alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t 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 HE I DI G. AL DA NA , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 74854 A ge nc yN o. A 074- 802- 913 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 a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d J anuary10, 2011 ** B efo re: B E E Z E R , T A L L M A N , an dC A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. H e i di G . A l dana , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of G ua t e m a l a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order denyi ng her m ot i on t o reopen r e m ova lpr oc e e di ngs . W e have j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f or 

# FI LED JAN 18 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 74854 2 ab 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 . I

tu rr i b a rr i a v . I

NS , 321 F . 3d 8 8 9 , 8 9 4 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) . 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 I A a c t e d w i thi n i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng a s unt i m e l yA l dana ’ s m ot i on t o reopen b ec ause the m ot i on w as fi l ed m ore than ei gh tye ar s a ft erthe B IA ’ s f i nal o r d e ro f r e m o v a l, se e 8 C . F . R . § 1003. 2( c ) ( 2) , and A l danadi d note s t abl i s h tha ts he a c t e d w i th the due di l i ge nc e r e qui r e d f ore qui t abl e t ol l i ng of

the t i m e l i m i t a t i on, se e I tu rr ib a rr ia , 321 F . 3d a t897. W e the r e f or e do nota ddr e s s the m e r i t s of the m ot i on. T o th e e x te n t w e h av e ju r is d ic tio n to r e v ie w th e B I A ’s d e c is io n n o t to in v o k e its s u as p o n te au th o r ity , th e B I A a c te dw ith in its b r o a dd is c r e tio n in d e c lin in g to r e o p e n u n d e r8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( a ) . PETI TI O N FO R R EVI EW D EN I ED .
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 97 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 97

  To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit the issuance of 
             national injunctions, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

Mr. Biggs of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit the issuance of 
             national injunctions, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Injunctive Authority Clarification 
Act of 2025''.

SEC. 2. ORDERS PURPORTING TO RESTRAIN ENFORCEMENT AGAINST NON-PARTIES.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 155 of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 2285. Orders purporting to restrain enforcement against non-
              parties
    ``No court of the United States (and no district court of the 
Virgin Islands, Guam, or the Northern Mariana Islands) shall issue an 
order that purports to restrain the enforcement against a non-party of 
any statute, regulation, order, or similar authority, unless the non-
party is represented by a party acting in a representative capacity 
pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 155 of 
title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item 
relating to section 2285 the following:

``2285. Orders purporting to restrain enforcement against non-
                            parties.''.
                                 <all>
```
EX-10.6



 Exhibit 10.6 

Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy 

Cash Compensation 
 Effective upon the closing of the
initial underwritten public offering of common stock (the “Common Stock”) of Everbridge, Inc. (the “Company”), each non-employee member of the board of directors (the “Board”)
of the Company will receive an annual cash retainer of $30,000. The chairpersons of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will receive additional annual cash retainers of $10,000, $5,000 and
$5,000, respectively. Other members of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will receive additional annual cash retainers of $3,000 for each such committee of which they are a member. Such
annual cash retainers shall be payable in equal quarterly installments, in arrears, following the end of each quarter in which the service occurred, prorated for any partial quarters of service. 

The Company will also reimburse all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by non-employee directors in attending meetings of the Board or any committee
of the Board; provided, that such non-employee director timely submits to the Company appropriate documentation substantiating such expenses in accordance with the Company’s travel and expense policy, as in effect from time to time. 

Equity Compensation 
 Commencing on the next annual
meeting of the Company’s stockholders, each continuing non-employee director as of the date of the annual meeting of the Company’s stockholders will receive an annual grant of a non-qualified stock option to purchase 7,500 shares of Common
Stock, having an exercise price equal to the fair market value of the Common Stock on such grant date, which will vest in full on the earlier of the first anniversary of such grant date or the date of the next annual stockholders’ meeting,
provided that the applicable non-employee director is, as of such vesting date, then a director of the Company. 
 All equity awards granted pursuant to
this policy will be granted under and shall be subject to the Company’s 2016 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), as amended, or any successor equity incentive plan and the applicable award agreements thereunder,
including the limitations on compensation payable to non-employee directors set forth therein. All equity awards granted pursuant to this policy will vest in full upon, but subject to the occurrence of, a Change in Control (as defined in the Plan).
# C_2021490EN.01005201.xml

| 6.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 490/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 490/52

---

Order of the General Court of 27 September 2021 — Stena Line Scandinavia v Commission

(Case T-391/20) (1)

(2021/C 490/63)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.

---
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

FR ANC ISC O JAVIER

DUR AN ISORDIA, AKA “ C re e p e r” M onike r, AKA Franc isc o Dura

n , AKA Fra

nc isc o Javie r Duran-Isordia , AKA Fra nc isc o Javie r Isordia ,

Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 17-71064 Age n c y No. A077-306-235
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm i tte d Oc tobe r 7, 2020 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD, HUR W ITZ, a nd B RESS, C irc u it Judge s. Duran Isordia

argue s the B oa

rd e rre d in finding he

c om m itte d a re m ova ble offe nse be c a

use the sta

tute of c onvic tion, C a l ifornia He a lth a nd Sa fe ty C ode 

# FIL ED
OCT 13 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).§ 11379(a), is ove rbroa d unde r Mathis v . Unite d State s , 136 S. C t. 2243 (2016). This is inc orre c t. This C ourt he ld in Unite d State s v . Barragan tha

t Se c tion 11379 is a divisible sta

tute a s to thec ontrolle d

substa nc e involve d in theoffe nse . 871 F.3d 689, 715 (9th C ir. 2017). To de te rm ine whic h e le m e nt of Se c tion 11379 Dura n Isordia wa s c o nvic te d of, we m ay

unde r the m odifie d c ate goric a l a pproa c h , a s de s c ribe d in Unite d State s
v . Torre -J ime ne z , 771 F.3d 1163, 1167 (9th C ir. 2014), c onside r the c om pla int,
a bstra c t of judgm e nt, a

nd doc ke t she e t tha

t we re subm itte d in this c a se . The y
e sta blishe d tha

t t he offe nse wa s se lling, tra nsporting, or offe ring to se ll
m e tha m phe tam ine , whic h

is within the

c ove ra g e of the Fe de ra l C o ntrolle d Substa nc e Ac t, a s we he l d in Unite d State s v . Rodrigue

z-Gamboa , __ F.3d __ (9th C ir. 2020). Dura

n Isordia ’ s a

rgum e nt a bout solic ita

tion wa s not ra ise d be fore the B oa rd and is in a

ny e ve nt fore c lose d by Mie le w c zyk v . Holde r , 575 F.3d 992, 996–98, 996 n.1 (9th C ir. 2009). The words “ a s c ha

rge d” are not ne c e ssa

ry to e sta blish thec rim e to whic h Duran Isordia

ple a de d “ whe n the re c ord is c le ar,” Torre -J ime ne z , 771 F.3d a

t 1168–69, a s it is in this c a se . The pe tition for re vie w is DE N IE D.

2
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 93 

To prohibit funding to the Special Representative for Racial Equity and 

Justice of the Department of State, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit funding to the Special Representative for Racial 

Equity and Justice of the Department of State, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop Imposing Woke 

5 Ideology Abroad Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION. 

7 Beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act 

8 and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Fed9 eral funds may be obligated or expended— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 93 IH

1 (1) for the salary or expenses of the Special 

2 Representative for Racial Equity and Justice of the 

3 Department of State; or 

4 (2) to otherwise implement or carry out the Eq5 uity Action Plan of the Department of State. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ABILENE DIVISION

ISMAEL LOREDO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

) Civil Action No. 1:04-CV-052-C

Defendant. ) ECF

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS MATTER comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation filed March 1,

2006 (Doc. 30). Neither party has filed objections within the 11-day period specified in 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). 

WHEREFORE, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is adopted by the court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed and

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a judgment in accordance with the terms of this order

shall be entered forthwith.

DATED this 28th day of March, 2006.

_________________________________

SAM R. CUMMINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

 Case 1:04-cv-00052-C Document 32 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 142
Charles E. SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3528

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed April 12, 2019

Charles E. Smith, Malone, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Charles E. Smith appeals the summary denial of his motion for jail credit filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801. We reverse.

On May 18, 2017, Smith was arrested in Lake County on a Sumter County warrant charging fraudulent use of personal identification information. According to the trial court, he bonded out the same day. Four months later, on September 25, 2017, he was arrested in Lake County for failure to appear in the Sumter County case. On December 23, 2017, he bonded out of jail. Several months later, on May 24, 2018, he was again arrested for failure to appear. On June 20, 2018, Smith entered a plea and was sentenced to eighteen months in the Department of Corrections with credit for time served. He received 119 days' credit.

On September 24, 2018, Smith filed an unsworn1 Rule 3.801 motion seeking an additional 258 days' credit. He alleged that while incarcerated on a separate Lake County case, a hold was placed on him for this case on March 27, 2017. Smith claims he posted bond in the other case on May *24218, 2017, but could not be released due to a detainer.2

The trial court denied the motion finding that Smith failed to demonstrate he would have been released from the Lake County Jail on March 27, 2017, but for the hold by Sumter County. The trial court's conclusion, however, did not take into account that Rule 3.801(e) incorporates the procedures outlined in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850(f). *See* Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.801(e) ; *Brown v. State*, 127 So.3d 825, 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ("Upon receipt of a rule 3.801 motion, the court must follow the procedure outlined in rule 3.850(f).").

Rule 3.850(f) requires a trial court to give a defendant who files a timely but insufficient motion sixty days to file an amended motion. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850(f)(2). Here, because Smith's timely motion was legally insufficient, the trial court was required to provide him an opportunity to amend. *See**id.* Failing to do so was error. Accordingly, we reverse the order summarily denying Smith's motion and remand with directions that the trial court provide Smith sixty days to amend his motion pursuant to Rule 3.801(e) and Rule 3.850(f)(2).3

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.

1

Pursuant to Rule 3.801(c), the motion shall be filed under oath.

2

Smith also identified periods of time that he was back and forth between the two county jails, but did not provide sufficient dates to establish set times.

3

We note that Rule 3.850(f)(5) also allows for summary denial if the motion is legally sufficient and the records that conclusively refute the defendant's claim are attached to the final order.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 30, 2016

NO. 03

- 15

- 00384

- CV

Crystal Bingham Hernandez, Appellant

v.

Tiffany Polley, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TOM GREEN COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PU RYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD REVERSED AND REMANDED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on March 27, 2015 . Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in

the court’s judgment

. Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s judgment and remands the

case to the trial court for further proceedings

. The appellee shall pay all costs relating to this

appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
Edward SIMMONS v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS

NO. 2018-CI-0488

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2019

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
David Aaron GILLETT and Jordan, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Michael PITTMAN and Associates Consulting, Inc., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3841

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 15, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 15, 2018

No. 04-17-00370-CR

Juan Guzman ZUNIGA JR.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006CR5239

Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

The court has considered the appellant’s motion for en banc reconsideration, and the 

motion is DENIED.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 15th day of February, 2018.
___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Case 3:03-cv-02723-P Document 7 Filed 05/09/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 30
STATE of Louisiana v. Brady Louis VICE, Sr.

No. 2018-KK-1926

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 28, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE 15th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE PARISH OF LAFAYETTE**

Writ denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant and assigns reasons.

GENOVESE, J., would grant for reasons assigned by Justice Hughes.

Hughes, J., would grant the writ.

The judge and the prosecutor, as an officer of the court, have a duty to ensure that criminal defendants, even guilty ones, do not sit in jail after prosecution deadlines have lapsed, without notice or remedy due to the lack of notice. The defendant in this case should be afforded a bond hearing.
Oddis BRUNER v. John SEXTON

2160897

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Case 3:04-cv-02339-H Document 1 Filed 10/28/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 1
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02339-H Document 1 Filed 10/28/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 2
 

 Case 3:04-cv-02339-H Document 1 Filed 10/28/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 3
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 3979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00795]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: January 15, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
January 6, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1236 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1053, K2025-1052.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00795 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 3978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00793]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: January 15, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
January 6, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1234 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1051, K2025-1050.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00793 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Case 3:03-cv-02838-B Document 18 Filed 06/17/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 83
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 776 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 776

     To reauthorize the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 28, 2025

Mr. Harder of California (for himself, Mr. Valadao, and Mr. Garamendi) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To reauthorize the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Nutria Eradication and Control 
Reauthorization Act of 2025''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF NUTRIA ERADICATION AND CONTROL ACT OF 2003.

    (a) In General.--Section 3(e) of the Nutria Eradication and Control 
Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 8102(e)) is amended by striking ``2025'' and 
inserting ``2030''.
    (b) Technical Correction.--Section 3(a) of the Nutria Eradication 
and Control Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 8102(a)) is amended by striking 
```Secretary'),'' and inserting ```Secretary')''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>


                                                                      Exhibit 23

The Board of Directors
The WMF Group. Ltd.:

        We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(No. 333-41613 and No. 333-61653) on Form S-8 and (No. 333-83109 and 333-76391)
on Form S-3 of The WMF Group, Ltd. of our report dated February 17, 2000, except
for note 19 which is as of March 17, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance
sheets of The WMF Group, Ltd. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999 and 1998,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, cash flows and changes in
stockholders' equity for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 1999, which report appears in the December 31, 1999 annual report
on Form 10-K of The WMF Group, Ltd.


/s/ KDMG LLP

McLean, Virginia
March 24, 2000