alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 712.10 How can a state supervisory authority obtain an exemption for FISCUs from compliance with § 712.3(d)(1), (2), and (3)? ( a ) The NCUA Board may exempt FISCUs in a given state from compliance with any or all of § 712.3(d)(1), (2), and (3) if the NCUA Board determines the laws in that state are equal to, or more stringent than, § 712.3(d)(1), (2), and (3), and the laws and procedures available to the supervisory authority in that state are sufficient to provide NCUA with the degree of access and information it believes is necessary to evaluate the safety and soundness of FICUs having business relationships with CUSOs owned by FISCUs in that state.
( b ) To obtain an exemption, the state supervisory authority must submit a copy of the legal authority pursuant to which it secures the information required in § 712.3(d)(1), (2), and (3) of this part to NCUA's regional office having responsibility for that state, along with all procedural and operational documentation supporting and describing the actual practices by which it implements and exercises the authority.
( c ) The state supervisory authority must provide the regional director with an assurance that NCUA examiners will be provided with co-extensive authority and will be allowed direct access to CUSO books and records at such times as NCUA, in its sole discretion, may determine necessary or appropriate. For purposes of this section, access includes the right to make and retain copies of any CUSO record, as to which NCUA will accord the same level of control and confidentiality that it uses with respect to all other examination-related materials it obtains in the course of its duties.
( d ) The state supervisory authority must also provide the regional director with an assurance that NCUA, upon request, will have access to copies of any financial statements or reports which a CUSO has provided to the state supervisory authority.
( e ) The regional director will review the applicable authority, procedures and assurances and forward the exemption request, along with the regional director's recommendation, to the NCUA Board for a final determination.
( f ) For purposes of this section, whether an entity is a CUSO shall be determined in accordance with the definition set out in § 741.222 of this chapter.
[78 FR 72549, Dec. 3, 2013]
#### §§ 410.131-410.139 [Reserved]
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with
this quarterly report on Form 10-Q, that:

     -    the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and
          15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

     -    the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the Corporation's financial condition and results
          of operations of the corporation as of the dates and for the periods
          expressed in this quarterly report.


/s/ Kevin A. Schmidt
-------------------------------------
Kevin A. Schmidt, Principal Financial
Officer

Dated: May 11, 2007


                                       24
§ 141.27 Renewal of certificates and ratings. ( a ) *Pilot school.* ( 1 ) A pilot school may apply for renewal of its school certificate and ratings within 30 days preceding the month the pilot school's certificate expires, provided the school meets the requirements prescribed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section for renewal of its certificate and ratings.
( 2 ) A pilot school may have its school certificate and ratings renewed for an additional 24 calendar months if the Administrator determines the school's personnel, aircraft, facility and airport, approved training courses, training records, and recent training ability and quality meet the requirements of this part.
( 3 ) A pilot school that does not meet the renewal requirements in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, may apply for a provisional pilot school certificate if the school meets the requirements of § 141.7 of this part.
( b ) *Provisional pilot school.* ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, a provisional pilot school may not have its provisional pilot school certificate or the ratings on that certificate renewed.
( 2 ) A provisional pilot school may apply for a pilot school certificate and associated ratings provided that school meets the requirements of § 141.5 of this part.
( 3 ) A former provisional pilot school may apply for another provisional pilot school certificate, provided 180 days have elapsed since its last provisional pilot school certificate expired.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 11, 2013

No. 04-13-00793-CV

BHOTAN VALLEY INVESTORS LLC,

Appellant

v.

LEM 2Q LLC and LEM 2P LLC,

Appellees

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-05732

Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, appellant’s petition for permission to 

appeal is DENIED, and this appeal is DISMISSED. Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellant.

It is so ORDERED on December 11, 2013.

_____________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 11th day of December, 2013.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
In-Person Attendees: Test Procedures for Showerheads, Faucets, Water closets, Urinals and Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves Meeting Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 Name Title Organization Street City State Zip Phone Fax Email Adin, Lucas M. Energy Technology Program Specialist U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 1000 Independence Avenue SW WashingtonDC 20585202-287-1317 202-586-4617 lucas.adin@ee.doe.gov Barhydt, Laura L. Deputy General Counsel for Litigation U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 1000 Independence Avenue SW WashingtonDC 20585202-287-5772 N/A Laura.Barhydt@hq.doe.gov Hansen, Dain M. Director Government Relations International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) 101 Constitution Avenue NW Suite L110 WashingtonDC 20001 202-414-6177 202-289-3792 dain.hansen@iapmo.org Heine, Kristine Executive Vice President Global Communicators. LLC 1875 I Street, NW, Suite 500 WashingtonDC 20006202-371-9800 703-620-0130 kheine@globalcommunicators.com Levy, Amanda F. Environmental Analyst ERG 2300 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 350 Arlington VA 22201 703-373-8109 703-841-1440 amanda.levy@erg.com Mauer, Joanna Technical Advocacy Coordinator Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) 529 14th Street NW, Suite 600 WashingtonDC 20045202-507-4034 N/A jmauer@appliance-standards.org Salmon, Stephanie M. N/A Artemins Strategies 10 G Street, NE, Suite 601 WashingtonDC 20002 202-783-1080 202-283-1081 ssalmon@artemisdc.com Slamon, Stephanie M. Vice President Artemis Strategies 10 G Street, NE, Suite 601 WashingtonDC 20002 202-783-1080 202-783-1081 ssalmon@artemisdc.com Swatkowski, Len Technical Director Plumbing Manufacturers Intl 1921 Rohlwing Rd - Unit G Rolling Meadows IL 60008 N/A N/A lswatkowski@pmihome.org Tiedeman, Jennifer General Counsel U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) 1000 Independence Avenue, SW WashingtonDC 20585202-287-6111 N/A jennifer.tiedeman@hq.doe.gov
#### M. AND M. COMPANY, A CORPORATION, v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. H-329.

Decided June 5, 1933]

*Mr. George M. Morris*for the plaintiff. *Mr. Marry G... Kinne*and *KixMiller, Boar <& Morris*were on the brief.

*Mr. Ralph 0. Williamson,*with whom was *Mr. W. W.. Scott,*for the defendant.

*68Williams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff, a manufacturer of electric storage batteries, sues to recover manufacturers’ excise taxes paid upon the sale of such batteries on and between July 13, 1921, and April 1, 1926.

The taxes were imposed and collected under Sections 900 of the Eevenue Acts of 1918 (c. 18, 40 Stat. 1122) and 1921 (c. 136, 42 Stat. 291), and Section 600 of the Revenue Act of 1924 (c. 234, 43 Stat. 253). The pertinent sections of the respective revenue acts are substantially the same, with the exception that the 1924 Act imposes a tax of two and one-half percent instead of five percent as provided in the Acts of 1918 and 1921.

The applicable Treasury Eegulations issued for the administration of the three acts are in substance the same, and define the term “ parts ” as “ any article designed or manufactured for the special purpose of being used as or to replace a component part of any such vehicle [automobile truck, automobile wagon, other automobile, or motorcycle] and which by reason of some peculiar characteristic is not such a commercial commodity as would ordinarily be sold for general use, and which is primarily adapted only for use as a component part of such vehicle.”

This administrative definition of the term “ parts ” was approved by the Supreme Court in *Universal Battery Company*v. *United*States, 281 U.S. 580, and has been applied by this court in *General Lead Batteries Company*v. *United*States, 75 C.Cls. 605, and in *U.S. Light & Heat Corporation*v. *United*States, ante, p. 23; *Englert Mfg. Company*v. *United*States, *ante,*p. 48; and *Universal Battery Company*v. *United*States, ante, p. 1.

The facts in the instant case are in all essential respects parallel to the facts in the cases cited. The batteries sought *69to be taxed in these cases were of the same type as plaintiff’s batteries, and were sold and used for substantially identical purposes. They were equally as well adapted to use for a great variety of nonautomotive purposes as they were for use on automobiles. Such batteries were held not to be parts for automotive vehicles within the meaning of the taxing statutes. See also *Routzahn, Coll.,*v. *Willard Storage Battery Co.,*C.C.A., 65 Fed. (2d) 89, and *McCaughn, Coll.,*v. *Electric Storage Battery Co.,*C.C.A., 63 Fed. (2d) 715.

The plaintiff is entitled to recover, and judgment in its favor is ordered to be entered for the sum of $8,801.95, with interest thereon as provided by law.

Whaley, *Judge;*LittletoN, *Judge;*and Gkeen, *Judge,*concur.

Booth, *Chief Justice,*did not hear this case, on account of illness, and took no part in its decision.
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 07/25/2014

FROM: Laura Farris/EPA Region 8

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: Coalition on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases (C-AGG) Meeting held on 07/15/2014

SUMMARY: 

EPA Region 8’s Acting Assistant Regional Administrator, Callie Videtich, participated in a panel discussion 

by giving remarks and answering questions on the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

at the C-AGG meeting held on 07/15/2014 in Denver, CO. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power 

Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES:

EPA Region 8

Callie Videtich

External Stakeholders

See attached.
Exhibit 99.19





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) the use of my name in connection with the following documents and reports, which are either referenced in or filed as exhibits with the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the “Form 40-F”) of Golden Star Resources Ltd. (the “Company”) to which this consent relates: (A) the technical report entitled “43-101 Technical Report for the Prestea West Reef Feasibility Study, Ghana” effective date May 1, 2013 and filed on July 26, 2013 (the “Report”), (B) the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2013 and (C) the Company’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2013, (ii) the inclusion or incorporation by reference of information derived from such documents and Report in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-175542, 333-169047, 333-118958, 333-105821 and 333-105820), 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/ Krzysztof Czajewski


Krzysztof Czajewski





March 25, 2014
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-09-00549-CV

Susie Alvestra Fleming, Appellant

v.

Benny Larry Fleming, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 169TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 222,540-C, HONORABLE GORDON G. ADAMS, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Susie Alvestra Fleming’s brief is overdue. Her brief was originally due December 2,

2009. After a supplemental clerk’s record was filed and appellant’s motion to extend time to file

the brief was granted, her brief was due January 20, 2010. This Court granted a second motion,

extending the due date to February 26, 2010. This Court granted a third motion, extending the due

date to March 29, 2010. When no brief was filed, this Court’s clerk notified the parties that the brief

was overdue by letter dated April 23, 2010. The letter warned that this appeal could be dismissed

for want of prosecution if no brief or explanation for the lateness of the brief was filed by May 3,
2010. To date, appellant has not filed an explanation, further motion to extend, or a brief. This

appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

 

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: July 8, 2010

2
ACTION ON APPEAL BOND.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

January Term, 1897.]

Smith, Swing and Cox, JJ.

#### Lena Rudershauer v. Fred Pagels.

3. Evidence in action ,on appeal Bond must show appeal to ki.ve been Perfected.

Where the evidence, on an action on an appeal bond, in a case appealed from a justice to the court of common pleas, fails to show that the appeal was perfected, (sec. 6586, Rev. Stat.) the plaintiff is not, on the authority of Gimperling v. Hanes, 40 O. S 114, entitled to a judgment.

:2. If Evidence shows Perfected Appeal, Court may hold Surety though Petition is Defective.

Where, in such an action, the petition does not allege that the appeal was perfected, but the evidence shows that such steps were taken, the court is authorized, where no demurrer is filed, to hold the surety.

•Smith, J.

We are of the opinion that if the evidence in this case had shown that the defendant in error, Pagels, after the dismissal of the appeal •taken by the defendants, Fisher and others, in the original action brought by Pagels against them before the justice of the peace, on the .ground that it was not filed in time, that failed to comply with the provisions of sec. 6586, Rev. Stat., and to have a transcript docketed, and 'the other steps therein pointed out taken, that he was not entitled, on the authority of Gimperling v. Hanes, 40 O. S., 114, to a judgment in this case against the plaintiff in error, Rudershauer. But the question was not fairly presented by the record before us. It is true that the petition filed by Pagels against the surety, did not allege that these steps had *12been taken, but there was no demurrer filed to his .petition, and if the evidence had shown that such steps had been taken, the court would have been authorized to hold the surety liable on her appeal bond.

It may be that the question was sought to be raised on the motion of the defendant below, interposed at the close of the evidence for the plaintiff, in effect asking for a judgment in her favor. But the difficulty on this point is, that it is apparent that we have not before us in the bill of exceptions all of the evidence offered by the plaintiffs. The docket of the justice of the peace in the original case, was offered in evidence, and read. A copy of this is not given. It might have shown that under sec. 6589, on the dismissal of the appeal by the common pleas, a transcript had been filed by Pagels after the appeal was dismissed, and the case remanded to the justice to be proceeded with as if no appeal had been taken.

In addition to this, the same and additional facts may have been shown by the two affidavits offered in evidence by the defendant herself, and which are not made a part of the bill of execeptions.

We therefore, with some reluctance, feel compelled to affirm the judgment.
Exhibit 31.1  CERTIFICATIONS  I, Ron Howell certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-Q of HST Global, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending March 31, 2015;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:  (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  (c) evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (d) disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Companys most recent fiscal quarter (the Companys fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting.  5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting.  Dated: May 15, 2015By:\s\ Ron HowellRon HowellChief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

      We, Albert A. Canosa, Chief Executive Officer of Raytech Corporation (the
"Company") and John B. Devlin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify as follows:

      1.    The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period
            ended March 28, 2004 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 such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
            accordance with United States generally accepted accounting
            principles, in all material respects, the financial condition and
            results of operations of the Company.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have executed this Certification this 12th day of
May, 2004.

                                                /s/ ALBERT A. CANOSA
                                                ---------------------
                                                Albert A. Canosa
                                                President and
                                                Chief Executive Officer

                                                /s/ JOHN B. DEVLIN
                                                -------------------
                                                John B. Devlin
                                                Vice President, Treasurer
                                                and Chief Financial Officer
LTS Doc#:23086-2 Filed:12/16/22 Entered:12/16/22 1

Envelope Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF QUEST HEALTH CARE FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,352,903
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  810,406
<ALLOWANCES>                                    42,932
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,136,171
<PP&E>                                       3,391,407
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,355,701
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,171,877
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,130,749
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,041,128
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,171,877
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,133,837
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,558,563
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                21,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,415
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (447,141)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (447,141)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (447,141)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.59)
        

</TABLE>