alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2289 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.2289

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
             the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

                                 An Act

 
            For the relief of Jose Guadalupe Tellez Pinales.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Jose Guadalupe 
Tellez Pinales shall be held and considered to have been lawfully 
admitted to the United States for permanent residence as of the date of 
the enactment of this Act upon payment of the required visa fee.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3309-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for the State of North Dakota (FEMA-3309-EM), dated March 14, 2010, and related determinations.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         April 30, 2010.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this emergency is closed effective April 30, 2010.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2010-12191 Filed 5-20-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 24.1 
                                      
                            ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT 


The Board of Directors
Union Financial Services - 1, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on 
Form S-3 (No. 333-8929) relating to Union Financial Services - 1, Inc. 
Taxable Student Loan Asset-Backed Notes of our report, dated February 7, 
1997, except note 12, which is as of March 20, 1997, relating to the balance 
sheet of Union Financial Services - 1, Inc. as of December 31, 1996, and 
related statements of operations, stockholders' deficit and cash flows for 
the period from inception (February 28, 1996) to December 31, 1996, which 
report appears in the December 31, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K of Union 
Financial Services - 1, Inc.

/s/  KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Lincoln, Nebraska
March 27, 1997
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FREDERICK DAVID PI Ñ A,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 23

- 55614

D.C. No. 2:23

- cv

- 02672

- MCS

- SK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California Mark C. Scarsi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 26, 2024 * *

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Frederick David Pi ñ a appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

. Watison v. Carter , 668 F.3d 1108 , 1112 (9th

Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Stewart v. U.S.

* 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). 

# FILED

APR 2 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 23

- 55614

Bancorp , 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal based on claim preclusion)

.

We affirm

.

The district court properly dismissed Pi ñ a’s action on the basis of claim

preclusion because Pi ñ a’s claims alleging improper conduct by State Farm’s

counsel during Pi ñ a’s personal injury litigation involved the same parties and

primary right raised in a prior state court action that resulted in a final judgment on

the merits. See Gupta v. Thai Airways Int’l , Ltd. , 487 F.3d 759 , 762 n.3 (9th Cir.

2007) ( explaining that a state court dismissal is final whe n a party fails to appeal

within the time allowed); Manufactured Home C mtys. Inc. v. City of San Jose , 420

F.3d 1022 , 1031 (9th Cir. 2005) (“ To de termine the preclusive effect of a state

court judgment federal courts look to state law. ”); DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber

,

352 P.3d 378, 386 (Cal. 2015) (setting forth elements of claim preclusion under

California law ).

We reject as meritless Pi ñ a’s contentions that the district court acted without

authority in issuing its decision s
, violated federal law, or was biased against Pi ñ a

.

Pi ñ a’s motions to consolidate (Docket Entry Nos. 13, 14 and 15) are denied.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  Exhibit 11


             AMERICAN STATES FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES 
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE





<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        <S>           <C>
                                                        Year Ended December 31,
                                                  ------------------------------------
                                                       1996          1995       1994
                                                   ------------  ----------  ---------
                                                         (Dollars in Thousands
                                                         Except Per Share Data)
<S>                                                <C>         <C>         <C>
Primary
-------
Shares outstanding, beginning of period            50,000,000  50,000,000  50,000,000

Weighted average shares issued during period:
  Stock offering                                    5,945,206           -           -
  Employee benefit plans                               30,032           -           -
                                                   ----------  ----------  ----------
      Weighted average primary shares outstanding  55,975,238  50,000,000  50,000,000
                                                   ==========  ==========  ==========

Net income                                         $  169,706  $  178,264  $  184,558
                                                   ==========  ==========  ==========

Net income per primary common share                $     3.03  $     3.57  $     3.69
                                                   ==========  ==========  ==========

Fully Diluted
-------------
Shares outstanding, beginning of period            50,000,000  50,000,000  50,000,000

Weighted average shares issued during period:
  Stock offering                                    5,945,206           -           -
  Employee benefit plans                               30,032           -           -
                                                   ----------  ----------  ----------
Weighted average fully diluted shares outstanding  55,975,238  50,000,000  50,000,000
                                                   ==========  ==========  ==========

Net income                                         $  169,706  $  178,264  $  184,558
                                                   ==========  ==========  ==========

Net income per fully diluted common share          $     3.03  $     3.57  $     3.69
                                                   ==========  ==========  ==========
</TABLE>



Note:  The fully diluted calculation is submitted in accordance with Regulation
S-K item 601(b)(11) although not required by footnote 2 to paragraph 14 of APB
Opinion No. 15 because it results in dilution of less than 3%.


                                       124
Exhibit 32.2

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

      In connection with the Quarterly  Report of SIGA  Technologies,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending  December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Thomas
N. Konatich.,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my 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.

March 30, 2005

                                                    /S/ Thomas N. Konatich
                                                    ----------------------
                                                    Thomas N. Konatich
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
#### Anna L. Thomass, Appellant, v. Edward Thomass, Respondent.

Order affirmed. No opinion.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-3217

___________________________ Dilver Ezequiel Gaytan-Parada lllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner

v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of United States

lllllllllllllllllllll Respondent

____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

____________ Submitted: March 22, 2023 Filed: April 10, 2023 [Unpublished]

____________ Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. El Salvadoran citizen Dilver Ezequiel Gaytan-Parada applied for asylum and withholding of removal. An immigration judge denied his application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal. He petitions for review.We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of Gaytan-Parada’s asylum claim

because he does not meaningfully raise a constitutional or legal challenge to the agency’s findings that his application was untimely and that he failed to show the deadline should be excused based on extraordinary circumstances. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(3) (no court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination on whether extraordinary circumstances warrant consideration of untimely asylum application), 1252(a)(2)(D) (exception to jurisdictional bar for constitutional claims or questions of law); Cambara-Cambara v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 2016) (concluding this court lacks jurisdiction to review untimeliness of asylum application, absent a constitutional claim or question of law, and whether an applicant has shown extraordinary circumstances is a factual finding or discretionary judgment insulated from review); see also Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004). Gaytan-Parada has waived review of his claim for withholding of removal because he has failed to meaningfully challenge the agency’s reasons for denying it.See, e.g., Hassan v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 587, 590 n.1 (8th Cir. 2021). Even if GaytanParada had not waived review, substantial evidence supported the denial of his claim. See Mouawad v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 405, 412 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review). He did not demonstrate past harm rising to the extreme level of persecution or a clear probability of future persecution. See Cano v. Barr, 956 F.3d 1034, 1039 (8th Cir. 2020); Lemus-Arita v. Sessions, 854 F.3d 476, 482 (8th Cir. 2017); Garcia-Colindres v. Holder, 700 F.3d 1153, 1158 (8th Cir. 2012); Samedov v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 704, 708 (8th Cir. 2005). These determinations were dispositive of his claim. See Cano, 956 F.3d at 1040 & n.4. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
# Stephen Row Bradley: A Featured Biography

**

----

Stephen Row Bradley (1754-1830) represented Vermont in the U.S. Senate from 1791 to 1795, and again from 1801 to 1813. Having written *Vermont’s Appeal to the Candid and Impartial World* in 1779 to advocate for Vermont’s statehood, Bradley’s leadership led to Vermont’s ratification of the Constitution in 1791 and his election as one of the state’s first senators. During his first term in the Senate, Bradley introduced the bill establishing America’s first national flag, now known as the Bradley flag. During his second term, he helped draft the Twelfth Amendment, which simplified the presidential election process. An influential Democratic-Republican senator who was popular with his colleagues, he twice served as the Senate’s president pro tempore. Bradley opposed the War of 1812, predicting that war against England would devastate New England’s manufacturing and shipping economy. Frustrated by his inability to stop that war, Bradley retired in 1813.

All Featured Biographies

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States 

### Organizational Chart 

This chart shows the relationships among Senate leaders and officers who manage the flow of legislative and administrative business in the Senate.  

### Contact Your Senator 

Can't find your senator's name in the list of Senators?  Perhaps he or she is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, or a Senator in your State Legislature.

### Biographical Directory 

The Directory provides information about former and current senators.
1177 Avenue of the Americas             Telephone 212-596-7000
                  New York, NY 10036                      Facsimile 212-596-8910


PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP                                                      (LOGO)

                       REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
March 28, 1997

To the Stockholder and Board of Directors
of Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation

We  have  examined   management's   assertion  about  Chase  Manhattan  Mortgage
Corporation's  (the   "Corporation")   compliance  with  the  minimum  servicing
standards  identified in the Mortgage Bankers  Association of America's  UNIFORM
SINGLE  ATTESTATION  PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE  BANKERS (USAP) as of and for the year
ended December 31, 1996 included in the accompanying  management  assertion (see
Exhibit  1).  The  Corporation  performs  loan  subservicing  functions  for the
residential  loan  servicing  portfolios of Chase  Mortgage  Services,  Inc. and
Chemical  Mortgage  Company.  Management is  responsible  for the  Corporation's
compliance  with the  minimum  servicing  standards.  Our  responsibility  is to
express an opinion on management's assertion about the entity's compliance based
on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Corporation's compliance with the
minimum  servicing   standards  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as  we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination on the Corporation's  compliance with the minimum servicing
standards.

In  our  opinion,   management's   assertion  that,   except  for  instances  of
noncompliance described in management's assertion, the Corporation complied with
the  aforementioned  minimum  servicing  standards  as of and for the year ended
December 31, 1996 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

Instances of  noncompliance  which occurred during 1996 are more fully discussed
in management's assertion which is set forth in Exhibit I.


/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP
#### Oscar B. Bergstrom and Henry A. Taylor, Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Bergstrom & Company, Appellants, v. The Ridgway Company, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion.
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS EUGENE DARRYL MCKNIGHT NO. 

### 2023 KW 0376 

### JULY 5, 2023 In Re: State of Louisiana, applying 

### for supervisory writs,



### 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. 

## Tammany, No. 

### 3445-F-2020. BEFORE: LANIER, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. WIL CHH SMM

URT OFAPPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT



### PUTY CLERK OF COURT FORTHE COURT
EX-4.7









EXHIBIT 4.7




CONSENT OF EXPERT




     I, Dr. Anson Xu, hereby consent to the inclusion and incorporation by reference in this
Registration Statement on Form F-8 of Silvercorp Metals Inc. (the “Registration Statement”) of
references to and information derived from the technical report entitled “Technical Report on
Gaocheng Ag-Zn-Pb Project, and Shimentou Au-Ag-Zn-Pb Project, Guangdong Province, People’s Republic
of China” dated April 30, 2008 (the “Incorporated Information”). I also consent to the reference
to my name and to my involvement in the preparation of the Incorporated Information in this
Registration Statement.



	 	 	 
	  /s/ Dr. Anson Xu
 

Name: Dr. Anson Xu

	 	 






Date: June 15, 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6067

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EMMA J. ALLEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-44, CA-97-249)

Submitted: March 23, 2000 Decided: March 31, 2000

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emma J. Allen, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Ann Colombell, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Emma J. Allen seeks to appeal the district court's order denying her motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. See United States v. Allen, Nos. CR-91-44; CA-97-

249 (E.D. Va. Nov. 1, 1999). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                         387,550
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  11,878,553
<ALLOWANCES>                                   300,000
<INVENTORY>                                    26,180
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               13,173,002
<PP&E>                                         2,960,735
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,575,998
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 17,941,294
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          14,088,937
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          3,054,033
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       666
<OTHER-SE>                                     (552,904)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   17,941,294
<SALES>                                        6,157,367
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               30,200,594
<CGS>                                          4,821,588
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  29,562,925
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               127,143
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               138,725
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             127,143
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                510,526
<INCOME-TAX>                                   211,183
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            299,343
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   299,343
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .06



</TABLE>