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

i onmspom m

r i O M JA N 2 6 201 0 

## ^BARIN Q DOCKE T UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON . D.C . 

## 7^^ ' ?^ ^

I n th e Matte rof : Mes a Airlines , Inc . + * * FA

A Docket No . CP05SW001 8 y FA_ A Docket No . CP09SW000 2 ' ^OOyO.J;!'? ^ FA A Cas e No . 2004SW07004

0 FA A Cas e No . 2007SW07006 9 AL J Honorabl e RichardC . Goodwi n MOTIO N FO R CONTINUANC E COMES J NO W th e Administrato r an dfiles thi s Motio n fo

r Continuanc e an da s caus e thereo f

woul dsho w th e following . I . A hearin g date o f

Januar y 2 5 an d26 , 2010 , ha s bee n se t

fo r th e abov e captione d cases , H . Th e Respondent , Mes aAirlines , filedaPetitio n fo r Bankruptc y o n Januar

y 5 , 2010 . II . Th e paitie s ar e in th e proces s o f settlin g th e case s bu t

mus t wai t th e approval o f

th e Bankrupt y Trustee . Considerin g th e extenuatin g circiunstances , acontinuanc e i n thes e case s woul db e in th e bes t interes t o f al l partie s concerned .

eoo/Loo ® SW Q * VV J St'LSSGfrSO S XVJ iS:t L 0L0S/6L/S 0CERTIFICAT E O F SERVICE T hereb y certif

y tha t tli e origina

l an don e cop y o f

tli c foregoin g Motio n fo r Continuanc e ha s bee

n maile dJanuar

y 15 , 2010 , b y Certifie dMai l - Retur n Receip t Requeste dan

dta x to : Hearin g Docke

t Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke

t Clerk . AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh i Building—Suit

e 2W100 0 1 hereb y certif

y tha t acop y o f th e foregoing Motio n fo

r Continuance , ha s bee

n maile d Januai y 15 , 2010 , b

y CertifiedMail-Retur

n Receip t Requested , an

dfa x t o th e following : Honorabl e Richar

dC . Goodwin Administrativ e La

w Judg e Office o f Hearing , M-20 , Departmen

t o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jersey Avenue , S.E . Eas t Building GroundFloor , Roo mE12-32 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 0 Christophe

r Pappaioano u Director , Lega

l Affairs Mes aAir Grou p 41 0 Nort h 44" ^ Street , Suit

e 70 0 Phoenix , A

Z 8500 8 i V ^ 

# (J . MHL . Sylv^Tw a Paralega l Specialis t (UMMMAAA . 

### /5 J 

### J^Of

^

'^^^^^^ ® SH° ^ vv dsnseGiPSo s xvj ie: n OLOS/GL/S OWHEREFORE , B Y REASON O F TH E FOREGOING , th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n hereb y pray s tha t th e Motio n fo

r Continuanc e b e granted . Respectfull

y Submitte d

By . LYNETT

E WOR D Regiona l Counse l Southwes t Ret 

# U i'/n- ^ I r- Annjen/^ t Chei6iault Atto^Tjfe y 817-222-507 1

soo/soo ® SW Q * VVJ S1?L98GtS0 S XV d ie:t L 0L0S/6L/S 0
Exhibit 99.12





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, (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/ Michael Beare


Michael Beare





March 30, 2017
#### Ballanger *v.*Shumate.

*Damage to Property in Collision.*

(Decided May *21,*1914.

65 South. 416.)

1. *Appeal and Error; Harmless Error; Pleading.*— AVhere the court withdraws from the jury the evidence offered under a count in the complaint and charges that there can be no recovery under such count, any error in overruling a demurrer to the count was rendered harmless.

2. *Damages; Measures; Evidence.*— On the question of damages to a buggy inflicted in a collision with a carriage, the difference between the value of the buggy before and after the collision, was admissible in evidence.

3. *Same.*— AVhere the issue raised by the -pleadings was whether or not a plaintiff was frightened as the result of a collision between defendant’s carriage, and a buggy occupied by plaintiff at the time, it was proper to admit evidence that plaintiff was so frightened.

4. *Charge of Court; Construction.*— -AVhere the charge as a whole states a rule of law substantially correct, an exception to a part of a sentence embodied in the charge cannot be sustained.

Appeal from Walker Circuit Court.

Heard before Hou. J. J. Curtis.

Action by B. A. Shumate against J. A. Ballanger for damage to plaintiff’s person and buggy in a collision *330with defendant’s carriage. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

L. I) Gray, for appellant.

The demurrers to count A should have been sustained. Counsel discusses other assignments of error, but without citation of authority.

W. E. Finci-i, for appellee.

Count A was withdrawn from the jury, and therefore, any error Avas rendered harmless to appellant. The count was good in any *event.*— Barbour *v.*Shebor, 58 South.- 276. The cause should be dismissed under the authority of section 2870, Code 1907, and *Swain v. The*State, 60 South. 961.

WALKER, P. J.-

If the court erred in overruling the demurrer to count A of the complaint, the error is not one which can work a reversal of the judgment appealed from, as that count was withdrawn from the consideration of the jury by a written charge to the effect that a finding of wantonness Avas not warranted by the evidence.

On the question of damages, evidence of the difference between the value of the buggy before and after the alleged injury to it was *admissible.*— Louisville *& Nashville R. R. Co. v. Mertz, Ibach & Co.,*149 Ala. 561, 43 South. 7; *Krebs Manufacturing Co. v. Brown,*108 Ala. 508, 18 South. 659, 54 Am. St. Rep. 188; 13 Cyc. 148.

Counts of the complaint upon which issue was joined averred that the plaintiff was frightened as a result of the alleged collision with the buggy, which he was. occupying at the time. Evidence that he was frightened in that way was of a fact in issue, and Avas property admitted.

An exception Avas reserved to a part of a sentence in the oral charge of the court. The sentence as a whole *331stated the rule for measuring damages for injury to personal property substantially as it was stated in *Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Mertz, Ibach & Co., supra.*It follows that the exception cannot be sustained.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Barrett Business Services, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, 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/ William W. Sherertz                                    |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Michael D. Mulholland                                   
|William W. Sherertz Chief Executive Officer March 14, 2008 |  |  |  |  |  | Michael D. Mulholland Chief Financial Officer March 14, 2008
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED      PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | (1). | The                Report                fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of                the                Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and |
|--------|------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:                July                18, 2006 | /s/Jeffrey                R. Scheffer             |
|---------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                              | Jeffrey                R.                Scheffer |
|                                              | Chief                Executive Officer            |
EXHIBIT 32.1
------------

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

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, the undersigned  hereby certifies that, to his
knowledge,  the  quarterly  report on Form 10-Q (the  "Report") of ANTs software
inc., a Delaware  corporation  (the  "Company"),  for the period ended March 31,
2009:

     1. Fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section  13(a) or 15(d),  as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

     This  certification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not
to be deemed a part of this Report, nor is it to be deemed to be "filed" for any
purpose whatsoever.

Date: May 19, 2009

                                 /s/ Joseph Kozak
                                 ----------------
                                 Joseph Kozak, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
                                 and President

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company, and will be
retained by the Company, and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
upon request.
#### Tax Review Board v. Weiner

*Karl I. Schofield*and *James L. J. Pié,*Assistant City Solicitor, and *David Berger,*City Solicitor, for tax review board.

*Abraham Weiner,*p. p., for defendant.

October 24, 1957.

Bok, P. J.,

This is an appeal from a decision of the tax review board sustaining, except for one minor particular, bills for excess water and sewer rent issued against four properties operated by petitioner. Originally the city sought to bill defendant for the years back through 1944. However, city council has since passed an ordinance directing that there be no billing for the period prior to January 1, 1952 (Ordinance of City Council of October 12, 1955) and, consequently, we are concerned only with charges for water used after that date. Apparently the bills were issued in 1955 and apply only to water consumed through 1954.

During much of the period under consideration the water meters on petitioner’s properties were not registering. The city therefore seeks to recover on the basis of an estimated consumption computed by multiplying the average daily water consumption of each *734particular property, determined over a substantial period following the installation of a new meter, by the number of days the original meter on the property was not registering. (For the property located at 1118 West Susquehanna Avenue, the average was taken for the 363-day period extending from March 5, 1954, to March 3, 1955.)

Throughout the proceedings petitioner chose to plead his own case rather than employ counsel. This was indeed unfortunate for, other than that he does not want to pay the bills, I find it difficult to comprehend his position. The issues in the case are principally two: First, may the city bill for excess water used in prior years? Second, may such bills be based on the type of estimate used here?

It is well settled that bills for water and sewer rent are not taxes. On the contrary, they are charges for providing a product and the relationship is essentially contractual: Shirk v. Lancaster City, 313 Pa. 158, 172-73 (1933). See Manheim Township Supervisors v. Workman, 350 Pa. 168, 174 (1944). Thus there is no problem of retroactive taxation and the city may recover on any claims on which the statute of limitations has not run: Philadelphia v. Charleston, 8 D. & C. 2d 689 (1956).

The method of estimating water consumption adopted here has received judicial approval in prior cases: Philadelphia v. Goetz, 71 D. & C. 500 (1950). See Philadelphia v. Charleston, supra. The effect of the introduction of the estimate is to shift to defendant the burden of producing evidence tending to show that the estimate does not fairly reflect the amount of water actually used. This is a fair procedure, first, because defendant is more likely to have evidence on the amount of water consumed, and second, being in possession of the meter, it would hardly be wise to allow defendant to profit from its being broken. As peti*735tioner offered no evidence from which it might be inferred that the estimate was unfair or inaccurate, I see no reason to reverse the decision of the tax review board.

The appeal is dismissed.
, 

903

$

$28586

State of Delaware:

:ss.

Counties of Kern:Before me, a Notary Public, for the County and State aforesaid, Wancla Ford-Waring, known to inc to be such, who being sworn according to law deposes and says that she i an officer of Independent Newspaper Inn, the Publisher of the The Delaware State News, a daiv newspaper pub1isbe at Dover, County of Kent, and State of Delaware, and that the. notiCe, a copy of vbic. is hereto attnched, as )UbiiSIied in the The Delaware State News in its issue of )o

f..

7 ? ice Piuside1 Coror 3t

Independent Newspap

)ot Sworn to urd suhscrecI before rae this

Day oLUikij AD.
#### Edward F. Andrews, *Plaintiff in*Error, v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Opinion Filed April 22, 1913.

1. An order overruling a motion for new trial in a criminal prosecution should as required by the statute be duly excepted to and the exception duly noted in the bill of exceptions, if a review of the order by an appellate court is desired.

2. Where there is evidence to sustain a verdict of murder in the first degree, an appellate court will not disturb the verdict when there is no error of law and it does not appear that the jury were not governed by the evidence in finding the verdict.

Writ of error to the Circuit' Court for Manatee County

Judgment affirmed.

*Rol)t. W.*Davis, and *H. A.. Peeples,*for Plaintiff in Error;

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

*378Whitfield, J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted of murder in the first degree and the death sentence was imposed. A writ of error was taken. The killing of the deceased by the accused is admitted, and the only contention made here is that the testimony does not show a premeditated design to effect the death of the deceased, and that consequently the verdid of murder in the first degree is not sustained by tie evidence. While the transcript purports to contain all the evidence adduced at the trial, the order overruling the motion for new trial does not appear to have been excepted to as is required by law to secure a review of the order by the appellate court. Phillips v. State, 62 Fla. 77, 57 South. Rep. 341; Secs. 1693-4, Gen. Stats, of 1906. However, this being a capital case, the court has carefully examined the evidence, and while the members of this court might not have found from the testimony a premeditated design to kill the deceased, it cannot be said on this record that there was no substantial evidence from which the jury might lawfully have inferred the particular premeditated design that is an essential element of the capital offense charged. This may be a case for favorable consideration by the Board of Pardons, who have the power of commutation, but this court has no such power and must act only on the legal aspect of the case as shown by this record under the rules of law applicable to appellate courts.

The judgment is affirmed.

Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

Transmittal of Record to the Court of Appeals

DATE: December 28, 2022

BK Case: 17-3283 LTS (Jointly Administered) (PROMESA)

APPEAL FEE PAID ($505): YES X _ NO PENDING 

CASE CAPTION: In re: The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

IN FORMA PAUPERIS: YES NO X

MOTIONS PENDING: YES NO X _

NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED BY: Carmen Socorro Cruz Hernandez

APPEAL FROM: Order Denying Motions Requesting Allowance and Payment of 

Administrative Expense Claims Filed by Wage Claimants entered on 11/3/2022.

SPECIAL COMMENTS: Copies of original documents.

INDEX OF DOCUMENTS INCLUDED AS THE RECORD ON APPEAL: 

Docket Entries: 21194, 21195, 21224, 21227, 21230, 22799, 23157

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed documents contained herein are copies or the 

original pleadings as described above and constitute the record on appeal in the case.

Agnes Ferrer-Auffant, Esq. 

Acting Clerk of Court 

S/Idnar Diaz

Idnar Diaz

Deputy Clerk

Acknowledgment of Receipt: 

Received By:

USCCA #: s/c: CM/ECF Parties, Appeals Clerk

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23173 Filed:12/28/22 Entered:12/28/22 16:52:05 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit      32.1**

|   | 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/                Jack Abuhoff |
|   | Jack                Abuhoff                                |
|   | Chairman                of the Board,                      |
|   | Chief                Executive Officer and President  |
|   | March                30, 2007                         |

----
#### § 792.13 Can I get the records in different forms or formats?

NCUA will provide a copy of the record in any form or format requested, such as computer disk, if the record is readily reproducible by us in that form or format, but we will not provide more than one copy of any record.
#### WHEELER *v.*MOORE.

Error — cause of action — trespass threatened cannot be considered as committed.

The matters in dispute in general must be adjudged as they stood at the commencement of the suit, though threatened before.

Mere words do not constitute a trespass, and where it appear that under a possible state of fact the defendant would have committed a trespass, the jury have no right to find the trespass committed.

Error to the Common Pleas. Moore brought trespass against Wheeler for entering his field and cutting and conveying away his grain. On trial, upon not guilty, it was proven that Wheeler was owner of the fee of the land, and in. possession. Both him and Moore claimed a right in the growing crop of wheat. Moore called on Wheeler and demanded the privilege of entering the close to take away the grain, which Wheeler refused, because he claimed the grain as his own, and without other act being done, Moore sued *409Wheeler. On this proof, Wheeler asked the Court of Common Pleas to instruct the jury, that if there was no evidence that Wheeler had entered the field, or cut and conveyed away the wheat before the suit was brought, the plaintiff could not recover. This instruction the court refused to give; but instructed the jury, that if Wheeler refused Moore permission to cut the grain before the suit, and they should be of opinion the plaintiff had a right to the grain, that it was fit to cut, and that he would not have been permitted to cut it without force, the refusal to permit him to harvest it was sufficient to sustain the suit, though Wheeler did not himself cut the wheat until after the suit was brought. The refusal and charge were both excepted to, and a verdict and judgment rendered for the plaintiff.

*C. Pease,*for the plaintiff in error,

cited 9 *John. R.*61,113; 6 *East R.*602.

Crowell, for the defendant.

Wright, J.

The rights of the parties in the court below, should have been determined in the suit, as they'stood when it was commenced. Words without acts cannot make a trespass. All that Wheeler did before the suit, was to refuse to give the permission Moore asked of him. The cutting the grain, if proven, after suit brought, would make no difference in the case. Moore either had a right of action when he brought suit, or he had not. If he had not, and we think he had hot, the court erred in refusing to give the instruction to the jury asked for.

As it regards the instruction given to the jury, which goes to establish the position, that where it appears, that under a possible state of things, a defendant would have committed trespass, the jury may find the trespass actually committed, probably was designed to rest upon the supposition, that in law, that is considered as done, which a party intended to do. We need only say, that this position does not accord with our understanding of the law. We think, therefore, the court below mistook the law in refusing to charge the jury as asked, and also, in charging them as it did, and reverse the judgment with costs.