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

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 

I, Garry L. Anselmo, hereby 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Silverado Gold
      Mines Ltd. for the period ended February 28, 2011 (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 Silverado Gold Mines Ltd.                                                                      

Dated: July 20, 2011

| | /s/
      Garry L. Anselmo                                        
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Garry L. Anselmo                                                  
| | Chairman of the Board, President and Chief
      Executive Officer
| | (Principal Executive Officer)                                     
| | Silverado Gold Mines Ltd.                                         

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Silverado Gold
Mines Ltd. and will be retained by Silverado Gold Mines Ltd. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Petition for exemption

a) Stuart Zaas, 222 Republic Drive, Allen Park, MI 48101,stuart.zaas@lions.nfl.net b) Section 333 c) Blanketed exemption for quadcoptor photography d) Unique aerial photography e) Quadcoptor is being flown by an experienced operator within the FAA guidelines about weight, operating during daytime VFR conditions, VLOS and away from airports. f) S

a. Section 333 b. We would like to be able to use a quadcoptor to gather video and photos
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Religious Freedom Designations

# 											Religious Freedom Designations									

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

January 4, 2024

Advancing the freedom of religion or belief has been a core objective of U.S. foreign policy ever since Congress passed and enacted the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998.  As part of that enduring commitment, I have designated Burma, the People’s Republic of China, Cuba, the DPRK, Eritrea, Iran, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan as Countries of Particular Concern for having engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom.  In addition, I have designated Algeria, Azerbaijan, the Central African Republic, Comoros, and Vietnam as Special Watch List countries for engaging in or tolerating severe violations of religious freedom.  Finally, I have designated al-Shabab, Boko Haram, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the Houthis, ISIS-Sahel, ISIS-West Africa, al-Qa’ida affiliate Jamaat Nasr al-Islam wal-Muslimin, and the Taliban as Entities of Particular Concern.

Significant violations of religious freedom also occur in countries that are not designated.  Governments must end abuses such as attacks on members of religious minority communities and their places of worship, communal violence and lengthy imprisonment for peaceful expression, transnational repression, and calls to violence against religious communities, among other violations that occur in too many places around the world.  The challenges to religious freedom across the globe are structural, systemic, and deeply entrenched.  But with thoughtful, sustained commitment from those who are unwilling to accept hatred, intolerance, and persecution as the status quo we will one day see a world where all people live with dignity and equality.

Tags

AlgeriaAzerbaijanBurmaCentral African RepublicChinaComorosCubaEritreaHuman Rights and DemocracyIranNicaraguaNorth KoreaOffice of International Religious FreedomOffice of the SpokespersonPakistanReligious FreedomRussiaSaudi ArabiaThe Secretary of StateTajikistanTurkmenistanVietnam

Back to Top
#### Julius Lassere, Appellant, v. Bertha Stein Respondent

Appeal from an order of the General Term of the City Court, affirming an order of the Special Term of the City Court, denying a motion to punish the respondent herein, for a contempt of court. Ira Leo Bamberger, tor appellant, David Salomon, for respondent. Order *i*of General Term and Special Term affirmed with costs to respondent.

No opinion
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2016 

To establish the National Landscape Conservation System, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 24, 2007 

Mr. GRIJALVA (for himself, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mrs. BONO, Mr. RENZI, 

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. PALLONE, 

Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Ms. BERKLEY, Mrs. CAPPS, Ms. LEE, Mrs. 

WILSON of New Mexico, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. 

GILCHREST, and Mr. KIRK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To establish the National Landscape Conservation System, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Landscape 

5 Conservation System Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HR 2016 IH

1 (1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

2 the Secretary of the Interior. 

3 (2) SYSTEM.—The term ‘‘system’’ means the 

4 National Landscape Conservation System estab5 lished by section 3(a). 

6 SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL LANDSCAPE 

7 CONSERVATION SYSTEM. 

8 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—In order to conserve, protect, 

9 and restore nationally significant landscapes that have 

10 outstanding cultural, ecological, and scientific values for 

11 the benefit of current and future generations, there is es12 tablished in the Bureau of Land Management the Na13 tional Landscape Conservation System. 

14 (b) COMPONENTS.—The system shall include each of 

15 the following areas administered by the Bureau of Land 

16 Management: 

17 (1) Each area that is designated as— 

18 (A) a national monument; 

19 (B) a national conservation area; 

20 (C) an outstanding natural area; 

21 (D) a wilderness study area; 

22 (E) a component of the National Trails 

23 System; 

24 (F) a component of the National Wild and 

25 Scenic Rivers System; or 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
3 

•HR 2016 IH

1 (G) a component of the National Wilder2 ness Preservation System. 

3 (2) Any area designated by Congress to be ad4 ministered for conservation purposes, including— 

5 (A) the Steens Mountain Cooperative Man6 agement and Protection Area, as designated 

7 under section 101(a) of the Steens Mountain 

8 Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 

9 2000 (16 U.S.C. 460nnn–11(a)); 

10 (B) the Headwaters Forest Reserve; and 

11 (C) any additional area designated by Con12 gress for inclusion in the system. 

13 (c) MANAGEMENT.—The Secretary shall manage the 

14 system— 

15 (1) in accordance with any applicable law (in16 cluding regulations) relating to any component of 

17 the system included under subsection (b); and 

18 (2) in a manner that protects the values for 

19 which the components of the system were des20 ignated. 

21 SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

22 There are authorized to be appropriated such sums 

23 as are necessary to carry out this Act. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Morgan Keegan, Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 1998, and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                          27,232
<RECEIVABLES>                                  494,732
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                            528,522
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                           29,178
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            505,301
<PP&E>                                          22,944
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,659,731
<SHORT-TERM>                                   195,800
<PAYABLES>                                     825,352
<REPOS-SOLD>                                   117,181
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                              8,084
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                             121,513
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,616
<OTHER-SE>                                     229,603
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,659,731
<TRADING-REVENUE>                               33,459
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                            17,200
<COMMISSIONS>                                   29,354
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                   15,043
<FEE-REVENUE>                                    8,490
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,047
<COMPENSATION>                                  53,069
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,272
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      19,272
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,272
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.37
        

</TABLE>
#### §§ 15.104-15.109 [Reserved]
§ 17.1515 Authorizing non-VA care. ( a ) *Electing non-VA care.* A veteran eligible for the Veterans Choice Program under § 17.1510 may choose to schedule an appointment with a VA health care provider, be placed on an electronic waiting list for VA care, or have VA authorize the veteran to receive an episode of care for hospital care or medical services under 38 CFR 17.38 from an eligible entity or provider.
( b ) *Selecting a non-VA provider.* An eligible veteran may specify a particular non-VA entity or health care provider, if that entity or health care provider meets the requirements of § 17.1530. If an eligible veteran does not specify a particular eligible entity or provider, VA will refer the veteran to a specific eligible entity or provider.
(Authority: Sec. 101, Pub. L. 113-146, 128 Stat. 1754)
(The information collection requirements have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget and are pending OMB approval.)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. SAMMY NICHOLS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 18-3179 (D.C. Nos. 2:16-CV-02381-KHV & 2:03-CR-20149-KHV-DJW-1) (D. Kan.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before MATHESON , BACHARACH , and PHILLIPS , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ This matter is before us on the “Motion of the United States fo r Summary Affirmance” (“Motion”). The Unite d States moves for summary aff irmance of the district court’s judgment based on this c ourt’s recent published decisio n in United States v. Pullen, 913 F.3d 127 0 (10th Cir. 2019), en banc rev. deniedApril 15, 2019. DefendantAppellant does not dispute that U nited States v. Greer, 881 F.3 d 1241 (10th Cir. 2018) and Pullen control the outcome o f this appeal; Mr. Nichols does not contest summary

* After examining the appellate record, this panel has determine d unanimously that oral argument would not materia lly assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Ci r. R. 34.1(G). The case is th erefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This or der and judgment is not binding p recedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive valu e consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### April 23, 2019
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 affirmance of the district court’ s judgment, but he reserves th e right to appeal this matter to the United States Supre me Court for further review. In light of the foregoing, the a batement of this matter is LIFT ED, and the Motion is GRANTED. In light of this cour t’s decision in Pullen, the ju dgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court Per Curiam
§ 13.600 Appeals. Except as prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section, VA decisions regarding fiduciary matters are committed to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs' discretion by law, as delegated to subordinate officials under this part, and cannot be appealed to the Board of Veterans' Appeals or any court. ( a ) *Appealable decisions.* A beneficiary may appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals the following decisions: ( 1 ) The Hub Manager's appointment of a fiduciary under § 13.100;
( 2 ) The Hub Manager's removal of a fiduciary under § 13.500;
( 3 ) The Hub Manager's misuse determination under § 13.400;
( 4 ) The VA Regional Office Director's final decision upon reconsideration of a misuse determination under § 13.400(d); and
( 5 ) The Director of the Pension and Fiduciary Service's negligence determination for purposes of reissuance of benefits under § 13.410.
( b ) *Procedures.* ( 1 ) VA decisions regarding fiduciary matters are final, subject only to the right of appeal prescribed in this section.
( 2 ) The initiation and processing of appeals under this section are governed by parts 19 and 20 of this chapter.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501)
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2900-0085)
1The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-4212

___________

Cozetta Ann Ausler, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Arkansas Broadcasting Foundation, * Eastern District of Arkansas.

doing business as KABF Community *

Radio Station, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: August 4, 1999

 Filed: August 16, 1999

___________

Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Cozetta Ann Ausler appeals from the district court’s1 order granting KABF

Community Radio Station’s motion for summary judgment, denying her motion to

amend her complaint, and dismissing her Title VII action because she did not prove that

KABF met the statutory definition of employer. She particularly complains that the

district court did not require KABF to provide her with adequate discovery. Having
-2-

carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and submissions on appeal, we

conclude that dismissal was proper and that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying Ausler’s motion to amend or in dealing with discovery matters.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Mary C. Burke, Plaintiff, *v.*William V. Burke, Defendant.

(Supreme Court, New York Special "Term,

June, 1899.)

Supplementary proceedings — Will lie for costs—A New York city schoolhouse deemed a teacher’s “ place for the regular transaction of business in person ” — Code Civil Procedure, § 2458, subd. 1.

Proceedings supplementary to execution may be taken upon a judgment which has been rendered against a plaintiff for costs alone.

Such proceedings may properly be instituted against a school teacher, residing in Mt. Vernon, Westchester county, but regularly employed in the public schools of New York city, upon an execution issued against her to the sheriff of New York county, as her schoolhouse in that county is, within subdivision 1 of section 2458 of the Code of Civil. Procedure, to be deemed her “ place for the regular transaction of business in person .

Motion to set aside an order for the examination in supplementary proceedings, on a judgment for costs only, of the plaintiff, Mary C. Burke, a school teacher.

Oberstein & Kohner, for motion.-

Smith & Cochrane, opposed.

Gildersleeve, J.

The defendant in this action, William Y. Burke, obtained a judgment for costs against the plaintiff herein, *685Mary 0. Burke. The plaintiff failed to pay said judgment, and the defendant obtained an order for her examination in supplementary proceedings. This motion is made to set aside the order on the grounds (1) that such proceedings cannot be maintained where the judgment is for costs only, and, (2) because the plaintiff is a school teacher in one of the public schoolsAf this city, but-resides in Mount Vernon, Westchester county, and the execution on the judgment was issued to the sheriff of Mew York county. The first point is without merit. Proceedings supplementary to an execution may be taken upon a judgment for costs only, rendered against a plaintiff. See Davis v. Herrig, 65 How. Pr. 290; Matter of Sirrett, 25 Misc. Rep. 89. Mor is the second point well taken. Section 2458 of the Code, subdivision 1, provides that “ execution must have been issued out of a court of record. (1.) To the sheriff of the county where the judgment debtor has, at the time of the commencement of the special proceeding, a place for the regular transaction of business in person,” .etc. It does not .use the word “-office,” but says “place.” Mow, the plaintiff attends regularly to her duties as school teacher in this city, and she has a “ place for the regular transaction of business in person ” in this county, *i.*e., the school-house where she is employed. It seems to me that the requirement of the statute above quoted has been met. I do not see any application in the case of Belknap v. Hasbrouck, 13 Abb. Pr. 418, and Bowman v. Pernie, 23 Abb. N. C. 236, cited by plaintiff’s counsel. The motion must be denied, but without costs.

Motion denied, without costs.
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99(i)

                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
               SECTION 906 CERTIFCATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


I, Scott A. Seasock, Chief Financial Officer of Comm Bancorp, Inc. certify
that:

1.      I have read this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Comm Bancorp, Inc.;

2.      To my knowledge, the information in this report is true in all
        important respects as of June 30, 2002;

3.      This report, containing the Company's financial statements, fully
        complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of the
        Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
        this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
        condition and results of operation of the Company; and

4.      This report contains all information about the Company of which I am
        aware that I believe is important to a reasonable investor, in light of
        the subjects required to be addressed in this report, as of June 30,
        2002.

For purposes of this certification, information is "important to a reasonable
investor" if:

(a)     There is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would
        view the information as significantly altering the total mix of
        information in the report; and

(b)     The report would be misleading to a reasonable investor if the
        information is omitted from the report.



Date: August 12, 2002                      /s/ Scott A. Seasock
      ---------------                      --------------------------------
                                           Chief Financial Officer










                                       49
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2064 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2064

      To amend title 10, United States Code, to require emergency 
  contraception to be available at all military health care treatment 
                              facilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2007

 Mr. Michaud (for himself, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mrs. Davis of California, 
     Ms. Harman, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, and Mr. Shays) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend title 10, United States Code, to require emergency 
  contraception to be available at all military health care treatment 
                              facilities.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Compassionate Care for Servicewomen 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO MAKE AVAILABLE EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION AT ALL 
              MILITARY HEALTH CARE TREATMENT FACILITIES.

    Section 1074g(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(9)(A) Emergency contraception shall be included on the basic 
core formulary of the uniform formulary, notwithstanding any provision 
of law or regulation requiring that only drugs ordered or prescribed by 
a physician (or other authorized provider) may be included in the 
uniform formulary.
    ``(B) Nothing in subparagraph (A) may be construed to require 
emergency contraception to be covered under the pharmacy benefits 
program.
    ``(C) Notwithstanding paragraph (4), prior authorization shall not 
be required for emergency contraception. Nothing in the preceding 
sentence may be construed as waiving any provision of the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) or any other provision 
of law administered by the Food and Drug Administration, including 
rules and orders of such Administration in effect at any time under 
such Act or other provisions of law.
    ``(D) In this paragraph, the term `emergency contraception' means a 
drug, drug regimen, or device that is--
            ``(i) approved by the Food and Drug Administration to 
        prevent pregnancy; and
            ``(ii) used postcoitally.''.
                                 <all>
```