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



(MCDANIEL LOGO)

Exhibit 99.4

May 21, 2003



TO: United States Securities and Exchange Commission

RE: Provident Energy Trust (Provident)  Annual Report on Form 40-F

We hereby consent to the use and reference to our name and our reports
evaluating Providents petroleum and natural gas reserves as at December 31,
2002, as described in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Provident for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and the inclusion of information derived from our reports.



Sincerely,

McDaniel & Associates Consultants Ltd.



|                                             | 
|-------------------------------------------- | 
|signed by P. A. Welch                     
|P. A. Welch, P. Eng.Executive Vice President

Suite 2200, Bow Valley Square
3, 255-5th Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta T2P 3G6
Tel: (403) 262-5506  Fax: (403) 233-2744  Email: mcdaniel@mcdan.com  Website: www.mcdan.com
§ 3283.4 When may the unit operator add lands to or remove lands from a unit agreement? ( a ) The unit operator may request BLM to designate the addition or removal of lands to or from a unit agreement.
( b ) In order for BLM to complete a review of the unit area revision request, the unit operator must submit to BLM the information required in §§ 3281.2, 3281.3, and 3281.7.
( c ) BLM will: ( 1 ) Review the request;
( 2 ) Determine whether the information provided is sufficient and whether the new or additional geologic information or interpretation provides an acceptable basis for the unit boundary change; and
( 3 ) Notify the unit operator in writing of our decision.
( d ) If BLM approves the revision, the unit operator must notify all owners of lease interests or mineral rights of the unit area revision.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 191 (Monday, October 4, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 59186]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22270]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Delaware, Connecticut, 
District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, 
Virginia, and West Virginia Advisory Committees and Subcommittees

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that a briefing by 
conference call of the Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, 
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West 
Virginia Advisory Committees will convene at 11 a.m. and adjourn at 
11:45 a.m., Friday, October 8, 2004. The purpose of the briefing is to 
listen to a presentation by Professor Gavin Clarkson on the use of 
Native American racial imagery for sports mascots.
    This conference call is available to the public through the 
following call-in number: 1-800-497-7708, access code: 26575717. Any 
interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the 
meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls not initiated 
using the supplied call-in number or over wireless lines, and the 
Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no 
charge for calls using the call-in number over land-line connections. 
Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by 
first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing 
the Service with the conference call number and access code.
    To ensure that the Commission secures an appropriate number of 
lines for the public, persons are asked to register by contacting 
Barbara de La Viez of the Eastern Regional Office at (202) 376-7533 by 
4 p.m. on Wednesday, October 6, 2004.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, September 29, 2004.
Ivy L. Davis,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 04-22270 Filed 10-1-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, William M. Scharninghausen, Chief Financial Officer of Vialta, Inc., certify
that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Vialta, Inc. (the
"registrant");

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

Date: May 4, 2004             /s/ William M. Scharninghausen
                              -------------------------------
                              William M. Scharninghausen
                              Chief Financial Officer
§ 20.506 Appropriations, legislation and lobbying. ( a ) Unless expressly authorized by Congress, employees are prohibited from using any part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, to favor or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation or appropriation by Congress, whether before or after the introduction of any bill or resolution proposing such legislation or appropriation; this prohibition does not prevent any employee from communicating to Members of Congress on the request of any Member or through proper official channels, requests for legislation or appropriations which they deem necessary for the efficient conduct of the public business (18 U.S.C. 1913).
( b ) When acting in their official capacity, employees are required to refrain from promoting or opposing legislation relating to programs of the Department without the official sanction of the property Departmental authority.
( c ) The rights of employees, individually or collectively, to otherwise petition Congress, or to a Committee or Member thereof, shall not be interfered with or denied (5 U.S.C. 7211).
#### John Martocci, Respondent, v. Michael Martocci et al., Appellants.

Present — Close, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00134-CR

ISIDRO LUCIO HERNANDEZ APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered appellant’s AMotion To Withdraw Appeal.@ The 

motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we 

received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f).

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: May 5, 2011
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 annual report of Landmark Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark A. Herpich,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Mark A. HerpichMark
      A. HerpichChief
      Financial OfficerMarch
      26, 2010
### §5132. Indians eligible for loans

On and after May 10, 1939, no individual of less than one-quarter degree of Indian blood shall be eligible for a loan from funds made available in accordance with the provisions of the Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 986) [25 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.], and the Act of June 26, 1936 (49 Stat. 1967).

(May 10, 1939, ch. 119, §1, 53 Stat. 698.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Act of June 18, 1934, referred to in text, is act June 18, 1934, ch. 576, 48 Stat. 984, popularly known as the Indian Reorganization Act, which is classified generally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5101 of this title and Tables.

Act of June 26, 1936, referred to in text, is act June 26, 1936, ch. 831, 49 Stat. 1967, popularly known as the Oklahoma Welfare Act, which was classified generally to subchapter VIII (§501 et seq.) of chapter 14 of this title prior to editorial reclassification as chapter 45A (§5201 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5201 of this title and Tables. Provisions of the Act relating to the revolving fund appear in section 5206 of this title.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 480 of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
**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 Avantogen Oncology, Inc., on Form 10-QSB
      for the quarter ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Michael
      Hillmeyer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of 2002, that:




(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.




Date:
                October 26, 2007By:
            /s/
                Michael HillmeyerMichael
                Hillmeyer
                Chief
                  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
      has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 


REGION 10 


1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 

Seattle, Washington 98101-3140 

REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR 

MAR 1 1 2010 

Raymond A. Mosley 

Director 

Office of Federal Register 

800 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20001 

Dear Mr. Mosley: 

Enclosed is a package containing a Federal Register notice to incorporate by reference 

approval of the RCRA hazardous waste program for the State of Idaho. Also enclosed is a copy 

of the material to be incorporated by reference. Our office requests that the Director incorporate 

by reference the enclosed statutes and regulations of the State of Idaho into 40 CFR 272.651. 

This incorporation by reference will substantially reduce the volume of material that will need to 

be published in the Federal Register. 

Any questions or comments regarding this incorporation by reference should be 

addressed to Zach Hedgpeth, EPA Region 10, at phone number (206) 553-1217. 

Sincerely, 

~q~ Dennis J. MCLerran 

Regional Administrator 

Enclosures 

o Prtnted on RSC'lc/ed Paf)ef
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1177

LESTER A.D. ADAMS; MARIBEL F. MURRAY,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

CHRISTOPHER A. BROOKS,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.

(8:05-cv-03332-DKC)

Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: June 30, 2008

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lester A.D. Adams and Maribel F. Murray, Appellants Pro Se.

Johnathan Azrael, Towson, Maryland, John R. Solter, Jr., AZAREL,

GANN & FRANZ, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Appellants Lester A.D. Adams and Maribel F. Murray appeal

the district court’s judgment dismissing their civil action filed

to quiet title to certain residential real property and for

specific performance of a purchase option as to the property.

After a bench trial, this court reviews the district court’s

conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact for clear

error. Minyard Enter., Inc. v. Southeastern Chem. & Solvent Co.,

184 F.3d 373, 380 (4th Cir. 1999); Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). A

finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, “although there is

evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence

is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has

been committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333

U.S. 364, 395 (1948); In re Green, 934 F.2d 568, 570 (4th Cir.

1991).

We have reviewed the parties’ informal briefs and the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. See Adams v. Brooks, No.

8:05-cv-03332-DKC (D. Md. July 25, 2007; Jan. 2, 2008). 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
#### Ettenborough and others *vs.*Bishop.

1. A purchaser at a sale under a judgment obtained in an action against an individual partner, was enjoined from proceeding in an action of ejectment against the complainants (members of a firm of which such partner was one), who were in possession of the premises claimed to be partnership assets, and so decreed to be by this court. The action in which the judgment was obtained was commenced after the suit in which the premises were declared to be partnership assets, was begun, and a notice of *lis pendens*was filed before the commencement of that action. *Held,*on. motion to dissolve, upon answer: The defendant having had constructive notice of complainants’ claim (and, apparently, actual notice, also,) injunction should be retained.

2. New matter, as ground of estoppel, cannot avail upon the hearing of a motion to dissolve an injunction, on bill and answer.

On motion to dissolve injunction on bill, answer,, and. affidavits.

*Mr. W. II.*Vredenburgh, for the motion.

*Mr. E. Q. Keasbey,*contra.

*263The Chancellor.

The defendant is the purchaser, at sheriff’s sale, under an execution issued on a judgment recovered against Stephen T. Arrowsmith by Thomas S. R. Brown and Thomas S. Brown, of certain land and premises in Monmouth county. In a suit in this court, brought by the complainants against Arrowsmith, the property has been decreed to be partnership assets of a firm composed of the complainants and Arrow-smith, and it has been ordered to be sold accordingly. That suit was brought in 1873, and notice of *lis pendens*therein, describing the premises, was duly filed in the clerk’s office of Monmouth county, on the day on which the bill was filed, which was before, the suit at law in which the above mentioned judgment was recovered, was brought.

The defendant in this suit having obtained a deed from the sheriff’, in pursuance of the above mentioned sale, brought an action of ejectment against the complainants, who are in possession of the premises, and an injunction was issued in this suit restraining him from proceeding in that action. In his answer, he sets up his title under the sheriff’s sale, and also under a mortgage, subject to which Arrowsmith held the title to the property. It does not appear when he obtained the assignment of that mortgage, however, and on the argument, his counsel admitted that the ejectment was not brought on the mortgage, but on the title obtained under the sherilf’s sale. On the case as presented, the injunction ought not to be dissolved. The defendant had constructive notice of the complainants’ claim that Arrowsmith held the title to the land in trust, and there is good reason to believe, from his answer, that he had actual notice, also. The facts on which he relies as ground of estoppel, are new matter.

The motion will be denied, with costs.
#### Adalinda Medina MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-76029.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 22, 2006.

Adalinda Medina Mendoza, Riverside, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michelle E. Gorden, Esq., Daniel E. Goldman, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Adalinda Medina Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Singh v. INS,*213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mendoza’s motion to reopen because Mendoza’s claim that she arrived at 10:00 a.m. on the day of her removal hearing to find the courtroom locked is inconsistent with the record. Accordingly, she *816has failed to demonstrate “exceptional circumstances” for her failure to appear. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i); *Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft,*298 F.3d 888, 891-92 (9th Cir.2002); *see also*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (providing that a motion to reopen “shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
§ 2809.13 How will the BLM conduct competitive offers? ( a ) *Variety of competitive procedures available.* The BLM may use any type of competitive process or procedure to conduct its competitive offer, and any method, including the use of the Internet, to conduct the actual auction or competitive bid procedure. Possible bid procedures could include, but are not limited to: Sealed bidding, oral auctions, modified competitive bidding, electronic bidding, and any combination thereof.
( b ) *Notice of competitive offer.* We will publish a notice in the Federal Register at least 30 days prior to the competitive offer and may use other notification methods, such as a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the potential right-of-way or the Internet. The Federal Register and other notices will include: ( 1 ) The date, time, and location, if any, of the competitive offer;
( 2 ) The legal land description of the parcel to be offered;
( 3 ) The bidding methodology and procedures to be used in conducting the competitive offer, which may include any of the competitive procedures identified in paragraph (a) of this section;
( 4 ) The minimum bid required (see § 2809.14(a)), including an explanation of how we determined this amount;
( 5 ) The qualification requirements for potential bidders (see § 2803.10);
( 6 ) If a variable offset (see § 2809.16) is offered: ( i ) The percent of each offset factor;
( ii ) How bidders may pre-qualify for each offset factor; and
( iii ) The documentation required to pre-qualify for each offset factor; and
( 7 ) The terms and conditions of the process, including whether a successful bidder will become a preferred applicant or a presumptive leaseholder; the requirements for the successful bidder to submit an application, see § 2804.12, or a Plan of Development, see § 2809.18; and any mitigation requirements, including compensatory mitigation.
( c ) We will notify you in writing of our decision to conduct a competitive process at least 30 days prior to the competitive process if you nominated lands that are included in the process, paid the nomination fees, and demonstrated your qualifications to hold a grant or lease as required by § 2809.11.
[81 FR 92224, Dec. 19, 2016, as amended at 89 FR 35683, May 1, 2024]
#### In the Matter of Edward McDonnell, Respondent, against Abram W. Skidmore, as Commissioner of the Police Department of the County of Nassau, et al., Appellants.

Close, P. J., Hagarty, Adel, Taylor and Lewis, JJ., concur.
#### Frank Lawrence, Respondent, v. Stuyvesant Insurance Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
§ 30.212 May I waive notice of the hearing or the form of notice? You may waive your right to notice of the hearing and the form of notice by: ( a ) Appearing at the hearing and participating in the hearing without objection; or
( b ) Filing a written waiver with the judge before the hearing.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

§

IN RE: No. 08

- 16

- 00225

- CR

§

EUGENIO L. RODRIGUEZ,

Relator. §

§ AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDI NG

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus

against the 109th District Court of Andrews County, Texas, and concludes that Relator’s petition

for writ of mandamus should be denied. We therefore deny the petition for w rit of mandamus, in

accordance with the opinion of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and H ughes, JJ.