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

EXHIBIT 31.1

Certification Pursuant to 
  Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Garry L. Anselmo, certify that:

I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Silverado Gold Mines
Ltd;

1.
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;

2.
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;

3.
The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 Issuer, 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)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the Issuer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

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Issuers internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Issuers fiscal quarter ending
September 30, 2005, that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the Issuers internal control over financial reporting.

4.
The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditor and the audit committee of the registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)
All 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: April 13, 2006

/s/ Garry L. Anselmo Garry
L. Anselmo Principal Executive Officer

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEVIN ALBERTO HERNANDEZ

DELGADILLO, AKA Kevin Hernandez, AKA Kevin Alberto Hernandez,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 16

- 72677 Agency No. A205

- 720

- 368

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 26, 2020 * *
Before: McKEOWN , RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND , Circuit Judges.
Kevin Alberto Hernandez

- Delgadillo , a native and citizen of Mexico , petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision den ying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 29 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 16

- 72677

Torture (“CAT”)

. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 11 84

- 85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Hernandez

Delgadillo failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder , 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still
show that “ persecution was or will be on account of hi s membership in such

group ” ) ; Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”)

. Thus,
Hernand ez - Delgadillo’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Hernandez

- Delgadillo failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of th e government if returned to Mexico

. See Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not address Hernandez

- Delgadillo ’s contentions as to the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because the BIA did not reach that issue

. See Santiago

Rodriguez v. Holder , 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA).3 16

- 72677

As stated in the court’s October 4, 2016 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  1.
    
    this Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2010 fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in this Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2010
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Thor Industries, Inc.
 DATE: March 8, 2010
    /s/ Peter B. OrthweinPeter B. OrthweinChairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer (principal executive officer)
**List of Files in “moves_ msacessoutputanalysisdb_to_mysql**  **. zip**  **”**

Name Size Type La st Modified **Folder data**  MOVESConformityBudget_20120208.mdb 1,088KB Microsoft Office Access Database 2/21/2012 11:31 AM MOVESDefault.mdb 269MB Microsoft Office Access Database 2/6/2012 5:12 PM
§ 68.14 Under what circumstances can the service or payment obligation be canceled, waived, or suspended? ( a ) Any obligation of a participant for service or payment will be canceled upon the death of the participant.
( b ) ( 1 ) The NIH may waive or suspend any service or payment obligation incurred by the participant upon request whenever compliance by the participant: ( i ) Is impossible;
( ii ) Would involve extreme hardship to the participant; or
( iii ) If enforcement of the service or payment obligation would be unconscionable.
( 2 ) The NIH may approve a request for a suspension of the service or payment obligations for a period of up to one (1) year.
( c ) Compliance by a participant with a service or payment obligation will be considered impossible if the NIH determines, on the basis of information and documentation as may be required, that the participant suffers from a permanent physical or mental disability resulting in the inability of the participant to perform the service or other activities that would be necessary to comply with the obligation.
( d ) In determining whether to waive or suspend any or all of the service or payment obligations of a participant as imposing an undue hardship and being against good conscience, the NIH, on the basis of such information and documentation as may be required, will consider: ( 1 ) The participant's present financial resources and obligations;
( 2 ) The participant's estimated future financial resources and obligations; and
( 3 ) The extent to which the participant has problems of a personal nature, such as a physical or mental disability or terminal illness in the immediate family, which so intrude on the participant's present and future ability to perform as to raise a presumption that the individual will be unable to perform the obligation incurred.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 42.4 Notice of trial.

(a) *Institution of trial.* The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.

(b) Notice of a trial will be sent to every party to the proceeding. The entry of the notice institutes the trial.

(c) The Board may authorize additional modes of notice, including:

(1) Sending notice to another address associated with the party, or

(2) Publishing the notice in the Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office or the Federal Register.
#### § 88.25 Reopening of WTC Health Program final decisions.

At any time, and without regard to whether new evidence or information is provided or obtained, the Administrator of the WTC Health Program may reopen any final decision made by the WTC Health Program pursuant to the provisions of this part. The Administrator may affirm, vacate, or modify such decision, or take any other action he or she deems appropriate.
#### § 11.91 Repayment of loans.

Should the veteran so desire, he may repay the amount due on his note in full or in installments.
#### McKEEVER V. THE STATE.

(Decided May 7, 1912.)

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. M. Frank Cahalan.

No counsel marked for appellant. R. C. Briokell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

de Graffenried, J.

Affirmed on the record.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          32,724
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   150
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    205,762
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          41,613
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            42,667
<LOANS>                                        706,593
<ALLOWANCE>                                     10,857
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,019,095
<DEPOSITS>                                     828,489
<SHORT-TERM>                                    47,444
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             14,857
<LONG-TERM>                                     15,553
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,309
<OTHER-SE>                                     103,443
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,019,095
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 45,180
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               10,667
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   145
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                55,992
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              21,615
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,475
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           33,517
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,509
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (32)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 20,421
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,869
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      15,869
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,281
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.11
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.20
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,009
<LOANS-PAST>                                     7,442
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 9,607
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,316
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,748
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               10,857
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             9,915
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            942
        

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 11.204 Practitioner serving as third-party neutral.

(a) A practitioner serves as a third-party neutral when the practitioner assists two or more persons who are not clients of the practitioner to reach a resolution of a dispute or other matter that has arisen between them. Service as a third-party neutral may include service as an arbitrator, a mediator or in such other capacity as will enable the practitioner to assist the parties to resolve the matter.

(b) A practitioner serving as a third-party neutral shall inform unrepresented parties that the practitioner is not representing them. When the practitioner knows or reasonably should know that a party does not understand the practitioner's role in the matter, the practitioner shall explain the difference between the practitioner's role as a third-party neutral and a practitioner's role as one who represents a client.
**Secondary Market Report**
**January 1999**
**TABLE 6**
#### Patrick Murphy, Respondent, *v.*The American Transfer Co., Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the Municipal Court, first district,. borough of Manhattan, for the sum of $29.79, .damages and costs. .

Charles A. Hess, for appellant.

Holm & Smith, for respondent.

Freedman, P. J.

The questions of fact raised by the pleadings and not expressly admitted by. the parties Upon the trial have been decided by the court below in favor of the plaintiff. I see no good reason for disturbing this result.

Leventritt, J., concurs; MacLean, J., taking no part.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent.
Offer and Acceptance of Lease Extension with Dani Investment Partners



 Exhibit 10.36 
  
 DANI 
 INVESTMENT 
 PARTNERS 
  
 Sept. 12, 2003 
  
 Bill Dippel 
 Vice President, Operations 
 Conceptus, Inc. 
  
 Dear Bill, 
  
 I have received your letter on behalf of Conceptus Inc., which is an Offer of Lease Extension and I am in agreement with your offer of $1 Per Sq. Ft. 
  
 Your New Monthly Rent will be $20,000 commencing on Jan. 1, 2004 – Dec. 31, 2005.

  
 I would expect the Direct Deposit Procedure to Remain as well as All Other
Agreements made in our Original Lease Dated November 14, 2000. 
  
 Thank you for
your continued “Attention to Detail” in keeping our building so nice. 
  
 Sincerely, 
  

	 /s/ Dennis Farrey


	 Dennis Farrey

	 Dani Investment Partners


  
 Dated: 09/12/03 







 Conceptus Inc. 
  
 August 26, 2003 
  
 Dani Investment 
 Dane Prenovitz 
 1353 Shoreway Rd. 
 Belmont, Ca 94002 
  
 Dear Dane, 
  
 As we discussed, Conceptus would like to exercise its 2-year option to extend our current lease in your building at 1021 Howard Avenue, San Carlos, CA until December 31,
2005. We would expect all other terms and conditions of the existing lease to remain in effect except the monthly rent. In exercising this option, we would like to offer what we believe to be fair market value of $1.00 per square foot. 

 
 If you are in agreement we would like to complete this transaction as soon as possible.
Please contact me at 650-9628-4700. 
  
 Best
Regards, 
  

	 /s/ William Dippel


	 William Dippel

	 Vice President, Operations

	 Conceptus, Inc.
§ 14.507 Opinions. ( a ) A written legal opinion of the General Counsel involving veterans' benefits under laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs shall be conclusive as to all Department officials and employees with respect to the matter at issue, unless there has been a material change in controlling statute or regulation, a superseding written legal opinion by the General Counsel, or the designation on its face as “advisory only” by the General Counsel or the Deputy General Counsel acting as or for the General Counsel. Written legal opinions having conclusive effect under this section and not designated as precedent opinions pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section shall be considered by the Department of Veterans Affairs to be subject to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2). Advice, recommendations, or conclusions on matters of Government or Department policy, contained within a written legal opinion, shall not be binding on Department officials and employees merely because of their being contained within a written legal opinion. Written legal opinions will be maintained in the Office of the General Counsel. Written legal opinions involving veterans' benefits under laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which pertain to a particular benefit matter, in addition to being maintained in the Office of the General Counsel, will be filed in the individual claim folder.
( b ) A written legal opinion of the General Counsel involving veterans' benefits under laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs which, in the judgment of the General Counsel or the Deputy General Counsel acting as or for the General Counsel, necessitates regulatory change, interprets a statute or regulation as a matter of first impression, clarifies or modifies a prior opinion, or is otherwise of significance beyond the matter at issue, may be designated a “precedent opinion” for purposes of such benefits. Written legal opinions designated as precedent opinions under this section shall be considered by Department of Veterans Affairs to be subject to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1). An opinion designated as a precedent opinion is binding on Department officials and employees in subsequent matters involving a legal issue decided in the precedent opinion, unless there has been a material change in a controlling statute or regulation or the opinion has been overruled or modified by a subsequent precedent opinion or judicial decision.
( c ) For purposes of this section, the term *written legal opinion of the General Counsel* means a typed or printed memorandum or letter signed by the General Counsel or by the Deputy General Counsel acting as or for the General Counsel, addressed to an official or officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs stating a conclusion on a legal issue pertaining to Department of Veterans Affairs activities.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501)
[54 FR 5613, Feb. 6, 1989, as amended at 61 FR 68666, Dec. 30, 1996]
#### Max Cohen, as Trustee in Bankruptcy, Etc., of Jacob Cohen and Morris Levy, and the Firm of Cohen & Levy, Bankrupts, Plaintiffs, *v.*Jacob Levy et al., Defendants.

(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

May, 1899.)

1. Practice — General appearance in an action is not shown by the service of motion papers — Code Civil Procedure, § .421.

Where a defendant has not appeared in an action nor served a copy of a demurrer or answer, service of motion papers upon-, his part does not constitute a general appearance.

2. Lis pendens — Cancellation for failure to serve summons — Code Civil Procedure, §§ 1670, 1674.

A *Ms pendens*will, be canceled where no one of the defendants has been served with the summons, and none have appeared, within sixty days after the filing of the *Ms pendens.*

Motion to cancel *Us pendens*for failure to serve summons on certain defendants and for failure to prosecute.

Gustavus Rogers, appearing for purpose of motion only.

Leopold Jaches, opposed.

Truax, J.

The service of the motion papers on the motions heretofore made herein was not a general appearance in the action. Section 421 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides how a defendant may appear. It says that the “ defendant’s appearance must be made by serving upon the plaintiff’s attorney * **** a notice of appearance, or a copy of a demurrer or of an answer.” ■ Neither of these things was done in this case.

*331It was held in Noble v. Crandall, 49 Hun 474, that a notice of motion to set aside a judgment on the ground that the summons was not served on the defendant is not a general appearance, although defendant’s attorney did not qualify his signature by saying *“*attorney for the purpose of this motion only.”

This case now stands that none of the defendants to the action were served with .the summons and complaint^ and none of them appeared in the action until more than sixty days after the filing of the *lis pendens.*Section 1670. of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the summons must be served within sixty days after the filing of the *Us*pendens, and section 1674 provides among other things that if the plaintiff filing the notice unreasonably neglects to proceed- in the action, the court may, in its discretion, upon the application of the person aggrieved, direct that the notice of the pendency of the actidn be canceled of record.

I am of the opinion that the failure of the plaintiff to serve one of the defendants within the sixty days prescribed by section 1670 was an unreásonable neglect to proceed in the action, and for that reason the *Us pendens*must be canceled of record.

Motion granted, with $10 costs to abide the event of the action.

Motion granted, with $10 costs to abide event.