alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3585.3-2 Application. ( a ) An application for a mining claimant preference right lease shall be filed in triplicate in the Fairbanks District Office, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 1150, Fairbanks, Alaska 99707, by the holder of an unperfected mining claim(s), within 2 years from the date the lands are opened to mineral leasing and development.
( b ) No specific form is required.
( c ) Each application shall be signed in ink by the applicant and shall include the following: ( 1 ) The applicant's name and address;
( 2 ) The serial number for each claim for which the application is made;
( 3 ) The name of the mineral(s) for which the lease is sought; and
( 4 ) A separate map on which the claim(s) is clearly marked.
( d ) A single application may embrace any number of unperfected mining claims provided that, in the aggregate, the claims do not exceed 640 acres. The claims shall be contiguous and shall be located entirely within an area 6 miles square. Multiple applications may be submitted.
### §564l. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Aug. 13, 1954, ch. 732, §13, 68 Stat. 721, which related to Klamath irrigation works, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
### §1300f–3. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 95–375, §4, as added Pub. L. 103–357, §2, Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3418; amended Pub. L. 104–109, §4, Feb. 12, 1996, 110 Stat. 764, which directed the Secretary of the Interior to conduct one or more studies related to the adequacy of tribal lands for the needs of the tribe, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 Nos. 333-171645, 333-157897 and 333-140739) pertaining to Optimer Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s 1998 Stock Plan, 2006 Equity Incentive Plan and Employee Stock Purchase Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-163606) and related prospectus pertaining to the registration of $150,000,000 of common stock, preferred stock, debt securities, warrants and units, in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-149935) and related prospectus pertaining to the registration of $100,000 of common stock, preferred stock, debt securities, warrants and units and in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-147706) and related prospectus pertaining to the registration of 4,600,000 shares of common stock of our reports dated March 10, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Optimer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Optimer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2010.

 

 
|                    | /s/   Ernst & Young LLP |
|-------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                    |                             |
| San   Diego, California |                             |
| March 10,   2011   |                             |

 

----
#### § 2568.104 How will a CSU manager determine if my allotment is consistent with the CSU?

The CSU manager will decide this on a case-by-case basis by considering the law or withdrawal order which created the CSU. The law or withdrawal order explains the purposes for which the CSU was created. The manager would also consider the mission of the CSU managing agency as established in law and policy. The manager will also consider how the cumulative impacts of the various activities that could take place on the allotment might affect the CSU.
### §750. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Sept. 1, 1954, ch. 1207, §10, 68 Stat. 1103, which provided that nothing in this subchapter would affect the right to pursue claims against the United States before the former Indian Claims Commission, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
#### § 2916.2 Procedures.
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)








In connection with the Annual Report (the "Annual Report") on Form 10-K of First National Energy Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the "Registrant"), for the years ending December 31, 2014, 2013,and 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date, I, Peter Wanner, as Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The Annual Report 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.





Date: November 12, 2015
By:
/s/ Gregory ShellerGregory ShellerChief Executive Officer





This certification accompanies each Annual Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Registrant for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 320

 343

 403

 413

 429

 445

 458

 482

 454

 466

 477

 477

 460

 476

 230

 254

 260

 261

 269

 330

 330

 275

 279

 274

 271

 270

 260

 265

 260

 260

 306

 325

 339

 404

 403

 425

 443

 446

 425

 446

 461

 450

 432

 217

 217

 229

 249

 237

 249

 269

 262

 266

 266

 261

 254

 254

 250

 250

 250

 251

 313

 335

 363

 408

 417

 439

 448

 462

 439

 456

 472

 465

 448

 331

 222

 239

 253

 250

 259

 303

 289

 270

 272

 266

 266

 261

 256

 259

 254

 257

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

APRIL 2000 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: May 2, 2000

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

30 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

30 DAY

AVG 

MEAN

 313

 648

 1,011

 1,419

 1,836

 2,275

 2,723

 3,185

 3,624

 4,080

 4,552

 5,017

 5,465

 5,796

 6,018

 6,257

 6,510

 6,760

 7,019

 7,322

 7,611

 7,881

 8,153

 8,419

 8,685

 8,946

 9,202

 9,461

 9,715

 9,972

 313

 324

 337

 355

 367

 379

 389

 398

 403

 408

 414

 418

 420

 414

 401

 391

 383

 376

 369

 366

 362

 358

 354

 351

 347

 344

 341

 338

 335

 332

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

30 DAY ACCUM MEAN and 30 DAY AVG MEAN columns are 30 day runnings, except for April 1 and September 1, 

 where they do not go back 30 days.

VERNALIS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
#### Willis Marlatt *v.*The People of the State of Illinois.

*Filed at Springfield September 28,1882.*

Criminal *law—guilt must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt.*Unless it appears that a party on trial for crime is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, an acquittal must follow, and if the jury disregard this familiar rule of law, and convict, it will be error to refuse a new trial, and a reversal of the judgment will follow, on writ of error.

Writ of Error to-the Circuit Court of Champaign county ; the Hon. C. B. Smith, Judge, presiding.

Mr. M. B. Thompson, for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. James McCartney, Attorney General, for the People.

Per Curiam :

At the March term, 1882, of the Champaign circuit court, Willis Marlatt was indicted for the alleged crime of perjury. It is charged that on the trial before a justice of the peace, in a cause wherein the People of the State were plaintiff, on the complaint of John Marlatt, against Fletcher T. Neff, it was a material question whether the defendant in that case had threatened to shoot the complaining witness, and that on such trial, accused, after being duly sworn according to law, did “feloniously, willfully, corruptly and falsely” swear and testify that Neff did “threaten, to shoot the said John Marlatt,” and did “threaten to blow out the brains of the said John Marlatt, ” whereas in truth and in fact accused well knew the said Neff did not “threaten to shoot the said John Marlatt, ” or “threaten to blow out the brains of the said John Marlatt. ”

Accused, on being arraigned, pleaded “not guilty.” On the trial the jury found accused guilty, and by their verdict fixed the term he should serve in the penitentiary at the *365period of three years. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were severally overruled, and the court pronounced judgment on the verdict.

It is not thought necessary to remark upon all the questions raised on the record, as the court, after a full and careful examination of the evidence, is satisfied it is not sufficient to warrant the conviction. Unless it appears the accused on trial for crime. is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, an acquittal must follow. The jury must have disregarded this familiar rule of law. Without entering upon any analysis of the testimony found in this record, it is sufficient to say it falls sho.rt of proving the. guilt of.accused even.by a preponderance of the evidence. Indeed, it may be said as to the evidence contained in the present record, the weight is in favor of the innocence of accused. It was manifest error in the court not to grant the motion for a new trial.

The judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded.

*Judgment reversed.*
#### J. Howard Johnson, as Receiver, et al., Appellants, v. John M. Smith, as County Treasurer of the County of Albany, et al., Respondents.

Motion for an order resettling, *nuno pro tuno,*the order of this court entered the 8th day of May, 1947, permitting leave *to*appeal to the Court of Appeals, so as to include in said permissive order the said defendants, Yetta Y. Sandler, John Carroll and L. Berman, as appellants. Motion granted, without costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Foster and.Deyo, JJ. [See 272 App. Div. 843.]
§ 3832.45 How do I obtain any minerals that I discover within my tunnel site? ( a ) Even if you have located the tunnel site, you must separately locate a lode claim to acquire the possessory right to a blind vein, lode, or ledge you have discovered within the boundaries of the tunnel site sidelines.
( b ) The date of location of your lode claim is retroactive to the date of location of your tunnel site.
§ 3420.3-1 Area identification process. ( a ) This section describes the process for identifying, ranking, analyzing, selecting, and scheduling lease tracts after land use planning has been completed. This process constitutes the “activity planning” aspect of the coal management program. Activity planning may occur where areas acceptable for further consideration for leasing have been identified by land use planning completed consistent with the provisions of § 3420.1-4 of this subpart.
( b ) Split estate land otherwise acceptable for further consideration for leasing shall, upon verfication of a refusal to consent received from a qualified surface owner under § 3427.2 of this title, be deleted from further activity planning.
( c ) Each regional coal team established under § 3400.4 of this title shall: ( 1 ) Guide tract delineation and preparation of site specific analyses of delineated tracts;
( 2 ) Rank delineated tracts, select tracts that meet the leasing level established by the Secretary, and identify all alternative tract combinations to be analyzed in the regional lease sale environmental impact statement;
( 3 ) Guide the preparation of the regional lease sale environmental impact statement; and
( 4 ) Recommend a regional coal lease sale schedule to the Director.
( d ) Public notice and opportunity for participation in activity planning must be appropriate to the area and the people involved. The Bureau of Land Management will make available a calendar listing of the points in the planning process at which the public may participate, including: ( 1 ) The regional coal team meeting to recommend initial leasing levels (see § 3420.2(a)(4));
( 2 ) The regional coal team meeting for tract ranking (see § 3420.3-4(a));
( 3 ) Publication of the regional coal lease sale environmental impact statement (see § 3420.3-4(c)); and
( 4 ) The regional coal team meeting to recommend specific tracts for a lease sale and a lease sale schedule (see § 3420.3-4(g)).
[44 FR 42615, July 19, 1979. Redesignated and amended at 47 FR 33138, July 30, 1982; 64 FR 52243, Sept. 28, 1999]
§ 3861.2-5 Amended mineral surveys. ( a ) Inasmuch as amended surveys are ordered only by special instructions from the Bureau of Land Management, and the conditions and circumstances peculiar to each separate case and the object sought by the required amendment, alone govern all special matters relative to the manner of making such survey and the form and subject matter to be embraced in the field notes thereof, but few general rules applicable to all cases can be laid down.
( b ) The expense of amended surveys, including amendment of plat and field notes, and office work in the Bureau of Land Management office will be borne by the claimant.
( c ) The amended survey must be made in strict conformity with, or be embraced within, the lines of the original survey. If the amended and original surveys are identical, that fact must be clearly and distinctly stated in the field notes. If not identical, a bearing and distance must be given from each established corner of the amended survey to the corresponding corner of the original survey. The lines of the original survey, as found upon the ground, must be laid down upon the preliminary plat in such manner as to contrast and show their relation to the lines of the amended survey.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Bernard, Allan & Edwards, Inc.
1016 Shore Acres Drive
Leesburg, Florida 34748

We  consent  to the use in this Report on Form 10KSB/A of our
report dated  March 15,  2002, as restated April 25, 2002
relating  to  the  financial statements of Bernard, Allan
& Edwards, Inc. and to the reference  of  our  firm  under
the  heading  "Experts."

/s/  Larry Legel  C.P.A.

Larry Legel,  C.P.A.
5100 N. Federal Highway, Suite 409
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308

April 25,  2002
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 1,005

 1,021

 1,018

 1,003

 995

 1,020

 1,031

 1,032

 1,030

 1,042

 1,042

 1,048

 1,067

 1,041

 1,033

 1,013

 970

 939

 938

 944

 866

 800

 574

 542

 495

 535

 592

 690

 747

 810

 860

 933

 906

 992

 864

 941

 909

 972

 1,010

 980

 1,010

 1,009

 979

 925

 1,001

 965

 844

 858

 910

 900

 877

 799

 528

 464

 464

 459

 489

 526

 606

 681

 739

 793

 988

 992

 1,005

 988

 982

 995

 1,021

 1,029

 1,024

 1,034

 1,036

 1,037

 1,035

 1,023

 1,018

 967

 937

 918

 919

 915

 832

 630

 528

 485

 477

 515

 567

 660

 725

 782

 833

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JANUARY 2010 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: February 2, 2010

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

UNION ISLAND ON OLD RIVER AT MIDDLE RIVER
§ 3602.12 How does the mineral materials sales process affect other users of the same public lands? ( a ) When BLM designates tracts for competitive or noncompetitive sale of mineral materials, and notes the designation in the public land records, it creates a right to remove the materials superior to any subsequent claim, entry, or other conflicting use of the land, including subsequent mining claim locations.
( b ) The superior right under paragraph (a) of this section is part of all contracts and permits BLM authorizes within 2 years after the date we designate the tract. BLM may extend this 2-year period for one additional year for good cause. The right continues for the entire term of the contract or permit and any renewal term. The superior right under paragraph (a) of this section also applies to any subsequent contracts or permits that BLM authorizes within 2 years after the previous contract or permit expires or terminates.
( c ) This right does not prevent other uses or segregate the land from the operation of the public land laws, including the mining and mineral leasing laws. However, such subsequent uses must not interfere with the extraction of mineral materials.
[66 FR 58901, Nov. 23, 2001; 67 FR 68778, Nov. 13, 2002]
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Richard H. De Voto, the Chief Executive Officer of Canyon Resources
Corporation (the Company), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



|1) |  | the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2003, (the Form 10-Q), 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.                                                 

|                      |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 14, 2003 |  | /s/ Richard H. De Voto 
|                      |  | Richard H. De Voto     
|                      |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### § 3602.10 Applying for a mineral materials sales contract.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 20, 2010

y1213 

# Order

December 20, 2010

140986

JAMES S. MCCORMICK and ELIZABETH A. HOCHSTADT, Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants-Appellants,

v SC: 140986 COA: 283209 Livingston CC: 06-022144-CZ REBECCA MCCORMICK and SCOTT GRIFFIN,
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs/ThirdParty Plaintiffs/Cross-PlaintiffsAppellees,
and

MARTHA FRENCH, a/k/a MARTHA JEAN MCCORMICK and WILLIAM MCCORMICK, Defendants/Cross-Defendants/Appellants,

v

HOCHSTADT FAMILY TRUST, UAD 11/22/2005, by LAWRENCE R. HOCHSTADT
and ELIZABETH A. HO CHSTADT, Trustees, Third-Party Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the March 16, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
### §1300a. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 92–461, §2, Oct. 6, 1972, 86 Stat. 769, which related to set aside of percentage of funds for the benefit of the Payson Indian Band, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
§ 3832.44 What rights do I have to minerals within my tunnel site? ( a ) If you located your tunnel site in good faith, you may acquire the right to any blind veins, ledges, or lodes cut, discovered, or intersected by your tunnel, by locating a lode claim, if they— ( 1 ) Are located within a radius of 1,500 feet from the tunnel axis; and
( 2 ) Were not previously known to exist on the surface and within the limits of your tunnel.
( b ) Your site is protected from other parties making locations of lodes within the sidelines of the tunnel and within the 3,000-foot length of the tunnel, unless such lodes appear upon the surface or were previously known to exist.
( c ) You must diligently work on the tunnel site. If you cease working on it for more than 6 consecutive months, you will lose your right to possess all unknown, undiscovered veins, lodes, or ledges that your tunnel may intersect.
#### STOCK GROWERS’ BANK, Respondent, v. NEFSY et al, Appellants.

(212 N. W. 512.)

(File No. 5605.

Opinion filed February 26, 1927.)

Mortgages — Bills and Notes — Vendor and Purchaser — Purchaser’s Defenses Against Vendor to Note and Mortgage Were Available Against Bank Assignee of Note and Mortgage, Whose Officer Participated in Negotiations.

Where vice president of bank was present at and participated in negotiations for purchase of real estate from debtor of bank, representing both the interests of the bank and such debtor, whatever defense to note and mortgage was open to purchasers as against vendor was open to them after assignment to bank.

Burch and Polley, JJ., dissenting.

Note. — See, Headnote, American Key-Numbered Digest, Mortgages, Key-No. 256, 41 O. J. Secs. 711, 716, Vendor and purchaser, Key-No. 261(3), 39 Oyc. 1663.

Appeal from. Circuit Court, Stanley County; Ho>n. John F. Hughes, Judge.

Action by the Stock Growers’ Bank against William H. Nefsy and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Judgment vacated.

*Henry Frawley,*of Dfeadwood, and *Fuller & Robinson,*of Pierre, for Appellants.

*Stephens, McNwmee, O’Keeffe & Stephens,*of Pierre, for Respondent.

GATES, J.

This is an action to foreclose the $10,000 mort- ■ gage mentioned in Giddings v. Niefsy (No. 5604), 212 N. W. 507, the opinion in which is handed down herewith. For the purposes of trial this case was consolidated with that. The mortgage and the note which it secured were assigned to. plaintiff bank as collateral security for an. indebtedness due from Giddings. The witness Sumner was vice president of plaintiff bank, and was present at and participated in the negotiations which resulted in the purchase of the 1,960-acre ranch by appellants, and knew all about that transaction, and was looking after the interests of Giddings as well as the interests of the bank, which was “a heavy creditor” of Giddings. Dtefendants. appeal from the judgment and order denying new trial.

*73From the evidence of Strainer alone the -conclusion is irresistible that whatever defense to the note and mortgage was open to appellants while Giddings owned them was open to- appellants after •they were assigned to respondent.

Therefore, iby reason of our decision in the other ca!5e, the judgment of foreclosure in this case and the order denying new trial are vacated.

BURGH and FOUDEY, JJ., dissent.