alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 13.4**

****

CONSENT OF EXPERT



We hereby consent to the use of our name contained in the technical report on the Property in the Durango Mining District of Mexico dated July 19, 2013 entitled "Technical Report on the Avino Property" and the reference as an expert contained in the Annual Report of Avino Silver & Gold Mines Ltd. on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 and incorporated by reference to the Company's Registration Statements on Form S-8 (SEC File No.: 333-195120) and Form F-3 (SEC File Nos.: 333-193471 and 333-195144).



|                     | TETRA TECH WEI INC. |                        
|-------------------- | ------------------- | -----------------------
|                     |                     |                        
|Dated: April 7, 2016 | By:                 | /s/ Hassan Ghaffari    
|                     |                     | Hassan Ghaffari, P.Eng.
|                     |                     |
From: John Summerhays/R5/USEPA/US

To: "Schmidt Cortney" <CKSchmidt@vcsmc.com>, 

Date: 07/23/2012 01:57 PM

Subject: Emissions Data

Last Thursday, you mentioned discrepancies between the data I am proposing to make publicly available 

and the data you have. I trust there are no discrepancies in the daily figures, since these are very 

straightforward calculations. I trust that any discrepancies are in the 30-day average data, which can be 

calculated in different ways. I spent time this morning first to calculate 30-day averages that roll over the 

calendar year (e.g. that go from December 16 to January 14) and second to calculate averages on the 

basis of 30 consecutive operating days rather than 30 consecutive calendar days. For ease of 

computation, I did these calculations with a spreadsheet that only includes operating days. The data base 

includes a few days showing clinker production but no NOx emissions. I don't know why this occurred, but I 

have treated those days as non-operating days and eliminated them from the data base.

Here is the data base with these recalculations. In this spreadsheet, you can access the production data 

and mass emissions data by giving a nonzero width to the applicable columns, but my proposal of course is 

to "print" the data base as is (with these columns not showing) in pdf format so that there would be no 

public access to these data.

I expect to need to post this information by early next week, so I appreciate your prompt reply.

[Emissions information provided in this email has been posted separately to regulations.gov]
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 4 

ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 

61 FORSYTH STREET 

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960 

Justin Green, Director 

Division of Air Resource Management 

Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection 

2600 Blair Stone Road 

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 

Dear Mr. Green: 

APR 1 9 2016 

Enclosed is the final end-of-year report for your agency's FY 20 15 Air Pollution Control grant 

authorized by § 1 05 of the Clean Air Act. This report outlines your agency's various grant commitments 

and their status. Since there were no issues and no adjustments necessary, your report is now finalized. 

This letter documents the conclusion of the joint evaluation process required by 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations 35.115 and identified as a commitment in your FY 20 15 Air Planning Agreement under 

Cross Culling Issues. 

We appreciate the progress you made in FY 2015 and look forward to continuing our joint efforts 

to protect and improve air quality. If you have any questions regarding your grant, please contact 

Stuart Perry at (404) 562-8980 or Angela Isom at (404) 562-9092. 

Enclosure 

Carol L. Kemker 

Acting Director 

Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable 011 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
#### Chester Ziembicki, Respondent, v. Mott Improvement Corp., Appellant.

Motion by appellant to extend its time to appear in the action, pending its appeal from an order denying its motion to vacate the service of a summons. Motion granted; appellant’s time extended until 10 days after entry of order determining the appeal. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

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

No. 98-50641 Conference Calendar

LUCRECIA LYNN MONROE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus LINDA AMENT, Senior Warden; E. CALDWELL, Building Major, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-96-CV-472

- - - - - - - - - - December 9, 1998
Before DAVIS, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Lucrecia Lynn Monroe, Texas prisoner #422039, appeals from the dismissal of her prisoner’s civil rights action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Monroe contends that the district court erred by dismissing her complaint. She argues that prison officials failed to protect her despite knowing that she and her cellmate were likely to fight. A prisoner who seeks damages in an action that would undermine the validity of a disciplinary proceeding that resultsNo. 98-50641 -2- in the loss of good-conduct time must obtain the invalidation of the verdict from the disciplinary proceeding before she has a cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Edwards v. Balisok , 520 U.S. 641, 117 S. Ct. 1584, 1588-89 (1997). Monroe’s disciplinary report indicates that she lost 30 days’ good-conduct time and her grievance forms indicate that she has failed to obtain the invalidation of the disciplinary proceeding in which she was found guilty of fighting with Rose. R. 16, 21-28. Monroe has no cause of action for damages. Monroe’s appeal is without arguable merit and therefore is frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). We caution Monroe that future frivolous appeals, even appeals in which she is not proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP)(which Monroe is barred from doing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) unless she is under imminent danger of serious physical harm), may result in sanctions, including monetary sanctions, against her. To avoid the imposition of sanctions, Monroe is urged to review any pending appeals and to withdraw any that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTIONS WARNING IMPOSED.
### Part B—Marketing Quotas
### §6109. Savings provision

Nothing in this chapter may be construed to preempt or supersede any other program relating to mushroom promotion, research, consumer information, or industry information organized and operated under the laws of the United States or any State.

(Pub. L. 101–624, title XIX, §1930, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3865.)
M. P. No. 74-338.

#### John F. Gray *v.*S. Douglas Mott *et al.*

*Sheffield & Harvey, Ray H. Durfee,*for petitioner. *Corcoran, Peckham & Hayes, William W. Corcoran,*for respondents.

Petition in equity in the nature of quo warranto is granted. Matter is assigned to March 7, 1975 for oral argument. Briefs for the petitioner shall be filed no later than February 20, 1975, and briefs for the respondent shall be filed no later than March 3, 1975.
### §3319i. Capacity building grants for NLGCA Institutions

#### (a) Grant program

#### (1) In general

The Secretary shall make competitive grants to NLGCA Institutions to assist the NLGCA Institutions in maintaining and expanding the capacity of the NLGCA Institutions to conduct education, research, and outreach activities relating to—

(A) agriculture;

(B) renewable resources; and

(C) other similar disciplines.

#### (2) Use of funds

An NLGCA Institution that receives a grant under paragraph (1) may use the funds made available through the grant to maintain and expand the capacity of the NLGCA Institution—

(A) to successfully compete for funds from Federal grants and other sources to carry out educational, research, and outreach activities that address priority concerns of national, regional, State, and local interest;

(B) to disseminate information relating to priority concerns to—

(i) interested members of the agriculture, renewable resources, and other relevant communities;

(ii) the public; and

(iii) any other interested entity;

(C) to encourage members of the agriculture, renewable resources, and other relevant communities to participate in priority education, research, and outreach activities by providing matching funding to leverage grant funds; and

(D) through—

(i) the purchase or other acquisition of equipment and other infrastructure (not including alteration, repair, renovation, or construction of buildings);

(ii) the professional growth and development of the faculty of the NLGCA Institution; and

(iii) the development of graduate assistantships.

#### (b) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2023.

(Pub. L. 95–113, title XIV, §1473F, as added Pub. L. 110–234, title VII, §7138, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1230, and Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title VII, §7138, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1991; amended Pub. L. 113–79, title VII, §7123, Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 876; Pub. L. 115–334, title VII, §7131, Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4796.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 enacted identical sections. Pub. L. 110–234 was repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

#### Amendments

2018—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 115–334 substituted "2023" for "2018".

2014—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 113–79 substituted "2018" for "2012".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Enactment of this section and repeal of Pub. L. 110–234 by Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234, see section 4 of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as a note under section 8701 of this title.
OELA Organization Chart (effective 12/17/2023)

OELA Assistant Deputy Secretary and 

Director 

Deputy Assistant Secretary (SES) 

Office of English Learners (OEL) 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Policy and Programs 

(GS-301-15 )

Office of Multilingual Initiatives 

(OMI)
No. 8010.

#### Haskell *v.*Brodhead.

(Decided November 10, 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Franklin county.

*Mr. H. M. Daugherty; Mr. D. B. Sharp*and *Messrs. Bailey & Bailey,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Thomas E. Powell,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Burket, O. J., Davis, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1


Certification of the Chief Executive 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 Espey Mfg. & Electronics Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), I, Howard Pinsley, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: February 10, 2010








/s/Howard PinsleyHoward PinsleyChief Executive Officer





17
Exhibit 12
 RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 
 Year2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007Computation of Earnings:Income before taxes
    
    $
    57,124
    
    
    $
    19,877
    
    
    $
    34,242Add:Interest expense
    
    
    35,176
    
    
    
    37,231
    
    
    
    47,670Amortization of debt premium/discount and expenses
    
    
    2,303
    
    
    
    2,449
    
    
    
    2,678Interest portion of rent expense
    
    
    1,496
    
    
    
    1,325
    
    
    
    1,299Earnings as adjusted
    
    $
    96,099
    
    
    $
    60,882
    
    
    $
    85,889Computation of Fixed Charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    35,176
    
    
    $
    37,231
    
    
    $
    47,670Capitalized interest
    
    
    103
    
    
    
    375
    
    
    
    405Amortization of debt premium/discount and expenses
    
    
    2,303
    
    
    
    2,449
    
    
    
    2,678Interest portion of rent expense
    
    
    1,496
    
    
    
    1,325
    
    
    
    1,299Fixed charges
    
    $
    39,078
    
    
    $
    41,380
    
    
    $
    52,052Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    2.46
    
    
    
    1.47
    
    
    
    1.65
No. 769.

#### Jesse C. Washburn et al. *v.*E. N. Gillespie.

April 19, 1920.

*Mr. L. T. Michener, Mr. Henry S. Johnston*and *Mr. Horace Speed*for petitioners.

No appearance for respondent.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 13.(a)(1)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ENACTED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F of Ricoh Company, Ltd. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2011 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, 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: June 30, 2011



By:

/s/    Shiro KondoShiro KondoPresident and Chief Executive Officer
No. 297.

#### Queens Land & Title Company et al. *v.*Kings County Trust Company et al.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Dis*573trict of New York.

Argued March 25, 1920.

Decided April 19, 1920.

*Mr. William G. Cooke*for appellants.

*Mr. George E. Brower*for appellees.

*Per Curiam.*

Affirmed with costs upon the authority of *Farrell*v. *O’Brien,*199 U. S. 89, 100; *Goodrich*v. *Ferris,*214 U. S. 71, 79; *Brolan*v. *United States,*236 U. S. 216, 218; *Sugarman*v. *United States,*249 U. S. 182, 184. And see *Blumenstock Bros. Advertising Agency*v. *Curtis Publishing Co.,*this day decided, *ante,*436.
#### Barbara Abraham, Appellant, v. Maurice Worsell, Doing Business as Rogue’s Harbor Hotel, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court entered in Tompkins County upon a dismissal of the complaint at the close of the evidence. Appellant seeks to recover damages for injuries which she claims she sustained when she fell on the respondent’s premises on June 20, 1961. She had attended a dinner party at the hotel. At about 9 or 9:30 P.M., while it was very dark and raining hard she left the hotel for her home. After descending the steps at the south end of the building she stepped upon a blacktop sidewalk or pathway and started to hurry to the parking lot where she had left her car. At the time she had her coat over her hair and was wearing a pair of high heeled slippers. She testified, “I felt like I was going to slip and my heel caught and I fell down.” She had been in and out of the hotel many times and was familiar with the south entrance. A light was at the top of the stairway. We find no sufficient proof of negligence on the part of the defendant. Judgment affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
```

                                                     EXHIBIT 32.1

                   Section 1350 Certification
                 By Principal Executive Officer

     I,  Daniel  Greenberg, certify that the periodic report,  to
which  this  Statement  is  attached,  fully  complies  with  the
requirements  of  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of  the  Securities  and
Exchange  Act  of  1934,  and the information  contained  in  the
periodic  report  to  which this Statement  is  attached,  fairly
present,  in  all material respects, the financial condition  and
results of operations of the registrant.

     A  signed  original  of  this  written  statement  has  been
provided  to the Company and will be retained by the Company  and
furnished to the SEC upon request.

     Dated December 19, 2003

                              /s/ Daniel Greenberg
                              Daniel Greenberg
                              Chief Executive Officer
```
§ 775.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) To implement the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.,* the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA, 40 CFR 1500-1508, and the Department of Defense Instruction on Environmental Planning and Analysis, DODINST 4715.9, and to assign responsibilities within the Department of the Navy (DON) for preparation, review, and approval of environmental documents prepared under NEPA.
( b ) The policies and responsibilities set out in this part apply to the DON, including the Office of the Secretary of the Navy, and Navy and Marine Corps commands, operating forces, shore establishments, and reserve components. This part is limited to the actions of these elements with environmental effects in the United States, its territories, and possessions.
[69 FR 8109, Feb. 23, 2004]
Fiscal Year 2005 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Maximum Required

Expenditures For 

Choice-Related Maximum Per-Child

Transportation Expenditure For

FY 2005 Title I And Supplemental Supplemental

LEA ID District Allocation* Educational Services** Educational Services***

1100030 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 50,358,481 10,071,696 2,314

1199998 Undistributed 0 0 0

1199999 PART D SUBPART 2 0 0 0

* Actual amounts received by LEAs will be smaller than shown here due to State-level adjustments to Federal Title I allocations. States adjust

 allocations, for example, to reflect LEA boundary changes or the creation of new LEAs, including charter school LEAs, that are not accounted

 for in the statutory calculations. States also are permitted to reserve up to 1 percent of allocations for administration and generally must

 reserve 4 percent in fiscal year 2005 for school improvement activities. These adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available

 under all three columns of the table.

** An LEA must use up to an amount equal to 20 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation (the “20-percent reservation”) received from the State 

 to cover choice-related transportation costs for students who exercise a choice option and to pay for supplemental educational services for

 students whose parents request such services. The 20-percent reservation may include Title I, Part A funds or funding from other Federal,

 State, local, and private sources. The amount shown in this column is the Department’s estimate of the amount that affected LEAs - those

 with schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring - may have to spend to meet this requirement. Actual 

 expenditures will depend on such factors as the number of students exercising a choice option or receiving supplemental educational services and

 the costs of satisfying these requests. An LEA has discretion to determine the allocation of these funds between choice-related transportation

 and supplemental educational services, except that it must spend at least one-quarter of the 20-percent reservation - or an amount equal to

 5 percent of its Title I, Part A allocation - on each activity if there is demand for both from students and their parents.

*** An LEA that must arrange for supplemental educational services is required to pay, for each child receiving services, the lesser of the actual cost

 of the services or an amount equal to the LEA’s Title I, Part A allocation received from the State divided by the number of poor students in the

 LEA, as determined by estimates produced by the US Bureau of the Census. Thus the amount shown in this column reflects the statutory “cap”

 on per-child expenditures for supplemental educational services.
§ 935.65 Jurisdiction. ( a ) The Wake Island Court has jurisdiction over all offenses under this part and all actions of a civil nature, cognizable at law or in equity, where the amount in issue is not more than $1,000, exclusive of interests and costs, but not including changes of name or domestic relations matters.
( b ) The United States is not subject to suit in the Court.
( c ) The United States may intervene in any matter in which the Island Attorney determines it has an interest.
Fiscal Year 2013 Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies - NEVADA

FY 2013 Title I

LEA ID District Allocation*

3200390 Carson City School District 1,314,152

3200030 Churchill County School District 621,689

3200060 Clark County School District 81,535,237

3200090 Douglas County School District 617,769

3200120 Elko County School District 801,186

3200150 Esmeralda County School District 16,611

3200180 Eureka County School District 25,114

3200210 Humboldt County School District 288,347

3200240 Lander County School District 88,398

3200270 Lincoln County School District 128,046

3200300 Lyon County School District 1,143,643

3200330 Mineral County School District 132,861

3200360 Nye County School District 1,335,985

3200420 Pershing County School District 152,881

3200450 Storey County School District 42,501

3200480 Washoe County School District 11,971,905

3200510 White Pine County School District 186,354

3299999 PART D SUBPART 2 964,902

* Actual amounts received by LEAs will be smaller than shown here due to State-level adjustments to Federal Title I allocations. States adjust

 allocations, for example, to reflect LEA boundary changes or the creation of new LEAs, including charter school LEAs, that are not accounted

 for in the statutory calculations. States also are permitted to reserve, for administration, up to 1 percent of the allocations they would receive

 if $14 billion were appropriated and generally must reserve 4 percent in fiscal year 2013 for school improvement activities. These 

 adjustments will reduce the actual amounts available.
###### Editorial Note on Part 842

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

#### § 842.4 Where to file a claim.

File a claim at the base legal office of the unit or installation at or nearest to where the accident or incident occurred. If the accident or incident occurred in a foreign country where no Air Force unit is located, file the claim with the Defense Attache (DATT) or Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) personnel authorized to receive claims (DIAM 100-1 and AFR 400-45). In a foreign country where a claimant is unable to obtain adequate assistance in filing a claim, the claimant may contact the nearest Air Force SJA. The SJA then advises AFLOA/JACC through claims channels of action taken and states why the DATT or MAAG was unable to adequately assist the claimant.

[81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016]