alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
32.2





Certification
of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, A.
Cameron Richardson, Chief Financial Officer of Aurora Gold Corporation (the
“Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my knowledge:





1.
            The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March
      31, 2008 which this certification accompanies 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.








Date:
            May 30,
      2008
            BY:
            /s/ A. Cameron
      RichardsonA.
      Cameron RichardsonChief
      Financial Officer











This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, 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.
No. P68/513.

protests 62/5555 and 62/18503 (San Francisco).

#### Ohio Radio Manufacturing Co. and Harper, Robinson & Co. *v.*United States,

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of meters similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *G. L. Electronics, Inc., Arrow Sales, Inc.*(49 CCPA 111, C.A.D. 804), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

December 6, 1965

No. 69662.

#### Person & Weidhorn *v.*United States,

protests 64/4543, 64/8799, and 64/19868 (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of waterproof cotton cloth similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Amity Fabrics, Inc.*v. *United States*(51 Cust. Ct. 97, C.D. 2416), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>   1

                                  EXHIBIT 11


<TABLE>
                                        STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE LOSS
<CAPTION>

                                              Three Months        Three Months            Six Months            Six Months
                                                  Ended               Ended                  Ended                Ended
                                           September 30, 1996   September 30, 1995     September 30, 1996   September 30, 1995
                                           ------------------   ------------------     ------------------   ------------------

<S>                                           <C>                   <C>                   <C>                 <C>
Net loss                                      $(4,789,384)          $(2,960,194)          $(9,733,375)        $(5,429,334)
                                              ===========           ===========           ===========         ===========

Calculation of shares outstanding:

   Weighted average common shares
     outstanding used in calculating net
     loss per share in accordance with
     generally accepted accounting
     principles                                18,416,041            13,726,702            17,873,780          13,650,851
                                              -----------           -----------           -----------         -----------
 
     Total                                     18,416,041            13,726,702            17,873,780          13,650,851
                                              ===========           ===========           ===========         ===========

Net loss per share                                 $(0.26)               $(0.22)               $(0.54)             $(0.40)
                                                   ======                ======                ======              ======
</TABLE>
From: nzahnow@wi.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:23:54 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,

Joy zahnow

Fredonia, WI 53021
No. 60186.

protests 223408-K/5185, etc. (Chicago).

#### J. E. Bernard & Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

*329Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF NOVEMBER 30, 1997 AND
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE AND SIX MONTH PERIODS ENDING
NOVEMBER 30, 1996 AND 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                         575,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,563,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   300,000
<INVENTORY>                                  9,671,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,073,000
<PP&E>                                       6,374,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,987,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,424,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,704,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,717,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,424,000
<SALES>                                     20,820,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,820,000
<CGS>                                       13,437,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,437,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,826,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,175,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,618,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,618,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,618,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.24)
        

</TABLE>
Before the Second Division,

November 14, 1963

No. 68099.

#### Henry Wedemeyer, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/9155 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of vacuum brushes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Bruce Duncan Company, a/c Sims-Worms*v. *United, States*(45 Cust. Ct. 85, C.D. 2202), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-16-00364- CV
J. E. and D. C. a/k/a D. W., Appellan ts

v. Texas Depart m ent of Fam ily and P rote ctive Service s, Appellee
F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F H AY S CO UNTY, 428 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 201 5-1 454, H ONO RAB LE WI LLIAM R. H ENRY, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellants J .E. and D.C. a/k/a D.W., have filed an unopposed motion to dismiss their appea l of the district court’s order terminating their pare ntal rig hts. We g rant appellants’ motion and dismiss the appe al. 1

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Puryear , Pemberton, and F ield Dismissed on Appellants’ Motion Filed: Jul y

29, 2016

SeeTex. R. App. P . 42.1(a) (1). 1
REICH & TANG ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC
                                600 Fifth Avenue
                             New York, NY 10020-2302



                                    June 2, 2008



VIA EDGAR


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W., Judiciary Plaza
Washington, D.C. 20549


z        Re:      New Jersey Daily Municipal Income Fund, Inc.
                  File Nos. 33-36317; 811-6152; CIK: 0000866782

Ladies and Gentlemen:

              On behalf of New Jersey Daily Municipal Income Fund, Inc. (the
"Registrant") and pursuant to Rule 497(j) under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the "Securities Act"), I hereby certify that (i) the prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information for the Registrant, that would have been
filed pursuant to Rule 497(c) under the Securities Act would not have differed
from that contained in Post-Effective Amendment No. 21 to Registrant's
Registration Statement on Form N-1A ("the Amendment"), constituting the most
recent amendment to this Registration Statement; and (ii) the text of the
Amendment was filed electronically with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 30, 2008.

     If you have any questions or comments regarding this filing, please call
Lisette Rivera at (212) 830-5432.



                                    Very truly yours,



                                    New Jersey Daily Municipal Income Fund, Inc.

                                    /s/Christine Manna
                                    ------------------
                                    By: Christine Manna
                                        Secretary
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:35:47 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,

M. Elaine Corne

Littleton, CO 80127
From: bobjann@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:49:09 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,

Robert Jann

Washington Crossing, PA 18977
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                            5242
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  1790
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      42876
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           20432
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             20754
<LOANS>                                         165581
<ALLOWANCE>                                       1709
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  242160
<DEPOSITS>                                      188888
<SHORT-TERM>                                       900
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               1456
<LONG-TERM>                                      27998
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           629
<OTHER-SE>                                       22289
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  242160
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   6846
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 1894
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    89
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  8829
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                3449
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                4247
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             4582
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      229
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (7)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   3229
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1677
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        1677
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1330
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.37
<LOANS-NON>                                        729
<LOANS-PAST>                                       771
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   2114
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  1593
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      145
<RECOVERIES>                                        32
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 1709
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              1709
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            725
        

</TABLE>
February 10, 1960

No. 63802.

Suit 4956.

#### United States *v.*The Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., a/c United China & Glass Company et al.

C.D. 1959 affirmed July 10, 1959. C.A.D. 719.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-05-00640- CR Sandr a Ha r ding , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee
F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY , 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. B- 99- 0076 -S, H ONO RAB LE THO MAS J. GO SSETT, JUDGE PRESI DING

ME MO R

A ND UMO PI N I O N Ap p el l ant’s motion to dism iss this appea l is gra nted. SeeT e x. R. Ap p . P. 42.2(a) . The a ppeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________ W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief Justice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: Nove mber 3, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh
From: k-bjorklund@bethel.edu

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:09:58 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,

Kae Bjorklund

Saint Paul, MN 55126
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Bayfield Low Income Housing Limited
      Partnership (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      “Report”), I, Gary L. Maddock, Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner of
      the Partnership, 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
                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 result of operations of the
                Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.





*/s/* Gary
      L. Maddock


Principal
      Executive Officer
Before the Second Division,

November 4, 1968

No. P68/474.

protest 64/3941 (New York).

#### Novelty Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with, stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of so-called “miniature hunting knives” similar in all material respects to those the subject of *M. Pressner & Co.*v. *United States*(56 Cust. Ct. 489, C.D. 2686), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.