alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 99.6



Report of Independent Accountants


Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. (the "Bank"),
Administrator of the Chase Credit Card Owner Trust Series 2001-3



We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Management
Report on Internal Control over the Administration of the Chase Credit Card
Owner Trust Series 2001-3 (the "Owner Trust"), that Chase Manhattan Bank USA NA
(the "Bank") maintained effective internal control over its administration of
the Certificates held by the Owner Trust and the Notes issued by the Owner Trust
(the "Administration" of the Owner Trust) as of December 31, 2003, based upon
the criteria for effective internal control established in "Internal Control -
Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission. The Bank's management is responsible for maintaining
effective internal control over the Administration of the Owner Trust. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included obtaining an understanding of internal control over the
Administration of the Owner Trust, testing and evaluating the design and
operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Because of inherent limitations in any internal control, misstatement due to
error or fraud may occur and not be detected. Also, projections of any
evaluation of internal control over the Administration of the Owner Trust to
future periods are subject to the risk that the internal control may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance
with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Bank maintained effective
internal control over Administration of the Certificates held by the Owner Trust
and the Notes issued by the Owner Trust as of December 31, 2003, is fairly
stated, in all material respects, based upon the criteria for effective internal
control established in "Internal Control - Integrated Framework" issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

March 29, 2004
#### § 4120.3 Range improvements.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO





18 U.S.C.
§ 1350,





AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO





SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of RF Industries, Ltd. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Howard F. Hill, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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.




Date:
      June 8, 2010
              /s/ Howard F. HillHoward
      F. HillChief
      Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.2

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Alan Bowen, certify that :

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Innovate Oncology,
      Inc.;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
      information included in this report, fairly present in all material
      respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
      the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.    The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in exchange act rules 13a-14 and 15d-14 for the registrant and
      have:

      a)    designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
            material information relating to the registrant, including its
            consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
            those entities, particularly during the period in which this report
            is being prepared;

      b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
            and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date
            of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c)    presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
            effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
            evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.    The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
      our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
      committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
      equivalent functions):

      a)    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
            control which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
            record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
            identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
            internal controls; and

      b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
            other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
            internal controls.

6.    The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
      quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
      controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal
      controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including
      any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
      material weaknesses.

Date: May 15, 2006

By: /s/ Alan Bowen
------------------------------------
Alan Bowen
CFO, Treasurer & Director
(Chiefl Financial Officer)
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-90,083-02 IN RE DARTANIEL JAMES HARRIS, Relator
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF M ANDAM US CAUSE NO. 1482712-B IN THE 263RD DIST RICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Relator has filed a motion for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus under this Court’s orig inal jurisdiction. He contends that he filed an application for a writ of habea s corpus in Har ris County

and his applica tion has not been prope rly forwa rded to this Court. Respondent, the District Clerk of Har ris County , shall forwa

rd Relator’s habea s application to this Court, respond that Relator has not filed a habea s application in Ha rris County , or forward
a copy of an order desig nating issues toge ther with corr espondenc e documenting the date the State
rec eived Relator’s habea s application. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(c) and (d); T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 5). This motion for leave to file will be held. Respondent shall comply with this order within thirty

day s from the da

te of this order
.2

Filed: MAY 12, 2021 Do not publish
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling of 13 July 2005 from the Arbitragehof (Belgium) in the proceedings between Advocaten voor de wereld, a non-profit-making association, and the Council of Ministers

(Case C-303/05)

(2005/C 271/26)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Arbitragehof (Court of Arbitration) (Belgium) of 13 July 2005, received at the Court Registry on 29 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Advocaten voor de wereld, a non-profit-making association, and the Council of Ministers on the following questions:

----

(1)  OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1.

----
#### § 3584.4 Notice of application.

The authorized officer shall notify the surface owner of each application received. Notice of any proposed competitive lease sale shall be given to the surface owner prior to publication of notice of sale. Should the surface owner object to leasing of any tract for reasons determined by the authorized officer to be satisfactory, the application shall be rejected and the lands shall not be offered for lease sale.
#### George L. SPENCER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul WILLIAMS, Dr.; Vicki Phipps, Rncb/Don; F. Taylor, Grievance Coordinator; R. Mullins, Grievance Coordinator; Tracy S. Ray, Warden, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 05-7868.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 23, 2006.

Decided: March 6, 2006.

George L. Spencer, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

George L. Spencer appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) (2000), his action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), for failure to state a claim and the court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Spencer v. Williams,*No. CA-05-627-7 (W.D.Va. Oct. 19, 2005; Nov. 2, 2005). We deny Spencer’s motion to appoint counsel and 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*
Sacramento

River

T10N R3E

YYOOLLOO CC OO

SSAACC RRAA MM EENN TTOO CC OO

0

24

13

23

12

25 26

15.1 R

Contract No. 14-06-200-2148A-R-1

Exhibit B

Knaggs Walnut Ranches Company, L.P.

725-202-81

Note: The Public Land Survey depicted here

was digitized from USGS topographic maps.

0 0.5 1

Miles

Date: November 9, 2004

File Name: N:\districts\contracts\knaggs_walnut_ranches_co_lp\knaggs_walnut_ranches_co_lp.mxd

Contractor's Service Area

Point of Diversion
### §581. Definition of bank

For purposes of sections 582 and 584, the term "bank" means a bank or trust company incorporated and doing business under the laws of the United States (including laws relating to the District of Columbia) or of any State, a substantial part of the business of which consists of receiving deposits and making loans and discounts, or of exercising fiduciary powers similar to those permitted to national banks under authority of the Comptroller of the Currency, and which is subject by law to supervision and examination by State or Federal authority having supervision over banking institutions. Such term also means a domestic building and loan association.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 202; Pub. L. 87–722, §5, Sept. 28, 1962, 76 Stat. 670; Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1901(c)(5), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1803.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–455 substituted "or of any State" for "of any State, or of any Territory" after "District of Columbia)" and struck out ", Territorial," after "examination by State".

1962—Pub. L. 87–722 substituted "authority of the Comptroller of the Currency" for "section 11(k) of the Federal Reserve Act (38 Stat. 262; 12 U.S.C. 248(k))".
§ 404.26 Must an appraisal investigation be completed before I can request Reclamation to review a feasibility study that was not completed under this program? In general, Reclamation must review an appraisal investigation and prepare an appraisal report recommending that a feasibility study be conducted before Reclamation can review a feasibility study completed without Reclamation assistance under § 404.11(c). However, Reclamation may review a feasibility study without first reviewing and approving an appraisal investigation, if Reclamation determines that: ( a ) No appraisal investigation was prepared for the project;
( b ) The feasibility study satisfies the appraisal criteria set forth in § 404.44; and
( c ) Reclamation documents these findings in the feasibility report.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             553
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      175
<ALLOWANCES>                                         6
<INVENTORY>                                          4
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   931
<PP&E>                                             765
<DEPRECIATION>                                     496
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,879
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,933
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            19
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,802
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,879
<SALES>                                            119
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   163
<CGS>                                               14
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,295
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 325
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,457)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,457)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,457)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.27)



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from
     QUANTITATIVE  METHODS CORPORATION  September 30, 1998 financial  statements
     and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                         0000894561
<NAME>                        QUANTITATIVE METHODS CORPORATION

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998

<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998

<CASH>                                              75,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    75,000
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      75,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             1,150
<OTHER-SE>                                          73,850
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        75,000
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                             0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
§ 3834.11 Which fees must I pay to maintain a mining claim or site and when do I pay them? ( a ) *All mining claims or sites (except oil shale placer claims).* Paying the maintenance fee(s) in lieu of performing assessment work satisfies the requirements of the mining law and FLPMA. See § 3830.21 for fee amounts. ( 1 ) *Location fee and initial maintenance fee.* When you first record a mining claim or site with BLM, you must pay a location fee and an initial maintenance fee for the assessment year in which you located the mining claim or site.
( 2 ) *Annual maintenance fee.* You must pay an annual maintenance fee on or before September 1st of each year in order to maintain a mining claim or site for the upcoming assessment year.
( b ) *Oil shale placer claims.* ( 1 ) Under the Energy Policy Act of 1992, 30 U.S.C. 242, if you own an oil shale placer claim, you must pay an annual $550 fee and file a notice of intent to hold, with the applicable service charge, each calendar year on or before December 30— ( i ) If you elected to maintain an oil shale placer claim;
( ii ) If you elected to apply for limited patent; or
( iii ) If you filed a patent application for an oil shale placer claim but did not receive a first half final certificate on or before October 24, 1992.
( 2 ) See part 3835 of this chapter for notice of intent to hold requirements, and the table of fees and service charges in § 3830.21 of this chapter.
( 3 ) You need not pay the annual $550 fee, or file a notice of intent to hold, if you filed a patent application and received a first half of the mineral entry final certificate on or before October 24, 1992.
§ 404.27 How will Reclamation evaluate my request to review an appraisal investigation or feasibility study completed without the support of Reclamation? ( a ) Upon receipt of your submittal, Reclamation will apply the eligibility criteria in §§ 404.6 and 404.7 and the prioritization criteria in § 404.13, to determine whether the appraisal investigation or feasibility study is eligible to be reviewed under the program. Reclamation will notify you in writing of the outcome of this determination.
( b ) If the proposed appraisal investigation or feasibility study is eligible for review, Reclamation will evaluate the investigation or study in accordance with the process set forth in § 404.43, for an appraisal investigation, or § 404.48, for a feasibility study.
---

Exhibit 4.11Amendment to the Employment AgreementEntered into March 30, 2007Between:ALBERTA STAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, aCompany duly incorporated under the laws of the Province of Alberta,having an office at Suite 506-675 West Hastings Street, Vancouver,British Columbia, V6B 1N2(the “Company”)OF THE FIRST PARTAnd:TIMOTHY COUPLAND, Executive of 1090 Shamnan Crescent,Delta, British Columbia, V4M 2L7(“Coupland”)OF THE SECOND PARTWHEREAS:
  A.

   The parties wish to amend the above noted Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) THE AMENDMENT: 1.

   Coupland shall discount his Base Salary from the current level of $350,000 per annum to $180,000 per annum until further notice from the Board of Directors (the “Board”) where upon the Board shall, in its discretion determine any subsequent increase in salary.2.

   In consideration for this reduction in Base Salary, the Company agrees to the following: a.

   With respect to the calculation of severance under Article 6 and 11 of the Agreement, the Base Salary shall be deemed to be $350,000 and not the reduced Base Salary agreed to pursuant to this amendment. Further, any prorated bonus (which is subject to the Board’s discretion) shall be calculated on the full Base Salary ($350,000) as opposed to the reduced Base Salary.b.

   The Company agrees to amend Article 6(a)(i) of the Agreement such that the severance payments to Coupland shall not be made


---

in seven consecutive monthly installments, but rather one lump sum payment, of $204,166.66 within 30 days of the date of termination. Further, the Company shall treat this severance payment as a “Retiring Allowance” as defined by the Income Tax Actand the lump sum payment shall be subject to a 30% withholding tax. c.

   The Company agrees to co-operate with Coupland to ensure that the payments are made in the most tax effective manner, including payment directly to an RRSP account without withholding tax upon proof of sufficient contribution room with the most current Notice of Assessment from Coupland. The Parties have amended the Agreement this 1 day of February, 2012. /s/ “Tim Coupland”Timothy Coupland
  Per:

   /s/ “Robert Hall”Alberta Star Development Corp.Authorized Representative
 Page 2 of 2


---
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 2263

_____________________________
R USSELL E DWARD S IMMONS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County

. David Rimmer , Judge

. August 22, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
M AKAR , O STERHAUS , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Barbara J. Busharis, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney G eneral, and Julian E. Markham, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.