alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 9,532.

#### The MIDAS.

[6 Ben. 173.] *1*

District Court, E. D. New York.

July. 1872.

Collision — Vessel at Anchor — Ice—Foul Anchor.

The brig N., whi.e lying at anchor in the port of New York, was run into by the bark M., which drifted down upon her with the tide in the night. The defence set up by the bark was, that she was forced from her own anchor by an irresistible field of ice brought down on her by the tide. As to the presence of any such field of ice, there was a conflict of evidence; but the evidence showed that the port anchor of the bark had no stock, and that the chain of the starboard anchor was fouled when it was got up on the morning after the collision. *Held,,*that, on the evidence, the bark had failed to show that the drifting was an inevitable accident.

In admiralty.

J. K. Hill, for libellant

Beebe, Donohue & Cooke, for claimant.

1

 [Reported by Robert D. Benedict, Esq., and here reiiriuted by permission.]

BENEDICT, District Judge.

This is an action to recover of the bark Midas the damages caused by that vessel drifting afoul of the *273brig Napier, at uiglit, while the latter lay at anchor in this harbor. The defence is that the Midas was carried from her moorings by a large field of ice, which caused her to drag her anchor. The presence of any such field of ice, as is sworn to by the claimant’s witnesses, or of any ice that should cause a vessel to break away, is wholly denied by several witnesses. The occurrence, as described by the claimant’s witnesses, appears to my mind somewhat improbable, but, of course, not impossible. The drifting of the vessel may, however, be accounted for by the fact that the chain of the bark had become wound around the stock and fluke of her anchor, so as to render it unable to bite the ground sufficiently to hold her, when the tide ran ebb. It is proved, and not disputed, that her starboard anchor was found in this condition when it came up next morning, and that this would account for her dragging, and it is also proved and not disputed that her port anchor had no stock at all, ana was not therefore an anchor calculated to hold when dropped. In the presence of such proofs, as to the condition of the ground tackle of the bark, and of the evidence in the case casting doubt upon the statement that a large field of ice caused the bark to drift, I must hold that the bark has failed to show that the accident was caused by the overwhelming power of ice, which could not be successfully resisted.

There will accordingly be a decree for the libellant, with an order of reference to ascertain the amount.
From: g.arkema@mchsi.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:18:35 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,

Glen Arkema

Britt, IA 50423
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JONATHAN JOEL PUPPO,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 548 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Exhibit 13.2









Certification of Principal
Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Thomas Mika, the Chief Financial Officer of POET Technologies Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certify, that, to my knowledge:



1. The Annual Report on Form 20-F
for the year ended 2017 (the "Report") of the Company 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.



The foregoing certification is provided solely for
purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended to be used or relied
upon for any other purpose.







|Date: April 27, 2018
|--------------------
|                    
|                    
|/s/ Thomas Mika     
|Name:               
|Title:
Exhibit 4.5

NOTATION OF GUARANTEE

For value received, Forbes Energy Services Ltd. (the New Parent) has
unconditionally guaranteed, to the extent set forth in and subject to the provisions of that certain Indenture dated as of February 12, 2008 (the Indenture), among Forbes Energy Services LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Forbes Energy Capital Inc., a Delaware corporation (collectively, the Issuers), the Guarantors party thereto (the Guarantors) and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee (the
Trustee), and that certain Supplemental Indenture dated as of May 29, 2008, among the New Parent, the Issuers, the Guarantors and the Trustee, (a) the due and punctual payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and
interest on, the Notes, whether at maturity, by acceleration, redemption or otherwise, the due and punctual payment of interest on overdue principal of and interest on the Notes, if any, if lawful, and the due and punctual performance of all other
obligations of the Company to the Holders or the Trustee all in accordance with the terms of the Indenture and (b) in case of any extension of time of payment or renewal of any Notes or any of such other obligations, that the same will be
promptly paid in full when due or performed in accordance with the terms of the extension or renewal, whether at stated maturity, by acceleration or otherwise. The obligations of the Guarantors to the Holders of Notes and to the Trustee pursuant to
the Guarantee and the Indenture, and the limitations thereon, are expressly set forth in Article 11 of the Indenture and reference is hereby made to the Indenture for the precise terms of the Guarantee.

Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings given to them in the Indenture.



FORBES ENERGY SERVICES LTD., as a GuarantorBy:

/s/ L. Melvin CooperName:

L. Melvin CooperTitle:

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
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. 03-16-00755- CV In re Ar thur J. “AJ” Law rence ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY M E M O R AN D U M O P I N I O N Relator’s amended pe tition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(a) .

__________________________________________ J eff Rose, Chief J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Goodwin a nd Bour land Filed: De cembe r 30, 2016
**Exhibit 99.5**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the use of our reportsdated March 10, 2014 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Sandstorm Gold Ltd. (“Sandstorm”) and theeffectiveness of Sandstorm’s internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 40-Fof Sandstorm for the year ended December 31, 2013.

 

| /s/ Deloitte LLP      |   |
|-----------------------|--------|
|                  |   |
| Chartered Accountants |   |
| Vancouver, Canada     |   |
| March 10, 2014        |   |

 

1
Before the First Division,

March 3, 1959

No. 62795.

#### Esso Standard Oil Company *v.*United States,

protest 322494-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

When the case was called for trial, it appeared that plaintiff’s claim was limited to the bottom sediment and water contained in the importation in excess of 1 percent. From the documents received in evidence, it appeared that the percentage of bottom sediment and water contained in the importation was 1.6 percent. Upon the record as made, the claim was sustained as to the 0.6 percent of bottom sediment and water contained in the shipment in excess of that usually found in such merchandise upon importation.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 659 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 116
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 659

                          [Report No. 110-332]

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 18, 2007

    Mr. Arcuri, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any 
resolution reported on the legislative day of September 19, 2007, 
providing for consideration of a bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, 
and Cosmetic Act to revise and extend the user-fee programs for 
prescription drugs and for medical devices, to enhance the postmarket 
authorities of the Food and Drug Administration with respect to the 
safety of drugs, and for other purposes.
                                                 House Calendar No. 116

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 659

                          [Report No. 110-332]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
                                 Rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 18, 2007

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
ORDER TO PROCEED WITH 

HEARING BY VIDEO OR TELEPHONE

(U.S. v. Morrison, CR05-125-RSL & CR05-174-RSL) - 1 

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

(206) 553-1100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. LASNIK 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DENNIS JAY MORRISON, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 

MOTION TO PROCEED WITH 

HEARING BY VIDEO OR 

TELEPHONE 

THE COURT has considered Mr. Morrison’s unopposed motion to proceed with 

a supervised release revocation hearing by video or telephone, and the record. 

THE COURT FINDS that a video or telephonic hearing should take place as 

soon as practical because further delays in this case would cause “serious harm to the 

interests of justice.” See W.D. Wash. Gen. Ord. No. 04-20 (Mar. 30, 2020); see also 

W.D. Wash. Gen. Ord. Nos. 14-21, 16-21.

THE COURT ORDERS that a video (or telephone if video is unavailable) 

supervised release revocation hearing be scheduled on June 15, 2023, at 10:30 a.m. 

DONE this 25th day of May 2023. _________________________________ ROBERT S. LASNIK 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Presented by: 

s/ Vanessa Pai-Thompson 

Assistant Federal Public Defender

Attorney for Dennis Jay Morrison 

Nos. CR05-125RSL

 CR05-174RSL

Case 2:05-cr-00174-RSL Document 43 Filed 05/25/23 Page 1 of 1
From: richperk@mac.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:33:24 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,

Richard Perkins

Baton Rouge, LA 70817
Exhibit 32.1  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   I, Matthew Markin, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  (1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K of Stealth Resources Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of § 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.  Date:    August 25, 2011   /s/ Matthew Markin Matthew Markin, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
From: philipbergeron@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:34:41 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,

Philip Bergeron

Walker, LA 70785
`[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 63 Introduced in House (IH)]







110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 63

   Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to ensure that 
Members have a reasonable amount of time to read legislation that will 
                             be voted upon.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 12, 2007

   Mr. Paul (for himself and Mr. Bartlett of Maryland) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
   Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to ensure that 
Members have a reasonable amount of time to read legislation that will 
                             be voted upon.

    Resolved, That (a) the Rules of the House of Representatives are 
amended by adding at the end the following new rule:

                              ``rule xxix

                ``time to read legislation before voting

    ``1. Notwithstanding any provision of these rules, no bill, joint 
resolution, conference report, or amendment between the Houses shall be 
voted on by the House unless the text of that measure has been 
available to all Members and their staffs in both printed and 
electronic format for at least 10 days and any manager's amendment or 
other amendment which makes substantive changes to the legislation has 
been made available in both printed and electronic versions for at 
least 72 hours before the scheduled vote on such legislation.
    ``2. Clause 1 shall not apply to--
            ``(1) the intelligence authorization bill, appropriations, 
        or other legislation containing classified information, or 
        conference report thereon, if Members have at least 7 days to 
        study the contents of such measure; and
            ``(2) congressional declarations of war or authorization of 
        military force to respond to attacks on the United States.
    ``3. (a) Any Member who votes for any measure that has been placed 
before the House in violation of this rule shall be deemed to have 
violated House ethics rules and be subject to censure.
    ``(b) Notwithstanding any provision of these rules, any citizen who 
is eligible to vote and who is not an employee of the executive or 
judicial branch of the Government may petition the Committee on 
Standards and Official Conduct to investigate allegations that a Member 
voted for any measure that violated this rule.''.
    (b) Clause 6(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by striking the period at the end of 
subparagraph (2) and inserting ``; or'' and by adding at the end the 
following new subparagraph:
            ``(3) a rule or order that would waive the provisions of 
        rule XXIX.''.`
From: caddlelack@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:41:23 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,

melissa norman

Rangely, CO 81648