alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.1

LOGO

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
consent to the use of our reports dated March 4, 2009 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of TransAlta Corporation (the "Corporation") as at December 31, 2008
and 2007 and for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2008, and internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008 of TransAlta Corporation,
included as an exhibit to or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report (Form 40-F/A) for 2008.

We
also consent to the use of our audit report dated March 4, 2009 to the Board of Directors of the Corporation with respect to the Reconciliation to United States Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles as at December 31, 2008 and 2007 and for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2008, included as an exhibit to or incorporated by reference
in the Annual Report (Form 40-F/A) for 2008.

We
also consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:

of
our reports dated March 4, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of TransAlta Corporation as at December 31, 2008 and 2007 and for each of the years in the three
year period ended December 31, 2008, internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008 of TransAlta Corporation and the Reconciliation to United States Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles as of December 31, 2008 and 2007 and for each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2008, included as an exhibit to or incorporated by
reference in the Annual Report (Form 40-F/A) of TransAlta Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2008.

GRAPHICCalgary, Alberta

Chartered AccountantsSeptember 16, 2009


A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited

---



QuickLinks
----

----

I Informácie

Komisia

----

SPOLOČNÝ KATALÓG ODRÔD POĽNOHOSPODÁRSKYCH RASTLINNÝCH DRUHOV

6. doplnok k 23. úplnému vydaniu

(2005/C 334 A/01)

OBSAH

Vysvetlivky

Zoznam poľnohospodárskych druhov

----

VYSVETLIVKY

----

(1)Ú. v. EÚ C 46 A, 22.2.2005, s. 1. Katalóg naposledy zmenený a doplnený piatym dodatkom (Ú. v. EÚ C 196 A, 11.8.2005, s. 1).

(2)Ú. v. ES L 193, 20.7.2002, s. 1. Smernica naposledy zmenená a doplnená nariadením Eurόpskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 1829/2003 (Ú. v. EÚ L 268, 18.10.2003, s. 1).

----

I

1.BETA VULGARIS L.

2.BETA VULGARIS L.

II

3.AGROSTIS CANINA L.

4.AGROSTIS GIGANTEA ROTH.

5.AGROSTIS STOLONIFERA L.

6.AGROSTIS CAPILLARIS L.

13.FESTUCA ARUNDINACEA SCHREBER

14.FESTUCA OVINA L.

15.FESTUCA PRATENSIS HUDSON

16.FESTUCA RUBRA L.

17.LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM LAM.

18.LOLIUM PERENNE L.

19.LOLIUM × BOUCHEANUM KUNTH

22.PHLEUM PRATENSE L.

26.POA PRATENSIS L.

35.MEDICAGO SATIVA L.

38.PISUM SATIVUM L. (PARTIM)

42.TRIFOLIUM PRATENSE L.

43.TRIFOLIUM REPENS L.

46.VICIA FABA L. (PARTIM)

48.VICIA SATIVA L.

51.BRASSICA OLERACEA L. CONVAR. ACEPHALA (DC.) ALEF. VAR. MEDULLOSA THELL. + VAR. VIRIDIS L.

III

56.BRASSICA JUNCEA (L.) CZERNJ ET COSSON

57.BRASSICA NAPUS L. (PARTIM)

59.CANNABIS SATIVA L.

62.GOSSYPIUM SPP.

63.HELIANTHUS ANNUUS L.

64.LINUM USITATISSIMUM L.

66.SINAPIS ALBA L.

67.GLYCINE MAX (L.) MERRILL

IV

68.AVENA SATIVA L.

69.HORDEUM VULGARE L.

70.ORYZA SATIVA L.

72.SECALE CEREALE L.

76.× TRITICOSECALE WITTM.

77.TRITICUM AESTIVUM L. EMEND. FIORI ET PAOL.

78.TRITICUM DURUM DESF.

79.TRITICUM SPELTA L.

80.ZEA MAYS L.

V

81.SOLANUM TUBEROSUM L.

----
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1607-JC-1622 | March 20, 2017 Page 1 of 3

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Toby Gill

Child Advocates, Inc.

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

D.T. (MOTHER)

Victoria L. Bailey

Marion County

Public Defender Agency

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 

INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF

CHILD SERVICES

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Robert J. Henke

David E. Corey

Deputy Attorneys General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

In the Matter of:

J.T. (Minor Child), Child in 

Need of Services,

and

Child Advocates, Inc.,

Appellant-Guardian Ad Litem,

March 20, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1607-JC-1622

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Marilyn A. 

Moores, Judge
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1607-JC-1622 | March 20, 2017 Page 2 of 3

v.

D.T. (Mother),

Co-Appellee-Respondent,

and

The Indiana Department of

Child Services,

Co-Appellee-Petitioner

The Honorable Danielle P. 

Gaughan, Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49D09-1307-JC-16390

The Honorable Stephen Eichholtz, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49D08-1601-GU-2310

Baker, Judge.

[1] Child Advocates, Inc., appeals two events that occurred below: (1) the transfer 

of a guardianship case from probate court to juvenile court; and (2) an order in 

a Child in Need of Services (CHINS) case changing the child’s permanency 

plan from adoption to reunification.

[2] As for the guardianship case, the transfer order is not a final and appealable 

order. Ind. Appellate Rule 2(H). Moreover, Child Advocates requested that the 

transfer take place; as such, any error was invited. Appellant’s GU App. Vol. II 

p. 34; Appellant’s CHINS App. Vol. II p. 26. As for the CHINS case, the 

permanency plan order is not a final and appealable order. In re D.W., 52 

N.E.3d 839, 841 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied.

[3] As for both cases, the CHINS case has been closed and the guardianship case 

has been voluntarily dismissed by Child Advocates. We can offer no effective 

relief to the parties, and the case is therefore moot. E.g., DeSalle v. Gentry, 818 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1607-JC-1622 | March 20, 2017 Page 3 of 3

N.E.2d 40, 48-49 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). For all of these reasons, we hereby 

dismiss this appeal.

[4] The appeal is dismissed.

Barnes, J., and Crone, J., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 121

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 121 appear at 72 FR 50039 and 50040, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 121.511 What is the size standard for buying Government-owned petroleum?

A concern is small for this purpose if it is primarily engaged in petroleum refining and meets the size standard for a petroleum refining business.
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of Paperweight Development Corp.



|                                                |  |                              
|----------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Entity                                          |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|Appleton Papers Inc.                            |  | Delaware                     
|Appleton Papers Canada Ltd.                     |  | Canada                       
|Appleton Papers de Mexico SA de CV              |  | Mexico                       
|C&H Packaging Company, Inc.                     |  | Wisconsin                    
|American Plastics Company, Inc.                 |  | Wisconsin                    
|Rose Holdings Limited                           |  | United Kingdom               
|Bemrose Group Limited                           |  | United Kingdom               
|The Henry Booth Group Limited                   |  | United Kingdom               
|BemroseBooth Limited                            |  | United Kingdom               
|Bemrose Security & Promotional Printing Limited |  | United Kingdom               
|HBGI Holdings Limited                           |  | United Kingdom               
|Arjo Wiggins Appleton (Bermuda) Limited         |  | Bermuda                      
|PDC Capital Corporation                         |  | Wisconsin                    
|New England Extrusion Inc.                      |  | Wisconsin
'p 

### c,r. r/tsiAjL/fUfSt- Ca//Y//3 /Joo fr/*f &<T3~ To"* Ai>yt/ /bLOsr/t/COts-Jc. COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEA18 TfaAf Causer #£ de,+**,As^/Ayx*A FEB 24 2015 

## P.O&o* &3°S C^i^L S?*r»Xs Ab8sAcosta,C!ark MOTION DENIED DATE: 2?'^& 

### foi\ &*/>j*tr/L fr/tU*f/&ir~S*+~r9«S BY: fY\ 

### PGtytfA. £/*• ^v«* P"f<TM *~* ^^f •**=> **"L P^^

Ustfa tJa+r'oL ^0* ^TiCJ/L i<7fA>os^4*^SL &/CAx+ AYk^/Ut//Lg 6/?/&/>£-LCf^r &&c^<?&**^. /2^/k. &3.J23J Co-Use/- /^c /UL\///UcJ <9-*~0 Co^ss04c<L<?^ya+-*r « <3*s 

### S'upfeo+fe>£ &-p/>ltJ>s*h>^r Us',// s4&c«j ^r/L A/Aosm^ /Woho/<s u^t'fA &su<Lv /As Su/J/P&i-F''

en4fr6*- ~{J//L pu/^J ce*siT 6rtf oL^r/4k^ J4&/-.//. o&c^u/uLc/ /as pu&Y C&t^-r, sh^a 4&t, j4&s/i- /uaj<?a<£ \a£./r!r? STrt-ffccS S97*-*& £vte//£rKsC/L fi/CA-JP/CASffa?/ /fy/>kC4><sr 

# T,rV^cS/^^^ ^ ^^ c//^M^ J^ACPesr^S M»i/ £ok £isLu*fX-#' o^ &H -l¥~ t?//^ of 4/fiuCat/fe*^ ^C^S,y^ 

### P-0. Bo*. fr20& G*P't*L Sfijj/Q^ (200 F**f- 6jrr

r> <r/ P/LO— S^C ky/4 r/Qa/L£ 

### /testsf DisTa^cS /lA^rUy (0)
May 24, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

LUCAS RURIC COE, Appellant

NO. 14-10-00929-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

____________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having 

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The 

Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED, that the appellant pay all costs expended in this 

appeal, and that this decision be certified below for observance.
### §7465. Provisions of special application to transferees

**(1) For rules of burden of proof in transferee proceedings, see section 6902(a).**

**(2) For authority of Tax Court to prescribe rules by which a transferee of property of a taxpayer shall be entitled to examine books, records and other evidence, see section 6902(b).**

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 888, §7463; renumbered §7464, Pub. L. 91–172, title IX, §957(a), Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 733; renumbered §7465, Pub. L. 96–589, §6(c)(1), Dec. 24, 1980, 94 Stat. 3407.)
USGS Publications Warehouse - Citation View 

USGS Publications Warehouse 1 of 3 
Publication Citation

Online Document Versions

View index pageView document

USGS Store

Currently unavailable through the USGSStore.

Publication Type USGS Numbered SeriesTitle Alaska resource data file; Afognak QuadrangleAuthor Pilcher, S. H.Year 1999Series Open-File ReportSeries Number 99-40Edition -Language ENGLISHPublisher U.S. Geological Survey,ISSN 0094-9140Description 15 p. :map ;28 cm.USGS Library CallNumber (200) R29o no.99-40

USGS Publications Warehouse 2 of 3 
Accessibility FOIA Privacy Policies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological SurveyURL: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/Page Contact Information: Contact the Pubs Warehouse TeamPage Last modified: 12/07/2011 16:04:33

USGS Publications Warehouse 3 of 3
Exhibit 4.445

 

/Emblem of the Russian Federation/

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MASS MEDIA

 

LICENSE

 

No. 182547 dated July 15, 2020

 

For Rendering

 

Data transmission services, except for data transmission services for the purpose of voice transmission

 

This License is granted to

 

Public Joint Stock Company

 

Mobile TeleSystems

 

Primary State Registration Number of a Legal Entity 
 (Individual Entrepreneur) (OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1027700149124

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN)

 

7740000076

 











 

Location address (place of residence):

 

4, Marksistskaya str., Moscow, 109147

 

The territory covered by telecommunications services is specified in the Appendix.

 

This License is granted for a term:

 

until July 15, 2025.

 

This License is granted by decision of the licensing body - Order dated April 23, 2020 No. 172-pчc

 

Appendix being an integral part of this license is executed on 2 sheets.

 

	
Deputy Head
    	
/signature/ O.A.   Terlyakov
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Stamp   here
    	
 
    
	
Official seal:
    	
 
    
	
MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND MASS
    	
 
    
	
COMMUNICATIONS
    	
 
    
	
OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
    	
 
    
	
FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION
    	
 
    
	
IN THE SPHERE
    	
 
    
	
OF COMMUNICATIONS,
    	
 
    
	
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
    	
 
    
	
AND MASS MEDIA
    	
 
    
	
PSRN 1087746736296
    	
 
    


 

CN 119600
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEANE GREGORY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

GUST ROSENFELD PLC; MARICOPA 

COUNTY ATTORNEY; SUPERIOR 

COURT OF ARIZONA, Maricopa County; 

ARIZONA STATE BAR, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 21-16853 

D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00877-GMS 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 15, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Jeane Gregory appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 

for failure to comply with a court order her diversity action alleging claims arising 

out of a probate proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 28 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-16853 

review for an abuse of discretion. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th 

Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Gregory’s action 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) after Gregory failed to file an 

amended complaint as ordered, despite being warned that failure to do so would 

result in dismissal. See id. at 641-43 (discussing factors to consider in determining 

whether to dismiss for failure to comply with a court order; this court may review 

the record independently to determine if the district court abused its discretion).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Gregory’s motions for entry of default (Docket Entry Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 

and 16) are denied.

AFFIRMED.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ REALTIME DATA, LLC, Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

CME GROUP, INC., BOARD OF TRADE OF TH E CITY OF CHICAGO, INC ., NEW YORK MERCANTILE EXCHANGE, INC., Defendants

- Appellants

BATS TRADING, INC., AKA BATS EXCHANGE, INC., INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES EXCHANGE, NASDAQ OMX GROUP, INC., NASDAQ OMX PHLX, INC., NYSE EURONEXT, OPTIONS PR ICE REPORTING AUTHORITY, NYSE ARCA, INC.,

NYSE AMEX, LLC, SECU RITIES INDUSTRY AUTOMATION CORPORATI ON, Defendants

______________________

2014

- 1663, 2014

- 1664, 2014

- 1665

______________________ Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in No s . 1:11

- cv

- 06697

- KBF, 1:11

- cv

- 06699

- KBF, 1:11

- cv

- 06702

- KBF, Judge Katherine B. Forrest.______________________
JUDGMENT

______________________

B RETT E. C OOPER , McKool Smith, P.C., New York, NY

, argued for plaintiff -appellee. Also represented by D IRK D. T HOMAS , Washington, DC; L AURA A. H ANDLEY , D allas

, TX.

M ICHAEL H AWES , Baker Botts, LLP, Houston, TX , a rgued for defendant s- appellants. Also represented by S COTT F. P ARTRIDGE

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (L OURIE , P LAGER , and T ARANTO , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

April 14, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
#### Charles Stock v. Melchoir L. Luebben.

Filed June 30, 1904.

No. 13,747.

Bill of Exceptions. The trial court has no authority to extend the time for preparing and serving a bill of exceptions more than 80 days from the adjournment of the term at which the cause was tried, motion for new trial overruled and judgment entered. A bill allowed in violation of this provision of the statute will be quashed upon motion duly made in this court

Error to the district court for Clay county: George W. Stubbs, Judge.

*Motion to quash, bill of exceptions sustained.*

*Tibbets Brothers & Morey,*for plaintiff in error.

*Thomas E. Matters, contra.*

Sedgwick, J.

This motion to quash the bill of exceptions is based upon the fact that the bill was not presented to opposing counsel within 80 days from the final adjournment of the term of court at which the case was tried. There was quite a satisfactory showing of diligence on the part of the attorneys who procured the bill to be settled and allowed. This evidence shows that it was solely the fault of the court reporter, and the question is whether, under such circumstances, the delay beyond the 80 days in presenting the bill to opposing counsel is fatal to the settlement of the bill. It was held that such delay is not fatal in *State v. Gaslin,*32 Neb. 291, and in *Richards v. State,*22 Neb. 145, but in *Horbach v. City of Omaha,*49 Neb. 851, *255the case of *Richards v. State*is reviewed fully and overruled upon this point, and the rule declared to be that the statute is mandatory, and that no bill of exceptions can be settled and allowed by the trial court that has not been presented to the opposing counsel within the 80 days. This ruling is followed in *Mathews v. Mulford,*53 Neb. 252, and it is there stated that the remedy, when the delay has been caused by the neglect of the reporter in making the transcript, is by application for a new trial. Following these later cases, which seem to be well reasoned, this motion must be sustained. This places great responsibility upon the official reporters of the trial courts. It will rarely, if ever, happen that 80 days will be too short for the performance of this duty, if the importance of the matter is duly appreciated. Inefficient and negligent reporters should not be tolerated. The delay and expense of another trial, made necessary solely by the inefficiency of a court reporter, are serious matters.

Motion sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Wells Real Estate Fund VI, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F.
Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the
Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



|(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 Registrant.
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/    LEO F. WELLS, III
|------------------------
|                        
|Leo F. Wells, III       
|Chief Executive Officer 
|November 7, 2003        



|/s/    DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS
|--------------------------
|                          
|Douglas P. Williams       
|Chief Financial Officer   
|November 7, 2003
Exhibit 32

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
      --------------------------------------------------------------------
             Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
                to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with this Quarterly Report of Brightec, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick
Planche, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,
that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Patrick Planche
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Patrick Planche
                                       President, Chief Executive Officer,
                                       Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
                                       November 13, 2008


                                       E-7
###### Editorial Note on Part 120

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 120.101 Credit not available elsewhere.

SBA provides business loan assistance only to applicants for whom the desired credit is not otherwise available on reasonable terms from non-Federal, non-State, and non-local government sources. Accordingly, SBA requires the Lender or CDC to certify or otherwise show that the desired credit is unavailable to the applicant on reasonable terms and conditions from non-Federal, non-State, and non-local government sources without SBA assistance, taking into consideration factors associated with conventional lending practices, including: The business industry of the loan applicant; whether the loan applicant has been in operation two years or less; the adequacy of collateral available to secure the loan; the loan term necessary to reasonably assure repayment of the loan from actual or projected business cash flow; and any other factor relating to the particular loan application that cannot be overcome except through obtaining a Federal loan guarantee under prudent lending standards. Submission of an application to SBA by a Lender or CDC constitutes certification by the Lender or CDC that it has examined the availability of credit to the applicant, has based its certification upon that examination, and has substantiation in its file to support the certification.

[61 FR 3235, Jan. 31, 1996, as amended at 85 FR 14780, Mar. 16, 2020]
#### § 3902.21 Filing of qualification evidence.

Applicants must file with the BLM a statement and evidence that the qualification requirements in this subpart are met. These may be filed separately from the lease application, but must be filed in the same office as the application. After the BLM accepts the applicant's qualifications, any additional information may be provided to the same BLM office by referring to the serial number of the record in which the evidence is filed. All changes to the qualifications statement must be in writing. The evidence provided must be current, accurate, and complete.