 2022
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2063 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2063

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the health care 
provided to veterans of World War II at facilities of the Department of 
                           Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2013

Mr. Bilirakis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the health care 
provided to veterans of World War II at facilities of the Department of 
                           Veterans Affairs.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PROVISION OF HEALTH CARE TO VETERANS OF WORLD WAR II.

    Section 1705(a)(6) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by 
striking the period at the end and inserting the following: ``and 
veterans not covered by paragraphs (1) through (5) who served during 
World War II.''.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MONICA SUSANA CHAVEZ, et al., 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-70438 

Agency Nos. A202-122-289 

A202-122-290 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 11, 2022**

Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Monica Susana Chavez and her minor son, natives and citizens of El 

Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order 

dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their 

application for asylum, and denying Chavez’s application for withholding of 

* 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

APR 15 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-70438 

removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 

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

agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 

2020). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners

failed to establish that the harm they experienced or fear was or will be on account 

of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an 

applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); see 

also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire 

to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by 

gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, the asylum and 

withholding of removal claims fail.

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

Chavez failed to show that it is more likely than not that she will be tortured by or 

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

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.