alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 18.1**

**PREFERABILITY LETTER FROM INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

May 13, 2008 

Newtek Business Services, Inc. 

1440 Broadway, 17th Floor 

New York, NY 10018 

Dear Sirs/Madams: 

As stated in Note 2 to the financial statements of Newtek Business Services, Inc. (the “Company”) forthe three months ended March 31, 2008, the Company changed its method of accounting with respect to timing of recognition for loan sales from settlement date to trade date. As stated in Note 2, the newly adopted accounting principle ispreferable in the circumstances because it more closely aligns the business reality at the trade date with the criteria for recognizing a transfer of a financial asset as set forth in paragraph 9 of Statement of Financial Accounting StandardsNo. 140. “Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities—A Replacement of FASB Statement 125”. At your request, we have reviewed and discussed with you the circumstances and thebusiness judgment and planning that formulated your basis to make this change in accounting principle. 

It should be understood that criteriahave not been established by the Financial Accounting Standards Board for selecting from among the alternative accounting principles that exist in this area. Further, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board has not established the standards bywhich an auditor can evaluate the preferability of one accounting principle among a series of alternatives. However, for purposes of the Company’s compliance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, we are furnishingthis letter. 

Based on our review and discussion, we concur with management’s judgment that the newly adopted accounting principledescribed in Note 2 is preferable in the circumstances. In formulating this position, we are relying on management’s business planning and judgment, which we do not find to be unreasonable. Because we have not audited any financialstatements of the Company as of any date or for any period subsequent to December 31, 2007, we express no opinion on the financial statements for the three months ended March 31, 2008.
|X-15Hypersonic Research
        at the Edge of SpaceOnlinePublications | OnlinePublications                                                                                | NASA logoX-15 Research Results
              With a Selected BibliographyHypersonic RevolutionProceedings of the X-15
              First Flight 30th Anniversary
              CelebrationThe X-15 Program In Retrospecthome |  | X-15 Research Results
              With a Selected Bibliography |  | Hypersonic Revolution |  | Proceedings of the X-15
              First Flight 30th Anniversary
              Celebration |  | The X-15 Program In Retrospect |  | home |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | --------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------ |  | ---- |  | 
|OnlinePublications                                                      
|                                                                         | X-15 Research Results
              With a Selected Bibliography                               
|                                                                         | Hypersonic Revolution                                                                            
|                                                                         | Proceedings of the X-15
              First Flight 30th Anniversary
              Celebration
|                                                                         | The X-15 Program In Retrospect                                                                   
|                                                                         | home                                                                                             
|                                                                         |                                                                                                  

---
#### Wm. Taylor *v.*Thos. Taylor.

Binding of Minors — Summons of Parent or Next Friend.

Where an order binding ont a minor or poor children unable to care for themselves does not show a summons for the parent or next friend, or person with whom they resided, to appear and show cause why said order is not made of full force and effect, it will be vacated and annulled.

APPEAL PROM MADISON CIRCUIT COURT.

June 26, 1867.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Peters:

Section 2, article 1, chapter 64, 2 Rev. Stat, p. 136, provides that before an order shall be made binding out any orphan child, *438the person, with whom he resides shall be summoned to show cause to the contrary.

The order made by the Circuit Court in this case is as follows:

Madison County Court.

Thursday, 'January 24, 1867.

Present, Hon. E. W. Turner, Presiding Judge.

Ordered that William Taylor, orphan minor of color, aged fourteen years and six months, be bound to Thomas Taylor until he shall attain the age of twenty-one years, to learn the art and mystery of farming, and the clerk of this court is directed to enter'into covenant with the said Thomas Taylor according to law.

It has been repeatedly held by this court that as the jurisdiction of County Courts over orphans and poor children whose parents are not capable of bringing them up in moral courses is limited, and special, orders for binding such children, as apprentices, should state the facts required by law, to give the court jurisdiction.

Tested by this rule, the order for binding the. orphan in this case will be found insufficient. It does not show that the parent, or next friend, or person with whom he resided had been summoned to show cause to the contrary, nor does it show that the person to whom he was apprenticed was his former owner — and who — under *section*4 *of an act approved*16 *February,*1866, entitled *An Act to Amétnd article*1, *chapter*64, *Rev. Stat.,*title, *Master and*Servant, under certain circumstances may be preferred.

Wherefore, said order binding said minor to appellee be reversed and must be annulled, and set aside.
ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

         This Addendum (the  "Addendum") is made effective as of the 15th day of
December,  1999 and is intended  to amend a certain  Employment  Agreement  (the
"Agreement")  by and  between  Erie  Indemnity  Company  and  Jeffrey A.  Ludrof
effective as of June 30, 1999.

         WHEREAS,  the Company has determined that it is in the best interest of
the Company  and its  Shareholders  to secure the  continued  employment  of the
Executive in accordance with the terms of the Agreement; and

         WHEREAS,  the Board of  Directors  of the  Company  at its  meeting  of
December  14, 1999 has again  agreed to extend the term of the  Agreement  for a
period of one (1) additional year as contained herein; and

         WHEREAS, the Executive is agreeable to the extension of the Agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree
         as follows:

         1. Paragraph 1 of the Agreement with  respect  to the  Term is hereby
amended by extending the Term to expire on December 15, 2001.

         2. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force
and effect.



ATTEST:                                              ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY


/s/ Mark T. Torok                         By:  /s/ F. William Hirt
    Mark T. Torok                                  F. William Hirt
     Assistant Secretary                            Chairman of the Board



WITNESS:

/s/ Sheila M. Hirsch                           /s/ Jeffrey A. Ludrof
    Sheila M. Hirsch                               Jeffrey A. Ludrof
     Executive Secretary                           170 Gateway Drive
                                                   Fairview, PA   16415

                                       73
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 Energy

# AGENCY:

Office of Nonproliferation and International Security, Department of Energy.

# ACTION:

Proposed subsequent arrangement.

# SUMMARY:

This notice has been issued under the authority of Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The Department is providing notice of a proposed subsequent arrangement under the Agreement for Cooperation Concerning Civil Uses of Nuclear Energy Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada and the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy Between the United States of America and the European Atomic Energy Community.

This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of 514,705.9 kg of U.S.-origin natural uranium hexafluoride (68.00% U), 350,000 kg of which is uranium, from Areva Resources Canada, Inc. (Areva Resources) in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, to URENCO in Gronau, Germany. The material, which is currently located at Areva Resources, will be transferred to URENCO-Gronau for enrichment and use as fuel in civilian nuclear power programs in the United States and France. The material was originally obtained by Areva Resources from the Feed Component Substitution Implementing Contract.

In accordance with Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, it has been determined that this subsequent arrangement will not be inimical to the common defense and security.

This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than fifteen days after the date of publication of this notice.

Dated: October 1, 2010.

For the Department of Energy.

Thomas P. D'Agostino,

Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration.

[FR Doc. 2010-27498 Filed 10-29-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
#### J. A. Gorman and Wife *v.*G. W. Ray.

Wills — Devise — Land—Estate Tail Converted to Fee-Simple Title — Life Estate by the Curtesy.

This devise created an estate tail as defined by the common law, and by the eighth section of chapter 80' of the Revised Statutes estates tail are converted into fee-simple estates. On the death of the legatee, the land in controversy descended to her heir subject to the life estate of the appellee. ,

APPEAL FROM CUMBERLAND CIRCUIT COURT.

January 24, 1867.

Opinion or the Court by

Judge Hardin :

The appellants sought, by their petition, to recover of the appellee a tract of land alleged to have been- devised to the female *89appellant by the will of Isaac McBee in remainder, subject to an estate for life in ber mother, Lucy A. Bay, wbicb bad terminated by ber death. the appellee in bis answer resists a recovery on the ground that said will vested the title in fee in said Lucy A. Bay who was bis wife, and said female appellant being the issue of their marriage, be claims that, on the death of - bis wife, be became vested with an estate for life in the land as tenant by the curtesy.

It appears, from the judgment rendered under an. agreement to submit the law and facts to the court, that evidence was beard upon wbicb the court based its judgment dismissing the action and, as the record contains no statement of the evidence, it must be presumed to have authorized the judgment, unless the will of Isaac McBee should be construed to have only vested in Lucy A. Bay an estate for life in the land and the remainder in the appellant Elizabeth J. Gorman.

Tbe disposing provision of tbe will as to tbe land is in these words:

> *“*I give and bequeath to my daughter Lucy Bay and! to tbe heirs of ber body,” etc.

> “ To ber, the said Lucy A. Bay, and to tbe heirs of her-body forever.”

According to repeated decisions of this court, this devise must-be understood as creating an estate tail as defined by tbe common law, unless it appears from other expressions indicating the.testator’s intention that be used tbe language quoted with a different meaning, and we perceive nothing in tbe entire will to-authorize tbe latter inference.

And, as by the eighth section of chapter 80 of the Bevised Statutes, estates tail are converted into fee-simple estates, we are of the opinion that on the death of Lucy A. Bay the land in controversy descended to ber daughter Elizabeth, subject to the life estate of the appellee.

Wherefore, tbe judgment is affirmed.
#### David Hart *v.*Howell Smith et al.

Sheriff — Execution — Levy on Eight of Eedemption — Deed Equitable Title Until Lodged for Eecord — Consent of Debtor.

A sheriff is not bound to levy on the right of redemption where there-was no evidence of legal title, and where the execution debtor would not surrender the property for that purpose.

Deeds are not equitable titles until lodged in the proper office for record, and an execution cannot be levied on such title without the consent of the debtor.

AUREAL EROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

October 9, 1866.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Williams:

The appellees and assiguees of the appellant have sufficiently explained the delay in issuing execution upon the judgment against the obligor in the note assigned. This delay, under the circumstances, was not of a character to release the assignor from his *312implied obligation to refund the consideration for the assignment should the obligor prove insolvent.

Nor can the delay of-three or four days, under the circumstances, after its issnal before it came to tbe sheriffs bands have such an effect. The real estate held by the execution debtor seems to have been by unrecorded deeds. He surrendered this property to the sheriff in satisfaction of execution in his hand previous to the judgment of appellees against him, and these executions seem to have been levied on his property. Tbe sheriff was not bound to levy on tbe right of redemption to lots and land when there was no evidence of the legal title only in possession of the defendant, and when he would not surrender the property for the purposes of levy.

The deeds hy which the execution debtor held his title were of several years antedated to the execution and had never been recorded or lodged for record in the proper office, consequently were equitable titles until lodged for record.

Such titles are not leviable without tbe consent of tbe bolder. None of tbe executions issued on judgments rendered at the same term of this judgment against tbe defendant in this execution seem to have been made, and the fact that fifteen executions were returned by the officer at tbe same time, no property found, strongly indicates a total insolvency of tbe debtor.

Tbe judgment is affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BENIGNO GARCIA

- CALLEJAS,

Petitioner,

v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 15

- 70265 Agency No. A076

- 228

- 963

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 26, 2017 **

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Benigno Garcia

- Callejas , a native and citizen of Honduras , petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of

removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our

* This dispos ition 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

OCT 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 70265

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey , 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.
2008)

. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the social group Garcia

- Calleja s presents for
the first time in his opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th
Cir. 2004) (no subject

- matter jurisdiction over legal claims not presented in
administrative proceedings below)

. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal

because Garcia

- Callejas failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears from

gangs and a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.
2010) (“An alien ’ s desire to be free from harassment by c riminals motivated by
theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Garcia

- Callejas failed to establish that it is more likely than not he would be

t ortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if returned to

Honduras

. See Silaya , 524 F.3d at 1073.
Finally, w e reject Garcia

- Callejas’s due process contention regarding IJ bias

because he did not show error. See Lata v. I.N.S. , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.3 15

- 70265

2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim)

.
PETITI ON FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-10877 Conference Calendar

LARRY KANE JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; JOHN GILBERT, Regional Director; DOYLE MCELVANEY, Warden, Head Warden; EMILY L. BOND; Assistant Warden; GREGORY OLIVER, Major; R. PERSON, Food Service Manager, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:00-CV-74-C

-------------------- December 13, 2000 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Larry Kane Johnson, Texas prisoner number 577737, appeals from the district court's denial of his motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. To the extent that Johnson's motion asked for a temporary restraining order, we lack appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's order. See Faulder v. Johnson , 178 F.3d 741, 742 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 527 U.S. 1018 (1999) . To the extent that Johnson sought aNo. 00-10877 -2- preliminary injunction, we review the magistrate judge's order for abuse of discretion. See White v. Carlucci , 862 F.2d 1209, 1211 (5th Cir. 1989). Johnson argues that he adequately proved an irreparable injury because the denial of constitutional rights is an irreparable injury as a matter of law. Johnson's allegation that he was denied one meal during his religious observation of Ramadan fails to show that his injury was occurring at the time he sought relief or that his rights to religious observation in the future are sufficiently threatened to warrant a preliminary injunction. See Elrod v. Burns , 427 U.S. 347, 374 (1975) (preliminary injunction may be appropriate because injury was both threatened and occurring at time respondent sought relief).
AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**WARRENRESOURCES, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Warren Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Timothy A. Larkin,Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Principal AccountingOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Timothy A. Larkin               |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
| Timothy A. Larkin                   |   |
| *Executive Vice President,*         |   |
| *Chief Financial Officer*           |   |
| *And Principal Accounting  Officer* |   |
| * *                            |   |
| August 5, 2009                 |   |

 

1

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6951

KEITH B. HAWKINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

NORFOLK POLICE DEPARTMENT; SAMMY HODGES; E. G.

BAYNON; MARVIN HIGH,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-96-681-AM)

Submitted: October 8, 1996 Decided: October 22, 1996

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith B. Hawkins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Keith B. Hawkins appeals the district court's order dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Hawkins v. Norfolk Police Dep't, No. CA-96-681-AM (E.D. Va. May 17,

1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMES VAUGHN.

July 11, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.