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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>   0001004991
<NAME>  Redwood Broadcasting, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          19,611
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  197,366
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,300
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               925,856
<PP&E>                                         259,989
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,460
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,556,753
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          628,397
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,988
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,069,740
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,556,753
<SALES>                                        373,317
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               373,317
<CGS>                                           33,399
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  373,187
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,960
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,921
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             31,921
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,921
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        



</TABLE>
#### Samuel Rodrigo TZIC-CHICAJ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-1535

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 28, 2017

Decided: November 30, 2017

Jessica L. Yañez, YÁÑEZ IMMIGRATION LAW, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Greg D. Mack, Senior Litigation Counsel, Christina P. Greer, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Rodrigo Tzic-Chicaj, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Tzic-Chicaj’s merits hearing before the immigration court and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to the administrative , factual findings, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision that Tzic-Chicaj failed to establish a nexus between past persecution and fear of future persecution and a protected ground and that he failed to establish eligibility for protection under the CAT. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *In re*
      *178
      *Tzic-Chicaj*(B.I.A. Mar. 31, 2017). 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 16218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05968]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and AIDS 
Initial Review Group; Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research 
Study Section; Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Study 
Section (AIDS).
    Date: April 20, 2022.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3F40A, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Dimitrios Nikolaos Vatakis, Ph.D., Scientific 
Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC-9823, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 761-7176, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#35515c585c41475c5a461b435441545e5c46755b5c5d1b525a43"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="02666b6f6b76706b6d712c74637663696b71426c6b6a2c656d74">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 16, 2022.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-05968 Filed 3-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### IN RE: Anthony Paul MANRIQUE, Debtor. Anthony Paul Manrique, Appellant, v. U.S. Bank, as Trustee for Lehman XS Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-16N, Appellee.

No. 16-56799

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 26, 2017

Anthony Paul Manrique, Pro Se

Todd Stephen Garan, Pite Duncan, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Appellee

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Anthony Paul Manrique appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying Manrique’s Federal Rule of CiviJ Proce*388dure 60(b) motion. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the district court’s decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court and apply the same standards of review applied by the district court. *Suncrest Healthcare Ctr. LLC v. Omega Healthcare Inv’rs, Inc. (In re Raintree Healthcare Corp.),*431 F.3d 685, 687 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying Manrique’s Rule 60(b) motion because Manrique failed to demonstrate any grounds for relief. *See*Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9024 (making Rule 60 applicable to bankruptcy cases); *Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)).

The district court properly determined that Manrique’s appeal of the' bankruptcy court’s underlying order was untimely because Manrique failed to file the notice of appeal with the bankruptcy clerk within 14 days of entry of the order as required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a)(1). *See*28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(2) (an appeal to the BAP or district court from a bankruptcy court must be taken within the time provided by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002); *Anderson v. Mouradick (In re Mouradick),*13 F.3d 326, 327 (9th Cir. 1994) (“The provisions of Bankruptcy Rule 8002 are jurisdictional.... ”).

We reject as unsupported by the record Manrique’s contentions that the bankruptcy court and the district court violated due process in relation to Manrique’s Rule 60(b) motion.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 214

To express the sense of the Senate concerning the payment of Social Security

obligations.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 26, 1996

Mr. BROWN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on Finance

RESOLUTION

To express the sense of the Senate concerning the payment

of Social Security obligations.

1 Resolved, that it is the sense of the Senate that as

2 the Secretary of the Treasury plans for cash flow manage3 ment in the absence of an extension to the debt limit of

4 the United States, the Secretary shall give first priority

5 to the payment of Social Security benefits over the pay6 ment of other Government obligations.

Æ
**Exhibit 34.4.2**

[Letterhead of KPMG LLP] 

KPMG LLP 

1601 Market Street 

Philadelphia, PA19103-2499 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Members 

Regulus Group LLC: 

We have examined management’s assessment for those customers that management has informed us have requested confirmation of compliance, including in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance withRegulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Regulus Group LLC complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for remittance processing servicesto those issuers of asset backed securities and servicers of loan and/or receivables portfolios that include pool assets for asset backed securities transactions (the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. Regulus Group LLChas determined that the remainder of the servicing criteria are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. Management is responsible for the Company’scompliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assessment about the Company’s compliance based on our examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’scompliance with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise thePlatform, testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, ourprocedures were limited to the selected transaction and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to orsubsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides areasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. 

Inour opinion, management’s assessment that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

February 12, 2008 

KPMG, LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership is the U.S. 

member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                              42
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      972
<ALLOWANCES>                                       567
<INVENTORY>                                      1,573
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,094
<PP&E>                                           2,727
<DEPRECIATION>                                     992
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,829
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,452
<BONDS>                                            169
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,204
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,829
<SALES>                                            738
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   738
<CGS>                                              814
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,382
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,378)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,378)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (122)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,501)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.33)
        

</TABLE>
---

|CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER             
|---------------------------------------------------------
|PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Ezra Jimenez, Chief Financial Officer of Del
Toro Silver Corp. (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:

| | (1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the
      year ended October 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, 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 the Company.                                                                                                 

|Dated: February 12, 2010 | By:                               | /s/ Ezra Jimenez
|------------------------ | --------------------------------- | ----------------
|                         | Ezra Jimenez                     
|                         | Chief Financial Officer          
|                         | (Principal Accounting Officer and
|                         | Principal Financial Officer)     

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Del Toro Silver
Corp. and will be retained by Del Toro Silver Corp. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
419 P.2d 553

#### James E. RILEY, Petitioner, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Arizona and Fiberglass Engineering and Supply Division, Respondents.

1 CA-IC 98.

Court of Appeals of Arizona.

Nov. 4, 1966.

*293Gorey & Ely, by Stephen S. Gorey, Phoenix, for petitioner.

Robert K. Park, Chief Counsel, by How-land F. Hirst and Arthur B. Parsons, Jr., Phoenix, for respondents.

STEVENS, Chief Judge.

This cause is before the Court by Writ of Certiorari to determine the lawfulness of an Award of the Industrial Commission denying claimant’s Petition for Reopening of his claim. Petitioner was afforded a formal hearing in this matter. A careful examination of the record indicates that the Award of the Commission is supported by the evidence.

The Award is affirmed.

CAMERON, and DONOFRIO, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460 

John V. Massingale 

Greenwich Chemical Consulting, Inc 

3300 PGA Boulevard, Suite 635 

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 

FEB . 2014 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

Re: Toxic Substances Control Act Section 4 Test Rule Requirements 

Dear Mr. Massingale: 

This is in response to a letter-of-intent-to-test submitted by Greenwich Chemical 

Consulting, Inc., on behalf of Univar USA, Inc., (Univar) for D-erythro-hex-2-enonic acid, 

gamma.-lactone, monosodium salt (CASRN 6381-77-7) (Testing of Certain High Production 

Volume Chemicals,· Second Group ofChemicals, 76 FR 1067, January 7, 2011). The letter states 

that Univar will sponsor physicaVchemical properties testing, environmental fate and pathways 

testing and aquatic toxicity testing in accordance with the test rule. Accordingly, please submit 

study plans and final reports to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by April 15, 

2014, and February 11 , 2015, respectively. All submissions must be submitted electronically 

through EPA's Central Data Exchange (COX) portal. For information on the CDX portal, 

including how to register and complete submissions please refer to 

http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtestlereporting/index.html#web. 

If you have any questions, please contact John Schaeffer by telephone at (202) 564-8173 

or email at schaeffer.john@epa.gov. 

cc: Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0531 

Paul Lewis, Ph.D. 

Chief 

Chemical Information and 

Testing Branch 

Internet Address 1 URL) • hltp //www epa gov 

Recycled/Recyclable · Punted w1th Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

APPOINTMENT TO MINOR JUDICIARY

EDUCATION BOARD

:

:

:

:

NO. 447

MAGISTERIAL RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 21st day of August, 2020, Kimberly Booth,* Allegheny County, is 

hereby appointed as a member of the Minor Judiciary Education Board, for a term expiring 

July 1, 2023.

* Lay-elector member
Exhibit 35.4

ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

CGCMT 2014-GC25

The undersigned, David Co, a
Director of Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as the Custodian (a Certifying Servicer) under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2014 (the Agreement), by and among, Citigroup Commercial
Mortgage Securities Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland Loan Services, A Division of PNC Bank National Association, as Special Servicer, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor,
Citibank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee, here by certifies in accordance with Section 10.08 of the Agreement:



| | A) | A review of such Certifying Servicers activities from October 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 (the Reporting Period) and of such Certifying Servicers performance under the Agreement has
been made under such officers supervision and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | B) | That, as to the best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, such Certifying Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement, in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS as Custodian/s/ David CoBY:

David CoTitle:

DirectorDate:

March 1, 2015
#### Brian L. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YORK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; J.D. Danny Diggs, in his individual capacity; Deputy McCay, in his individual capacity; Deputy Fretwell, in his individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-2080

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 21, 2017

Decided: December 27, 2017

*183Brian L. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Catherine Lahren, Jeff W. Rosen, - PEN-DER *&*COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Sherry A. Fox, THOMPSON MCMULLAN PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Brian L. Davis appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment on his claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Davis v. York Cty. Bd. of Supervisors,*No. 4:17-cv-00039-AWA-LRL, 2017 WL 4050064 (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 7, 2017 & entered Sept. 8, 2017). 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*