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, 2008 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Edward D. Ford,  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 27, 2010


/s/ Edward D. Ford
--------------------------------------------
Edward D. Ford
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.
#### The State ex rel. Thomas, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Thomas v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 389.]

(No. 97-1015

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided October 14, 1998.)

*390
      *Elliott, Heller, Maas, Mow & Magill Co., L.P.A,*and *C. Douglas Ames,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Laurel Blum Mazorow,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case Nos. 3:94cr3136/RV/CJK

 3:14cv242/RV/CJK

BENNIE CLEVELAND WILLIAMS

_______________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated May 28, 2014 (doc. 502). Plaintiff has been furnished a copy of the Report

and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28,

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined that the Report and

Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

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

reference in this order.

2. Defendant’s motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. 501) is

SUMMARILY DISMISSED, as this court lacks jurisdiction to consider a successive motion absent

authorization from the Eleventh Circuit.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this1st day of July, 2014.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:94-cr-03136-RV-CJK Document 504 Filed 07/01/14 Page 1 of 1
98-1955.

#### Floyd v. Haskins.

In Habeas Corpus. On petition for writ of habeas corpus and request for immediate release pending disposition. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.

Lundberg Stratton, J., would grant the return and deny the request for immediate release.
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2531 

AN ACT 

To prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from asking taxpayers questions regarding religious, political, or social 

beliefs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2531 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Taxpayers 

3 from Intrusive IRS Requests Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON QUESTIONS REGARDING RELI5 GIOUS, POLITICAL, OR SOCIAL BELIEFS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Internal Revenue Service 

7 shall not ask any taxpayer any question regarding reli8 gious, political, or social beliefs. 

9 (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING EXCEP10 TIONS.—It is the sense of Congress that— 

11 (1) any exceptions to subsection (a) which are 

12 provided by later enacted provisions of law should 

13 identify the specific questions which are authorized, 

14 the class of taxpayers to which such questions are 

15 authorized to be asked, and the circumstances under 

16 which such questions are authorized to be asked, 

17 and 

18 (2) if the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue 

19 Service determines that asking any class of tax20 payers a question prohibited under subsection (a) 

21 would aid in the efficient administration of the tax 

22 laws, such Commissioner should submit a report to 

23 Congress which— 

24 (A) includes such question in the verbatim 

25 form in which it is to be asked, 
3 

•HR 2531 EH

1 (B) describes the class of taxpayers to 

2 whom the question is to be asked, and 

3 (C) describes the circumstances that would 

4 be required to exist before the question would 

5 be asked. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 25, 

2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2531 

AN ACT 

To prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from askical, or social beliefs. ing taxpayers questions regarding religious, polit-
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-19-00390-CV

__________________

BARBARA M. FEIGIN AND MICHAEL E. FEIGIN, Appellants

V.

MONTGOMERY CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 284th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 18-07-09046-CV

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On November 6, 2019, we notified the parties that the notice of appeal did not 

appear to have been timely filed. The appellants did not file a response. The trial 

court signed the judgment on July 24, 2019, and the appellate timetables were not

extended by the timely filing of a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). 

Notice of appeal was due to be filed on October 22, 2019. See id.
2

Appellants filed a notice of appeal on November 4, 2019, more than thirty

days from the date of the judgment and outside the period for which we may grant 

an extension of time to perfect appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. This Court lacks 

jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on December 11, 2019

Opinion Delivered December 12, 2019

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
Document Headings

                    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 the Interior

###### Geological Survey

# AGENCY:

U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC) will meet on December 7-8, 2010 at the American Institute of Architects Building, 1735 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20006. The meeting will be held in the Gallery Room. The NGAC, which is composed of representatives from governmental, private sector, non-profit, and academic organizations, was established to advise the Federal Geographic Data Committee on management of Federal geospatial programs, the development of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, and the implementation of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-16. Topics to be addressed at the meeting include:

—Geospatial Platform

—Geospatial Workforce

—The National Map

—FGDC Update

—Geospatial Program Updates

—NGAC Subcommittee Reports

                    The meeting will include an opportunity for public comment on December 8. Comments may also be submitted to the NGAC in writing. Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must register in advance. Please register by contacting Arista Maher at the U.S. Geological Survey (703-648-6283,                     *amaher@usgs.gov*). Registrations are due by December 3, 2010. While the meeting will be open to the public, seating may be limited due to room capacity.                

# DATES:

The meeting will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on December 7 and from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. on December 8.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Mahoney, U.S. Geological Survey (206-220-4621).

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Meetings of the National Geospatial Advisory Committee are open to the public. Additional information about the NGAC and the meeting is available at                     *http://www.fgdc.gov/​ngac.*

Dated: November 16, 2010.

Ken Shaffer,

Deputy Executive Director, Federal Geographic Data Committee.

[FR Doc. 2010-29279 Filed 11-19-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4311-AM-P
### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DERIANDOUGLAS HICKMAN, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff,

v. Civil ActionNo. 

# U 9 2251 UNITED STATES MINT, 

### et al., Defendants.


### MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the court on plaintiffs application to proceed 

### informapauperis and 

### prose civil complaint. The court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaint. Rule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement ofthe grounds upon which the court'sjurisdiction depends, a short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand forjudgment for the reliefthe pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose ofthe minimum standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants ofthe claim being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to detennine whether the doctrine of

### res judicata applies. 

### Brown v. 

### Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). Plaintiffappears to demand compensation from the United States Mint, the Internal Revenue Service, the United States Tax Court and the Department ofJustice for business losses he has suffered. As drafted, the Complaint fails to complywith Rule 8(a) as it includes no statement showing that the plaintiffis entitled to the reliefhe seeks. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint withoutprejudice. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion

### will be issued onthis same date.

# 6d:~.~ United States District Judge
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA compilation of redshifts and velocity dispersions for Abell clusters (Struble and Rood 1987): Documentation for the machine-readable versionThe machine readable version of the compilation, as it is currently being distributed from the Astronomical Data Center, is described. The catalog contains redshifts and velocity dispersions for all Abell clusters for which these data had been published up to 1986 July. Also included are 1950 equatorial coordinates for the centers of the listed clusters, numbers of observations used to determine the redshifts, and bibliographical references citing the data sources.Document ID19910021725Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsWarren, Wayne H., Jr.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1989Subject CategoryAstronomyReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:105060NSSDC/WDC-A-R/S-89-01NASA-TM-105060Accession Number91N31039Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910021725.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### KIRCHNER, Respondent, v. LOUGHLIN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 8, 1906.)

Action by Gustav A. Kirchner against John Loughlin.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
PRIVATE LAW 108–4—OCT. 30, 2004

Private Law 108–4

108th Congress

An Act

For the relief of Durreshahwar Durreshahwar, Nida Hasan, Asna Hasan, Anum

Hasan, and Iqra Hasan.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR DURRESHAHWAR

DURRESHAHWAR, NIDA HASAN, ASNA HASAN, ANUM

HASAN, AND IQRA HASAN.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of

section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Durreshahwar

Durreshahwar, Nida Hasan, Asna Hasan, Anum Hasan, and Iqra

Hasan shall each be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa

or for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted

for permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance

of an immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment

of status to lawful permanent resident.

(b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Durreshahwar Durreshahwar,

Nida Hasan, Asna Hasan, Anum Hasan, or Iqra Hasan enters

the United States before the filing deadline specified in subsection

(c), she shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully

and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status

under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of

the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance

of an immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status

is filed with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of

the enactment of this Act.

(d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—Upon the

granting of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to

Durreshahwar Durreshahwar, Nida Hasan, Asna Hasan, Anum

Hasan, and Iqra Hasan, the Secretary of State shall instruct the

proper officer to reduce by 5, during the current or next following

fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are made

available to natives of the country of the aliens’ birth under section

203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable,

the total number of immigrant visas that are made available to

natives of the country of the aliens’ birth under section 202(e)

of such Act.

(e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION TREATMENT FOR

CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural parents, brothers, and sisters

of Durreshahwar Durreshahwar, Nida Hasan, Asna Hasan, Anum

Hasan, and Iqra Hasan shall not, by virtue of such relationship,

Applicability.

Oct. 30, 2004

[H.R. 867]

PRIVATE LAW 108–4—OCT. 30, 2004

be accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration

and Nationality Act.

Approved October 30, 2004.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 41134 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOSE MONTOYA

- RUBIO , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:15

- CR

- 104

- 1

Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Montoya

- Rubio has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Montoya

- Rubio has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein , as well

as Montoya

- Rubio ’ s response . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 20 , 2016 Ly le W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-41134 Document: 00513472308 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2016No. 15

- 41134

2 appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly,

cou nsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-41134 Document: 00513472308 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2016
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Francis Kearse, Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 9, 1965, affirmed insofar as it may be treated as one denying an application in the nature of *coram nobis.*Appeal dismissed insofar as it is from the phase of the order which denied a motion to dismiss an indictment. An order denying a motion to dismiss an indictment is reviewable only on an appeal from an ensuing judgment of conviction *(People*v. *Marx,*27 A D 2d 548; *People*v. *Stewart,*20 A D 2d 675). The specific ground for the motion presently in question was also the basis for two similar motions which were made prior to rendition of the judgment of conviction in this case; and the denials of those motions were also reviewable only on appeal from the judgment. However, the motion which resulted in the present order can also be considered as in the nature of a writ of error *coram*nobis; but such remedy will not lie as an alternative remedy to an appeal from the judgment *(People*v. *Sullivan,*3 N Y 2d 196). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.2

I, Michael J. Castellano, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2006 of Lazard Group LLC (the Registrant);

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant
and have:

(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) [Reserved]

(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; and

(d) 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

5. The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of the Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(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; and

(b) 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.

Date: August 8, 2006



|                                             
|---------------------------------------------
|                                             
|/s/    Michael J. Castellano                 
|Michael J. Castellano Chief Financial
Officer
§ 322.4 Approved regions. ( a ) *Adult honeybees.* The following regions are approved for the importation of adult honeybees into the continental United States (not including Hawaii) under the conditions of this subpart: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.
( b ) *Honeybee germ plasm.* The following regions are approved for the importation of honeybee germ plasm into the United States under the conditions of this subpart: Australia, Bermuda, Canada, France, Great Britain, New Zealand, and Sweden.
( c ) *Bees other than honeybees.* The following regions are approved for the importation of bees other than honeybees into the continental United States (not including Hawaii) under the conditions of this subpart: Canada.
( d ) If the name of the region from which you want to import adult honeybees, honeybee germ plasm, or bees other than honeybees into the United States does not appear in paragraphs (a), (b), or (c), respectively, of this section, refer to subpart C of this part, “Importation of Restricted Organisms,” for requirements.
( e ) For information on approving other regions for the importation of adult honeybees, honeybee germ plasm, or bees other than honeybees into the United States, see § 322.12.