alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- 931 - 

### N ebraska 

### S upreme 

### C ourt 

### A dva nc e 

### S 303 N ebraska 

### R eport STATE v . M c GIN Cite as 303 Neb. 931



### S tate of 

### N ebraska 

### , appellee 

### , v



### .

D a nn y 

### J. M c 

### G i nn 

### , ap ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed August 23, 2019. No. S

- 18

- 744.

suppleme n tal opi n 

### Appeal from the District Court for Holt County, M ark 

### D K ozisek 

### , Judge, on appeal thereto from the County Court for Holt County, K ale 

### B

. B urdi c k 

### , Judge. Former opinion modi

fied. Motion for rehearing overru Forrest F. Peetz, of Peetz Law, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant. Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Nathan A. Liss, for appellee.
H eavi c a n 

### , C.J., M iller 

### ‐ L erma n 

### , C assel 

### , S ta c 

### P

apik 

### , and F reude n ber g 

### ,

P er 

### C uriam 

### This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the appellee, State of Nebraska, concerning our opinion in State v. McGinn

. 1 

### We overrule the motion, but we modify the opinion as follows: In the analysis section, we withdraw the last paragraph 2 

### and substitute the following:

1 State v. McGinn, ante p. 224, 928 N.W.2d 391 (2019).
2 Id. at 234, 928 N.W.2d at 398. Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 11/08/2019 08:06 AM CST- 932 - 

### N ebraska 

### S upreme 

### C ourt 

### A dva nc e 

### S 303 N ebraska 

### R eport STATE v . M c GIN Cite as 303 Neb. 931 

### In this matter, because we consider all evidence admit

ted by the trial court, erroneously or not, we consider the breath test in our double jeopardy analysis. Considering the breath test, the evidence was sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict for a violation of § 60

- 6,196(1)(c) as charged. As such, double jeopardy does not forbid a remand for a new trial. Therefore, in consideration of all of the above, we reverse the district court’s decision affirming the county court’s conviction and remand the cause to the district court with directions to remand the matter to the county court for a new trial. In the sole paragraph of the conclusion section, we withdraw the last sentence 3 

### and substitute the following: “Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s decision affirming the county court’s conviction, but determine double jeopardy does not require dismissal of this action.” The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified. F ormer opi n io n modifi 

### M otio n for reheari ng overr

3 Id.
Exhibit
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (the “the Report”) of APA
      Enterprises, Inc. a Minnesota corporation. (the “Company”), for the quarter
      ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
      the
      date hereof  (the “Report”),  the undersigned officer of the
      Company certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, that, to her knowledge




1.
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or
                15(d) of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and




2.
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.




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.





August
      14, 2007






Signature:
      /s/ Cheryl Beranek Podzimek


Print
      Name: Cheryl Beranek Podzimek


Print
      Title: Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 11.1


                 Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings
           (In thousands except earnings per common share outstanding)


                                            For the Years ended
                                                December 31,

                                              1996      1995
                                             -------   -------
Net income as reported                       $   589   $   935
Preferred Dividends                             (138)     (157)
                                             -------   -------
Income used for year                             451       778
                                             -------   -------
Earnings per common share
   outstanding                                  0.09      0.22
                                             -------   -------

Average number of common shares
   outstanding                                 5,268     3,599
                                             -------   -------
# Official Journal C 154/2018

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 154 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 612 May 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 154

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 612 May 2018

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| 2018/C 154/01 | Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) for the financial year 2017 — amending budget No 1 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

2018/C 154/01

Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) for the financial year 2017 — amending budget No 1

1

---

All amounts in this budget document are expressed in euro unless otherwise indicated.

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<PAGE>


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the use in the Statement of Additional Information
constituting part of this Post-Effective Amendment No. 36 to Registration
Statement File No. 2-74667 on Form N-4 (the "Registration Statement") of (1) our
report dated February 4, 2003 relating to the financial statements of Separate
Account No. 301 of The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States for
the year ended December 31, 2002, and (2) our report dated February 4, 2003
relating to the consolidated financial statements of The Equitable Life
Assurance Society of the United States for the year ended December 31, 2002. We
also consent to the reference to us under the headings "About our independent
accountants" in the Prospectus and "Custodian and Independent Accountant" in the
Statement of Additional Information.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------


New York, New York
April 21, 2003
From: Richard Parker [mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 8:06 AM

To: Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Bob Smith; Brenda Edwards; Brian Coffey; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gayt an; Caskey, John; Charlie Drexler; Charlie Stevens; Chris Bolduc; Chris Brown; Clark Silcox; Creevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; David Flaten; Emily Marchetti; Eric Peterson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fe rnstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; James Lass; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry Cork ran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen; Jim Raba; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Katie Coug hlin; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matthew Nardotti; Maxine Savitz; Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaro n; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave; Pamela Costello; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski, Raymond; Puesh Kumar; Richard W. Parker; Rick
Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Robert va n Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck;
Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Ted Johnstone; Thomas Petrosino; Tim Ballo; Tom
Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo Subject: Today's Conference Call on Medium-Voltage Transformers

Dear Colleagues,

As you know, today's conference call is the last scheduled event of our negotiated rulemaking process on medium-voltage transformers. It is scheduled to run from 11 am to 1 pm, though we

will end sooner if we finish our business sooner.

I propose that we use th e time to do two things:

1) See if we can get to yes on an EL to recommend for DL 12, th ereby creating a clear foundation an agreement on MVDT.

I propose to focus on DL 12 because DLs 9, 10, and 11 are very small in sales (about 5 % of the market combined). E.g., 135 DL 11 units shi pped in in 2009, whereas 1936 DL 12 units were

sold.

Also, these other DLs should scale off of DL 12 , except for the low kVA portion (< 300 KvA) of

DL 11 which is even smaller. DL 13 is a high-BIL version of DL 12 (and the upper end of DL11) and also can be treated as variant of DL12. Adjustment factors for DLs 9, 10, 11 and 13 have been proposed by NEMA, but I would suggest that these can be treated separately as part of a technical exercise, that we can discuss if we can get to yes on the big issue, which is DL 12

2) Discuss next steps, if any, for th is group on liquid-filled transformers.

Attached for your review is a chart containi ng the key LCC information for DL 12, with 2010 price results and 2011 price results displayed side-by-side for ease of reference. Also attached are the full LBL and Engineeri ng Analysis results for both 2 010 prices and 2011 prices. 2011 prices are what were are focusi ng on, but 2010 prices offers a useful reference (sensitivity if you will).

I look forward to talking with you at 11. This wi ll be a time for bottom lines. We know the

arguments.Best,

Richard Parker

Facilitator
#### MICHENOR *v.*KINNEY.

Seal — scrawl, wafer, wax — sealed obligation without a testatum clause.

A note with a scrawl or seal of wax, although without a testatum clause describing it as under seal, is a sealed note.

The statute places the scrawl on the same footing with a'seal of wax or a wafer.

Debt. The obligation exhibited was a note for money with a *scrawl*in the place of a *seal*affixed, but no mention was made of a seal in the note. The question is whether the note can be recovered upon as a *sealed note.*

By the Court.

The case of *Howe*v. *Dawson, Tap. R.*169, decides the precise point before us; and it is said, the same point has been repeatedly decided by this Court, though we have no reported case. Suppose there was a seal of wax instead of a scrawl, would not the instrument be sealed? Our law puts the scrawl upon the same footing as the *wax*seal.

Judgment for the plaintiff.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Post Properties, Inc. ("Post")
and Post Apartment Homes, L.P. ("PAH", and together with Post, the
"Registrants") for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Post
and Post GP Holdings, Inc., PAH's general partner, certifies 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 Registrants.



/s/ Christopher J. Papa
------------------------------
Christopher J. Papa
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
March 15, 2006


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Post Properties, Inc.
                           Post Apartment Homes, L.P.
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


I, Juliet M. Reising, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Verso Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), do hereby certify in accordance with
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

1.       The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended
         June 30, 2003 (the "Periodic Report") fully complies with the
         requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
         of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Sections 78m or 78o(d)); and

2.       The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
         all material respects, the financial condition and results of
         operations of the Company.

Dated: August 13, 2003

                                             /s/ Juliet M. Reising
                                             -------------------------------
                                             Juliet M. Reising
                                             Executive Vice President and
                                             Chief Financial Officer
H. R. 3734

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To designate the Federal building located at Fifth and Richardson Avenues in

Roswell, New Mexico, as the ‘‘Joe Skeen Federal Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The Federal building located at Fifth and Richardson Avenues

in Roswell, New Mexico, shall be known and designated as the

‘‘Joe Skeen Federal Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

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

or other record of the United States to the Federal building referred

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

Skeen Federal Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

TAJI J. LEE,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 123 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of May, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
Exhibit 99.10





CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON








Golden Star Resources Ltd.


United States Securities and Exchange Commission





Re: Golden Star Resources Ltd.





Ladies and Gentlemen:





I hereby consent to (i) being named and identified as a “qualified person” in connection with the following documents, which are either referenced in or filed as exhibits with the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the “Form 40-F”) of Golden Star Resources Ltd. (the “Company”) to which this consent relates: (A) the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2016, (B) the Company’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2016, (C) the technical report entitled "NI 43-101 Technical Report on a Feasibility Study of the Wassa open pit mine and underground project in Ghana" effective date December 31, 2014 and filed on May 8, 2015 and (D) the technical report entitled “NI 43-101 Technical Report on a Feasibility Study of the Prestea underground gold project in Ghana" effective date November 3, 2015 and filed on January 22, 2016, (ii) the inclusion or incorporation by reference of information derived from such documents in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-211926, 333-175542, 333-169047, 333-118958, 333-105821 and 333-105820), as amended, and Registration Statement No. 333-196906 on Form F-10, as amended, or any related abbreviated registration statement filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or in any amendment to any of the foregoing, or to any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto and (iii) all other references to the undersigned included or incorporated by reference in the above-referenced Registration Statements and in any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto.











/s/ S. Mitchel Wasel


S. Mitchel Wasel


Vice President Exploration





March 30, 2017
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3674

To amend section 5318 to prohibit the use of identification issued by foreign 

governments, other than passports, for purposes of verifying the identity 

of a person who opens an account at a financial institution, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 8, 2003

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL

To amend section 5318 to prohibit the use of identification 

issued by foreign governments, other than passports, for 

purposes of verifying the identity of a person who opens 

an account at a financial institution, 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 ‘‘Financial Customer 

5 Identification Verification Improvement Act’’. 
2

•HR 3674 IH 

1 SEC. 2. FOREIGN-ISSUED FORMS OF IDENTIFICATION PRO2 HIBITED AS PROOF OF IDENTITY TO OPEN 

3 ACCOUNTS AT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. 

4 Section 5318(l) of title 31, United States Code, is 

5 amended—

6 (1) by redesignating paragraph (6) as para7 graph (7); and 

8 (2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the fol9 lowing new paragraph: 

10 ‘‘(6) PROHIBITION ON USE OF IDENTIFICATION

11 ISSUED BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.—A financial 

12 institution may not accept any form of identification 

13 that was issued by a foreign government, other than 

14 a passport, for use in verifying the identity of a per15 son in connection with the opening of an account by 

16 such person at the financial institution, including a 

17 matricula consular issued in the United States by a 

18 duly authorized consular officer of the Government 

19 of Mexico.’’.

Æ
Opinion filed June 5 , 2015



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________


### No. 11

- 1 5

- 00 1 00

- CV

__________ 

### CLEVELAND THOMAS AND $832.82 U.S. CURRENCY , Appellant s

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 39 th District Court

Haskell County, Texas

T rial Court Cause No. 11,891

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Cleveland Thomas filed a n untimely notice of appeal

. On April 30, 2015, the

clerk of this court notified Thomas that his notice of appeal was not timely filed , and
we requested that Thomas respond and show grounds to continue th e appeal. We
informed Thomas that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction.2

Thomas filed a response as requested but has not show n grounds upon which t his
court can continue the appeal. 1

The documents on file in this case show that, on November 13 , 2014, the trial
court signed the forfeiture judgment from which Thomas appeals

. The notice of
appeal was due to be filed on or before December 15, 2014

. Se e T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

26.1

. Thomas’ s notice of appeal was filed in the trial court on April 15 , 2015

— 1 53
days after the judgment was signed and well after the deadline for filing a notice of
appeal or a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 26. 3. Absent a timely notice of appeal, this court is without jurisdiction to
consider this appeal. See Wilkins v . Methodist Health Care Sys. , 160 S.W.3d 559,

56 4 (Tex. 2005); Garza v. Hibernia Nat’l Bank , 227 S.W.3d 233 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.); see also Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615,
617 (Tex. 1997). Because we are without jurisdiction, w e dismiss the appeal

. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3 (a)

. T h is appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

June 5, 2015
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J.

1 In his response, Thomas a sks this court to allow him “the time needed.” However, this court is not permitted to “alter the time for perfecting an appeal in a civil case.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 2. We also note that court s “may not enlarg e the period for taking any action under the rules relating to new trials except as stated in these rules.” T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 5

.
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:19851-1 

Enve
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

------------------------------------------------------------ 

### MESA AIRLINES, INC

.

-----------------------------------------------------------



### NOTICE OF REGISTRATION OF TRADE NAME

On November 27, 2013

, the Department authorized Mesa Airlines, Inc. (“ Mesa ”)

, a U.S

. certificated air carrier, 1 the use of the trade name “American Eagle” for one year from the

effective date of the merger between America n Airlines, Inc., and US Airways, Inc. The

Department limited the effectiveness of the authorization in light of the fact that the trade name

American Eagle, was used by American Eagle Airl ines, Inc., as well as other U.S. air carriers.

On October 1, 2014, American Airlines, Inc. (“American”)

, requested that the Department issue

a new notice without the limiting condition. In support of its request, American states that

American Eagle Ai rlines, Inc., has subsequently changed its corporate name to Envoy Air Inc.,

and thus the potential for public confusion no longer exi s ts. 2

By this notice

, the Department removes the aforementioned limitation placed on Mesa and

acknowledges the continued use of the trade name “American Eagle” in its operations

.

Dated at Washington, D.C.

, October 29 , 201 4

.

TODD M. HOMAN

Director

Office of Aviation Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at:

http:// www.regulations.gov

1 Mesa ’s interstate certificate was last re issued by Order 98

- 7

- 6

, issued July 8

, 1998

. 2 See Order 2014

- 4

- 13, issued April 15, 2014.Attachment A

SE RVICE LIST FOR MESA AIRLINES, INC.

MR ROBERT E COHN

MR PATRICK R RIZZI

COUNSEL FOR MESA AIRLINES, INC

HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

COLUMBIA SQUARE

555 THIRTEENTH STREET NW

WASHINGTON DC 20004 OFFICE OF AIRLINE INFORMATION

DOT/RSPA/BTS E

- 36

1200 NEW JERSEY AVE SE

WASHINGTON DC 20590

MR STEVEN D. D’URSO

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION MR MARK MAZOR

CERTIFICATION MANAGE R

FAA AFS

- 900

45005 AVIATION DRIVE SUITE 131

DULLES VA 20166

MR ALEC BRAMLETT

MANAGING DIRECTOR

LEGAL AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS

AMERICAN AIRLINES INC MR PETER LYNCH

ASST CHIEF COUNSEL FOR E NFORCEMENT

FAA / AGC

- 300

800 INDEPENDENCE AVE SW

WASHINGTON DC 20591