alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 of Western Ridge Minerals, Inc (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2010 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I,  Marco Bastidas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.            The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.

 

**** 

This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

 

----
#### Guei Ming ZHANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-73628.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2005.*

Decided July 22, 2005.

*548Scott K. Kawamura, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Guei Ming Zhang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her motion to reopen in absentia exclusion proceedings. Because the transitional rules apply, *Kalaw v. INS,*133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997), we have jurisdiction pursuant to former 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, *Garcia v. INS,*222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam), and we review due process claims de novo, *Colmenar v. INS,*210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000). Because the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion, we review the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination. *See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Zhang’s motion to reopen because notice of the deportation hearing was sent to and received by Zhang’s attorney of record. *See Garcia,*222 F.3d at 1209 (holding that notice to the attorney of record constitutes notice to the petitioner) (internal quotation omitted).

Zhang’s contention that the BIA’s streamlining decision violated his right to due process is foreclosed by *Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 850-51 (9th Cir.2003).

We lack jurisdiction to review Zhang’s challenge to the IJ’s failure to reopen pursuant to his discretionary authority. *See Ekimian v. INS,*303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

All remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

*549PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
(R.D. 11420)

#### Parsons & Whittemore, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided December 12, 1967)

*Sharp, Solter & Hutchison*for the plaintiff.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*800Rao, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C., 160, et seq.)

2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to hi the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

5. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as indicated in said schedule. As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser. In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 76-5180.

#### Spencer *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 248 

Honoring the contributions of patient participants in clinical trials. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 15, 2007 

Mr. BOUCHER (for himself and Mr. CANNON) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the contributions of patient participants in clinical 

trials. 

Whereas clinical trials of new medicines and vaccines are vital 

to advancing science and conquering disease; 

Whereas a clinical trial is a scientific test of the effectiveness 

and safety of a new medicine or vaccine with the consent 

of human volunteers, providing invaluable information to 

medical researchers and physicians; 

Whereas over 2,300,000 people enable medical advances by 

actively participating in nearly 80,000 clinical trials every 

year in the United States; 

Whereas participants join clinical trials in order to help find 

better ways to prevent, detect, diagnose, or treat illnesses 

and to improve medicines; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HRES 248 IH 

Whereas every patient using a medicine greatly benefits from 

essential knowledge of safety and effectiveness possible 

only through the contribution of clinical trial volunteers; 

Whereas clinical trial volunteers are credited with helping to 

develop the treatments that have cut the death rate of 

heart disease by 50 percent; 

Whereas 20 percent of all participants in trials of new medicines are over the age of 65, creating invaluable knowledge about the unique needs of seniors; 

Whereas over 60 percent of children with cancer are enrolled 

in clinical trials, offering hope to children and their families across America; 

Whereas 41 percent of eligible AIDS patients participate in 

cooperative studies, enabling continued progress in the effort to defeat this disease; 

Whereas 80 percent of all eligible lung cancer patients are 

enrolled in a clinical trial, allowing new generations of 

medicines to advance against a disease that has not previously had effective treatments; 

Whereas the contributions of clinical trial participants have 

led to the discovery of new treatments and cures and an 

improved quality of life for all; and 

Whereas clinical trial volunteers are needed now more than 

ever to enable advances against conditions like Alzheimer’s, which will exact an incalculable human and economic cost as baby boomers become seniors unless effective and safe new treatments are developed: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•HRES 248 IH 

1 (1) honors and recognizes the sacrifice, commit2 ment, and contributions of clinical trial participants; 

3 and 

4 (2) encourages everyone to learn about the im5 portance of clinical trials and the important role of 

6 trial participants. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 14, 2024

NO. 03-22-00466-CV

Bryce Carpenter, Appellant

v.

Daspit Law Firm, PLLC and Robert Morse, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND SMITH

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. Having reviewed the 

record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial 

court’s denial. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s denial. The appellant shall pay all 

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
 2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.
 By:
    
    /s/ Matthew A. JonesName: Matthew A. JonesTitle:   Chief Financial Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate: March 30, 2010
|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Coupon | Interest | Maturity | Callable | Survivor's Option | Price | CUSIP |   |
| 2.000% | Semi-Annual(†††) | 6/15/2019 | 12/15/2017 * | Yes § | 100.00 | 14912HSX9 |   |

|                         |
|-------------------------|
|                         |  |  |
| (†††) | First Payment date 6/15/2017 |   |
|                    |   |
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4079

_____________________________

ASA M. STEWART,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

January 16, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Asa M. Stewart, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for 

Appellee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the PanAmSat
Form 10-Q for the quarterly  period ended March 31, 1998 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          48,569
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,297
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,031)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               284,259
<PP&E>                                       3,147,782
<DEPRECIATION>                                (475,797)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,795,660
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           93,658
<BONDS>                                        786,660
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,491
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,595,048
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,795,660
<SALES>                                        193,025
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               193,025
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  108,149
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,208
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 62,668
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,320
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             35,348
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    35,348
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $ .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $ .24
        


</TABLE>
From: cwbc@zoomtown.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:59:48 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Chris Coldiron

Batavia, OH 45103
(R.D. 11498)

#### J. Gerber & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 708705; 754752.

*794(Decided March 7, 1968)

*Siegel, Mandell*<G *Davidson*for the plantiff.

*Edwin L. Weisl, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Watson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as to the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated above:

> That on the dates of exportation thereof to the United States, the market values or the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the appraised values, less the buying commission, as stated on the invoices.

> That all of the merchandise covered by both appeals for reappraisement, the subject of this stipulation, was entered subsequent to February 27, 1958, and none of the merchandise is identified in the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury, T.D. 54521.

> That the appeals for reappraisement enumerated above may be deemed submitted upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value in each case was the appraised value, less the buying commission, as stated on the invoice.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
From: cliff18hc@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:53:21 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Cliff Chandler

Winchester, VA 22602
Exhibit 99.7

CONSENT OF PASCAL HAMELIN

I, Pascal Hamelin,
hereby consent to the references to, and the use of any information derived from, the technical report titled “Technical
Report on the Bachelor Lake Gold Project Prepared for Metanor Resources” dated April 26, 2011 (the “Report”)
in the annual report on Form 40-F of Sandstorm Gold Ltd. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 and any amendments
thereto (the “Annual Report”) being filed with United States Securities and Exchange Commission, which Annual Report
incorporates by reference and attaches as an exhibit the Sandstorm Gold Ltd. Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31,
2014 which refers to information contained in the Report.

I also consent to
the use of my name, including as an expert or “qualified person,” in connection with the Annual Report.

Date: March 17, 2015



| | /s/ Pascal Hamelin                                       
| | ---------------------------------------------------------
| | Name:  Pascal Hamelin, P. Eng.                           
| | Title: Vice President, Operations, Metanor Resources Inc.



|
|
From: jawiemeyer@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:47:18 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

julie wiemeyer

Glendale, AZ 85308
#### Constancia Rowe et al., Appellants, v City of New York, Defendant, and New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 974]

—Appeal by the plaintiffs from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated June 6, 1994.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Hutcherson at the Supreme Court. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.
No. 64491.

#### Teigh, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/28643 (New York).

*253Opinion by

Olivee, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fiber or hemp articles similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 63662, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.