alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 13.2**

 

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*

 

In connection  with the annual report of North  American  Nickel Inc.  (formerly Widescope  Resources  Inc.) (the  “Company”)  on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2016 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),  I, Alex Dann,  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:

 

(1)                                 the  Report  containing  the  financial  statements  of the  Company  fully     complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 24, 2018

 
| /s/ Chris Hopkins       |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Chris Hopkins           |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----

* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### § 29.9202 Approved receiving station.

Points approved by the Director at which tobacco is offered for marketing or shipment into commerce including tobacco auction warehouses, packing houses, prizeries, or places where tobacco is handled or stored.
#### § 29.1133 Rule 27.

Tobacco in Types 11-14 shall be designated by the grademark “No-G-Nested” when it is nested.

[47 FR 51721, Nov. 17, 1982, as amended at 49 FR 16756, Apr. 20, 1984]
98-1329.

#### State v. Nelson.

Clermont App. No. CA96-09-077. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, J., dissent.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated June 17, 2010, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on June 28, 2010 (75 FR 36684), Cerilliant Corporation, 811 Paloma Drive, Suite A, Round Rock, Texas 78665-2402, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule I: Drug
ScheduleRacemoramide (9645)
ITilidine (9750)
I
 The company plans to import small quantities of the listed controlled substances for the manufacture of analytical reference standards. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a), and determined that the registration of Cerilliant Corporation to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest, and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971. DEA has investigated Cerilliant Corporation to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic class of controlled substance listed. Dated: November 1, 2010. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 2010-28523 Filed 11-10-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
98-1342.

#### State v. Sandlin.

Clermont App. No. CA97-10-092. On review of order certifying a conflict, The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ order rendered on June 11,1998, at pages 2-3:

“[Wjhether a conviction for violation of R.C. 4511.19, which ‘shall be considered a previous or subsequent conviction’ pursuant to R.C. 2953.31(A), precludes a defendant from satisfying the statutory definition of a ‘first offender’ contained in R.C. 2953.31(A) even if the conviction sought to be expunged resulted from or was connected with the R.C. 4511.19 violation.”

The conflict case is *State v. McGinnis*(1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 479, 629 N.E.2d 1084.
MeadWestvaco Corporation 2005 Compensation for Non-Employee Directors



 Exhibit 10.30 
  
 MeadWestvaco Corporation 
  
 Summary of Non-employee Director Compensation 
  
 Each non-employee director of MeadWestvaco receives $50,000 as an annual cash payment for services as a director. Board members may elect to defer this compensation under
the MeadWestvaco Corporation Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors. Directors have the opportunity to defer all or a portion of their annual cash retainer. Directors who are also employees of the company receive no additional compensation for
service as a director.  
  
 Each year, non-employee directors receive a
grant of MeadWestvaco stock units equivalent to $60,000 at the time of grant. Distributions of the stock units are made in MeadWestvaco common stock upon termination of a director’s board membership. 
  
 In addition to the compensation described above, the MeadWestvaco Audit Committee Chair
receives a $20,000 annual retainer, the Compensation and Organization Development Committee Chair receives a $15,000 annual retainer, and the Chair of each of the other standing Committees of the Board receives an annual retainer of $10,000. Each of
the members of the Audit Committee, other than the Chair, receives an annual retainer of $5,000.
#### LUNN v. F. W. WOOLWORTH CO. F. W. WOOLWORTH CO. v. LUNN.

No. 13266.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 1, 1954.

Charles E. Townsend, Jr., Stephen S. Townsend, Carl E. Hoppe, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant Lunn.

Boyken, Mohler *&*Beckley, W. Bruce Beckley, Gordon Wood, Wright & Larson, Randell Larson, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant Woolworth.

Before MATHEWS, STEPHENS and ORR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, in an action for damages for infringing a patent, plaintiff, Annette S. Lunn, obtained a verdict and a judgment against defendant, F. W. Woolworth Company, for $10,938 and costs. Plaintiff moved to amend the judgment by increasing the amount thereof. Defendant moved to set aside the verdict and for a judgment in its favor notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. An order was entered denying both motions. Plaintiff appealed from that part of the order which denied her motion. Defendant appealed from the judgment.

To prevent plaintiff from executing the judgment pending the appeal therefrom, defendant obtained a stay thereof by giving a supersedeas bond1 in the sum of $12,000. The bond was executed by a surety company. For executing the bond, defendant paid the surety company a premium of $480.

We dismissed plaintiff’s appeal and reversed the judgment.2 The premium paid to the surety company for executing the bond was claimed by defendant and, over plaintiff’s objection, was allowed and taxed by the clerk of this court3 as a part of defendant’s costs. *160Plaintiff, contending that this was improper, moves to retax defendant’s costs.

There is no merit in plaintiff’s contention. The premium paid to the surety company was a necessary part of defendant’s costs and was properly allowed and taxed as such.4

Motion denied.

1

. See Rules 62(d) and 73(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.

2

. Lunn v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 9 Cir., 207 F.2d *174,*certiorari denied 316 U.S. 900, 74 S.Ct. 224.

3

. See paragraphs 3 and 5 of our Rule 25.

4

. Columbia Motor Car Co. v. C. A. Duerr & Co., 2 Cir., 184 F. 893, 916; Land Oberoesterreich v. Gude, 2 Cir., 93 F.2d 292; In re Northern Indiana Oil Co., 7 Cir., 192 F.2d 139; Edison v. American Mutoscope Co., C.C.S.D.N.Y., 117 F. 192; Jones v. Edward B. Smith Co., C.C.E.D. Pa., 183 F. 990; The Walter Adams, D.C.R.I., 271 F. 358; Jenkins Petroleum Process Co. v. Sinclair Refining Co., D.C. Me., 26 F.Supp. 845.
SIGN IN SHEET 

Government-to-Government Consultation 

Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: 

Electric Generating Units (EGUs) 

Date: July 18, 2014 

Time: 2:30pm-3:30pm (MDT) 

Location: EPA Region 8 Office- Rocky Mountain Room 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202 

Attendees 

Or anization 

12. ~ r r . 1___. c.._f'f I s. 

-Jnb(_ 

rl 

OJ 

no 

ro 

Cl..
118 STAT. 1094 PUBLIC LAW 108–296—AUG. 9, 2004

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4222:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD,

Vol. 150 (2004):

June 21, considered and passed House.

July 22, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 108–296

108th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 550 Nebraska

Avenue in Kansas City, Kansas, as the ‘‘Newell George Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at

550 Nebraska Avenue in Kansas City, Kansas, shall be known

and designated as the ‘‘Newell George Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Newell

George Post Office Building’’.

Approved August 9, 2004.

Aug. 9, 2004

[H.R. 4222]
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

  CERTIFICATION OF 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 the Quarterly Report of Cardiac Science Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John R.
Hinson, 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:

(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.

                                             /s/ JOHN R. HINSON
                                          --------------------------------
                                          John R. Hinson
                                          Chief Executive Officer

     Date:  August 9, 2006
#### Folger, Appellant, *v.*State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, Appellee.

[Cite as *Folger v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 149.]

(No. 98-652

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided September 23, 1998.)

*150*Altick & Corwin Co., L.P.A.,*and *Thomas M. Baggott,*for appellant.

*Freund, Freeze & Arnold, L.P.A.,*and *Gordon D. Arnold,*for appellee.

The discretionary appeal is allowed, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on the authority of *Ross v. Farmers Ins. Group of Cos.*(1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 281, 695 N.E.2d 732.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
#### Jack B. Hosid, Respondent, v Leonard B. Wilson et al., Appellants.

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: We agree that Special Term should not have treated defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action as one for summary judgment in the circumstances of this case (CPLR 3211, subd [c]). The motion was properly denied on the merits, however. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Supreme Court—dismiss complaint.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Cardamone, Simons, Callahan and Witmer, JJ.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:88-cr-01007-MP-AK

WILLIE BUD REED, JR,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Motion for Relief from Judgment by Willie Bud Reed,

Jr., Doc. 1323, and a Motion to Revisit, Doc. 1324. Mr. Reed has appealed orders concerning

his judgment and sentence, Doc. 1308, and this Court has denied him leave to appeal in forma

pauperis on the grounds that his appeal is not taken in good faith, Doc. 1312. Mr. Reed now

asks this Court again to revisit his petitions, and grant him relief. This Court may not do so. 

Mr. Reed’s appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit divests

this Court of jurisdiction over the matters at issue in the appeal, except to the extent that this

Court must act in aid of the appeal. United States v. Hitchmon, 602 F.2d 689, 692 (5th Cir.

1979) (en banc). Therefore, this Court cannot rule on these motions, and they must be

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of February, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
#### § 29.1070 Type 11.

That type of flue-cured tobacco commonly known as Western Flue-cured or Old Belt and Middle Belt Flue-cured, produced principally in the Piedmont sections of Virginia and North Carolina and the district extending eastward to the coastal plains region. That portion of this type known as Old Belt Flue-cured, normally characterized by a heavier body and darker color shade and produced principally in the Piedmont sections of Virginia and North Carolina, may be classified as Type 11a; and that portion of the type known as Middle Belt Flue-cured, normally characterized by a thinner body and lighter color shade and produced principally in a section lying between the Piedmont and coastal plains regions of Virginia and North Carolina, may be classified as Type 11b.

[42 FR 21092, Apr. 25, 1977. Redesignated at 47 FR 51721, Nov. 17, 1982, 48 FR 29671, June 28, 1983, 49 FR 16756, Apr. 20, 1984, and 51 FR 25027, July 10, 1986]
Greenbrier Valley Airport 

and Industrial Park 

P.O. Box 329 •Lewisburg, WV 24901 

(304) 645-3961 • Fax (304) 645-4683 

"Longest Runway In West Virginia" 

May 9, 2012 

Mr. Dennis DeVany 

Chief, Essential Air Service Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Reference; DOT-OST -2003-15553 

JERRY O'SULLIVAN 

Manager 

(}1 

t..v 

Essential Air Service at Greenbrier/White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia 

Dear Mr. DeVany, 

This letter is a response from the Greenbrier County Airport Authority to the request for proposals for 

Essential Air Service at Greenbrier/White Sulphur Springs. We appreciate the ability to respond and the 

consideration that the Department gives to our response. 

As a Member of the Greenbrier County Airport Authority I can state all the members of the authority 

fully support the proposal by Silver Airlines. The proposed flight schedule to Atlanta twice a day on 34 

seat aircraft will continue the last several years of developing our Atlanta market which is now over 

10,000 enplanements per year and provide the extra capacity to continue to expand this market. 

Greenbrier Valley Airport serves The Greenbrier, a world famous resort that hosts an annual PGA 

tournament, numerous businesses including: ABB Process Analytics, United Technologies, Mead West 

Vaco, BO Mullican, and many local passengers. This service is vital to our region which includes The 

Homestead a major resort in Bath County, VA and Snowshoe Mountain Ski Resort in Slaty Fork, WV. 

Our community welcomes thousands of visitors each year, many who prefer to travel by air, who spend 

millions of dollars and support over 3,000 jobs. Maintaining air service with the essential links to the 

national air service system is critical to our community. 

The proposal from Silver Airways more than adequately addresses our community's air service needs. 

By providing service in coordination with the major airlines, Silver Airways will maintain Greenbrier 

Valley Airport's link to the world. Therefore, the Greenbrier County Airport Authority supports the 

selection of Silver Airways as the Essential Air Service carrier for Greenbrier/White Sulphur Springs. 

Best regards, 

( V',d/C- rfl~ 

,. 

William D. Goodwin, Member 

Greenbrier County Airport Authority 

Closest major airport to The Greenbrier, The Homestead and Snowshoe resorts
#### § 29.98 Appeal findings.

Immediately after an appeal has been heard and the tobacco involved therein has been reexamined, an appeal certificate shall be issued or an appeal sample prepared by the appeal inspector. Such certificate or sample shall show the finding of the appeal inspector and shall be labeled “Appeal Certificate” or “Appeal Sample”, as the case may be, over the signature of the appeal inspector. An appeal certificate or sample shall supersede all other certificates or samples for the same lot of tobacco and shall refer specifically to the certificate or sample from which the appeal was made. In all other respects the provisions of this subpart relative to certificates or samples shall apply to an appeal certificate or sample. The findings of the appeal inspector as certificated shall be final, unless the Director shall direct a review of such findings.
[X]   ANNUALREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF1934

 

 

or

 

[ ]   TRANSITIONREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF1934

 

 

 

 

Indicate by check mark ifthe registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of theSecurities Act. Yes [ ] No [X]

 

Indicate by check mark ifthe registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)of the Exchange Act. Yes [ ] No [X]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file suchreports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90days. Yes [X] No [ ]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporateWeb site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted andposted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of this chapter) duringthe preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant wasrequired to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicate by check mark ifdisclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (229.405of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the bestof the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statementsincorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to thisForm 10-K. [X]

 

Indicate by check markwhether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, anon-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of“large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company”in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrantis a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes [ ] No[X]

 

State the aggregate marketvalue of the voting and non-voting partnership interests held by non-affiliatescomputed by reference to the price at which the partnership interests were lastsold, or the average bid and asked price of such partnership interests as of thelast business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscalquarter.  No market exists for the limited partnership interests of theRegistrant, and, therefore, no aggregate market value can bedetermined.

 

**DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BYREFERENCE**

**None**

** **
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

BRIAN CHARLES PIERRE

CONSTANT, III,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:20-cv-85-TKW-MJF

JEFFREY BROWN, et al.,

Defendants.

/

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 13) and Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 14). Based on my de 

novo review of the issues raised in the objections, I agree with the magistrate judge’s 

determination that Plaintiff’s third amended complaint fails to state a plausible claim 

for relief based on Defendants’ cuffing and carrying him on October 21, 2019, and 

that the Court does not have the authority to impose the injunctive relief Plaintiff 

seeks. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Defendants Brown, Taylor, Baine and 

Land for handcuffing and carrying Plaintiff to confinement on October 

Case 5:20-cv-00085-TKW-MJF Document 15 Filed 04/05/21 Page 1 of 2
2

21, 2019, are DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), for failure 

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

3. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief in the form of terminating 

Defendants’ employment is DISMISSED because the District Court 

lacks the authority to grant such relief.

4. This case is remanded to the magistrate judge for further proceedings 

on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim based on a 

Defendant (Brown or Land) allegedly choking Plaintiff to 

unconsciousness during transport to confinement on October 21, 2019.

DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of April, 2021.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00085-TKW-MJF Document 15 Filed 04/05/21 Page 2 of 2
#### § 30.17 Damage.

The effect of mold, must, rot, black rot, or other fungous or bacterial diseases which attack tobacco in its cured state. Any tobacco having the odor of mold, must, or rot shall be included in damaged tobacco. (Note distinction between “damage” and “injury.”)