alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 8-1**

 

**LIST OF MATERIAL SUBSIDIARIES**

 

Canagold carries on its business in large part through its subsidiaries. Canagold has a number of direct or indirect wholly or majority owned subsidiaries as follows:

 

New Polaris Gold Mines Ltd. (“New Polaris”) (formerly Golden Angus Mines Ltd. - name change effective April 21, 1997) is a corporation formed through the amalgamation of 2820684 Canada Inc. (“2820684”), a former wholly‐owned subsidiary of Canagold incorporated under the Canada Business Corporation Act on May 13, 1992, and Suntac Minerals Inc. Canagold owns 100% of the issued and outstanding shares.

 

AIM U.S. Holdings Corp. is a corporation duly incorporated in the State of Nevada, USA, on March 14, 2017. Canagold owns 100% of its issued and outstanding shares.

 

American Innovative Minerals, LLC (“AIM”) is a limited liability company existing pursuant to the laws of Nevada, USA, on January 20, 2011. Canagold owns 100% membership interest in AIM.
#### H. Allen Wagener, Respondent, *v.*The Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, Appellant.

(Submitted May 9, 1907;

decided May 28, 1907.)

*Wagener*v. *Fidelity & Casualty Co.,*114 App. Div. 916, affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered July 18, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover upon a policy of accident insurance.

*641
      *John Gillette*for appellant.

*M. A. I.,eary*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Gray, O’Brien, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ. Absent: Cullen, Ch. J.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20463

MEMORANDUM

TO:

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

The Commission 

Office of the Commission Secretary 

September 9, 2022

AO 2022-19 (Maggie for NH) Requestor Comment on Draft A

The following is a requestor comment on AO 2022-19 

(Maggie for NH) Draft A. This matter will be discussed 

on the Open Meeting of September 15, 2022.

Attachment 
September 8, 2022

BY ELECTRONIC MAIL DELIVERY

The Honorable Allen Dickerson, Chair

Federal Election Commission

1050 First Street NE

Washington, DC 20463 

Re: Comments Regarding Advisory Opinion 2022-19 Draft A

Dear Chair Dickerson:

We submit these comments on behalf of Maggie for NH (the “Committee”) regarding Draft A of 

Advisory Opinion 2022-19. The Committee supports the conclusion reached by the Office of 

General Counsel in Draft A, which is consistent with the plain text and purpose of 11 C.F.R. § 

102.17.

However, Draft A does not address the related question of whether the costs of the text messages 

described in the August 9, 2022 advisory opinion request (the “AOR”) would constitute in-kind 

contributions to the other committees listed on the Committee’s “split-it” fundraising pages. As 

described in Draft A, the Committee will send the text messages without the involvement of the 

other political committees listed on the split-it pages. However, due to coordination on other, 

completely separate communications, it is possible that the Committee will be in the possession 

of material, nonpublic information regarding the projects, plans, activities or needs of one of the

political committees that is relevant to the text messages. 

Based on Commission precedent, as described in the AOR, the text messages in question do not 

meet the definition of “public communications,” and therefore also do not meet the definition of 

coordinated communications.1 And the Commission has previously determined that paid 

communications which do not meet the definition of coordinated communications cannot 

constitute in-kind contributions.2

For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Commission confirm the short code text 

messages described in the AOR are not public communications, and therefore under the Act and 

Commission regulations would not constitute in-kind contributions to the other committees listed 

on the Committee’s “split-it” fundraising pages.

1 See AOR at 6-7. 2 Id. at 7.
September 8, 2022

Page 2

2

Very truly yours,

Jacquelyn Lopez

Varoon Modak

Counsel to Maggie for NH
#### § 1260.40 What types of referrals will the NDC process?

The NDC processes referrals of both Federal records and Presidential records. Referrals identified in accessioned Federal records will be processed by the Interagency Referral Center (IRC); referrals identified in records maintained by the Presidential Libraries will be processed by the Remote Archives Capture (RAC) Project. (The RAC Project is a collaborative program to facilitate the declassification review of classified records in the Presidential Libraries in accordance with section 3.3 of the Order. In this project, classified Presidential records at the various Presidential Libraries are scanned and brought to the Washington, DC, metropolitan area in electronic form for review by equity-holding agencies.)
Exhibit 13.1



SECTION 906 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 Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
January 2, 2005 (the Report) of Koninklijke Ahold N.V. (the Company) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Anders C. Moberg, President, Chief Executive
Officer and Member of the Corporate Executive Board of the Company, certify, that, to my knowledge:



|(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: June 24, 2005



|    |  |        |  |                                                                               
|--- |  | ------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |  |       
|By: |  |        |  | /s/ Anders C. Moberg                                                          
|    |  | Name:  |  | Anders C. Moberg                                                              
|    |  | Title: |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Member of the Corporate Executive Board



A signed original of this written
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.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7391
CLIFTON THOMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-97-1299-AM) Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 24, 1998 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clifton Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Thompson v. Virginia , No. CA-97-1299-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 3, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION UNDER EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14 OR 15d-14**
     I, John F. Garber, certify that:
            1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 ofTejas Incorporated;
            2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
            3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
            4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
            5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.     Date:March 31, 2005 /s/ John F. Garber       John F. Garber   Chief Financial Officer  
1
§ 665.934 Regulated activities. ( a ) Commercial fishing is prohibited in the Monument.
( b ) Non-commercial fishing is prohibited in the Monument, except under permit and pursuant to the procedures and criteria established in § 665.935 or pursuant to § 665.934(d).
( c ) Commercial fishing outside the Monument and non-commercial fishing within the Monument during the same trip is prohibited.
( d ) Non-commercial fishing is prohibited within 12 nm of emergent land within the Monument, unless authorized by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, in consultation with NMFS and the Council. For the purposes of this subsection, consultation means that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service will consult with NMFS, which in turn will consult with the Council.
[78 FR 33003, June 3, 2013, as amended at 78 FR 39583, July 2, 2013]
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAY 9 2000

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ROSS CLINGER,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 99-1432

(D.C. No. 95-WY-2058-WD)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY , McKAY , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

This appeal arises from the government’s foreclosure and sale of certain

property in satisfaction of a tax lien. The parties are aware of the facts involved
-2-

in this case, and we need not repeat them here. Plaintiff appeals from the district

court’s denial of his postjudgment motions filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b),

in which he asked the district court to set aside the sale and its judgment.

We review the district court’s denial of the Rule 60(b) motions for an abuse

of discretion, mindful that relief under Rule 60(b) is extraordinary and reserved

for only exceptional circumstances. See Stubblefield v. Windsor Capital Group ,

74 F.3d 990, 994 (10th Cir. 1996). We have reviewed the record in this case, and

we conclude that the district court was entirely within its discretion to deny

plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motions for postjudgment relief.

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
§ 28.12 Development standards. No use allowable under § 28.10 may be developed, constructed, altered, or conducted unless it complies with the following: ( a ) A single-family home is the only type of development permitted in a residential district defined by a local zoning authority.
( b ) Commercial or industrial development is limited to commercial or business districts defined by a zoning authority within the Community Development District. Such development must provide a service to Fire Island and will not be likely to cause significant harm to the natural resources of the Seashore.
( c ) Minimum lot size is 4,000 square feet. A subdivision must comply with the subdivision requirements of the applicable zoning authority and may not result in development of any lot which is less than 4,000 feet.
( d ) Maximum lot occupancy for all development may not exceed 35 percent of the lot. Lot occupancy is calculated to include all buildings and accessory structures on the property and any extension of the upper floors beyond the developed area on the ground level.
( e ) Lot occupancy of all privately-held improved property in the Seashore District is limited to 35 percent of the square footage of a lot that is less than 7,500 square feet, and to 2,625 square feet for a lot 7,500 square feet or greater. Lot occupancy is calculated to include all buildings and accessory structures on the property and any extension of the upper floors beyond the developed area of the ground.
( f ) No building or accessory structure may be erected to a height in excess of 28 feet as measured from the average existing ground elevation or the minimum elevation necessary to meet the prerequisites for Federal flood insurance as determined by the National Flood Insurance Program/FEMA shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Fire Island communities.
( g ) A swimming pool is an allowable accessory structure and is calculated in measuring lot occupancy.
( h ) No sign may be self-illuminated.
( i ) A zoning authority shall have in effect limitations, requirements, or restrictions on the burning of cover and trash, excavation, displacement or removal of sand or vegetation, and the dumping, storing, or piling of refuse materials, equipment or other unsightly objects which would pose safety hazards and/or detract from the natural or cultural scene.
( j ) A zoning authority shall have in place ordinances to lessen the potential for flood and related erosion and property losses consistent with the Federal Insurance Administration's National Flood Insurance Program criteria for “Land Management and Use,” as set forth in 24 CFR part 1910, subpart A, as it may from time to time be amended.
§ 251.64 Reauthorization of existing uses. ( a ) Upon expiration of a permit or easement issued under § 251.53(e), a powerline facility permit issued to a federal entity or a powerline facility easement issued under § 251.53(l)(4), or a private road easement or a forest road easement issued under § 251.53(l)(6), the authorized officer shall issue a new special use authorization for the authorized use and occupancy, provided the use and occupancy authorized by the existing authorization are consistent with the applicable land management plan and applicable laws and regulations; the authorized activities and improvements are still being conducted or used for the purposes previously authorized; and the holder is in compliance with all the terms of the existing authorization.
( b ) A priority use outfitting and guiding permit is subject to renewal without competition as provided in accordance with applicable Forest Service directives.
( c ) Issuance of a new special use authorization upon expiration of any other type of special use authorization is at the sole discretion of the authorized officer, subject to the same conditions in paragraph (a) of this section.
( d ) In reauthorizing existing uses under paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section, the authorized officer may modify the terms of the authorization to reflect any new requirements imposed by current Federal and State land use plans, laws, regulations, or other management decisions. Appropriate environmental analysis must accompany the decision to reauthorize the special use.
[88 FR 84709, Dec. 6, 2023]
# EUR-Lex - 12006E075 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006E075

**Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated version) - Part Three - Community policies - TITLE V - Transport - Article 75 **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0071 - 0072 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0062 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0206 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0027 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available) *

Article 75

1. In the case of transport within the Community, discrimination which takes the form of carriers charging different rates and imposing different conditions for the carriage of the same goods over the same transport links on grounds of the country of origin or of destination of the goods in question shall be abolished.

2. Paragraph 1 shall not prevent the Council from adopting other measures pursuant to Article 71(1).

3. The Council shall, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, lay down rules for implementing the provisions of paragraph 1.

The Council may in particular lay down the provisions needed to enable the institutions of the Community to secure compliance with the rule laid down in paragraph 1 and to ensure that users benefit from it to the full.

4. The Commission shall, acting on its own initiative or on application by a Member State, investigate any cases of discrimination falling within paragraph 1 and, after consulting any Member State concerned, shall take the necessary decisions within the framework of the rules laid down in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3.

--------------------------------------------------
§ 242.6 Licenses, permits, harvest tickets, tags, and reports. ( a ) If you wish to take fish and wildlife on public lands for subsistence uses, you must be an eligible rural Alaska resident and: ( 1 ) Possess the pertinent valid Alaska resident hunting and trapping licenses (no license required to take fish or shellfish, but you must be an Alaska resident) unless Federal licenses are required or unless otherwise provided for in subpart D of this part;
( 2 ) Possess and comply with the provisions of any pertinent Federal permits (Federal Subsistence Registration Permit or Federal Designated Harvester Permit) required by subpart D of this part; and
( 3 ) Possess and comply with the provisions of any pertinent permits, harvest tickets, or tags required by the State unless any of these documents or individual provisions in them are superseded by the requirements in subpart D of this part.
( b ) In order to receive a Federal Subsistence Registration Permit or Federal Designated Harvester Permit or designate someone to harvest fish or wildlife for you under a Federal Designated Harvester Permit, you must be old enough to reasonably harvest that species yourself (or under the guidance of an adult).
( c ) If you have been awarded a permit to take fish and wildlife, you must have that permit in your possession during the taking and must comply with all requirements of the permit and the regulations in this section pertaining to validation and reporting and to regulations in subpart D of this part pertaining to methods and means, possession and transportation, and utilization. Upon the request of a State or Federal law enforcement agent, you must also produce any licenses, permits, harvest tickets, tags, or other documents required by this section. If you are engaged in taking fish and wildlife under the regulations in this part, you must allow State or Federal law enforcement agents to inspect any apparatus designed to be used, or capable of being used to take fish or wildlife, or any fish or wildlife in your possession.
( d ) You must validate the harvest tickets, tags, permits, or other required documents before removing your kill from the harvest site. You must also comply with all reporting provisions as set forth in subpart D of this part.
( e ) If you take fish and wildlife under a community harvest system, you must report the harvest activity in accordance with regulations specified for that community in subpart D of this part, and as required by any applicable permit conditions. Individuals may be responsible for particular reporting requirements in the conditions permitting a specific community's harvest. Failure to comply with these conditions is a violation of the regulations in this part. Community harvests are reviewed annually under the regulations in subpart D of this part.
( f ) You may not make a fraudulent application for Federal or State licenses, permits, harvest tickets or tags or intentionally file an incorrect harvest report.
[67 FR 30563, May 7, 2002, as amended at 68 FR 7704, Feb. 18, 2003]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-11409 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LESLIDAWN CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:95-CR-183-H

- - - - - - - - - - July 28, 1997 Before JOLLY, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Leslidawn Clark appeals the district court’s denial of her postjudgment motion challenging the validity of her convictions for conspiracy and violations of federal income tax laws on the ground that the district court lacked jurisdiction to try her for those offenses. Clark’s argument is facially frivolous. See United States v. Masat , 948 F.2d 923, 934 (5th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. Howard v. King , 707 F.2dNo. 96-11409 - 2 - 215, 219- 20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. We warn Clark that any additional frivolous appeals filed by her or on her behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Clark is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.