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

Exhibit 15

Terence Wesley Hodson 
2350  1177 W. Hastings St. 
Vancouver, BC
V6E 2K3 e-mail address:
     thodson@bajamining.comPhone (business hrs):
     (604) 685-2323
   CONSENT OF AUTHOR **** TO:
     United States Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC)
  I, Terence Wesley Hodson, P.Geo. do hereby consent to the filing, with the regulatory authorities referred to above, of the technical report titled, Technical Report Update,of the Boleo Project located in Santa Rosalia, Baja California Sur, Mexico and dated March 2, 2010 (the Technical Report) and any extracts from or a summary of the Technical Report in the Annual Report on Form 40-F, and the documents incorporated therein by reference, for Baja Mining Corp. and in the Registration Statement on Form F-10 (333-165352) and to the use of my name therein. In addition, I do hereby consent that any extracts from, or a summary of, the Technical Report may be filed with any stock exchange, any other regulatory authority and any publication by them for regulatory purposes, including electronic publication in the publicly accessible company files on their websites. Dated this 29thday of March, 2010  /s/Terence HodsonTerence Wesley Hodson


---
No. 63439.

protest 59/15117(A) (New York).

#### Lacy Falk *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic filaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Empire Brushes, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 2078), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THIRD QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         163,257
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  229,218
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    136,320
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               561,487
<PP&E>                                       3,907,211
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,387,588
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,165,592
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          437,351
<BONDS>                                        868,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       100,035
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,621,410
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,165,592
<SALES>                                      1,560,723
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,566,572
<CGS>                                          586,763
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,625,353
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               216,523
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,361
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (292,665)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (292,665)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (292,665)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.03)<F1>
<FN>
<F1> See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for Fiscal Year ended
     March 31, 1996 - NOTE 2. - Loss Per Common Share.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
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 Annual Report of Stonecrest One, Inc., (the “Company”), on Form 10-K/A for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C.§ 1350), George C. Critz, III, the President, principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the Company, hereby certifies that, to the best of my knowledge:





1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and





2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Periodic Report.





Date: June 16, 2010
By:
/s/ George C. Critz, IIIGeorge C. Critz, III

President (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)





*   This certification accompanies the Report to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲

▲ ▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

08/04

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 04 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.90 N 76.65 W Meters AGL
# L_2006202EN.01S00201.xml

| 25.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 202/s2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 202/s2

---

All amounts in this budget document are expressed in euro unless otherwise indicated.

---
#### Jose Maria SALVADOR-REYES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-60591

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 17, 2005.

Bruce D. Nestor, DeLeon & Nestor, Minneapolis, MN, for Petitioner.

Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Alberto R. Gonzales, David Malagold, Washington, DC, E.M. Trominski, District Director, Harlingen, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.

Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Maria Salvador-Reyes (Reyes) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) March 17, 2004, decision dismissing the appeal from the denial *349of his motion to reopen a 1990 in absentia order of deportation. The BIA denied Reyes’s motion for reconsideration of this decision on June 8, 2004. Reyes filed his petition for review on July 7, 2004.

We are required to examine jurisdiction sua sponte if necessary. *See Williams v. Chater,*87 F.3d 702, 704 (5th Cir.1996). Reyes had 30 days to file a timely petition for review from the BIA’s decision. *See Navarro-Miranda v. Ashcroft,*330 F.3d 672, 676 (5th Cir.2003); *Ibrik v. INS,*108 F.3d 596, 597 (5th Cir.1997). The BIA’s denial of an appeal and its denial of a motion to reconsider are two separate final orders, each of which requires its own petition for review. *See Stone v. INS,*514 U.S. 386, 394, 401-02, 405-06, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 131 L.Ed.2d 465 (1995). Because Reyes did not file a petition for review of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal of the denial of his motion to reopen until more than three months after this decision, his petition for review is not timely as to the March 17, 2004 decision. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to review this decision, and the petition to review it is DISMISSED. *See Karimian-Kaklaki v. INS,*997 F.2d 108, 111 (5th Cir.1993).

Although Reyes’s petition for review is timely as to the BIA’s denial of his motion for reconsideration, he has not made any arguments regarding this decision. Therefore, he has abandoned any challenge to the denial of his motion for reconsideration, and, to the extent that his petition for review may be construed as extending to that decision, it is DENIED. *See Al-Ra’id v. Ingle,*69 F.3d 28, 33 (5th Cir.1995).

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Before the First Division,

March 14, 1961

No. 65270.

#### Eastern Commission Co., Inc., and Pacmarine Products Co. *v.*United States,

protests 60/18363 and 60/17263 (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish similar in all material respects to the fish blocks the subject of *The Lee Herrmann Co., a/c The Coldwater Seafood Corp.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 49, C.D. 2101), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
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

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_______________________________________)

ROBERT S.D. BERGEN, )

) No. C06-819RSL

Petitioner, ) 

v. )

) ORDER DENYING MOTION

DR. HENRY RICHARDS, ) FOR RECONSIDERATION

)

Respondent. )

_______________________________________)

This matter comes before the Court on petitioner’s “Motion for Reconsideration” (Dkt.

#29). Petitioner Robert Bergen asks the Court to reconsider its “Order Denying Requests for

Evidentiary Hearing” (Dkt. #28). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored in this district and

will be granted only upon a “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal

authority which could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable

diligence.” Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1). Petitioner has failed to identify any manifest error in the

Court’s prior ruling or to produce new facts or legal authority that would change the Court’s

original analysis. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #29) is denied.

DATED this 18th day of September, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00819-RSL Document 30 Filed 09/18/07 Page 1 of 1
Before the First Division,

June 18, 1948

No. 52392.

protests 713895-G, etc. (Cleveland, etc.).

#### The Brandt Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Tier 3 Emissions Modeling Cases: State Totals Spreadsheets

The spreadsheets 2007rg_state_totals.xlsx, 2018rg_ref_state_totals.xlsx, 2018rg_ref_state_totals, 2018rg_ctl_state_totals.xlsx , 2030rg_ref _state_totals.xlsx , and 2030 rg_ctl_state_totals.xlsx contain national and state emission totals for each modeling platform sector (see below) for CAPs, modeled HAPs, and other species provided to the air quality model. Separate tabs are provided for each platform modeling sector and the “All Sector State” tab has emission totals across all sectors. Another tab provides totals for each sector for the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Descriptions of Modeling Sectors : ag - agricultural ammonia emissions afdust/afdust_adj
- area fugitive dust emissions; afdust_adj are the emissions after metorological and land use adjustments biogenics - emissions from natural sources c1c2rail - C1 and C2 commerical marine emissions plus railroad emissions c3marine - C3 marine (ocean going vessel ) emissions nonpt - n onpoint (county - level) not included in other sectors nonroad - mobile source emissions from off - road equipment onroad_RPD/RPV/RPP)
- mobile source emissions on roads; onroad_RPD, onroad_RPV, and onroad_RPP are specific subcategories based on the type of activity data used onroad_ttl - total of onroad RPD, RPV, and RPP emissions onroad_rfl - refueling emissions from onroad vehicles othar - Non - US area sources othon - Non - US onroad sources onhpt - Non - US point sources ptfire - Point source wild and prescribed fire emissions ptegu_pk - Emissions from specific EGU peaking units ptegu - Emissions from EGUs not specifically designated as peaking ptnonipm - Point source emissions not included in ptegu_pk, ptegu, or pt_oilgas p t_oilgas - oil and gas emissions from point sources np_oilgas - oil and gas emissions from nonpoint sources rwc - residential wood combustion emissions
Case 2:06-cr-00252-TSZ Document 19 Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cr-00252-TSZ Document 19 Filed 03/23/17 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cr-00252-TSZ Document 19 Filed 03/23/17 Page 3 of 3
No. 59829.

#### Clarence S. Holmes *v.*United States,

protest 224980-K (Seattle).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of veal similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 April 19, 2019

s0416

Order 

Clerk

April 19, 2019

158394

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 158394

COA: 342316

Oakland CC: 2016-259655-FH

VANESSA AIDEE MANSOUR,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the stipulation signed by counsel for the parties agreeing to 

the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the application for 

leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 802 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      November 8, 2007.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 3355) to ensure the availability and affordability of homeowners' 
insurance coverage for catastrophic events. The first reading of the bill shall 
be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate 
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Financial Services. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Financial Services now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except those 
arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no 
amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
order except those printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and except pro forma amendments for 
the purpose of debate. Each amendment so printed may be offered only by the 
Member who caused it to be printed or a designee and shall be considered as 
read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have 
been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be 
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
    Sec. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 3355 pursuant to this 
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair 
may postpone further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
by the Speaker.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
**CERTIFICATION
      FURNISHED 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 China Clean Energy Inc. (the “ Company ”)
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification is an exhibit (the
      “ Report ”),
      the
      undersigned officer of China Clean Energy Inc. does hereby certify, pursuant
      to
      Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
      Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that to his 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:
      March 11, 2008





/s/
                Tai-ming
                OuTai-ming
                OuChief
                Executive Officer
```

[106th Congress Public Law 436]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ436.106]

[[Page 114 STAT. 1919]]

Public Law 106-436
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  3695 Green Road in Beachwood, Ohio, as the ``Larry Small Post Office 
           Building''. <<NOTE: Nov. 6, 2000 -  [H.R. 4315]>> 

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3695 
Green Road in Beachwood, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the 
``Larry Small Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Larry Small Post Office 
Building''.

    Approved November 6, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4315:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):
            Oct. 2, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 24, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
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

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

DAVID McCUISTION,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASHINGTON STATE ATTORNEY

GENERAL’S OFFICE and DR. HENRY

RICHARDS, 

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5329RBL

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold, United

States Magistrate Judge, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the remaining record,

does hereby find and Order:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. 

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner, and to the Hon. J. Kelley

Arnold. 

DATED this 28th day of July, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05329-RBL Document 7 Filed 07/28/06 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 99.1 -  Independent Accountant's Servicing Report for the year
                ended December 31, 2005

[KPMG logo]

KPMG LLP
55 Second Street
San Francisco, CA 94105





                     Independent Accountants' Report


The Board of Directors
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management Assertion (the Assertion), that Wells Fargo Bank, NA. (the "Bank"),
as servicer for the Issuers set forth in Exhibit I of the Assertion, complied
with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers
Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
Bankers (USAP), except for minimum servicing standards I.2, I.3, I.4, III.3,
III.4, III.6, V.2, V.3, and V.4, which the Bank has determined are not
applicable to the servicing of auto loans, during the periods set forth in
Exhibit I of the Assertion. Management is responsible for the Bank's compliance
with those minimum servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management's assertion about the Bank's compliance based on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Bank's
compliance with the minimum servicing standards specified above and performing
such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We
believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on the Bank's compliance
with the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as servicer
for the Issuers set forth in Exhibit I of the Assertion, complied with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards during the periods set forth in
Exhibit I of the Assertion, is fairly stated, in all material respects.



/s/ KPMG LCP

March 10, 2006

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


Exhibit I





     Issuer       Servicing Period      Indenture Trustee    Owner Trustee

Banc of America  for the period from   U.S. Bank Trust       Wilmington Trust
Securities Auto  May 27, 2005 through  National Association  Company
Trust 2005-WF1   December 31, 2005