alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 13.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Avino Silver & Gold Mines Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Wolfin, Principal 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 the best of my 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 Company.



|                    |     |                             | 
|------------------- | --- | --------------------------- | 
|Date: April 7, 2016 | By: | /s/ David Wolfin            | 
|                    |     | David Wolfin                | 
|                    |     | Principal Executive Officer |
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Synthetic Blood International, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert W. Nicora, President and 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 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |                                      
|------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|September 19, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Robert W. Nicora                 
|                   |  |  |  | Robert W. Nicora                     
|                   |  |  |  | President and Chief Financial Officer

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Synthetic Blood International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, David H. Johnson, Chief Financial 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 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |                        
|------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------
|September 19, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ David H. Johnson   
|                   |  |  |  | David H. Johnson       
|                   |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Synthetic Blood
International, Inc. and will be retained by Synthetic Blood International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 1901.42 Right of appeal and appeal procedures. ( a ) *Right of Appeal.* A right of administrative appeal exists whenever access to any requested record or any portion thereof is denied, no records are located in response to a request, or a request for amendment is denied. The Agency will apprise all requesters in writing of their right to appeal such decisions to the CIA Agency Release Panel through the Coordinator.
( b ) *Requirements as to time and form.* Appeals of decisions must be received by the Coordinator within forty-five (45) days of the date of the Agency's initial decision. The Agency may, for good cause and as a matter of administrative discretion, permit an additional thirty (30) days for the submission of an appeal. All appeals to the Panel shall be in writing and addressed as specified in 32 CFR 1901.03. All appeals must identify the documents or portions of documents at issue with specificity, provide the desired amending language (if applicable), and may present such information, data, and argument in support as the requester may desire.
( c ) *Exceptions.* No appeal shall be accepted if the requester has outstanding fees for information services at this or another federal agency. In addition, no appeal shall be accepted if the information in question has been the subject of an administrative review within the previous two (2) years or is the subject of pending litigation in the federal courts.
( d ) *Receipt, recording, and tasking.* The Agency shall promptly record each administrative appeal, acknowledge receipt to the requester in writing, and thereafter effect the necessary taskings to the Deputy Director(s) in charge of the directorate(s) which originated or has an interest in the record(s) subject to the appeal. As used herein, the term Deputy Director includes an equivalent senior official within the DCI-area as well as a designee known as the Information Review Officer for a directorate or area.
#### Irene R. Lacks v. Harold G. Lacks.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted to the extent of certifying the following question: “Did the Court err as a matter of law in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the third cause of action as legally insufficient?” Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Bergan, JJ.
FY 2019 AGENCY FINANCIAL REPORT | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 113

SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDIT AND 

MANAGEMENT ASSURANCES

The following tables provide a summarized report on the Department’s financial statement audit and its management 

assurances. For more details, the auditors’ report can be found beginning on page 82 and the Department’s management 

assurances on page 17.

SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDIT

Audit Opinion: Unmodified

Restatement: No

Material Weaknesses Beginning Balance New Resolved Consolidated Ending Balance

Total Material Weaknesses 1 0 0 0 1

SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT ASSURANCES

Effectiveness of Internal Control over Financial Reporting—Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act 

(FMFIA) 2

Statement of Assurance: Unmodified

Material 

Weaknesses Beginning Balance New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed Ending Balance

Total Material 

Weaknesses 0 0 0 0 0 0

The Department had no material weaknesses in the design or operation of the internal control over financial reporting.

Effectiveness of Internal Control over Operations—FMFIA 2 

Statement of Assurance: Unmodified

Material 

Weaknesses Beginning Balance New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed Ending Balance

Total Material 

Weaknesses 0 0 0 0 0 0

Conformance with Financial Management System Requirements—FMFIA 4

Statement of Assurance: The Department systems conform to financial management system requirements.

Nonconformances Beginning Balance New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed Ending Balance

Total 

Nonconformances 0 0 0 0 0 0

Compliance with Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA)

Agency Auditor

1. System Requirements No lack of compliance noted No lack of compliance noted

2. Federal Accounting Standards No lack of compliance noted No lack of compliance noted

3. United States Standard General Ledger at Transaction Level No lack of compliance noted No lack of compliance noted
<PAGE>
(Deloitte &
Touche LLP
logo appears here)
                                               Exhibit 23(b)

Two Hilton Court                  Telephone: (201) 631-7000
P.O. Box 319                      Facsimile: (201) 631-7459
Parsippany, New Jersey 07054-0319


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration 
Statement No. 33-59405 of PP&L Resources, Inc. on Form S-3, 
Registration Statements No. 33-50031 and No. 333-02003 of 
PP&L Resources, Inc. on Form S-8 and Registration Statement 
No. 333-20661 of Pennsylvania Power & Light Company on Form 
S-3 of our report dated February 3, 1995, appearing in the 
Annual Report on Forms 10-K of PP&L Resources, Inc. and 
Pennsylvania Power & Light Company for the year ended 
December 31, 1996.





February 28, 1997
















(Deloitte Touche
Tohmatsu International
logo appears here)
1

New York 

Monitoring and Support Visit Summary and Next Steps

September 28-30, 2016

Focus Area: Timely Initial Evaluation DMS Designation: Targeted

Background

The April 26, 2016 DMS notice indicated that, in the area of Compliance, NYSED was identified for targeted 

engagement regarding timely initial evaluation (Annual Performance Report (APR) Indicator 11) The State’s 

FFY 2013 APR data for Indicator 11 showed that 88.07% of children were evaluated within 60 days of 

receiving parental consent for initial evaluation. 

Special Note

New York’s FFY 2014 data for APR Indicator 11 was 83.84%, which represents slippage from the State’s FFY 

2013 APR data. The State indicated that the low compliance data for two large districts had a major impact on 

the Statewide data, resulting in its inability to demonstrate 100% compliance for this Indicator.

Purpose of Monitoring Activity

The purpose of this monitoring activity was to explore the State’s challenges with ensuring initial evaluations

are conducted in a timely manner by discussing: 1) the factors that are impacting the State’s data; 2) the 

activities (technical assistance/training, corrective action, enforcement actions, etc.) the State has conducted to 

address the issues; and 3) ways in which OSEP and/or OSEP-funded technical assistance (TA) centers can 

assist the State. 

Visit Summary

OSEP met with representatives of the State, including staff from the State’s TA centers, to discuss the timely 

initial evaluation requirement in section 614(a)(1)(C) and 34 CFR §300.301(c). The discussion focused on the

following topics:

Timely Initial Evaluation Data: In a discussion with OSEP, and NYSED indicated that its root cause 

analysis identified two districts with particularly low data for this requirement. NYSED also described potential 

factors affecting timely initial evaluation, which included inconsistent implementation of policies, procedures, 

and practices at the district level. NYSED believes that this inconsistency is partly due to a high turnover rate 

in district leadership. NYSED reported that there are recruitment and retention issues, which have led to an 

insufficient number of evaluators. This is especially true for bilingual evaluators.

Use of Technical Assistance and Professional Development Resources: NYSED has implemented a 

number of improvement activities, including targeted TA and training. OSEP identified additional TA support 

from the following OSEP-funded TA centers: the NCSI’s Cross-State Learning Collaboratives; Collaboration 

for Effective Educator Development, Accountability and Reform (CEEDAR), and the Early Childhood 

Technical Assistance Center (ECTA). 

Next Steps

During FFY 2016, OSEP will continue to be available for TA calls with NYSED to discuss the State’s progress 

in meeting the timely initial evaluation requirements. In addition, OSEP will share TA resources and materials 

that may be helpful to the State.
### §2265. Deposit of money accepted for benefit of National Agricultural Library; disbursement

Any gift of money accepted pursuant to the authority granted in section 2264 of this title, or the net proceeds from the liquidation of any other property so accepted, or the proceeds of any insurance on any gift property not used for its restoration shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States for credit to a separate account and shall be disbursed upon order of the Secretary of Agriculture.

(Pub. L. 91–591, §3, Dec. 28, 1970, 84 Stat. 1588.)
### §5202. Policy

It is the policy of the United States—

(1) to provide, through all possible means, agricultural commodities and products for export at competitive prices, with full assurance of quality and reliability of supply;

(2) to support the principle of free trade and the promotion of fair trade in agricultural commodities and products;

(3) to support fully the negotiating objectives set forth in section 2901(b) of title 19 to eliminate or reduce substantially constraints on fair and open trade in agricultural commodities and products;

(4) to use statutory authority to counter unfair foreign trade practices and to use all available means, including export promotion programs, and, if necessary, restrictions on United States imports of agricultural commodities and products, in order to encourage fair and open trade; and

(5) to provide for increased representation of United States agricultural trade interests in the formulation of national fiscal and monetary policy affecting trade.

(Pub. L. 100–418, title IV, §4102, Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1390.)
### §7467. Petition and review

#### (a) Petition

#### (1) In general

A person subject to an order may file with the Secretary a petition—

(A) stating that the order, a provision of the order, or an obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law; and

(B) requesting a modification of the order or an exemption from the order.

#### (2) Hearings

A person submitting a petition under paragraph (1) shall be given an opportunity for a hearing on the petition, in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary.

#### (3) Ruling

After the hearing, the Secretary shall issue a ruling on the petition which shall be final if the petition is in accordance with law.

#### (4) Limitation on petition

Any petition filed under this subchapter challenging an order, or any obligation imposed in connection with an order, shall be filed not later than 2 years after the effective date of the order or imposition of the obligation.

#### (b) Review

#### (1) Commencement of action

The district court of the United States for any district in which the person who is a petitioner under subsection (a) resides or carries on business is vested with jurisdiction to review the ruling on the petition of the person, if a complaint for that purpose is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of a ruling by the Secretary under subsection (a).

#### (2) Process

Service of process in the proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

#### (3) Remands

If the court determines that the ruling is not in accordance with law, the court shall remand the matter to the Secretary with directions—

(A) to make such ruling as the court shall determine to be in accordance with law; or

(B) to take such further action as, in the opinion of the court, the law requires.

#### (4) Enforcement

The pendency of a proceeding instituted pursuant to subsection (a) shall not impede, hinder, or delay the Attorney General or the Secretary from obtaining relief pursuant to section 7468 of this title.

(Pub. L. 104–127, title V, §558, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1070.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in subsec. (b)(2), are set out in the Appendix to Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
#### Helen G. Daly et al., Appellants, v County of Tompkins, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme court, entered January 10, 1978 in Tompkins County, upon a verdict rendered at a Trial Term, in favor of defendant. Plaintiff, Helen Daly, was operating an automobile on North Triphammer Road, Tompkins County, when it skidded off the road and down a steep embankment. As a result of the accident, plaintiff sustained severe injuries. In the complaint it is alleged, *inter alia,*that defendant county was negligent and careless in the maintenance, operation and control of the highway and that the highway was completely covered with ice and in an extremely slippery condition. After a bifurcated trial on the issue of liability, the jury found in favor of the defendant. This appeal ensued. Plaintiffs raise three issues on this appeal urging reversal, only one of which requires comment by us. During the trial plaintiffs offered proof from a witness about forms used by the highway department. Defendant’s objection to the testimony was sustained and the court excluded all evidence concerning the county’s failure to salt and sand its highway. The court reasoned that since the bill of particulars did not enumerate the failure to sand the surface of the road as a specific act of negligence the proof was inadmissible. We disagree and are of the view that this constituted reversible error (see *Iskovitz v Arrathoon,*57 AD2d 546). This is so even though plaintiffs failed to move to amend the bill of particulars. A fair reading of the complaint would, in our view, apprise defendant of plaintiffs’ theory of negligence and no surprise was claimed by defendant. The car skidded on an icy road and left the highway. The jury could reasonably find that it was negligence on the part of defendant not to sand and salt the highway and such negligence caused both the accident and the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs. Under these circumstances such proof would not be prejudicial. The judgment should be reversed and plaintiffs directed to serve a supplemental bill of particulars, including a statement concerning defendant’s failure to salt and sand the highway. Judgment reversed, on the law, with costs, and a new trial ordered; plaintiffs are directed to serve a supplemental bill of particulars in accordance herewith within 20 days of the date of entry of the order to be made hereon. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
Sign-In Sheet

Meeting with Food Marketing Institute (FMI) on Leak Repair Amendments / GreenChill

Wed 03/02/2011 10:00 am – 11:00 am

Room 152, 1310 L Street, NW, Washington DC 

Name Organization

Cindy Newberg EPA

Keilly Witman EPA

Dave Godwin EPA

Nate Jutras EPA

Rob Uhl Safeway

Ken Welter Ahold USA (Stop and Shop, Giant)

Erik Lieberman FMI

Eric Johnson Brookshire Brothers

Harold Sandahl III Target

Jon Scanlan Hy-Vee
### §§6913, 6914. Repealed. Pub. L. 115–334, title XII, §12414(a)(2), (3), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4981

Section 6913, Pub. L. 103–354, title II, §213, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3211, related to reductions in number of Department personnel.

Section 6914, Pub. L. 103–354, title II, §214, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3211, related to consolidation of headquarters offices.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7794** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,

v . ELLUS LAROUS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. ( 5:98

- cr - 00007

- F

- 4 )

Submitted : March 17, 2016 Decided: April 4, 2016

Before KING, AGEE, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Ellus Larous, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Ellus Larous appeals the district court ’ s order denying his
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. United States v. Larous , No. 5:98

- cr - 00007

- F

- 4 (E.D.N.C.
June 23, 2015) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### §4. Failure to arbitrate under agreement; petition to United States court having jurisdiction for order to compel arbitration; notice and service thereof; hearing and determination

A party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect, or refusal of another to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any United States district court which, save for such agreement, would have jurisdiction under title 28, in a civil action or in admiralty of the subject matter of a suit arising out of the controversy between the parties, for an order directing that such arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement. Five days' notice in writing of such application shall be served upon the party in default. Service thereof shall be made in the manner provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court shall hear the parties, and upon being satisfied that the making of the agreement for arbitration or the failure to comply therewith is not in issue, the court shall make an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The hearing and proceedings, under such agreement, shall be within the district in which the petition for an order directing such arbitration is filed. If the making of the arbitration agreement or the failure, neglect, or refusal to perform the same be in issue, the court shall proceed summarily to the trial thereof. If no jury trial be demanded by the party alleged to be in default, or if the matter in dispute is within admiralty jurisdiction, the court shall hear and determine such issue. Where such an issue is raised, the party alleged to be in default may, except in cases of admiralty, on or before the return day of the notice of application, demand a jury trial of such issue, and upon such demand the court shall make an order referring the issue or issues to a jury in the manner provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or may specially call a jury for that purpose. If the jury find that no agreement in writing for arbitration was made or that there is no default in proceeding thereunder, the proceeding shall be dismissed. If the jury find that an agreement for arbitration was made in writing and that there is a default in proceeding thereunder, the court shall make an order summarily directing the parties to proceed with the arbitration in accordance with the terms thereof.

(July 30, 1947, ch. 392, 61 Stat. 671; Sept. 3, 1954, ch. 1263, §19, 68 Stat. 1233.)

#### Derivation

Act Feb. 12, 1925, ch. 213, §4, 43 Stat. 883.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in text, are set out in Appendix to Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

#### Amendments

1954—Act Sept. 3, 1954, brought section into conformity with present terms and practice.