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

**Exhibit 23.3**

Mr. John R. Danio

Consent of Expert

To:        

Gryphon GoldCorporation

United States Securities and ExchangeCommission

I, John R. Danio, do hereby consent to thefiling of the written disclosure of the technical report titled the *Preliminary Assessment of the Mineral Resources of the Borealis Gold Project*(the "Preliminary Assessment") dated September 2, 2008 and any extracts from ora summary of the Preliminary Assessment in the Quarterly Report for Gryphon GoldCorporation on Form 10Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 ("Quarterly Report"), andto the filing of the Preliminary Assessment with the United States Securitiesand Exchange Commission.

I also consent to the use of my name in the Quarterly Report.

Dated this 12th of August, 2009.

*/s/ John R. Danio, PE                           *John R. Danio, PE

 

 

----
Exhibit 32
 Certifications 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 Corporate Property Associates 16  Global
Incorporated.
  /s/ Trevor P. Bond

Trevor P. BondChief Executive OfficerDate 5/16/11/s/ Mark J. DeCesarisMark J. DeCesarisChief Financial Officer
January 23, 1957

Reap. Dec. 8744.

#### Arkwright *Accessories, Inc. et al.*v. *United States.*

Entered at New York, N. Y. [Not published.] Motion by plaintiffs.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-10042

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Bo Jack Kelley, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:20-CR-54-1

Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Bo Jack Kelley appeals his within-guidelines sentence of 360 months 

of imprisonment and 20 years of supervised release imposed following a 

guilty plea conviction for production of child pornography in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 2251(a). Kelley argues that the district court plainly erred by using 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 10, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-10042 Document: 00516009525 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/10/2021
No. 21-10042

2

facts not included in the indictment to determine the minimum and 

maximum reasonable sentence in violation of the Fifth Amendment. He 

concedes, however, that his claim is foreclosed by United States v. Tuma, 738 

F.3d 681, 693 (5th Cir. 2013), but he wishes to preserve his claim for further 

review. The Government has moved, unopposed, for summary affirmance 

or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file a brief on the merits. 

In Tuma, this court held that a district court may make findings of fact 

that increase a defendant’s sentence if those facts do not expose the 

defendant to an increased mandatory minimum sentence. Id. Here, the 

judicial factfinding influenced only the advisory guidelines range and did not 

alter the mandatory minimum sentence; the factfinding was thus within the 

discretion of the district court. See id. Furthermore, Kelley’s sentence did 

not exceed the statutory maximum term of imprisonment. Consequently, as 

Kelley concedes and the Government asserts, his argument is foreclosed, 

such that “there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the 

case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969),

and summary affirmance is proper. 

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The 

Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is 

DENIED.

Case: 21-10042 Document: 00516009525 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/10/2021
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 15, 2009 

0708 

Order 

 

July 15, 2009 

136029 & (21)(25) 

SEVELTA W. LOFTON, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 136029 

 COA: 277845 

WCAC: 01-000331 

AUTOZONE, INC., and EMPLOYERS 

INSURANCE COMPANY OF WAUSAU, 

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

SECOND INJURY FUND (DUAL 

EMPLOYMENT PROVISIONS), 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 By order of October 1, 2008, this Court vacated the decision of the Workers’ 

Compensation Appellate Commission (WCAC) mailed April 4, 2007, and remanded this 

case to the Board of Magistrates for reconsideration in light of Stokes v Chrysler LLC, 

481 Mich 266 (2008), with instruction that the magistrate assigned to the case take 

additional proofs upon request of either party and issue a decision. This Court retained 

jurisdiction. On order of the Court, the assigned magistrate having subsequently presided 

over an evidentiary hearing and having submitted a new decision in accordance with this 

Court’s instructions, we REMAND this case to the WCAC for review of any challenges 

the parties may have to the magistrate’s decision pursuant to the standard of review 

established in MCL 418.861a. The motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae is 

GRANTED. 

 We do not retain jurisdiction. 

 KELLY, C.J., and WEAVER and HATHAWAY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal.
No. 44110.

#### Protests 937498-G, etc., of F. L. Lewi & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel it was held that the proper dutiable weights are as set forth therein. The protests were sustained accordingly.
#### 82 Main Street Corp., Appellant, v Maidad Rabina, Also Known as Mickey Rabina, Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 400]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to cancel a deed, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated July 15, 1994, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that there are material triable issues of fact which preclude the granting of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The First MarbleheadCorporation (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2006 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Jack L. Kopnisky, Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief OperatingOfficer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated: February 8, 2007 |   | /s/ JACK L.  KOPNISKY                                             |   |
|------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                         |   | Jack L. Kopnisky                                                  |
|                         |   | *Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief  Operating Officer* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to The First Marblehead Corporation andwill be retained by The First Marblehead Corporation and furnished to the SECor its staff upon request.

1

----
AFS-10-404-E Oct 08 2010

Exemption No. 8827B Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2004-19374

Ms. Lori M. Kingsley Supervisor, Flight Test Engineering The Boeing Company

P.O. Box 3707 M/S 14-KF Seattle, WA 98124-2207

Dear Ms. Kingsley:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8827, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated September 14, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of The Boeing Company (Boeing) for an extension of Exemption No. 8827, as amended. That exemption from § 91.529(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations permits flight engineers, employed by Boeing, to serve as flight engineers on B-707 and B747 aircraft if they have logged a minimum of 20 hours in lieu of the required 50 hours of flight time as flight engineers on the particular type aircraft within the preceding 12 months, provided the combined flight time in any B- 707 or B-747 aircraft, or Level B, C, or D simulator that represents any B-707 or B-747 aircraft, is at least 100 hours in the preceding 12

calendar months.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Boeing.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8827, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8827, as amended, to January 31, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8827, as amended, remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8827.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.12


                           GTECH HOLDINGS CORPORATION
                   EXECUTIVE PERQUISITES PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS
                             (A CALENDAR YEAR PLAN)


David Calabro *
Howard Cohen ***
Marc A. Crisafulli ***
Stephen Davidson **
Jean-Pierre Desbiens *
James Hosker**
Jean Marc Lafaille *
Kathleen McKeough *
William Middlebrook *
Vino Mody **
Cynthia Nebergall **
Steven Nowick **
William O'Connor **
Jaymin Patel *
William Pieri *
Robert Plourde*
Frederick Reis **
Antonio Carlos Rocha ***
Donald Stanford *
Donald Sweitzer *
W. Bruce Turner *

* Participant for all or a portion of both calendar years 2000 and 2001.
**Participant for all or a portion of calendar year 2000, only.
*** Participant for all or a portion of calendar year 2001, only.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

STANLEY PRENTICE

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 1763

[ November 2, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Paul L. Backman , Judge; L.T. Case No. 07

-

006068CF10A

.

Stanley Prentice, Blountstown, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard

Valuntas, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, T AYLO R and D AMOORGIAN

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
(Reap. Dec. 9197)

#### Daiichi Bussan Kaisha, Ltd. *v.*United States

Entry No. 719763.

(Decided July 22, 1958)

*Myron Goldman*for the plaintiff

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Kao, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Counsel for the respective parties, subject to the approval of the Court, that at the time of the exportation of the Cotton Corduroy Washable Dyed Ladies Slacks involved in the above appeal for reappraisement, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the Country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States at U. S. $9.40 per dozen, net packed.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher foreign value for said merchandise at the time of exportation thereof.

> It is further stipulated that this case may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was $9.40 per dozen, net packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
#### CHRISTINE OSTROSKI, AN INFANT, BY HER GUARDIAN, *AD LITEM, ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS, v. MOUNT PROSPECT SHOPRITE, INC., *ET ALS.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS AND MICHAEL J. CISERO, DEFENDANT, CROSS-RESPONDENT.

See same ease below: 94 *N. J. Super.*374.

*Mr. Sherwin Drobner*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Raymond L.*Gunneen, *Mr. Hugh J.*O’Gorman, *Messrs. Gafey & Webb*and *Mr. John L. McDermott*for the respondents.

May 29, 1967.

Denied.
#### Stephen L. Bartlett, App’lt, *v.*Edward Sutorius, Resp’t.

*Robert E. Deyo,*for app’lt; *Ghas. Stewart Davison,*for resp’t.

Appeal dismissed, with costs.

All concur.

See 29 N. Y. State Rep., 60.
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 10cc
January 23, 2001



Ira Ingerman
Stanley Ginsburg
DMS Store Fixtures LLC
2828 Charter Road
Philadelphia, PA 19154

Gentlemen:

         Ira Ingerman is party to an Employment Agreement with DMS Store
Fixtures Corp. (as subsequently merged into DMS Store Fixtures LLC, "DMS") dated
December 31, 1997 to be employed for a five year term as Co-Chairman and Chief
Financial Officer of DMS, and Stanley Ginsburg is party to an Employment
Agreement with DMS dated December 31, 1997 to be employed for a five year term
as Co-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of DMS (collectively, the "Employment
Agreements").

         Ira Ingerman and Stanley Ginsburg have agreed with DMS to terminate
their employment effective Friday January 26, 2001. Final payroll checks will be
sent to you with DMS' standard payroll on Friday February 2, 2001.

         For the remainder of the original term of the Employment Agreements,
DMS agrees that Stanley Ginsburg shall continue to be provided with office space
for his use when visiting DMS, shall be entitled to attend DMS weekly staff
meetings, and at any time shall be entitled to remove the "DMS Picture and Clock
Wall" which he owns in the current DMS conference room. Except as provided
herein and for those provisions of the Employment Agreements which expressly
survive the termination of employment, all obligations and liabilities of the
parties under the Employment Agreements are terminated.

         Please indicate your agreement by signing and returning a copy of this
letter.

Sincerely,



DMS Store Fixtures LLC             Agreed:


By    /s/ Robert B. Ginsburg          /s/ Ira Ingerman          January 29, 2001
      ----------------------          ----------------          ----------------
      Robert B. Ginsburg                 Ira Ingerman                 Date


                                      /s/ Stanley Ginsburg      January 26, 2001
                                      --------------------      ----------------
                                          Stanley Ginsburg            Date






                                       22
Case No. 14,546.

#### UNITED STATES v. BAUER.

[Cited in Re Lindouer, Case No. S.358. Nowhere reported: ^pinion not now accessible.]
#### James Williams, *Respondent, v.*Edward Freel and others, *Appel*lants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. . Opinion by Daniels, J.
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 Kallisto Ventures, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, William Tay, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ William Tay
--------------------------------
William Tay
Principal Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer
January 28, 2011
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 61 (Friday, March 30, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 15169]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5847]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-60,619]

Alcan Packaging, Inc.; d/b/a Pechiney Plastic Packaging, Inc.; 
Lincoln Park, NJ; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply 
for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment 
Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility 
to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade 
Adjustment Assistance on January 19, 2007, applicable to workers of 
Alcan Packaging, Inc., Lincoln Park, New Jersey. The notice was 
published in the Federal Register on February 7, 2007 (72 FR 5748).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged 
in the production of plastic cosmetic packaging.
    New information shows that plastic tube and the laminate tube unit 
of Alcan Packaging is doing business as Pechiney Plastic Packaging, 
Inc. Workers separated from employment at the subject firm had their 
wages reported under a separate unemployment insurance (UI) tax account 
for Pechiney Plastic Packaging, Inc.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to 
properly reflect this matter.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Alcan Packaging, Inc. who were adversely affected by a shift 
in production to Mexico.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-60,619 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers of Alcan Packaging, Inc., d/b/a Pechiney Plastic 
Packaging, Inc., Lincoln Park, New Jersey, who became totally or 
partially separated from employment on or after December 1, 2005, 
through January 19, 2009, are eligible to apply for adjustment 
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also 
eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under 
Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of March 2007.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E7-5847 Filed 3-29-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
```
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ORLANDO GONZALEZ-MARTINEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74476

Agency No. A095-725-814

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 29, 2010** 

Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Orlando Gonzalez-Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions

pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming

an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to reopen removal

proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by

FILED

JUL 19 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-74476

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to

reopen. Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny

in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Gonzalez-Martinez’s motion

to reopen as untimely where he filed it more than 16 months after he was ordered

removed in absentia. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Gonzalez-Martinez’s contention that he is

entitled to equitable tolling because he failed to exhaust this contention before the

agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (generally

requiring exhaustion of claims before the agency).

Gonzalez-Martinez’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.