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



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
  1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    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. PapaChristopher J. PapaExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial OfficerMarch 24, 2008 Post Properties, Inc.
    
    23Post Apartment Homes, L.P.
§ 101.37 Notice requirements. ( a ) *Prelaunch notice:* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate an unmanned free balloon unless, within 6 to 24 hours before beginning the operation, he gives the following information to the FAA ATC facility that is nearest to the place of intended operation: ( 1 ) The balloon identification.
( 2 ) The estimated date and time of launching, amended as necessary to remain within plus or minus 30 minutes.
( 3 ) The location of the launching site.
( 4 ) The cruising altitude.
( 5 ) The forecast trajectory and estimated time to cruising altitude or 60,000 feet standard pressure altitude, whichever is lower.
( 6 ) The length and diameter of the balloon, length of the suspension device, weight of the payload, and length of the trailing antenna.
( 7 ) The duration of flight.
( 8 ) The forecast time and location of impact with the surface of the earth.
( b ) For solar or cosmic disturbance investigations involving a critical time element, the information in paragraph (a) of this section shall be given within 30 minutes to 24 hours before beginning the operation.
( c ) *Cancellation notice:* If the operation is canceled, the person who intended to conduct the operation shall immediately notify the nearest FAA ATC facility.
( d ) *Launch notice:* Each person operating an unmanned free balloon shall notify the nearest FAA or military ATC facility of the launch time immediately after the balloon is launched.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

AGE FORMATION BED
T Oligocene
UNCONFORMITY Chadron
g
:
y
®
8
5
€
é
8
> H
a Ww ts
tla s
- fe é
«| 8 a
ui §
a
= 4
&
=
3 Shole of the Green
2 $ River formation
a oS
g =
8 5
Shole of the Green
River formotion
Shale of the Green
Raver formation
Lentils of shale of the
Green River formation|
in undifferentiated
other formations of
Eocene age
Shale of the Green
Raver formation
| Shcle of the Green
River formation
Lignite bed 3
e
§
g
>
&
|. Ligne bed 2
+ Lignite bed 1

EXPLANATION

Claystone

Shale

peg

Limestone

Lignite

Baked rock
Formerly shale, baked by burning lignite

XX AY

Lignite ash and clinker

Bentonite

TL,

Gypsum

Calcareous rock

Iron oxides

Nodules
Jronstone, sandstone, shale

Oolites

No exposure

[

Poor exposure

rary
ote

Fossils

YBR-4 F-I0

Fossiliferous zone

\ LOST GREEK DAM

y

LOST CREEK ORK\LAKE

3 Miles &
RY

Approximate scale sy

INDEX MAP SHOWING LOCATION OF COLUMNAR SECTIONS

JBR-2

F-i1

Horizon of fossiliferous zone at localities JBR-4 ond F-10

Horizon of

fossiliferous zone at locality JBR-!

BULLETIN 1030 PLATE 18
9. 6
a
— 2
{88
rs20 | c &
Rann gs
5 é
SFP 500)
2
fe faa
L468
2
Se Lag!
ae [SZ
ee? Lape
=
we [ee
* L360
18
fas’ | 2
2 5
3
2
vuely a Pao |B
2 S
? 8
2
é
YBR-5 8
6
H
Shole of the Green g
A
? River formation 3
vBR-4- + £
Horizon of fossiliferous zone s
? at localities JBR-4 and F-10 S
JBR~3
2
Limestone and shale of the Green
? River formation
Braise oF The Gree’. a
oT River formation /“f
Ww
Zz
oO
N
b
5
5 ? ad
g fey =
a |e ~
& a
2
a Ww
2 16
3 9g
2 [2
© oO
The CYCLONE RIM FAULT ZONE
is shown 34° miles south of its
true position (see index map)
?
2
2
?
2
2
?
2
2
2

COLUMNAR SECTIONS 1-9, RED DESERT AREA, SWEETWATER COUNTY, WYOMING

5 Miles
L L 1 L i

Approximate horizontal scale

Geology by Donald G Wyant ond
Williom N. Sharp 1949

388177 0 ~56 (In pocket) No. 2
(LOGO)

ERNST & YOUNG LLP

1300 Huntington Building
925 Euclid Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1405

Phone: 216 861 5000

Report on Management's Assertion on Compliance with Minimum Servicing Standards
Set Forth in the Uniform Single Attestation Program
for Mortgage Bankers

Report of Independent Accountants

Board of Directors
National City Mortgage Co.

We have examined  management's  assertion,  included in the accompanying  report
titled Report of Management, that National City Mortgage Co. (NCM) complied with
the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of
America's Uniform Single Attestation  Program for Mortgage Bankers (USAP) during
the year ended December 31, 1998. Management is responsible for NCM's compliance
with  those  requirements.  Our  responsibility  is to  express  an  opinion  on
management's assertions about NCM's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on  a  test  basis,  evidence  about  NCM's  compliance  with  those
requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered  necessary in
the circumstances.  We believe that our examination  provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on NCM's
compliance with specified requirements.

In  our  opinion,   management's   assertion,   that  NCM   complied   with  the
aforementioned  requirements  during the year ended December 31, 1998, is fairly
stated, in all material respects.

Ernst &Young LLP

January 29, 1999

Ernst &Young LLP is a member of Ernst &Young International, Ltd.
#### ANTONIA QUESTEL *v.*NICHOLAS QUESTEL.

Divorce — forgiveness of injury — separate maintenance.

In case of cruelty by the husband of the wife, and the parties afterwards live together, it is a forgiveness of the injury, and it cannot afterwards be relied upon for a divorce.

If the wife has been abused, the abuse forgiven, and she is afterwards abandoned, and efforts made to deprive her of a subsistence, she will be allowed a separate maintenance.

Divorce and alimony — cause extreme cruelty by beating, &c. The petitioner is about fifty years old, decrepid and feeble — the defendant sixty. They were married in 1823, and soon after it became notorious that they quarrelled. In 1829 or 1830, several witnesses saw him standing over her in the door of his own house in a violent passion — she was crying, her hair down, and clothes disordered. He threatened the witnesses, to keep them away, as they thought. They heard her scream, but saw no blows; but one of them thought he saw him seize and drag her into the house. After this they removed into the country and lived together a year 'or so, when he conveyed awáy his property to his son and removed to the French grant, leaving her behind; and has since neglected to provide for her, or live with her. tier character is good.

*Brazee,*for the petitioner.

By the Court.

Where parties live together after the injury complained of, it is held a forgiveness of the injury, and to prevent a recurrence to it as a distinct cause of divorce. Such is this case, and the cruelty, therefore, is to be left out of the question.

But the treatment of the wife which is in proof, and the separation of the parties, and the attempt made to take from her the means of subsistence, we think affords good ground to allow her a separate .maintenance.

It is therefore decreed, that she retain the possession of the house that she now occupies, free of charge, and that he pay to the clerk for her use and maintenance, $37 50 in thirty days, and the costs of this suit, the further sum of $37 50, by the last of October next, and the like sum every six months thereafter, during their joint lives, to be charged on his real estate; and in default, that execution issue. But if the defendant shall execute a bond with security to the acceptance of the clerk, conditioned to pay the amount, with a warrant of attorney to confess judgment, in case of default, the lien on the real estate from thenceforth shall cease.
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Pioneer  Railcorp (the "Company") on
Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  September  30,  2002 as  filed  with  the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  we, Guy
L.Brenkman,  President and Chief Executive  Officer,  and J. Michael Carr, Chief
Financial Officer,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 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/ Guy L. Brenkman                           /s/ J. Michael Carr
-------------------------------------         ----------------------------------
Guy L. Brenkman                               J. Michael Carr
President and Chief Executive Officer         Chief Financial Officer

November 5, 2002


                                       1
#### J. K. Stokes, *Plaintiff in*Error, v. The State of Florida, De*fendant in Error.*

Opinion Filed May 6, 1913.

1. An indictment for altering tbe marks of an animal, need not describe tbe original marks.

2. Altering tbe marks and changing tbe brands of an animal are separate offenses and may not be embraced in the same count.

*417Writ of error to the Circuit Court of Leon County.

Judgment reversed.

*Nat R. Walker*and $. *E. Diamond,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*T. F. West,*Attorney General, and *G. O. Andrews,*for the State.

Cockrell,

The indictment charging J. K. Stokes with altering the existing marks and brands of a hog, the property of W. W. Sanders, is alleged to be defective in failing to describe the marks and brands so altered.

In Mizell v. State, 38 Ela. 20, 20 South. Rep. 769, we held it unnecessary in an indictment for the larceny of a cow, to describe the marks and brands, and we see no reason for a more specific description in this class of cases. We decided in Shiver v. State, 41 Fla. 630. 27 South. Rep. 36, that the indictment need not allege the owner of the mark alleged to have altered, and in the opinion, the case of State v. O’Neal, 7 Iredell (N. C.) 251, is cited approvingly. In the O’Neal case, that court decided it is not necessary to set forth the original mark nor in what manner the alteration was made. The case of State v. S'telly, 48 La. Ann. 1478, 21 South. Rep. 89, is also exactly in point.

There is, however, a fatal defect in the indictment. Since the decision in the Shiver case, there has been a separation of the crime of altering the marks or brands of an animal; the two being now distinct though kindred offenses, with different penalties. See Daughtry v. State, this day decided. The indictment confuses the *418two crimes in one count, the general verdict therefore affords no sufficient predicate for a sentence, and the judgment should have been arrested.

Judgment reverséd.

Shackleford, C. J., and Taxlor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
#### Dean Sage et al., Appellants, v. William Crosby, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

November, 1900.)

Municipal Court o£ the city of New York — Not ousted of jurisdiction of summary proceedings by plea of title — Counterclaim therein.

The Municipal Court of the city of New York is not ousted of jurisdiction in summary proceedings by the interposition of an answer setting up facts showing that the title to real property will come in question on the trial.

A counterclaim to such a proceeding may be interposed in said court.

Appeal from a final order, in summary proceedings, of the Municipal Court of the city of Eew York, ninth district, borough of Manhattan.

Parsons, Shepard & Ogden (H. B. Closson and Eugene Smith, of counsel), for appellants.

Frank Z. Demarest, for respondent.

*118
      *Per Curiam.*

The Code provisions as to a dismissal, where title to real property is involved, relate exclusively to actions, not to proceedings, and such a defense does not oust a Municipal Court justice of jurisdiction in summary proceedings. Quinn v. Quinn, 46 App. Div. 241. The final order made below must, therefore, be reversed. Counsel for the appellants is mistaken in his contention that a counterclaim cannot be interposed by a tenant in a summary proceeding. While section 1359 of the Consolidation Act (Laws 1882, chap. 410) does not give such a right, yet section 2244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for the interposition of counterclaims in such proceedings, is still applicable to the Municipal Court of the city of New York.

Final order reversed. and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide event.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerich and O’Gorman, JJ. •

Final order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3721

To amend title 49, United States Code, to repeal the essential air service 

local participation program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 21, 2004

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. BERRY, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. 

ACEVEDO-VILA ́, Mr. PAUL, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. CASE, Mr. 

HOEFFEL, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. RENZI, Mr. BOYD, Mr. 

LATHAM, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. MORAN of Kansas, Mr. CANNON, Mrs. 

EMERSON, Mr. SWEENEY, Mr. QUINN, Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. 

ROSS, Mrs. CAPITO, and Mrs. CUBIN) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To amend title 49, United States Code, to repeal the 

essential air service local participation program.

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 ‘‘Essential Air Service 

5 Preservation Act of 2004’’. 
2

•HR 3721 IH 

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EAS LOCAL PARTICIPATION PROGRAM. 

2 Section 41747 of title 49, United States Code, and 

3 the item relating to such section in the analysis for sub4 chapter II of chapter 417 of such title, is repealed.

Æ
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
Clearfield, Inc. a Minnesota corporation. (the “Company”), for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008, 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 11,
2008







Signature:
/s/ Cheryl Beranek
Podzimek


Print
Name: Cheryl Beranek
Podzimek


Print
Title: Chief Executive
Officer (Principal Executive Officer)








20
#### Joseph Watson, *Plaintiff in Error*v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Decision Filed April 9, 1923.

A Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Marion County; W. S. Bullock, Judge.

*Raymond B. Bullock,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Rivers Buford,*Attorney General, and *J. B. Gaines,*Assistant, for the State.

Per Curiam.

The judgment herein of conviction of murder in the first degree with a recommendation to mercy, is reversed on the authority of Nims v. State, 70 Fla. 530, 70 South. Rep. 565; Davis v. State, 76 Fla. 179, 79 South. Rep. 450; Baker v. State, 54 Fla. 12, 44 South. Rep. 719; Smithie v. State, 84 Fla. 498, 94 South. Rep. 156; Richardson v. State, 80 Fla. 634.

Reversed for new trial.

Taylor, C, J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Browne and West, J. J., concur.
# Official Journal L 109I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 109I |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 637 April 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 109I

English edition

Legislation

Volume 637 April 2020

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Decision (EU) 2020/506 of the European Central Bank of 7 April 2020 amending Guideline (EU) 2015/510 on the implementation of the Eurosystem monetary policy framework and Guideline (EU) 2016/65 on the valuation haircuts applied in the implementation of the Eurosystem monetary policy framework (ECB/2020/20) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Decision (EU) 2020/506 of the European Central Bank of 7 April 2020 amending Guideline (EU) 2015/510 on the implementation of the Eurosystem monetary policy framework and Guideline (EU) 2016/65 on the valuation haircuts applied in the implementation of the Eurosystem monetary policy framework (ECB/2020/20)

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
§ 1204.1406 Procedures in the event of a declared in-flight emergency. ( a ) Any aircraft involved in a declared in-flight emergency that endangers the safety of its passengers and aircraft may land at a NASA airfield. In such situations, the requirements for this subpart for advance authorizations, do not apply.
( b ) NASA personnel may use any method or means to clear the aircraft or wreckage from the runway after a landing following an in-flight emergency. Care will be taken to preclude unnecessary damage in so doing. However, the runway will be cleared as soon as possible for appropriate use.
( c ) The emergency user will be billed for all costs to the Government that result from the emergency landing. No landing fee will be charged, but the charges will include the labor, materials, parts, use of equipment, and tools required for any service rendered under these circumstances.
( d ) In addition to any report required by the Federal Aviation Administration, a complete report covering the landing and the emergency will be filed with the airfield manager by the pilot or, if the pilot is not available, any other crew member or passenger.
( e ) Before an aircraft which has made an emergency landing is permitted to take off (if the aircraft can and is to be flown out) the owner or operator thereof shall make arrangements acceptable to the approving authority to pay any charges assessed for services rendered and execute a Hold Harmless Agreement. The owner or operator may also be required to furnish a certificate of insurance, as provided in § 1204.1404, covering such takeoff.
#### Stockton et al. *v.*Halstead et al.

[No. 22,215.

Filed December 17, 1912.

Motion to Reinstate Overruled January 7, 1913.]

From Jasper Circuit Court; *E. B. Sellers,*Special Judge.

Proceedings instituted before the Board of Commissioners of Jasper County by Everett Halstead and others for the improvement of a certain highway, against which Almira M. Stockton and others remonstrated. From a judgment of the circuit court against the remonstrants, this appeal is prosecuted.

*Appeal dismissed.*

*W. H. Parkinson,*for appellants.

*Frank Foltz, Philip R. Blue*and *George A. Williams,*for appellees.

*702Cox, J.

The questions presented by the record in this case are in all respects the same as those involved in the case of *Stockton*v. *Yeoman*(1913), *ante*61, 100 N. E. 2, and upon the authority of that case the appeal in this is dismissed.
|     | At                         |   |
|----------|----------------------------|--------|
|     | September      30, 2008(a) |   | December      31, 2007 |   | September      30,2007 |   |
|     |                       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Managed  |                       | 1.61   | % |   |   | 1.21 | % |   |   | 1.35 | % |   |
| Off-book |                       | 0.92   |   |   |   | 0.71 |   |   |   | 0.72 |   |   |
| On-book  |                       | 1.75   |   |   |   | 1.33 |   |   |   | 1.50 |   |   |

|     | At                         |   |
|----------|----------------------------|--------|
|     | September      30, 2008(a) |   | December      31, 2007 |   | September      30,2007 |   |
|     |                       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Managed  |                       | 6.54   | % |   |   | 5.38 | % |   |   | 5.26 | % |   |
| U.S.     |                       | 6.17   |   |   |   | 5.52 |   |   |   | 5.14 |   |   |
| Non-U.S. |                       | 6.69   |   |   |   | 5.32 |   |   |   | 5.30 |   |   |
| Off-book |                       | 7.21   |   |   |   | 6.64 |   |   |   | 5.92 |   |   |
| U.S.     |                       | 7.21   |   |   |   | 6.64 |   |   |   | 5.92 |   |   |
| Non-U.S. |                       | (b)    |   |   |   | (b) |   |   |   | (b) |   |   |
| On-book  |                       | 6.46   |   |   |   | 5.22 |   |   |   | 5.16 |   |   |
| U.S.     |                       | 5.58   |   |   |   | 4.78 |   |   |   | 4.55 |   |   |
| Non-U.S. |                       | 6.69   |   |   |   | 5.32 |   |   |   | 5.30 |   |   |
|     |                       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |

| (a) | Subject      to update. |
|-----|-------------------------|
| (b) | Not      applicable.    |

----

----
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129086 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

BARBARA DAVIS,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129086 

 COA: 260319 

WCAC: 03-000474 

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, LAD 

LANSING BODY ASSEMBLY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 20, 2005 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t1219 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 27, 2005 

Clerk
**EXHIBIT 23**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We hereby consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-81614, 333-105820, 333-105821, 333-118958 and 333-169047), the Registration Statements on Form S-3, as amended (File Nos. 333-33237, 333-89767, 333-82106,333-102225, 333-118956, 333-148296 and 333-155767) and the Registration Statement on Form S-4, as amended (File No. 333-118957) of Golden Star Resources Ltd. of our report dated February 23, 2011 relating to the consolidated financialstatements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Vancouver, BC, Canada 

February 23, 2011