alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.1
 
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 December 8, 2009
    /s/ Eugene S. KahnEugene S. KahnChief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           15786
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   153706
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2375
<INVENTORY>                                     212702
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                404777
<PP&E>                                          760657
<DEPRECIATION>                                  345335
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1061115
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           177865
<BONDS>                                         291358
<COMMON>                                        118444
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      329329
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1061115
<SALES>                                         541505
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                541505
<CGS>                                           383644
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   467515
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (357)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               10563
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  66469
<INCOME-TAX>                                     23942
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              42527
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     42527
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36
        

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Feb-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    Aug-29-1998
<CASH>                              700,000
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                    11,775,000
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                      25,846,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 38,496,000
<PP&E>                           11,789,000
<DEPRECIATION>                    8,582,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   46,797,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            33,563,000
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                          1,267,000
<OTHER-SE>                       10,774,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     46,797,000
<SALES>                          18,906,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 29,854,000
<CGS>                            14,451,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    32,974,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    110,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  702,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (4,341,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (4,341,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                     (4,341,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           .84
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .84
        


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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               NOV-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    MAR-01-1997
<CASH>                                                6,560 
<SECURITIES>                                         61,968 
<RECEIVABLES>                                        24,782 
<ALLOWANCES>                                            700 
<INVENTORY>                                          30,158 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    124,748 
<PP&E>                                              109,139 
<DEPRECIATION>                                       79,399 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      157,371 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                15,452 
<BONDS>                                                 604 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0 
<PREFERRED>                                               0 
<COMMON>                                              1,313 
<OTHER-SE>                                          132,939 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        157,371 
<SALES>                                              35,475 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     35,475 
<CGS>                                                31,427 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        31,427 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      3,038 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        100 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       16 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       2,425 
<INCOME-TAX>                                            775 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   1,650 
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0 
<CHANGES>                                                 0 
<NET-INCOME>                                          1,650 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          0.29 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.29 
                                               


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1103

ALAIN BLAISE ETOUNDI, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A78-586-986) Submitted: October 22, 2003 Decided: February 10, 2004 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edwin K. Fogam, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director, John C. Cunningham, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Alain Blaise Etoundi, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum and withholding of removal. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review. Etoundi asserts that his testimony was credible and corroborated and contends that he established his eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Etoundi fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that Etoundi seeks. Additionally, we uphold the IJ’s denial of Etoundi’s application for withholding of removal. The standard for withholding of removal is more stringent than that for granting asylum. Chen v. INS , 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir. 1999). To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate “a clear probability of persecution.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 430 (1987). Because Etoundi fails to show he is eligible- 3 - for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### 1449.111 Review of proposed settlements.

All proposed settlement agreements shall be reviewed by the SOL and approved at one level above the CO. Settlement agreements of $250,000 or more shall be approved by the BPC.
#### 1350.102 Delegation of and limitation on exercise of authority.
### §2717. Investigations by Secretary; oaths and affirmations; subpenas; judicial enforcement; contempt proceedings; service of process

The Secretary may make such investigations as he deems necessary for the effective carrying out of his responsibilities under this chapter or to determine whether an egg producer, processor, or other seller of commercial eggs or any other person has engaged or is about to engage in any acts or practices which constitute or will constitute a violation of any provisions of this chapter, or of any order, or rule or regulation issued under this chapter. For the purpose of such investigation, the Secretary is empowered to administer oaths and affirmations, subpena witnesses, compel their attendance, take evidence, and require the production of any books, papers, and documents which are relevant to the inquiry. Such attendance of witnesses and the production of any such records may be required from any place in the United States. In case of contumacy by, or refusal to obey a subpena to, any person, including an egg producer, the Secretary may invoke the aid of any court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which such investigation or proceeding is carried on, or where such person resides or carries on business, in requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of books, papers, and documents; and such court may issue an order requiring such person to appear before the Secretary, there to produce records, if so ordered, or to give testimony touching the matter under investigation. Any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof. All process in any such case may be served in the judicial district whereof such person is an inhabitant or wherever he may be found.

(Pub. L. 93–428, §18, Oct. 1, 1974, 88 Stat. 1178.)
#### DE COPPET et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant, et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 13, 1903.)

Action by Edward J. De Coppet and Robert P. Doremus, as executors, etc., of Ernest F. Walton, deceased, against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company and another.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs; GOODRICH, P. J., being of opinion, however, that the verdict is excessive.
#### 1331.205 Selected costs.
EXHIBIT 13.5



CONSENT OF EXPERT



We hereby consent to the use of our name contained in the technical reports on the Property in Gold Bridge, British Columbia dated October 15, 2012 and amended on November 20, 2012 entitled "Preliminary Economic Assessment on the Bralorne Gold Mines Property, Gold Bridge, British Columbia, Canada", 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 Forms F-3 (SEC File Nos.: 333-193471 and 333-195144).





|                     | BEACON HILL CONSULTANTS (1988) LTD. |                     
|-------------------- | ----------------------------------- | --------------------
|                     |                                     |                     
|Dated: April 7, 2016 | By:                                 | /s/ W. P. Stokes    
|                     |                                     | W. P. Stokes, P.Eng.
# 2018 Congressional Action

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	August 17, 2015, 10:16 AM

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	July 16, 2015 10:56 am

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	August 7, 2015, 6:40 AM

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 OMB REQUEST&11(in thousands of dollars)	September 3, 2015, 3:56 PM

&"-,Regular"&10DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2018 CONGRESSIONAL ACTION&8(in thousands of dollars)	

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

&20 	&P

&14 	&10&P
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 Oxygen Biotherapeutics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Chris J. Stern, Chief Executive Officer and 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.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  |  |                        
|------------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                         |  | 
|Date: September 19, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Chris J. Stern     
|                         |  |  |  | Chris J. Stern         
|                         |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                         |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof,
regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
1224.102-70 General. ( a ) Records maintained in a Privacy Act system of records shall not be released except by the Government or at the Government's direction regardless of whether the Government or a contractor acting on behalf of the Government is maintaining the records. Examples of systems of records are: ( 1 ) Personnel, payroll and background records about any officer or employee of DOT, or other person, including his or her residential address;
( 2 ) Medical histories and medical records concerning individuals, including applications for licenses; and
( 3 ) Any other record containing information about an individual which includes that individual's name or other personal identifier.
( b ) Examples of records to which the Privacy Act does not apply are: ( 1 ) Records that are maintained by a contractor on individuals employed by the contractor in the process of providing goods and services to the Federal government; and
( 2 ) Student records generated in connection with the student's attendance (*e.g.,* admission forms, grade reports) at an educational institution contracted by the agency to provide training to students. These records must be similar to those maintained on other students and must not be commingled with records of other students.
§ 536.131 Limitations on assessments arising from UCMJ claims. ( a ) *Limitations on amount.* ( 1 ) A special court-martial convening authority (SPCMCA) has authority to approve a pay assessment in an amount not to exceed $5,000 per claimant per incident and to deny a claim in any amount. If the Judge Advocate responsible for advising the SPCMCA decides that the SPCMCA's final action under the provisions of Rule for Courts-Martial 1107 in a court-martial arising out of the same incident would be compromised, the SPCMCA may forward the Article 139 claim to the general court-martial convening authority (GCMCA) for action.
( 2 ) A GCMCA, or designee, has authority to approve a pay assessment in an amount not to exceed $10,000 per claimant per incident and to deny a claim in any amount. ( i ) If the GCMCA or designee determines that a claim exceeding $10,000 per claimant per incident is meritorious, that officer will assess the soldier's pay in the amount of $10,000 and forward the claim to the Commander USARCS, with a recommendation to increase the assessment.
( ii ) If the head of the area claims office (ACO) (usually the GCMCA's Staff Judge Advocate (SJA)) decides that the GCMCA's final action under the provisions of Rule for Courts-Martial 1107 in a court-martial arising out of the same incident would be compromised, that officer may forward the Article 139 claim to USARCS for action.
( 3 ) Only TJAG, TAJAG, the Commander USARCS, or designee has authority to approve assessments in excess of $10,000 per claimant per incident.
( b ) *Limitations on type of damages.* Property loss or damage assessments are limited to direct damages. This subpart does not provide redress for indirect, remote, or consequential damages.
FOR PUBLICATION



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

E DUARDO D E L A T ORRE ; L ORI S AYSOURIVONG , Plaintiffs

- Appellants / Cross

- Appellees

,

v.

C ASH C ALL , I NC ., Defendant

- Appellee / Cross

- Appellants

. No s

. 14

- 17571 15

- 15042

D.C. No. 3:08

- cv

- 03174

- MEJ

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Maria

- Elena James, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 16, 2017 Submitted September 17, 2018 San Francisco, California

Filed October 3, 20182 D E L A T ORRE V

. C ASH C ALL

Before: A. Wallace Tashima and Andrew D. Hurwitz, Circuit Judges, and Lynn S. Adelman, * District Judge.

Per Curiam Opinion

COUNSEL

James C. Sturdevant (argued), The Sturdevant Law Firm, San Francisco, California ; Jessica Riggin and Steven M. Tindall, Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP, San Francisco, California ; Arthur D. Levy, Law Office of Arthur D. Levy, San Francisco, Cali fornia; for Plainti ffs

- Appellants/Cross

Appellees.

Brad W. Seiling (argued), Donald R. Brown, and Joanna S. McCallum, Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Defendant

- Appellee/Cross

- Appellant.

Caryn Becker, Oakland, California, as and for Amicus Curiae Center for Responsible Lending

. Ted Mermin, Berkeley, California, as and for Amicus Curiae Public Good Law Center

. Michael J. Quirk, Williams Cuker Berezofsky LLC, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Amicus Curiae National Association of Consumer Advocates.

* The Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.D E L A T ORRE V

. C ASH C ALL 3

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In light of the judgment of the Supreme Court of California in De La Torre v. CashCall, Inc.

, No. S241434

, 422 P.3d 1004 ( Cal. 2018) , the judgment of the district court is VACATED and this case is REMANDED to that court for further proceedings consistent with that opinion.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           18152
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   157380
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1374
<INVENTORY>                                     181982
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                377537
<PP&E>                                          767727
<DEPRECIATION>                                  407999
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1033459
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           181688
<BONDS>                                         501810
<COMMON>                                         83465
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      103518
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1033459
<SALES>                                         205326
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                205326
<CGS>                                           161880
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   174416
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (902)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                8851
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  22961
<INCOME-TAX>                                      7657
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              15304
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     15304
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
        

</TABLE>