alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 3

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

#### § 3.153 Claims filed with Social Security.

An application on a form jointly prescribed by the Secretary and the Commissioner of Social Security filed with the Social Security Administration on or after January 1, 1957, will be considered a claim for death benefits, and to have been received in the Department of Veterans Affairs as of the date of receipt in Social Security Administration. The receipt of such an application (or copy thereof) by the Department of Veterans Affairs will not preclude a request for any necessary evidence.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5105)

[26 FR 1570, Feb. 24, 1961, as amended at 71 FR 44918, Aug. 8, 2006]
EXHIBIT 11
                      NATIONAL SANITARY SUPPLY COMPANY
                   COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE (a)
                                (UNAUDITED)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            Three Months Ended       Nine Months Ended
(thousands, except per share data)              September 30,          September 30,
----------------------------------          -------------------      ------------------
                                              1996        1995         1996      1995
                                            -------     -------      -------    -------
<S>                                         <C>         <C>          <C>        <C>
Computation of Earnings Per Common 
 and Common Equivalent Share
 Net Income                                 $ 1,812     $ 1,977      $ 3,965    $ 4,106
                                            =======     =======      =======    =======

Average Number of Shares of
 Common Stock Outstanding                     6,141       6,079        6,139      6,068
Incremental Effect of
 Unexercised Stock Options                       82          81           78         81
                                            -------     -------      -------    -------
Average Number of Shares of 
 Common Stock and Common Stock
 Equivalents Outstanding                      6,223       6,160        6,217      6,149
                                            =======     =======      =======    =======
Earnings per Common and Common
 Equivalent Share                           $  0.29     $  0.32      $  0.64    $  0.67
                                            =======     =======      =======    =======
Computation of Earnings Per Common
 Share Assuming Full Dilution
 Net Income                                 $ 1,812     $ 1,977      $ 3,965    $ 4,106
                                            =======     =======      =======    =======
Average Number of Shares of
 Common Stock Outstanding                     6,141       6,079        6,139      6,068
Incremental Effect of
 Unexercised Stock Options                      109         116           99        102
                                            -------     -------      -------    -------
Average Number of Shares of
 Common Stock Assuming
 Full Dilution                                6,250       6,195        6,238      6,170
                                            =======     =======      =======    =======
Earnings Per Common Share
 Assuming Full Dilution                     $  0.29     $  0.32      $  0.64    $  0.67
                                            =======     =======      =======    =======
(a)  This calculation is submitted in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Because the incremental effect of unexercised stock options results in dilution
of less than 3%, the per share data presented in the consolidated statement of income
excludes the impact of common stock equivalents.
</TABLE>
                                              E-1
                                          Page 9 of 9<PAGE>
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i at e f orpubl i c at i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T OL US E GU N O L UWOL E OS HI L AJA, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 10- 72830 A ge nc yN o. A 097- 364- 379 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r atio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A ugus t1, 2013 ** B efo re: G R A B E R , W A R D L A W , an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. O l us e gun O l uw ol e O s hi l a j a , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of N i ge r i a , pe t i t i ons f

or r e v ie w o f

th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r atio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e o p e n r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s . W e h av e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e 

# FI LED AU G 20 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 72830 2 r e v ie w f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n . N

ajm ab ad iv. H older , 5 9 7 F . 3 d9 8 3 , 9 8 6 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng O shi l aj a’ s m ot i on t o reopen as u n ti m ely w h er e O sh il aja f il edth e m o ti o n m o re th an tw o ye ar s a fterth e B IA ’s f in a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l, se e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 2 ) , an df a ile dto s h o w m ate r ia lly c h an g e dc o u n tryc o n d itio n s in N ig e r iath at w o u lde x c u s e th e late f ilin g , se e 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( ii) ; s e e a ls o M a ltyv . A s h c r o

ft , 38 1 F . 3d94 2, 94 5 (9th C i r. 2004) ( r e qui r i ng c i r c um s t anc e s t o “ have c hange d s uf f i c i e nt l ythatape t i t i one rw ho previ ou sl y di d n othave a l egi t i m at e c l ai m for a sy l um no w has aw el l -f ou nd ed fe ar of future pers ec ut i on ”) . PETI TI O N FO R R EVI EW D EN I ED .
Exhibit 99.1

     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with the filing of the NHP Retirement  Housing  Partners I Limited
Partnership  Form 10-Q for the quarterly  period ended  September 30, 2002,  the
undersigned hereby certifies that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the  requirement of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

2.   The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.


                                             /s/ Robert Lankford
                                             ---------------------------------
                                             Robert Lankford
                                             Chief executive officer and
                                             Chief financial officer of
                                             the General Partner
§ 1263.26 Voluntary withdrawal from membership. ( a ) *In general* — ( 1 ) Any institution may withdraw from membership by providing to the Bank written notice of its intent to withdraw from membership. A member that has so notified its Bank shall be entitled to have continued access to the benefits of membership until the effective date of its withdrawal. The Bank need not commit to providing any further services, including advances, to a withdrawing member that would mature or otherwise terminate subsequent to the effective date of the withdrawal. A member may cancel its notice of withdrawal at any time prior to its effective date by providing a written cancellation notice to the Bank. A Bank may impose a fee on a member that cancels a notice of withdrawal, provided that the fee or the manner of its calculation is specified in the Bank's capital plan.
( 2 ) A Bank shall notify FHFA within 10 calendar days of receipt of any notice of withdrawal or notice of cancellation of withdrawal from membership.
( b ) *Effective date of withdrawal.* The membership of an institution that has submitted a notice of withdrawal shall terminate as of the date on which the last of the applicable stock redemption periods ends for the stock that the member is required to hold, as of the date that the notice of withdrawal is submitted, under the terms of a Bank's capital plan as a condition of membership, unless the institution has cancelled its notice of withdrawal prior to the effective date of the termination of its membership.
( c ) *Stock redemption periods.* The receipt by a Bank of a notice of withdrawal shall commence the applicable 6-month and 5-year stock redemption periods, respectively, for all of the Class A and Class B stock held by that member that is not already subject to a pending request for redemption. In the case of an institution, the membership of which has been terminated as a result of a merger or other consolidation into a nonmember or into a member of another Bank, the applicable stock redemption periods for any stock that is not subject to a pending notice of redemption shall be deemed to commence on the date on which the charter of the former member is cancelled.
Exhibit 99.2

                     CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FNANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                              AS ADOPTED PUSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10QSB
for the quarter ended January 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material
respect the financial condition and results of operations of Vitro Diagnostics,
Inc.


Date:  June 14, 2004

                                           By: /s/ James R. Musick
                                           -----------------------
                                           Name:  James R. Musick
                                           Title: President, Chief Executive and
                                           Principal Financial Officer
                                           Vitro Diagnostics, Inc.
#### Stephen McCormick, Respondent, *v.*Catherine T. McCaffrey, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial had before the court without a jury.

Thomas O’Callaghan, Jr., for appellant.

Leventritt & Brennan (Samuel P. Goldman, of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The evidence presented upon the trial below still fails to cure the omission which led to the reversal of this case by a former Appellate Term. *25*Misc. Rep. 786. Upon that appeal, the case was reversed, because the price at which the property was taken on the exchange, and upon which amount was based the plaintiff’s claim for brokerage, did not clearly appear in the record.

Here, the evidence as to the value of the property at the time, of exchange, in the procurement of which exchange the plaintiff claims to have been an important factor, is equally vague, the return failing to present any proof of a positive nature, tending to establish this value with sufficient definiteness to afford a basis for the computation of the plaintiff’s commissions.

A careful examination of the record leads us to the opinion that upon the evidence contained therein, the judgment rendered was founded mainly upon assumption, the evidence being insufficient to warrant the conclusion arrived at.

The judgment should, therefore, be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present: Beekman, P. J., and Giegerich, J.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
#### Alice Loughran et al., Respondents, *v.*Thomas A. Kenyon, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, upon a trial had before the court, without a jury.

John J. Quencer, for appellant.

Daniel Daly, for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

The defendant became a tenant of the premises in question under a written lease, which expired on October 1, *7301898, and was extended for one year from the last-mentioned date. The defendant continued in possession after the 1st day of October, 1899, claiming the right to do so under an agreement alleged by him to have been made with the plaintiffs during the month of September, 1899, to the effect that he was to continue in possession as a monthly tenant until certain repairs were made in. a manner satisfactory to him.

The defendant also set up and sought to establish upon the trial a surrender of the premises prior to the 1st day of November, 1899.

The facts, with relation to both of those defenses, are conflicting. The justice resolved the conflict in favor of the plaintiffs, and after carefully reading the record we are unable to discover any ground which would justify us in disturbing the conclusion reached by him.

The proof shows that the defendant’s under-tenant did not remove from the premises until after November 1, 1899. It is claimed that this was in accordance with the plaintiffs’ consent, but the latter deny having, given the same.

There being no other ground of asserted error apparent in the record, the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerich and O’Gorman, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
# C_2022013EN.01000101.xml

| 11.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

10 January 2022

(2022/C 13/01)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1318 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 130,45 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4381 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83398 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,3038 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0446 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 146,20 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,0253 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,357 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 358,40 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5334 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9449 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 15,7183 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5774 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4327 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,8233 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6753 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5344 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 355,68 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 17,6999 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,2128 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5278 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 181,90 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7536 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,141 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 84,9825 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,074 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 6,3969 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 23,0597 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 83,8000 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1318

JPY

Japanese yen

130,45

DKK

Danish krone

7,4381

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83398

SEK

Swedish krona

10,3038

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0446

ISK

Iceland króna

146,20

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,0253

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,357

HUF

Hungarian forint

358,40

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5334

RON

Romanian leu

4,9449

TRY

Turkish lira

15,7183

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5774

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4327

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,8233

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6753

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5344

KRW

South Korean won

1 355,68

ZAR

South African rand

17,6999

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,2128

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5278

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 181,90

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7536

PHP

Philippine peso

58,141

RUB

Russian rouble

84,9825

THB

Thai baht

38,074

BRL

Brazilian real

6,3969

MXN

Mexican peso

23,0597

INR

Indian rupee

83,8000

---

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

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7599

WARREN RAYVON SANDERS, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., 

District Judge. (1:08-cv-00069-NCT-WWD) 

Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 22, 2009 

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Warren Rayvon Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, 

III, Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorneys General, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Warren Rayvon Sanders seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on Sanders’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We 

have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sanders

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.1706 Burial allowance for a veteran who died while hospitalized by VA. ( a ) *General rule.* VA will pay up to the maximum burial allowance specified in 38 U.S.C. 2303(a) for the burial and funeral expenses of a veteran described in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) *Eligibility.* A burial allowance is payable under this section for a veteran whose death was not service-connected and who died while hospitalized by VA. For purposes of this allowance, a veteran was hospitalized by VA if the veteran: ( 1 ) Was properly admitted to a VA facility (as described in 38 U.S.C. 1701(3)) for hospital, nursing home, or domiciliary care under the authority of 38 U.S.C. 1710 or 1711(a);
( 2 ) Was transferred or admitted to a non-VA facility (as described in 38 U.S.C. 1701(4)) for hospital care under the authority of 38 U.S.C. 1703;
( 3 ) Was transferred or admitted to a nursing home for nursing home care at the expense of the U.S. under the authority of 38 U.S.C. 1720;
( 4 ) Was transferred or admitted to a State nursing home for nursing home care for which payment is authorized under the authority of 38 U.S.C. 1741;
( 5 ) Was traveling under proper prior authorization, and at VA expense, to or from a specified place for purpose of examination, treatment, or care; or
( 6 ) Was hospitalized by VA pursuant to any of paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section but was not at the facility at the time of death and was: ( i ) On authorized absence that did not exceed 96 hours at the time of death;
( ii ) On unauthorized absence for a period not in excess of 24 hours at the time of death; or
( iii ) Absent from the facility for a period not in excess of 24 hours of combined authorized and unauthorized absence at the time of death.
( c ) *Hospitalization in the Philippines.* Hospitalization in the Philippines under 38 U.S.C. 1731, 1732, and 1733 does not meet the requirements of this section.
( d ) *Additional allowances available based on death while hospitalized by VA.* In addition to the burial allowance authorized by this section: ( 1 ) VA will reimburse for the expense of transporting the remains of a person described in paragraph (b) of this section to the place of burial subject to the limitations of § 3.1709 and where the death occurs within a State and: ( i ) The place of burial is in the same State or any other State; or
( ii ) The place of burial is in Canada or Mexico. However, reimbursement for transportation of the remains for such burial is authorized only from the place of death within a State to the port of embarkation within a State, or to the border limits of the United States.
( 2 ) VA may pay the plot or interment allowance for burial in a veterans cemetery under § 3.1707, Plot or interment allowance.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 2303(a), 2308)
Cross Reference: § 3.1(z) for the definition of “nursing home”, § 3.1(i) for the definition of “State”.
#### §§ 1293.5-1293.10 [Reserved]
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OLUSEGUN OLUWOLE OSHILAJA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-72830

Agency No. A097-364-379

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 1, 2013** 

Before: GRABER, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Olusegun Oluwole Oshilaja, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to

reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

FILED

AUG 20 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-72830

review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v.

Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Oshilaja’s motion to reopen

as untimely where Oshilaja filed the motion more than two years after the BIA’s

final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and failed to show materially

changed country conditions in Nigeria that would excuse the late filing, see 8

C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.

2004) (requiring circumstances to “have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who

previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear

of future persecution”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.