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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001011449
<NAME> SUBURBAN LODGES OF AMERICA, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       3,018,419
<SECURITIES>                                75,321,859
<RECEIVABLES>                                  107,658
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,500
<INVENTORY>                                    178,571
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            79,615,519
<PP&E>                                      53,465,923
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,721,819
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             131,000,392
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,806,891
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       115,258
<OTHER-SE>                                 112,078,243
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               131,000,392
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,222,524
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,222,524
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             555,625
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,047,338
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,384,692
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,384,692
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HARBHAJAN SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-73071

Agency No. A88-590-298

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted April 10, 2014

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and PRATT, Senior

District Judge.** 

Petitioner Harbhajan Singh (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of India,

appeals the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

FILED

APR 30 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

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

 ** The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Senior United States District Judge

for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §

1252, and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination. 

See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010). Petitioner

provided inconsistent accounts of his alleged history of persecution to the

Canadian and U.S. immigration authorities, and was unable to supply an adequate

and persuasive explanation for the inconsistencies. He was also unresponsive on

cross-examination and when questioned by the immigration judge. Therefore, we

affirm the BIA’s finding that Petitioner was not credible.1

 Furthermore, we agree

that the two affidavits Petitioner submitted in support of his application are by

themselves insufficient to establish his asylum eligibility.

Since Petitioner did not satisfy the less demanding burden of showing

asylum eligibility, we must also conclude that he failed to shoulder the more

stringent clear probability standard applicable to his withholding of removal claim. 

See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). As for Petitioner’s

CAT claim, it must also be rejected as it was based on the same evidence that the

1 We further conclude that the admission of the Canadian immigration

documents was not fundamentally unfair such that it violated Petitioner’s due

process rights. See Sanchez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 1107, 1109 (9th Cir. 2012).

2
BIA concluded was insufficient to establish Petitioner’s asylum eligibility. See id.

at 1157. 

Accordingly, the petition is DENIED. 

3
----

            COMMISSION DECISION         

of 5 December 2006         

amending Decision 2006/80/EC as regards Slovenia

(notified under document number C(2006) 5797)

(Only the Slovenian text is authentic)

(2006/883/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 92/102/EEC of 27 November 1992 on the identification and registration of animals (1), and in particular Article 3(2) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision 2006/80/EC is replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Republic of Slovenia.

Done at Brussels, 5 December 2006.

For the Commission

Markos KYPRIANOU            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 355, 5.12.1992, p. 32. Directive as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 (OJ L 5, 9.1.2004, p. 8).

(2)OJ L 36, 8.2.2006, p. 50.

----

ANNEX

                     ‘ANNEX

Member States authorised to apply the derogation provided for in Article 3(2) of Directive 92/102/EEC as regards holdings with one single pig:

----
PMN – [ CBI ] Waste Template

[ CBI ]
[ CBI ]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet and statement of operations and is qualified in its entirety to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                              9,722
<SECURITIES>                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                       22,984
<ALLOWANCES>                        0
<INVENTORY>                         13,906<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    39,225
<PP&E>                              95,187
<DEPRECIATION>                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      141,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               22,399
<BONDS>                             74,520<F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<COMMON>                            80
<OTHER-SE>                          44,800<F3>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        141,799
<SALES>                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    165,412
<CGS>                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    155,686
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    263<F4>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  4,634
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     4,829
<INCOME-TAX>                        (809)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 4,020
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     (1,318)
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                        2,702
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                       0.42
<FN>
<F1>Includes the following assets:  prepaid expenses and other of $3,570, demand note of $1,369, deferred income
taxes--current of $1,580, deferred income taxes--long-term of $376, restricted cash of $3,751, investment in limited
partnership of $256, and intangible assets, net of $3,004.
<F2>Includes the following long-term liabilities:  deferred income of $2,948, capital lease obligation of $53,533,
and long-term debt of $18,039.
<F3>Includes the following equity accounts:  additional paid-in capital of $48,340 and accumulated deficit of
$(3,540).
<F4>Includes loss on investment in limited partnership of $263.
</FN>


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
23.1
   CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
   We have
issued our report dated April 8, 2005, accompanying the consolidated financial
statements included in the Annual Report of Century Casinos, Inc. on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2004. We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of said report in the Registration Statement of Century Casinos, Inc.
on Form S-8 (File No. 333-13801, effective October 9, 1996).
   /s/ GRANT
THORNTON LLP
 Colorado
Springs, Colorado
 April 8,
2005
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in these Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-71266, 33-71776, 33-72166, 33-86982,
333-03845, 333-42183, 333-53915, 333-53917, 333-50970, and 333-67832) and on
Form S-3 (File No. 333-55512) of The J. Jill Group, Inc. of our report dated
February 11, 2002, except as to Note E which is as of March 1, 2002, relating to
the financial statements, which appears in the Annual Report to Shareholders,
which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the
incorporation by reference of our report dated February 11, 2002 relating to the
financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
March 28, 2002
#### Robert Farrington TRUSS-EL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. CROWLEY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-1524.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Jan. 27, 2003.

Before GUY and MOORE, Circuit Judges; and BECKWITH, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Sandra S. Beckwith, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

*ORDER*

Robert Farrington Truss-El appeals a district court judgment that dismissed his civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l). Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously *303agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Plaintiff filed his complaint in the district court alleging that he was forcibly removed from his cell using chemical spray despite his epilepsy after he covered his cell window with ink and barricaded his door because the defendant corrections officer refused to give plaintiff his food loaf dinner. In addition to the corrections officer, plaintiff named as defendants the prison warden, a prison nurse, and a corrections lieutenant who led the team that removed plaintiff from his cell. Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages. The district court dismissed the complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A. Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal.

On appeal, plaintiff primarily addresses matters outside the scope of his complaint. Plaintiff also has filed motions for the appointment of counsel, for an evidentiary hearing, for a protective order, for pauper status, and for relief from the district court’s judgment. Upon de novo review, *see McGore v. Wrigglesworth,*114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir.1997), we will deny plaintiffs motions and affirm the judgment for the reasons stated by the district court. Essentially, plaintiff alleged nothing that rises to the level of a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. *See Hudson v. McMillian,*503 U.S. 1, 6-9, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992); *Cunningham v. Jones,*567 F.2d 653, 659-60 (6th Cir.1977).

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs motions are denied, and the district court’s judgment is affirmed. *See*Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of 1stConstitution Bancorp (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (section) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (section) 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge: (1)         The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2)         The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. ROBERT F. MANGANOName:
Robert F.
ManganoTitle:
President and
Chief Executive OfficerDate:
November 14,
2005  JOSEPH M. REARDONName:
Joseph M.
ReardonTitle:
Senior Vice
President and TreasurerDate:
November 14,
2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLAR

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             571
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       65
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         46
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   945
<PP&E>                                           4,277
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,184
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,038
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,189
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           101
<OTHER-SE>                                      (2,252)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,038
<SALES>                                            330
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   330
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,328
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,267)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,267)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,267)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.22)


</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.21
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO LAND LEASE
 29 OCT.
 Preliminary Statements
 A.
    
    The Authority and AirNet have previously entered into that certain Land Lease
at Rickenbacker International Airport dated as of January 20, 2004 (the Lease).B.
    
    Authority and AirNet executed Amendment #1 to the Lease dated April 5, 2004, to
(i) extend the time to complete construction of the Leasehold Improvements and (ii) to
permit AirNet to construct a small portion of the Ramp.B.
    
    Consistent with the language found in Section I, Paragraph C. Premises -
Size, of the Lease the Authority and AirNet now desire to amend the Lease to attach a
survey identifying the entire Premise occupied by AirNet.
  1.
    
    The Lease is hereby amended by deleting Exhibit B and inserting
the attached survey as Exhibit B.2.
    
    All references, calculations, obligations, and responsibilities
in the Lease that are based on the size of the Premises will now reflect the
actual size identified in the survey of 8.648 acres. This includes, but is not
limited to: Rent calculations, Taxes and Assessments, Insurance coverage, and
liability and indemnity references.3.
    
    The parties hereby ratify and confirm the Lease, as the same is
modified and amended hereby, and agree to perform and observe all of their
obligations and duties under the Lease, as the same is modified and amended
hereby.




---



##### 



COLUMBUS REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY
 By:
    
    /s/ Elaine Roberts   [CRAA Legal Seal]Elaine Roberts, President and CEOAIRNET SYSTEMS, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Ken WrightKendall Wright, V.P.
 
 2nd Nov.
 /s/ Laura J. MorganNotary Public[Notary Seal]
    
    LAURA J. MORGANNotary Public, State of OhioMy commission expires 9-15-2009
 
 29th Oct.
 /s/ Ann MancusoNotary Public[Notary Seal]
    
    ANN MANCUSONotary Public, State of OhioMy Commission Expires8/30/06




---



##### 



Exhibit B  Survey
 DESCRIPTION OF 8.648 ACRES
(LEASE AREA AT RICKENBACKER)
  Begin for reference
  Point of True Beginning
  1.
    
    South 44°2519 East, a distance of 122.36 feet,
to an iron pin set;2.
    
    South 84°1059 East, a distance of 34.00 feet, to
an iron pin set;3.
    
    North 45°3441 East, a distance of 101.68 feet,
to an iron pin set;4.
    
    South 44°2519 East, a distance of 478.28 feet,
to an iron pin set;5.
    
    South 03°4217 West, a distance of 434.99 feet,
to an iron pin set;6.
    
    South 45°3441 West, a distance of 140.07 feet,
to an iron pin set;7.
    
    North 44°2519 West, a distance of 976.73 feet,
to an iron pin set;8.
    
    North 45°3441 East, a distance of 205.00 feet,
to an iron pin set;9.
    
    North 69°1850 East, a distance of 148.08 feet, to the
Point of True Beginning, containing 8.648 acres, more or less, (6.310 acres
out of the 2995.065 acre Tract 1)




---



##### 



Exhibit B  Survey
 
  3 4
 R.D. ZANDE & ASSOCIATES, INC.STATE OF OHIO (SEAL)MARK ALAN SMITH
S-8232REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR/s/ Mark Alan SmithMark Alan Smith          DateProfessional Surveyor No. S-8232          10/19/04




---



##### 



Exhibit B  Survey
#### Curtis PATTERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie L. RUSHTON, Warden; Charles M. Condon, South Carolina Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 02-7644.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 30, 2003.

Decided Feb. 5, 2003.

Marcia Gail Shein, Law Office of Marcia G. Shein, P.C., Decatur, Georgia, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Derrick K. McFarland, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Curtis Patterson seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Patterson has not made the requisite *213showing. *See Patterson v. Rushton,*No. CA-01-1984-9-17BG (D.S.C. Sept. 26, 2002). *See Slack,*529 U.S. at 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B); *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595. 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.*
Exhibit 23.1



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8, No. 333-15219)  pertaining to the Open Plan Systems, Inc. 1996 Stock Option
Plan for  Non-Employee  Directors  of our report dated  February 13, 1997,  with
respect to the  consolidated  financial  statements of Open Plan  Systems,  Inc.
included in the Annual  Report  (Form  10-KSB) for the year ended  December  31,
1996.




                                                         ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Richmond, Virginia
March 24, 1997