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

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Silverado Gold
Mines Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending August
31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Garry L. Anselmo, Principal Executive Officer of the
Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the
Company.



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

October 15, 2009

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
January 23, 2019
No. 04

- 18

- 00781

- CR , 04

- 18

- 00782

- CR,

04

- 18

- 00783

- CR & 04

- 18

- 00784

- CR
The STATE of Texas , Appellant

v.
Fernando Jefte MATA , Appellee From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas Trial Court No. 10054CR , 10138 CR , 10187CR & 9964CR Honorable Spencer W. Brown, Judge Presiding



### ORDER The State’s Motion Relating to Case Record and to Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law is hereby DENIED.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 23rd day o f January, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE , Clerk of Court
§ 17.4120 Payment rates. The rates paid by VA for hospital care, medical services, and extended care services (hereafter in this section referred to as “services”) furnished pursuant to a Veterans Care Agreement will be the rates set forth in the price terms of the Veterans Care Agreement. Each Veterans Care Agreement will contain price terms for all services within its scope. Such payment rates will comply with the following parameters: ( a ) Except as otherwise provided in this section, payment rates will not exceed the applicable Medicare fee schedule or prospective payment system amount (hereafter in this section referred to as “Medicare rate”), if any, for the period in which the service was provided (without any changes based on the subsequent development of information under Medicare authorities).
( b ) With respect to services furnished in a State with an All-Payer Model Agreement under section 1814(b)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f(b)(3)) that became effective on or after January 1, 2014, the Medicare rate under paragraph (a) will be calculated based on the payment rates under such agreement.
( c ) Payment rates for services furnished in a highly rural area may exceed the limitations set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. The term “highly rural area” means an area located in a county that has fewer than seven individuals residing in that county per square mile.
( d ) Payment rates may deviate from the parameters set forth in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section when VA determines, based on patient needs, market analyses, health care provider qualifications, or other factors, that it is not practicable to limit payment for services to the rates available under paragraphs (a) through (c).
( e ) Payment rates for services furnished in Alaska are not subject to paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
[Cite as McNeal v. Morris , 122 Ohio St.3d 349, 2009-Ohio-3717.]

M C N EAL , A PPELLANT , v . M ORRIS ET AL ., A PPELLEES ; C ITY OF B LUE A SH , A PPELLANT . [Cite as McNeal v. Morris , 122 Ohio St.3d 349, 2009-Ohio-3717.] Court of appeals’ judgment reversed on the authority of Sullivan v. Anderson Twp., and cause remanded. (No. 2008-1154

— Submitted May 19, 2009

— Decided August 4, 2009.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-061061.

__________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of Sullivan v. Anderson Twp. , 122 Ohio St.3d 83, 2009-Ohio-1971, 909 N.E.2d 88, and the cause is remanded for considerati on of appellants’ assignment of error.
M OYER , C.J., and L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , and C UPP , JJ., concur.
P FEIFER and L ANZINGER , JJ., dissent.

__________________ Subashi, Wildermuth & Dinkler and Ni cholas E. Subashi, for appellants.

______________________
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                            5
<MULTIPLIER>                     1,000
                       
<S>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                    September-30-1996
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<CASH>                           1,676
<SECURITIES>                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                   24,256
<ALLOWANCES>                       400
<INVENTORY>                     28,965
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                58,427
<PP&E>                          49,881
<DEPRECIATION>                  23,576
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  86,711 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           22,450
<BONDS>                              0      
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          0
<COMMON>                           590
<OTHER-SE>                      53,390
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    86,711
<SALES>                        127,532
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   98,642
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                19,340
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 807
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  8,749
<INCOME-TAX>                     2,772
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              5,977
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                     5,977
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      .68
<EPS-DILUTED>                      .68
        

</TABLE>
DANIEL W. UHLFELDER

, Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., SUCCESSOR

- BY

- MERGER TO WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, FOREST LAKES COMMUNITY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA NON

- PROFIT CORPORATION; AND UNKNOWN SPOUSE/OWNER(S)/TE NANT(S) IN POSSESSION

, Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 4381

_____________________________/

Opinion f iled December 1, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Walton County

. William P. White, Jr. , Judge

. Daniel W. Uhlfelder, pro se

, Appellant.

Joseph H. Lang, Jr. and Donald R. Kirk, of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Tampa , for Appellee

.2 PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of appellant’s response to the Court’s order of October

26, 2015, the Court has determined that the appeal is premature. Accordingly, the

appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

ROBERTS, C. J., SWANSON and MAKA R, J J

. , CONCUR.
**EXHIBIT 23**

**DeGolyer and MacNaughton**

5001 Spring Valley Road 

Suite 800 East 

Dallas, Texas75244 

February 24, 2015 

Sabine RoyaltyTrust 

Southwest Bank 

P.O. Box 962020 

Fort Worth, Texas 76162-2020 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

We hereby consent to the inclusion of our third party letter report dated February 20, 2015, containing our opinion on the proved reserves andrevenue, as of January 1, 2015, of certain royalty interests owned by Sabine Royalty Trust in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014, of the Sabine Royalty Trust (the Form 10-K) to be filed with the United StatesSecurities and Exchange Commission. We also consent to the references to DeGolyer and MacNaughton under “Properties — Reserves” in Item 2 and under “Supplemental Oil and Gas Information (Unaudited) — Reserve Quantities”in Item 8 of the Form 10-K. 

Very truly yours, 

/s/ DeGolyer and MacNaughton 

DeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTON 

Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-716
#### STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. FRED WALTERS et al., Appellants.

St. Louis Court of Appeals,

April 19, 1910.

1. BILL OF EXCEPTIONS: Extension of Time for Filing: Ineffective, When. An extension of time for filing a bill of exceptions granted after the expiration of tbe period first fixed is ineffective.

2. APPELLATE PRACTICE: No Exception to Overruling of Motion for New Trial. Where no exception is saved to tbe overruling of a motion for a new trial, nothing is left for review, on appeal, except the record proper.

Appeal from St, Louis County Circuit *.Court.*— Son. *Roht. G. Ryors,*Judge.

Affirmed.

*J. G. McAtee*and *Guy A. Thompson*for appellants.

*E. W. Mills, S. P. McChesney*and *T. M. Pierce*for respondent.

GOODE, J.

This is the second hearing of the appeal in the present case. The defendants were convicted of assault and battery and were fined fifty dollars each. At the first hearing our attention was not called to the fact that there was no bill of exceptions in the case. When the appeal was allowed, the court, in term time, granted sixty days from August 28, 1907, to file a bill of exceptions. Afterwards, and on October 28th, the time was extended, but at the date of the extension the period first fixed had expired and hence the extension was ineffective. [Powell v. Sherwood, 162 Mo. 605.] Besides that defect, which prevents an examination of the errors assigned, we observe no exception was saved to the overruling of the motion for new trial. This omission would leave nothing for review except the record proper, wherein no error occurs.

Judgment affirmed.

All concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                          336137
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1949049
<ALLOWANCES>                                     25000
<INVENTORY>                                    4867690
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               9188241
<PP&E>                                         4272687
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2489670
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                11434209
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3733723
<BONDS>                                         203740
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      10671802
<OTHER-SE>                                        3200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  11434209
<SALES>                                        4804695
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4804695
<CGS>                                          2761843
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  2761843
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1468373
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               25445
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 557665
<INCOME-TAX>                                    202626
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             355039
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    355039
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        


</TABLE>
#### § 21.440 Purpose and scope.

Sections 21.440 through 21.449 establish and implement the Veterans Employment Pay for Success (VEPFS) grant program, which provides grants to eligible entities to fund outcomes payments for projects that are successful in accomplishing employment rehabilitation for Veterans with service-connected disabilities. These sections apply only to the administration of the VEPFS grant program, unless specifically provided otherwise.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(d), 3119)
§ 17.530 Agreement and obligated service. ( a ) *General.* In addition to any requirements under section 5379(c) of title 5, a participant in the SELRP must agree, in writing, to the following: ( 1 ) Obtain a license to practice medicine in a State;
( 2 ) Successfully complete postgraduate training leading to eligibility for board certification in a medical specialty;
( 3 ) Serve as a full-time clinical practice employee of VA for 12 months for every $40,000.00 that the participant receives payment through the SELRP, however, the participant must serve for a period of no fewer than 24 months; and
( 4 ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, begin obligated service as a full-time VA employee no later than 60 days after completing residency in the medical specialty described in § 17.527(a)(1).
( b ) *Obligated service.* ( 1 ) *General provision.* A participant's obligated service will begin on the date on which the participant begins full-time permanent employment with VA in the qualifying field of medicine in a location determined by VA. Obligated service must be full-time permanent employment and does not include any period of temporary or contractual employment.
( 2 ) *Location and position of obligated service.* VA will provide SELRP participants a list of qualifying medical facility locations. A participant may select a service location from that list. However, VA reserves the right to make final decisions on the location and position of the obligated service.
( c ) *Exception to commencement of obligated service.* If a participant receives an accredited fellowship in a medical specialty other than the specialty described in § 17.27(a)(1), the participant may request, in writing, a delayed commencement of the period of obligated service until after the participant completes the fellowship. However, the period of obligated service will begin no later than 60 days after completion of such fellowship in the medical specialty described in § 17.527(a)(1).
§ 21.4216 Review of decision of Director of VA Regional Processing Office of jurisdiction. ( a ) *Decision is subject to review by the Director, Education Service.* At the request of the educational institution the Director, Education Service will review a decision of a Director of a VA Regional Processing Office of jurisdiction to discontinue payments; to disapprove new enrollments or reenrollments; or to deny payment of benefits for licensing or certification tests. This review will be based on the evidence of record when the Director of the VA Regional Processing Office of jurisdiction made that decision. It will not be *de novo* in nature and no hearing on the issue will be held. When reviewing a decision to deny payment for licensing or certification tests, the Director, Education Service may seek the advice of the Professional Certification and Licensure Advisory Committee established under 38 U.S.C. 3689(e). (Authority: 10 U.S.C. 16136(b); 38 U.S.C. 3034(a), 3241(a), 3323(a), 3689(d), (e), 3690; Pub. L. 122 Stat. 2375)
( b ) *Authority of Director, Education Service.* The Director, Education Service has the authority to affirm, reverse, or remand the original decision. In the case of such a review, the reviewing official's decision, other than a remand, shall become the final Department decision on the issue presented.
( c ) *Notice of decision of Director, Education Service is required.* Notice of the reviewing official's decision will be provided to the interested parties and published in the Federal Register, in the same manner as is provided in § 21.4215(e) for decisions of the Director of the VA Regional Processing Office of jurisdiction, for the information of all concerned.
(Authority: 10 U.S.C. 16136(b); 38 U.S.C 3034(a), 3241(a), 3323(a), 3689(d), 3690)
[63 FR 35836, July 1, 1998, as amended at 72 FR 16973, Apr. 5, 2007; 74 FR 14669, Mar. 31, 2009]
§ 1.495 Procedures and criteria for orders authorizing disclosure and use of records to investigate or prosecute VA or employees of VA. ( a ) *Application.* ( 1 ) An order authorizing the disclosure or use of patient records covered by §§ 1.460 through 1.499 of this part to criminally or administratively investigate or prosecute VA (or employees or agents of VA) may be applied for by an administrative, regulatory, supervisory, investigative, law enforcement, or prosecutorial agency having jurisdiction over VA activities.
( 2 ) The application may be filed separately or as part of a pending civil or criminal action against VA (or agents or employees of VA) in which it appears that the patient records are needed to provide material evidence. The application must use a fictitious name, such as John Doe, to refer to any patient and may not contain or otherwise disclose any patient identifying information unless the court has ordered the record of the proceeding sealed from public scrutiny or the patient has given a written consent (meeting the requirements of § 1.475 of this part) to that disclosure.
( b ) *Notice not required.* An application under this section may, in the discretion of the court, be granted without notice. Although no express notice is required to VA or to any patient whose records are to be disclosed, upon implementation of an order so granted VA or the patient must be afforded an opportunity to seek revocation or amendment of that order, limited to the presentation of evidence on the statutory and regulatory criteria for the issuance of the court order.
( c ) *Requirements for order.* An order under this section must be entered in accordance with, and comply with the requirements of, § 1.493(d) and (e) of this part.
( d ) *Limitations on disclosure and use of patient identifying information.* ( 1 ) An order entered under this section must require the deletion of patient identifying information from any documents made available to the public.
( 2 ) No information obtained under this section may be used to conduct any investigation or prosecution of a patient, or be used as the basis for an application for an order under § 1.494 of this part.
[60 FR 63929, Dec. 13, 1995, as amended at 85 FR 64043, Oct. 9, 2020]
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING 

Appellate case name: Sentinel Integrity Solutions, Inc. V. Mistras Group, Inc., Jody W. 

Olson and Carey Roberts

Appellate case number: 01-12-00370-CV

Trial court case number: 1011229

Trial court: 295th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: November 13, 2013

Party filing motion: Appellant, Sentinel Integrity Solutions, Inc.

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DENIED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ __Evelyn V. Keyes_________________________________________ 

 Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Keyes, Higley, and Bland

Date: December 19, 2013
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2276 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 496
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2276

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 2, 2007

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                           November 14, 2007

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 203 North Main Street in Vassar, Michigan, as the ``Corporal 
            Christopher E. Esckelson Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. CORPORAL CHRISTOPHER E. ESCKELSON POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 203 North Main Street in Vassar, Michigan, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Corporal Christopher E. Esckelson Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Corporal 
Christopher E. Esckelson Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 496

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2276

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 203 North Main Street in Vassar, Michigan, as the ``Corporal 
            Christopher E. Esckelson Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           November 14, 2007

                       Reported without amendment
```
41784.

#### GILSTRAP v. STATE OF GEORGIA.

Submitted February 7, 1966

Decided March 17, 1966.

*Stow &, Garvin, Frank B. Stow,*for appellant.

*Jeff C. Wayne, Solicitor General,*for appellee.

Pannell, Judge.

The trial judge, in a case involving the condemnation of an automobile which was allegedly used by the alleged owner for the illegal transportation of whiskey, directed a verdict against the alleged owner who intervened in the condemnation proceedings. Whether or not certain evidence admitted upon the trial was illegally obtained by an unlawful search and seizure, it is not necessary to decide; nolis it necessary to decide whether the reason given by the trial judge for the direction of the verdict was a correct one, this for the reason that the owner admitted the illegal transportation of the whiskey in the automobile on the occasion in question, and the direction of a verdict was correct. *Code*§ 58-207 as amended by the Act of 1946 (Ga. L. 1946, p. 96).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
§ 23.435 Employment assistance to students. ( a ) *Assistance by recipient in making available outside employment.* A recipient that assists any agency, organization, or person in making employment available to any of its students: ( 1 ) Shall assure itself that such employment is made available without discrimination on the basis of sex; and
( 2 ) Shall not render such services to any agency, organization, or person that discriminates on the basis of sex in its employment practices.
( b ) *Employment of students by recipients.* A recipient that employs any of its students shall not do so in a manner that violates §§ 23.500 through 23.550.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  1.
    
    this Form 10-Q/A for the period ended October 31, 2006 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 this Form 10-Q/A for the period ended October 31, 2006
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Thor Industries, Inc.
 Date:  June 12, 2007
    /s/ Walter L. BennettWalter L. BennettExecutive Vice President,
Secretary and Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial and accounting officer) 27