alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.1
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


      In connection with the third quarter report on Form 10-QSB of Anticline
Uranium, Inc. (the "Company") as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Michael Coombs, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, its Chairman of the Board, and the equivalent
of its Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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

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


/s/  John Michael Coombs
---------------------------
John Michael Coombs
Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board

November 7, 2002
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-4447

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIS LINDSEY O'REILLY, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-90-17-BR) Submitted: January 22, 1998 Decided: February 3, 1998 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Arthur Webb, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Willis Lindsey O'Reilly was convicted in 1991 of violating 21U.S.C. § 846 (1994), and sentenced to a term of 63 months imprisonment and four years supervised release. He began serving his term of supervised release in 1995 and was subsequently convicted in state court of taking indecent liberties with a child. Because the new criminal conduct was a violation of the conditions of O'Reilly's supervised release, the district court revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to a term of ten months imprisonment consecutive to the state sentence. O'Reilly appeals, alleging that the district court may not have understood its authority to impose a concurrent sentence instead. We affirm.At the revocation hearing, O'Reilly requested a sentence concurrent with the state sentence he was then serving. The government did not oppose a concurrent sentence. However, the district court,without comment, imposed a consecutive sentence. While U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.3(f), p.s. (1995) calls for a term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised release to be consecutive to any sentence the defendant is serving, the Chapter 7 policy statements are not binding on the district court. See United States v. Davis , 53 F.3d 638, 641-42 (4th Cir. 1995). There is no indication in the record that the district court was unaware of our holding in Davis or believed that it lacked the discretion to impose a concurrent sentence. Consequently, we affirm the sentence imposed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-3 ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
S89A0372.

#### GAITHER v. SIMS.

(387 SE2d 889)

Decided February 7, 1990.

*Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Assistant Attorney General,*for appellant.

Hunt, Justice.

The state appeals a finding by the habeas trial court that a 1973 guilty plea to murder and armed robbery was not knowing and voluntary. Related issues were raised by Sims in previous habeas petitions filed in 1975 and 1986. The habeas trial court refused to dismiss this petition as successive, held a hearing on the voluntariness issue, and, based on the scanty *Boykin*[v. *Alabama,*395 U. S. 238 (89 SC 1709, 23 LE2d 274) (1969)] record made at the plea of guilty, granted the writ.

*Boykin*was decided several years before Sims’ guilty plea and the filing of his first habeas petition. He has shown no reason why this claim could not have been raised in the earlier habeas corpus petitions.1
      *Smith v. Zant,*250 Ga. 645, 647 (301 SE2d 32) (1983). The habeas trial court’s holding that a *Boykin*claim is non-waivable was error and the motion to dismiss this petition as successive should have been granted. OCGA § 9-14-51.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*808Robert L. Sims, *pro se.*

The habeas court hearing the petition now in question treated the *Boykin*ground as though it had not been previously raised, although, arguably, it was raised in his second petition.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 123 (Monday, June 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16003]



[[Page 39429]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Die Products Consortium (``DPC'')

    Notice is hereby given that, on November 15, 1999, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Die Products Consortium 
(``DPC'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) The 
identities of the parties and (2) the nature and objectives of the 
venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the 
Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to section 6(b) 
of the Act, the identities of the parties are Amkor Technology, Inc., 
West Chester PA; Chip Supply, Inc., Orlando, FL; Cypress Semiconductor 
Corporation, San Jose, CA; Honeywell, Inc., Minneapolis, MN; Intel 
Corporation, Santa Clara, CA; Lucent Technologies, Inc., Murray Hill, 
NJ, Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation, Austin, TX; 
National Semiconductor Corporation, Santa Clara, CA; Rockwell Collins, 
Inc., Cedar Rapids, IA; Tempo Electronics, North Hollywood, CA; and 
Texas Instruments, Dallas, TX. The nature and objectives of the venture 
are to provide leadership to the microelectronics industry to promote 
methods for improved die product (including flip chip) quality, 
reliability, handling, shipping, and associated infrastructure at 
lowest cost to meet the needs of users for smaller form factor, higher 
performance, lower cost products.

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-16003 Filed 6-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
I

★

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 776

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for

coverage under that Act of employees of States and political subdivisions

of States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 23, 1999

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

to provide for coverage under that Act of employees

of States and political subdivisions of States.

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 ‘‘Fairness for State and

5 Local Workers Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF STATE AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISION

7 EMPLOYEES.

8 Section 3(5) of the Occupational Safety and Health

9 Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 652(5)) is amended—
2

HR 776 IH1S

1 (1) by inserting after ‘‘employees,’’ the follow2 ing: ‘‘including a State or political subdivision of a

3 State,’’; and

4 (2) by striking ‘‘or any State or political sub5 division of a State’’.

Æ
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4342

To qualify Martin University of Indianapolis, Indiana, for participation in

the program under part B of title III of the Higher Education Act

of 1965.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 4, 1994

Mr. JACOBS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Education and Labor

A BILL

To qualify Martin University of Indianapolis, Indiana, for

participation in the program under part B of title III

of the Higher Education Act of 1965.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

4 The Congress finds the following:

5 (1) Martin University stands firmly in the lib6 eral arts tradition while providing access to a college

7 degree to those who previously found higher edu8 cation financially an unattainable goal.
2

•HR 4342 IH

1 (2) The university places special emphasis on

2 adult, minority, and low-income students. 90 percent

3 of its enrollment is African-American, the average

4 age is 40, and 70 percent receive financial aid. 85

5 percent are the first from their families to attend

6 college.

7 (3) Martin University holds its students to high

8 academic standards and makes available mentors,

9 preenrollment programs and other special-assistance

10 features.

11 (4) Martin University offers undergraduate bac12 calaureate degrees and master’s degrees specifically

13 designed to assist low-income, minority, and adult14 aged persons. The philosophy of Martin University is

15 that higher education needs to be made available to

16 all who can benefit. As an extension of its focus on

17 a unique target population, the University serves the

18 community in addition to the degree program

19 through other programs for low-income, minority,

20 and adult-aged persons.

21 (5) Martin University is an important part of

22 the conscience of the Hoosier Community, providing

23 opportunities for people from various backgrounds to

24 come together, learn about one another, and learn
3

•HR 4342 IH

1 skills for gainful employment. All this is done with

2 excellence.

3 (6) Martin University is accredited by the

4 North Central Association of Colleges and Schools,

5 and is an Equal Opportunity Educational Institution

6 affiliated with the National Association for Equal

7 Opportunity in Higher Education.

8 (7) Martin University has all the qualifications

9 traditionally required for designation of Historically

10 Black Colleges and Universities except for the arbi11 trary date of origin required by existing law, and yet

12 Martin University has existed for nearly a quarter of

13 a century.

14 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR PROGRAM.

15 Section 322(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965

16 (20 U.S.C. 1061(2)) is amended by adding at the end the

17 following: ‘‘Such term also includes Martin University of

18 Indianapolis, Indiana.’’.

Æ
Help Us Corral the 

Cactus Moth

Protect your ornamental cacti and help preserve 

the environment by joining the fight against the 

non-native, invasive cactus moth (Cactoblastis 

cactorum). The insect threatens native landscapes 

and agriculture in the Southern United States and 

Mexico. The impact of this pest, if left unchecked, 

could be severe for cacti and the natural environment.

Surveyors with the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) are working in your area to identify established 

cactus moth populations and to test the efficiency of 

an experimental control technique. To be successful, 

these surveyors need your cooperation.

Help corral this invasive pest by granting surveyors 

access to your property to check for infected prickly 

pear cacti and, perhaps, to place a trap for the cactus 

moth. Cactus moth traps will not harm wildlife or 

other insects. In cases of severely infected cacti, 

surveyors might also ask to remove infected plant 

parts. 

The bright reddish-orange, 

spotted caterpillars of the 

cactus moth burrow into the 

prickly-pear cactus pad to feed, 

hollowing out and destroying 

the pad. Feeding damage 

also enables bacteria and 

other fungi to enter the plant, 

hastening its death.

Adult cactus moths are 

relatively nondescript, 

brownish-grey moths. Native 

to South America, the cactus 

moth is a new invader in 

the United States. Without 

natural predators and controls 

established in the environment, 

the cactus moth could have 

a detrimental effect on the 

landscape of the South and 

Southwest.
For information about the cactus moth and its impacts 

on prickly pear cacti, please visit www.aphis.usda.

gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/cactoblastis/

index.shtml.

Please report your potentially infected cacti to the 

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service at 

(850) 479-0294.

Photo credits: The image of damaged cactus pads was taken by 

APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine employee Joel Floyd. The 

other two photos were taken by Ignacio Baez, a biological science 

technician with USDA’s Agricultural Research Service.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Program Aid No. 1835 

Issued August 2005

Slightly revised August 2009

Prickly pear cacti, the 

exclusive host of the 

cactus moth in the United 

States, grow in 47 States. 

Cactus pads damaged by 

the cactus moth will show 

characteristic oozing of 

internal plant juices and 

insect droppings.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12

COMPUTATION OF DEFICIENCY OF COMBINED EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES

The following computations of the deficiency of combined earnings to combined
fixed charges has been based upon the audited Financial Statements of Airplanes
Limited and Airplanes U.S. Trust for the five year period ended March 31, 2004.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              YEAR ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                  -------------------------------------------
                                                   2000     2001     2002     2003      2004
                                                  ------   ------   ------   ------   -------
                                                        ($ MILLIONS)
<S>                                                <C>      <C>     <C>       <C>      <C>
Operating loss before income tax ...........       (250)    (353)   (761)     (700)    (1,188)
    Add: interest expense ..................        481      550     616       728        856
Earnings....................................        231      197    (145)       28       (332)
Fixed charges:
    Interest expense .......................        481      550     616       728        856
Deficiency of earnings to interest expense .       (250)    (353)   (761)     (700)    (1,188)
</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration 

          - [(AC) 23-17]

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Issuance of Advisory Circular.

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the issuance of Advisory Circular (AC) 23-17, Systems and Equipment Guide for Certification of Part 23 Airplanes. Advisory Circular 23-17 provides information and guidance concerning acceptable means, but not the only means, of showing compliance with Part 23 applicable to Subpart D from § 23.671 and Subpart F. 

# DATES:

On April 25, 2000, the Small Airplane Directorate issued Advisory Circular 23-17. 

*How To Obtain Copies:*                        AC 23-17 is available on the internet at http://www.faa.gov/​avr/​air/​airhome.htm. A copy of AC 23-17 may be also ordered from the Superintendent of Documents, Post Office Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. Identify the publication as AC 23-17, Systems and Equipment Guide for Certification of Part 23 Airplanes, Stock Number 050-007-01287-0. The cost of AC 23-17 is $21.00. Send a check or money order with your request, made payable to the Superintendent of Documents. Orders for mailing to foreign countries should include an additional 25 percent of the total price to cover handling. No C.O.D. orders are accepted.                     

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 20, 2000. 

Larry Werth, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00-16332 Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20 - 0604 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. PRESTON CSOO ROSSBACH,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including February 13, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 22 2022

12/22/2022

Case Number: DA 20-0604
Exhibit 13.1



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



I, Patrick Evans, Chief Executive
Officer of Mountain Province Diamonds Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | 1. | the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the “Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | By:    | /s/ Patrick Evans      
| | ------ | -----------------------
| |        |                        
| |        |                        
| | Name:  | Patrick Evans          
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer
| | Date:  | April 1, 2013          



This written statement is being furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F. A signed original of
this statement 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.



This certification accompanies this
Annual Report on Form 20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16389]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreement(s) Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreement(s) under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties can 
review or obtain copies of agreements at the Washington, DC offices of 
the Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, N.W., Room 940. Interested 
parties may submit comments on an agreement to the Secretary, Federal 
Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days of the date 
this notice appears in the Federal Register.

    Agreement No.: 011367-018.
    Title: Colombia Discussion Agreement.
    Parties:
Frontier Liner services, Inc.
Crowley Liner Services, Inc.
King Ocean Services, S.A. d/b/a King Ocean de Colombia
Hamburg-Sudamerikanische Dampfschifffahrtsgesellschaft Eggert & Amsinck 
d/b/a Crowley American Transport
A.P. Moller-Maersk Sealand
Seaboard Marine Ltd.
American President Lines, Ltd.
    Synopsis: The proposed amendment would allow the parties to 
negotiate and agree on joint service contracts while retaining the 
right to negotiate service contracts with non-members who belong to the 
Colombia Independent Carrier Agreement. The parties are not required to 
agree to or adhere to any rates, terms or conditions except those 
entered into pursuant to such service contracts.
    Agreement No.: 011528-016.
    Title: Japan/United States Eastbound Freight Conference.
    Parties:
American President Lines, Ltd.
Hapag-Lloyd Container Line GmbH
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.
Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd.
A.P. Moller-Maersk Sealand
Nippon Yusen Kaisha
Orient Overseas Container Line, Inc.
P&O Nedlloyd B.V.
P&O Nedlloyd Limited
Wallenius Wilhelmsen Lines AS
    Synopsis: The proposed amendment would further extend the 
suspension of the Agreement for an additional six-month period through 
January 31, 2001.

    Dated: June 23, 2000.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16389 Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
404 A.2d 1355

#### Commonwealth v. Gray, Appellant.

Submitted September 15, 1978.

John W. Packel, Assistant Public Defender, Chief, Appeals Division, for appellant; Robert B. Lawler, Assistant District Attorney, Chief, Appeals Division, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before CERCONE, SPAETH and LIPEZ, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

CERCONE, P. J., concurred in the result.
No. 11-9476.

#### Gweh *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.