alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H î "

H

î "

H

"î

550

500

550

500

500

550

450

500

550

550

550

500

500

550

500

550

500

550

550

550

550

500

550

550

450

550

550

500

500

500

500

450 450

550

500

550

550

500

550

450

450

550

550

550

RANCH ROAD 1017

FM-1017

BOREGOS RANCH RD

RANCHO VIEJO RD STARR CO

JIM HOGG CO

STARR CO

JIM HOGG CO San Juan Windmills

Santa Barbara

Windmill

Sacatones Windmill

Moriea Windmill

Borregos

Ranch

Viente dos Windmill

San Jose Windmill

Tres Esquinas

Windmill

Huisache Windmill

Realero Windmill

San Carlos Windmill

Calavazas Windmill

Mescalito Windmill

Buenos Aires Ranch

Sordo Windmill

Camote Windmill

Juanitas Ranch

Sufrimiento Windmill

Lobitos Windmill

Charco

Nuevo Windmill

Buena Vista Windmill

Granjenitos

Ranch

Los Corrales

Windmill

TiradoresWindmill

Mirasoles Windmill

Agua

Nueva NW

La

Gloria

Agua

Nueva SE

Las Islas

Ranch

Agua

Nueva

Cuevitas

San

Antonio

Viejo

Borregos

Ranch

Viboras

29

29

910

000m 37

16

29

29

50'

69

5

26° 5 5

29

29

29

000

50'

29

5

29

29

5

29

29

37'

940

16

69

5

52' 32

36

67

45'

N 29

40'

52' 5

29

26°

5 98°

31

FEET 30

26 35

60 29

5

5

26°

62

29

34

5

70

47'

840

30"

5

29

5

29

E

5 000

98°

30"

5 5

64

28 35

5

29

59 000m

000

47'

000m

37'

62

000m

45' 30"

29

29

66

30"

70

30

FEET

98°

5

40'

5

34 FEET

64

5

61

800

E

000

60

5 45'

30"

98°

5

30"

67

42'30"

29

30"

N

63

71

29

26°

42'

27

65

27

45'

29

25

31

29

71

72

26

28

37

FEET

65

61

32

29

72

63

66

59

36

25

TEXAS

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

BORREGOS RANCH QUADRANGLE

TEXAS

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

BORREGOS RANCH, TX

2012

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

WX Interstate Route /. US Route H State Route

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Imagery..................................................NAIP, April 2010

Roads..............................................©2006-2012 TomTom

Names..........................................................GNIS, 2012

Hydrography....................National Hydrography Dataset, 2010

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2008

Boundaries....................Census, IBWC, IBC, USGS, 1972 - 2012

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 14R

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Texas Coordinate System of 1983 (south zone)

This map was produced to conform with the

National Geospatial Program US Topo Product Standard, 2011.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.6.7

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0

MILES

1

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

NQ

14R

×

Ù

MN

GN

UTM GRID AND 2012 MAGNETIC NORTH

DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

0° 8 ́

3 MILS

5° 0 ́

89 MILS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       3,144,132
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,152,099
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (65,421)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,165,180
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,492,955
<PP&E>                                       6,148,746
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,725,289
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,477,511
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          920,726
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    85,093,164
<OTHER-SE>                                (73,686,569)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,477,511
<SALES>                                      3,650,299
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,813,634
<CGS>                                        1,073,403
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,472,817
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,585,177)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,585,177)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)


</TABLE>
#### McFerran *v.*Grube et al.

[No. 22,569.

Filed November 19, 1914.]

From Superior Court of Marion County (93,092) ; *Clarence B. Weir,*Judge.

Action by David Grube and others against Ann McFerran. From an interlocutory order appointing a receiver, the defendant appeals.

*Reversed.*

*William T. Young*and *Barle B. McFerran,*for appellant.

*Charles B. Clarke*and *Walter C. Clarke,*for appellees.

Erwin, J.

This is an appeal from an interlocutory order appointing a receiver in a suit for foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien *714for $800 and $200 attorney’s fees, brought by appellees against appellant, and others.

This cause for the appointment of a receiver, was submitted on the showing made by the verified complaint; the affidavit of appellant and certain other affidavits as to the value of the property for which the receiver was appointed. This complaint was sworn to by appellee, Alvin Grube. The affidavit thereto attached, being as follows: “Alvin Grube, being duly sworn upon his oath says that the matters and things set forth in the foregoing complaint are true as he verily believes.” The complaint avers insolvency of appellant and that the property is being neglected and the rental for the same is not being applied to plaintiff’s claim. The averments of the complaint were denied under oath by appellant, except as to the debt due, and she further states in said affidavit that she is worth in real estate, notes and other personal property in Marion County, Indiana, $20,000, and that she is not insolvent, and that the building was worth more than $3,000.

This appeal presents the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the action of the court in appointing a receiver. This case is similar in all respects to the case of *Mannos*v. *Bishop-Babcock-Becker Co.*(1914), 181 Ind. 343, 104 N. E. 579. On the authority of that case, the interlocutory order appointing a receiver is reversed.
Exhibit
      32.2





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 American Tax Credit Properties III
      L.P.
      (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 30, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Neal Ludeke, Chief Financial Officer of Richman Housing Credits Inc., general
      partner of Richman Tax Credit Properties III L.P., general partner of the
      Registrant, 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
                Registrant.









/s/
      Neal
      Ludeke


Neal
      Ludeke


Chief
      Financial Officer of Richman


Housing
      Credits Inc., general partner


of
      Richman Tax Credit Properties III


L.P.,
      General Partner of the Registrant


March
      28,
      2008
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 150 (Thursday, August 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 39378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18778]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

Open Meeting of the Area 7 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (Including the 
States of Alaska, California, Hawaii, and Nevada)

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 7 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be 
conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, 
ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal 
Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, September 16, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janice Spinks at 1-888-912-1227 or 
206-220-6098.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Area 7 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held 
Wednesday, September 16, 2009, at 2 p.m. Pacific Time via telephone 
conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit 
written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, 
notification of intent to participate must be made with Janice Spinks. 
For more information please contact Ms. Spinks at 1-888-912-1227 or 
206-220-6098, or write TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, 
WA 98174 or post comments to the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

     Dated: July 30, 2009.
Shawn F. Collins,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. E9-18778 Filed 8-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
```
Editorial Note on Part 301
Editorial Note: In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations. References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

§ 301.6362-2 Qualified resident tax based on taxable income. ( a ) *In general.* A tax meets the requirements of section 6362(b) and this section only if it is imposed on the amount of the taxable income, as defined in section 63, of the individual, estate, or trust, adjusted— ( 1 ) By subtracting an amount equal to the amount of the taxpayer's interest on obligations of the United States which was included in his gross income for the taxable year;
( 2 ) By adding an amount equal to the amount of the taxpayer's net State income tax deduction, as defined in paragraph (a) of § 301.6362-4, for the taxable year;
( 3 ) By adding an amount equal to the amount of the taxpayer's net tax-exempt income, as defined in paragraph (b) of § 301.6362-4, for the taxable year; and
( 4 ) If a credit is allowed against the tax in accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section for sales tax imposed by the State or a political subdivision thereof, by adding an amount equal to the amount of the taxpayer's deduction under section 164(a)(4) for such sales tax. The tax may provide for either a single rate or multiple rates which vary with the amount of taxable income, as adjusted.
( b ) *Permitted adjustments.* A tax which otherwise meets the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section shall not be deemed to fail to meet such requirements solely because it provides for one or more of the following adjustments: ( 1 ) A credit meeting the requirements of paragraph (c) of § 301.6362-4 is allowed against the tax for the taxpayer's income tax liability to another State or a political subdivision thereof.
( 2 ) A tax is imposed on the amount taxed under section 56 (relating to the minimum tax for tax preferences).
( 3 ) A credit is allowed against the tax for all or a portion of any general sales tax imposed by the State or a political subdivision thereof with respect to sales either to the taxpayer or to one or more of his dependents.
( c ) *Method of making mandatory adjustments.* The mandatory adjustments provided in paragraph (a) of this section shall be made directly to taxable income. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of § 301.6362-4, no account shall be taken of any reduction or increase in the Federal adjusted gross income which would result from the exclusion from, or inclusion in, gross income of the items which are the subject of the adjustments. Thus, for example, when for purposes of the calculation the taxpayer's Federal taxable income is adjusted to reflect the exclusion from gross income of interest on obligations of the United States, no change shall be made in the amount of the taxpayer's deduction for medical expenses, or in the amount of his charitable contribution base, even though such amounts would ordinarily depend upon the amount of adjusted gross income.
[T.D. 7577, 43 FR 59366, Dec. 20, 1978]
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 157 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 157

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

       Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses.
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 157

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Friday, March 
29, 1996, it stand adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on Monday, April 15, 
1996, or until noon on the second day after Members are notified to 
reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns 
at the close of business on Friday, March 29, 1996, Saturday, March 30, 
1996, or Sunday, March 31, 1996, pursuant to a motion made by the 
Majority Leader or his designee in accordance with this resolution, it 
stand recessed or adjourned until noon on Monday, April 15, 1996, or 
until such time on that day as may be specified by the Majority Leader 
or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon on 
the second day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to 
section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, 
in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 29, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6121

ALBERTO CEJA-VARGAS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

M. BRECKON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

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

Roanoke. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. (7:18-cv-00022-EKD-RSB)

Submitted: May 16, 2019 Decided: May 21, 2019

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alberto Ceja-Vargas, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Alberto Ceja-Vargas, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order granting 

Respondent’s motion for summary judgment on Ceja-Vargas’ 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) 

petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

although we grant Ceja-Vargas leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. See Ceja-Vargas v. Breckon, No. 7:18-cv-00022-

EKD-RSB (W.D. Va. Jan. 2, 2019). 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
IV

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 86

Commending the People’s Republic of Bangladesh for its commitment to

the principles of democracy, economic reform, and international peacekeeping.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 24, 1995

Mr. ACKERMAN submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Commending the People’s Republic of Bangladesh for its

commitment to the principles of democracy, economic

reform, and international peacekeeping.

Whereas with a population of roughly 120,000,000 people in

144,000 square kilometers of area, Bangladesh is one of

the most densely populated nations in the world and

faces many natural challenges;

Whereas in 1991, Bangladesh demonstrated to the world its

commitment to secular democracy by holding free and

fair parliamentary elections;

Whereas, despite demographic challenges, and despite the difficulties encumbered by the status of Bangladesh as a developing nation, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh has

undertaken bold economic reforms which have created

great opportunities for the people of Bangladesh, and for
2

•HCON 86 IH

those foreign companies which desire to invest in Bangladesh;

Whereas since 1991, the Government of Bangladesh has undertaken major economic reforms resulting in a doubling

of foreign reserves;

Whereas Bangladesh has given refuge and shelter to the

Rohinga refugees who have fled to Bangladesh to seek

refuge from oppression and atrocities in Burma; and

Whereas Bangladesh has played a significant role in United

Nations peacekeeping efforts: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) the Government of Bangladesh and its

4 Prime Minister should be commended for their dem5 onstrated commitment to democracy, economic re6 form, and the principles of international peacekeep7 ing under the auspices of the United Nations;

8 (2) the Government of Bangladesh should be

9 commended for its humanitarian efforts on behalf of

10 the Rohinga refugees; and

11 (3) the United States should take all appro12 priate steps to improve ties with Bangladesh and its

13 people, and to encourage joint ventures between

14 United States industry and Bangladesh industry

15 which will help improve the standard of living of all

16 of the citizens of Bangladesh.

Æ
427 A.2d 1216

#### Bell, Appellant, v. Lauth, Jr. et al.

Argued June 25, 1979.

Herbert Braker, for appellant;

John G. Jenemann, for Lauth, Jr., appellee. Stephen H. Skale, for Ratowski, et al., appellee.

Before WIEAND, ROBINSON and LOUIR, JJ.*

*

 Judge Donald E. Wieand is sitting by special designation. President Judge Otto P. Robinson of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, and Judge Maurice Louik of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, are sitting by designation.

This decision was reached following the death of Robinson, J.

Judgment affirmed.
1

Eric H. Holder, Jr. has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the

United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 43(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3884

___________

Aura Argentina Villeda, *

*

Petitioner, *

* Petition for Review of 

v. * an Order of the Board

* of Immigration Appeals.

Eric H. Holder, Jr.,1

 Attorney General, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: April 22, 2009

Filed: April 27, 2009

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Aura Villeda, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an Immigration

Judge’s denial of Villeda’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition. 
-2-

Having reviewed the denial of asylum under the substantial-evidence standard,

see Khrystotodorov v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 775, 781 (8th Cir. 2008), we uphold the

BIA’s conclusion that Villeda neither suffered past persecution on account of a

protected factor, see Quomsieh v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 602, 606 (8th Cir. 2007) (absent

physical harm, incidents of harassment and unfulfilled threats of injury are not

persecution), nor offered credible, specific evidence that a reasonable person in her

position would fear persecution if returned to El Salvador, see Makatengkeng v.

Gonzales, 495 F.3d 876, 881 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard for showing well-founded fear

of future persecution); Vonhm v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 825, 828 (8th Cir. 2006)

(violence against family members establishes objective fear of future persecution only

when there is pattern of persecution tied to petitioner); Setiadi v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d

710, 714 (8th Cir. 2006) (general fear based on isolated acts of violence against

someone other than petitioner is usually insufficient); Menjivar v. INS, 259 F.3d 940,

942 (8th Cir. 2001) (fear of persecution was not well founded because conditions in

El Salvador markedly improved since 1992 peace accords).

Consequently, Villeda also failed to meet the higher burden of proof for

withholding of removal, and her CAT claim fails as well. See Alemu v. Gonzales,

403 F.3d 572, 576 (8th Cir. 2005) (when petitioner fails to meet lesser burden of proof

for asylum, reviewing court must likewise uphold denial of claim for withholding of

removal; separate analysis of CAT claim is only required when there is evidence that

alien might be tortured for reasons unrelated to claims for asylum). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition. 

______________________________
2006 Amendment to 2000 Long Term Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.43 
 INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION 
 2000 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 
  

 2006 AMENDMENT 
  

 Interactive Data Corporation (the
“Company”) hereby amends the Interactive Data Corporation 2000 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) as set forth below. 
 * * * * * 
 For purposes of any Award granted or made to any person in the United Kingdom under the Interactive Data Corporation 2000 Long Term
Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), the Plan is amended in the following respects: 
 1. Section 5 of Plan shall be read and construed
as follows: 
 “Eligibility. Employees of the Company or its Parent or any Subsidiary are eligible to be granted Awards under the
Plan.” 
 2. The Award Agreement in respect of any Award made pursuant to this Schedule shall state that such Award is granted pursuant to this
Schedule. 
 In all other respects the Plan as drafted will apply to Awards granted to individuals in the United Kingdom. Nothing in this schedule shall
modify the Plan with respect to Awards granted to participants in jurisdictions other than the United Kingdom. 
 * * * * * 
 3. Further Amendments. Except as hereinabove specifically amended, all provisions of the Plan shall continue in full force and effect; provided, however, that the
Company hereby reserves the power from time to time to further amend the Plan. 
 * * * * * 
  

 1 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this
2006 Amendment to be executed in its name and on its behalf this 15th day of July, 2006. 
  

			
	INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION
		
	By	 	/s/ Stuart J. Clark
		 	Stuart J. Clark, Chief Executive Officer


  

 2