alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Julian SANCHEZ-RUEDA, Defendant.

No. 97-10143.

United States District Court, D. Kansas.

April 8, 1998.

*1134Michael G. Christensen, Office of U.S. Attorney, Wichita, KS, for Plaintiff.

Cyd K. Gilman, Office of Federal Public Defender, Wichita, KS, for Defendant.

*Memorandum and Order*

WESLEY E. BROWN, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the court on the defendant’s objections to the Presentence Report. The court ruled orally on the objections at the sentencing hearing of April 6, 1998. This written memorandum will supplement the court’s oral ruling.

The defendant has filed two objections to the Presentence Report. , First, he objects to the assertion in ¶8 that he admitted to an INS agent that he knew he was in the United States illegally. Defendant denies this, and asserts that he explained to the agent that he had his green card at home.

Based on the explanation of the probation officer in ¶ 70 of the Report, which the court finds to be credible, as well as the circumstances surrounding the offense, the court finds it more probable than not that the defendant initially admitted being in the United States illegally before he asserted that he had a green card at home.

Defendant also objects to the-statement in ¶ 65 that there are no factors warranting downward departure. He contends that a downward departure is warranted because he reentered the United States in a good faith belief that he could lawfully reenter. He states that he showed his green card at the border and was allowed entry. He also contends that his family circumstances, which include having a handicapped son in the United States who needs extensive care from family members, weigh in favor of a departure.

The court recognizes that it has the authority to depart from the guidelines in certain circumstances. *See Koon v. United States,*518 U.S. 81, 92-96, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996) (describing circumstances for departures). After fully considering the issues raised, however, the court finds that the circumstances of this case do not justify granting such a departure.

*Conclusion.*

The defendant’s objections to the Presen-tence Report are DENIED. The Probation Officer in charge of this case shall see that a copy of this order accompanies any copy of the Presentence Report made available to the Bureau of Prisons.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3253 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3253

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
  at 120 12th Street in Columbus, Georgia, as the ``J. Robert Elliott 
            Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 7, 2003

  Mr. Collins (for himself and Mr. Bishop of Georgia) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
  at 120 12th Street in Columbus, Georgia, as the ``J. Robert Elliott 
            Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

     The Federal building and United States courthouse located at 120 
12th Street in Columbus, Georgia, shall be known and designated as the 
``J. Robert Elliott Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

     Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the ``J. Robert Elliott Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 24462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10339]



[[Page 24462]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-250-000]


Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC; Notice of Request 
for Waiver

April 20, 2000.
    Take notice that on April 14, 2000, Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas 
Transmission LLC (KM Interstate) filed a request for a one-time waiver 
of certain notice and timing requirements of Section 18 of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Volume No. I-B, relating to the Right of First Refusal process 
with respect to two contracts with KN Energy, a division of Kinder 
Morgan, Inc. that expire on May 31, 2000.
    KM Interstate requests that it be allowed (1) to use an iterative 
bidding process limited to two rounds, if necessary, (2) to shorten the 
required time frame between the end of the bidding process and contract 
expiration from 45 days to the number of days in the period between the 
end of the bidding process and May 30, 2000, and (3) to shorten the 
required time frame for the execution and tendering of a service 
agreement by the original shipper, it necessary, from 15 days to a 
period to expire no later than May 30, 2000.
    KM Interstate states that copies of the filing have been served 
upon mainline transportation and storage shippers and affected state 
regulatory bodies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or 
before April 24, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-10339 Filed 4-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 99.11





CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON








Golden Star Resources Ltd.


United States Securities and Exchange Commission





Re: Golden Star Resources Ltd.





Ladies and Gentlemen:





I hereby consent to (i) being named and identified as a "qualified person" and the use of my name in connection with the following documents and reports, which are either referenced in or filed as exhibits with the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the “Form 40-F”) of Golden Star Resources Ltd. (the “Company”) to which this consent relates: (A) the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2014, (B) the Company’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2014 and and (C) the technical report entitled “43-101 Technical Report on Resources and Reserves Golden Star Resources Ltd., Bogoso Prestea Gold Mine, Ghana" effective date December 31, 2013 and filed on March 14, 2014, (ii) the inclusion or incorporation by reference of information derived from such documents in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-175542, 333-169047, 333-118958, 333-105821 and 333-105820), as amended, and Registration Statement No. 333-196906 on Form F-10, as amended, or any related abbreviated registration statement filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or in any amendment to any of the foregoing, or to any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto and (iii) all other references to the undersigned included or incorporated by reference in the above-referenced Registration Statements and in any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto.








/s/ Yan Bourassa


Yan Bourassa


Director, Business Development





March 31, 2015
Entered:01/25/22 15:16:00 Desc:

f 1
<PAGE>



                                   Exhibit 15

                           Accountants' Acknowledgment

First Brands Corporation
83 Wooster Heights Road
Danbury, CT  06813-1911

Ladies and Gentlemen:

               RE: FORM S-8 REGISTRATION STATEMENTS NO. 33-35770,
                  NO. 33-56992, NO. 33-56503 AND NO. 333-56503

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our reports dated November 4, 1996, February 4,
1997 and May 1, 1997 related to our reviews of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(C) under the Securities Act of 1933, such reports are
not considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

                                                       Very truly yours,

                                                       /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

New York, New York
May 14, 1997

<PAGE>
```

[110th Congress Public Law 62]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ062.110]

[[Page 121 STAT. 565]]

Public Law 110-62
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   896 Pittsburgh Street in Springdale, Pennsylvania, as the ``Rachel 
  Carson Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Aug. 9, 2007 -  [H.R. 1434]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. RACHEL CARSON POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 896 Pittsburgh Street in Springdale, Pennsylvania, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Rachel Carson Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Rachel 
Carson Post Office Building''.

    Approved August 9, 2007.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1434:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007):
            Apr. 23, considered and passed House.
            Aug. 3, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Promotion Materials

Facility Managers/State Representatives You are here: EPA Home Wastes Non-Hazardous Waste Industrial Waste Industrial Waste Guidelines

Guidelines Home Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Order Publications 

# Guide for Industrial Waste Management American industrial facilities generate and dispose of approximately 7.6 billion tons of industrial solid waste each year. This number was generated back in the 1980s and represents wastes generated from 17 different industry groups representing the manufacturing Standard Industrial Classification (SIC codes), such as organic chemicals, inorganic chemicals, primary iron and steel, plastics and resin manufacturing, stone, clay, glass and concrete, pulp and paper, food and kindred products. The purpose of the Guide is to: provide facility managers, state and tribal regulators, and the interested public with recommendations and tools to better address the management of land-disposed, non-hazardous industrial wastes, 1.

help facility managers make environmentally responsible decisions while working in partnership with state and tribal regulators and the public, 2.
serve as a handy implementation reference tool for regulators to complement existing programs and help address any gaps, and 3.
help the public become more informed and more knowledgeable in addressing waste management issues in the community. 4.

Cover (PDF) (1 pg, 48K, About PDF) Introduction (PDF) (4 pp, 41K, About PDF) Individuals Involved in Creating the Guide Part I - Getting Started Chapter 1: Understanding Risk and Building Partnerships Chapter 2: Characterizing Waste Chapter 3: Integrating Pollution Prevention Chapter 4: Considering the Site Part II - Protecting Air Quality 

## Wastes - Non-Hazardous Waste - Industrial Waste Last updated on Wednesday, December 17th, 2008. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/guide/index.htm Guide For Industrial Waste Management | Wastes | US EPA http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/guide/index.ht m

1 of 2 4/20/2009 1:36 PMEducators of Environmental Studies

Environmentalists/Concerned Citizen Chapter 5: Protecting Air Part III - Protecting Surface Water Chapter 6: Protecting Surface Water Part IV - Protecting Ground water Quality Chapter 7 - Section A: Assessing Risk Chapter 7 - Section B: Designing and Installing Liners: Technical Considerations for Surface Impoundments, Landfills, and Waste Piles Chapter 7 - Section C: Designing a Land Application Program Part V - Ensuring Long-Term Protection Chapter 8: Operating the Waste Management System Chapter 9: Monitoring Performance Chapter 10: Taking Corrective Action Chapter 11: Performing Closure and Post-Closure Care Please contact Jana Englander (englander.jana@epa.gov) if you are interested in displaying any of these ads on your Web site or in your trade journal or newsletter. Guide For Industrial Waste Management | Wastes | US EPA http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/guide/index.ht m

2 of 2 4/20/2009 1:36 PM
#### HARSH *v.*BUTLER.

Nusance — rule of damage.

In an action for a nusance, the plaintiff may recover damages equal to the injury he has sustained, including the expense of the suit to try the question.

The jury should not estimate the price of the land, for that remains the property of the plaintiff.

Trespass on the case for a nusance. On the trial before the jury, Thomas Butler was called as a witness by the defendant. He stated that he held a mortgage on the land in dispute.

It was then objected, that he was interested, and incompetent.

*J. Harris*and *W. Silliman,*for the plaintiff.

*Glasgow*and *Avery,*for the defendant.

By the Court.

The witness has an interest to prevent the finding the mill a nusance, which enters materially into the value of his security.

The witness afterwards stated that the land was worth ten times what is due him, if the mill was' removed, and executed a release. He was then sworn.

Wright, J.

to the jury. The plaintiff complains of an injury to his mill and land, by the defendant’s dam flooding water back upon it. ■ It is admitted that the plaintiff owns the land where his mill stands, and it is not denied that the defendant erected the dam below, claimed to be a nusance. If you are satisfied, by the evidence, that the dam of the defendant has thrown the water back upon the plaintiff’s land or mill, to his injury, he is entitled to your verdict for damages, in such an amount as in your opinion will compensate him for the injury he has sustained thereby, from the time of the erection of the dam, up to the bringing of the suit, the 9th November, 1830. It is not the price of the land that you are to give in damage, but a sum equal to the injury arising from the loss of the use of it, with the expense of prosecuting the suit for redress. *100The land remains the property of the plaintiff. If you are not satisfied the dam causes the water to flow back upon the plaintiff, to his injury, then the defendant is entitled to your verdict.

Verdict and judgment for the defendant.
Exhibit 11.1

ALDILA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES        COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE        (In thousands, except per share amounts)

Twelve months ended
December 31,2009

2008BASIC:Net loss

$
(243
)
$
(2,503
)Weighted average number of common shares outstanding


5,184


5,162Net loss per common share

$
(0.05
)
$
(0.48
)ASSUMING DILUTION:Net loss

$
(243
)
$
(2,503
)Weighted average number of common shares outstanding


5,184


5,162The number of shares resulting from the assumed exercise of stock options reduced by the number of shares which could have been purchased with the
proceeds from such exercise, using the average market price during the period





Weighted average number of common and common equivalent shares


5,184


5,162Net loss per common share, assuming dilution

$
(0.05
)
$
(0.48
)


---



QuickLinks
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA CRUZ-PINEDA; JHONATAN 

MARTIN RODRIGUEZ-CRUZ, 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-72375 

Agency Nos. A202-027-802 

A202-027-803 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 17, 2019**

Pasadena, California

Before: NGUYEN and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and VITALIANO,*** District 

Judge.

Maria Cruz-Pineda and her minor son—whose claim is derivative of his 

mother’s—are natives and citizens of El Salvador. They seek review of the Board 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

*** The Honorable Eric N. Vitaliano, United States District Judge for the 

Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

FILED

OCT 21 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final removal order, dismissing their appeal from 

the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying them asylum and withholding of 

removal. Cruz did not appeal the IJ’s denial of protection under the Convention 

Against Torture to the BIA; therefore, to the extent Cruz raises it now, this court 

does not have jurisdiction to review the IJ’s denial of relief on this basis. See 8 

U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (this court may review final orders of removal “only if” the 

alien has exhausted “all administrative remedies”). As the parties are familiar with 

the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the petition.

The BIA properly affirmed the IJ’s denial of relief on adverse credibility 

grounds. See Joseph v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating the 

standard of review). The BIA and IJ cited “specific and cogent reasons” for 

finding Cruz not credible. Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th Cir. 2017) 

(per curiam). For example, the BIA and IJ identified “significant inconsistencies 

in [Cruz’s] testimony related to the alleged threats made by gang members,”

including which gang targeted her family and what they demanded. Substantial 

evidence supports the grounds relied on by the BIA to affirm the IJ’s adverse 

credibility determination. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
EXHIBIT 23.1

Auditors Consent

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (File Nos. 33-81614, 333-105820, 333-105821, 333-118958), the Registration Statements on Form S-3, as amended (File Nos. 333-33237, 333-89767, 333-82106, 333-102225, 333-118956, 333-126741, 333-148269) and the Registration Statement on Form S-4,
as amended (File No. 333-118957) of Golden Star Resources Ltd. of our report dated February 25, 2008 relating to the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.



|                                                                                        
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                        
|                                                                                        
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP                                                          
|PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP CHARTERED
ACCOUNTANTS Vancouver, BC, Canada February 27,
2008
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                   FORM OF TAX OPINION INSURANCE POLICY RIDER


         Policy number GU0699498 issued by Insurer (the "Policy") is hereby
amended to clarify that the definition of Insured Tax Loss includes any amount
owed by one or more of the Insureds to a Tax Authority as a result of the
Insured Tax Benefits being unavailable to one or more of the Insureds on account
of the sale (the "Sale") of up to [28,300,000] shares of common stock of Maxtor
by Hynix Semiconductor America Inc. ("Hynix"), a California corporation
(formerly named Hyundai Electronics America), pursuant to an Underwriting
Agreement dated ______________, 2001 and/or an Option to Purchase Shares of
Stock between Maxtor and Hynix dated _____, 2001, making the Insured Tax
Benefits unavailable to one or more of the Insureds.

         This Rider A is issued by Insurer in reliance upon the truth and
accuracy of the statements, covenants, representations and warranties contained
in all the Operative Documents and E&Y Opinion (including all attachments
thereto and references therein), to the extent provided in the Policy. For all
purposes of the Policy, the term "Opinion" includes the tax opinion of Gray Cary
Ware & Freidenrich LLP dated _________________, 2001 rendered to Maxtor relating
to the Sale, a copy of which is attached to Exhibit III to the Policy.

Nothing in this Rider A shall vary, alter, waive or extend any of the terms,
conditions, exclusions or limitations of the Policy, except as expressly
provided in this Rider A. This Rider A is part of the Policy and incorporated
therein. All capitalized terms used and not defined in this Rider have the
meanings given to them in the Policy.