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



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Gryphon Gold Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael K. Longinotti, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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:

February 12, 2008



By:  /s/ Michael K. Longinotti

Michael K. Longinotti

Chief Financial Officer



---
H. R. 8868 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 609 Portsmouth Avenue in Greenland, New Hampshire, as the ‘‘Chief Michael Maloney 

Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CHIEF MICHAEL MALONEY POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 609 Portsmouth Avenue in Greenland, New 

Hampshire, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Chief Michael 

Maloney Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Chief Michael Maloney Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 10.20

                             ANGELICA CORPORATION
                       FORM 10-K FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED
                               JANUARY 27, 2001

                                   SCHEDULE

The indemnification agreements presently in effect between the Company and
its Directors and executive officers as of various dates are substantially
identical in all material respects. This schedule is included pursuant to
Instruction 2 of Item 601(a) of Regulation S-K for the purpose of identifying
the Directors and executive officers who have executed such agreements:

Name                            Title
----                            -----

David A. Abrahamson             Director

Susan S. Elliott                Director

Earle H. Harbison, Jr.          Director

Alan C. Henderson               Director

Don W. Hubble                   Chairman, President and Chief
                                Executive Officer

Charles W. Mueller              Director

Stephen M. O'Hara               Director

Dr. William A. Peck             Director

H. Edwin Trusheim               Director

Kelvin R. Westbrook             Director

Paul R. Anderegg                Vice President

T. M. Armstrong                 Sr. Vice President-Finance and
                                Administration

Steven L. Frey                  Vice President, General Counsel &
                                Secretary



<PAGE>
<PAGE>

Charles D. Molloy, Jr.          Vice President

Denis R. Raab                   Vice President

Edward P. Ryan                  Vice President

James W. Shaffer                Vice President and Treasurer

Daniel J. Westrich              Vice President


                                     -2-
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 19

- 00486

- CV
MSW CORPUS CHRISTI LANDFILL, LTD.

v. GULLEY

- HURST L.L.C

. On Appeal from the 117th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016DCV

- 6158

- B

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. Gulley

- Hurst L.L.C. is hereby released from the requirements of a superse deas bond and the deposit made with the Nueces County Clerk shall be withdrawn. The Nueces County clerk shall issue payment ac cordingly, instanter. We further order this decision certified below for observance. October 21 , 2021
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Air Force 

# ACTION:

Notice of Availability (NOA). 

# SUMMARY:

                        The United States Air Force and the United States Marine Corps completed Barry M. Goldwater Range Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by signing a Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD is                               ( print page 15867)                            based on matters discussed in the Final EIS, inputs from the public and regulatory agencies, and other relevant factors. The Final EIS was made available on May 26, 2006 through a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         (Volume 71, Number 102) with a waiting period ending June 26, 2006. The ROD documents the decisions of the Air Force and the Marine Corps as analyzed in the Final EIS, in furtherance of the Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-65) and the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670) prescribing a management plan for the natural resources present on the BMGR.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Jack Bush, Headquarters Air Force, 703-604-5264 or Ms. Mary D. Hassell, Headquarters Marine Corps, 703-695-8240, ext 3339. 

Bao-Anh Trinh, 

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

 [FR Doc. E7-6136 Filed 4-2-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
(V. D. 45)

Entry No. 11968.

#### Alex. Murphy & Co. *v.*United States

(Decided July 25, 1957)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (Allerton deC. Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This is a valuation proceeding which arose by reason of a judgment rendered by the first division of this court in the case of *Alex. Murphy & Co.*v. *United States,*34 Cust. Ct. 308, Abstract 58836. By that judgment, under the terms of the statute (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)), the matter was remanded to a single judge to “determine the proper dutiable value of the merchandise.” The proceeding before me has been abandoned by counsel for the importer. It is, therefore, dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**Exhibit 99.4**

 

**PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with this Annual Report of Sprott Physical Silver Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kevin Hibbert, Principal Financial Officer of Sprott Asset Management LP, the Manager of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Trust.

 

This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any other purpose.  A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Trust and will be retained by the Trust and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

 

Date: March 23, 2017

 

 
|   | /s/ Kevin Hibbert             |
|--------|-------------------------------|
|   | Kevin Hibbert                 |
|   | Principal Financial   Officer |

 

----
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 LOTON, CORP (the "Company")  on Form 10-K for the period  ended  April 30,  2011 as filed with the Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "Report"),  the undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby certifies pursuant to 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; 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: June 22, 2011





/s/ Alex Kuznetsov

__________________________

Alex Kuznetsov, President,

Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer
Before the Third Division,

February 3, 1943

No. 47987.

#### Protest 903217-G of Richter Bros. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Stokby*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 343, C. D. 358) it was held that 10 percent allowance should have been made for the weight of the gelatinous material surrounding the hams.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CARLOS JESUS TINOCO

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 12

- 00260

- CR

Appeal from the

County Court at Law Number Two

of El Paso County , Texas

(TC# 20100C13264 )

O P I N I O N

A jury found Appellant Carlos Jesus Tinoco guilty of the offense of operating a motor

vehicle in a public place while intox icated. The jury sentenced Appellant to 180 days’

imprisonment in the County Jail. The trial court suspended Appellant’s sentence and placed him

on community supervision for twenty

- four months, and ordered him to pay a fine of $100 and

$482 in court cost s.

Appellant filed his notice of appeal, retained his trial counsel to represent him on appeal,

and indicated that he would make arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record. However,

Appellant failed to pay for the reporter’s record or to establish he w as indigent.

By order, this Court directed the trial court to hold a hearing regarding the absence of a2

designation to prepare the reporter’s record. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court

entered findings of fact determining that Appellant was sent notice of the hearing and failed to

appear, had retained his attorney, and had failed to pay for the reporter’s record. The trial court

also determined that Appellant’s counsel had not had contact with Appellant for two or three

months prior to the hearing, and his multiple attempts to contact Appellant had been unsuccessful.

We then ordered the appeal be submitted on the clerk’s record alone. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.3(c).

Appellant did not submit a brief for our consideration. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(b)(4). In the

interest of justice, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no fundamental error. See

Lott v. State , 874 S.W.2d 687 , 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). As such , the trial court’s judgment is

affirmed

.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

April 23, 2014

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
##### 



Public REIT OP Partnership Partnership Agreement
  Pre-Emptive
Right
 Offer Notice Preemptive Right Exercise Notice




---



##### 



Miscellaneous
   2




---



##### 



Very truly yours,HINES-SUMISEI U.S. CORE OFFICE FUND, L.P.By:
    
    Hines US Core Office Capital LLCBy:
    
    Hines Interests Limited PartnershipBy:
    
    Hines Holdings, Inc.By:
    
    /s/ Charles M. HazenName: Charles M. Hazen
Title: Senior Vice President
 HINES US CORE OFFICE CAPITAL LLCBy:
    
    Hines US Core Office Capital LLCBy:
    
    Hines Interests Limited PartnershipBy:
    
    Hines Holdings, Inc.By:
    
    /s/ Charles M. HazenName: Charles M. Hazen
Title: Senior Vice President
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10 (a)
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 4 to Registration
Statement No. 333-30844 of Sun Life of Canada (U.S.) Variable Account F on Form
N-4 of our report dated February 9, 2001 accompanying the financial statements
of Regatta, Regatta Gold, Regatta Classic, Regatta Platinum, Regatta Extra,
Regatta Access, Regatta Choice, and Regatta Flex 4 Sub-Accounts included in Sun
Life of Canada (U.S.) Variable Account F and of our report dated February 9,
2001 accompanying the financial statements of Futurity, Futurity II, Futurity
Focus, Futurity Accolade, Futurity Focus II, Futurity III, and Futurity Select
Four Sub-Accounts included in Sun Life of Canada (U.S.) Variable Account F
appearing in each of the Statements of Additional Information, which are part of
such Registration Statement, to the use of our report dated February 7, 2001
accompanying the financial statements of Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada
(U.S.) appearing in each of the Statements of Additional Information, which are
part of such Registration Statement, and to the incorporation by reference of
our report dated February 7, 2001 appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (U.S.) for the year ended December 31,
2000.

We also consent to the references to us under the headings "Accountants" and
"Appendix I - Condensed Financial Information - Accumulation Units Values" in
such Prospectuses and under the heading "Financial Statements" in such
Statements of Additional Information.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Boston, Massachusetts

April 23, 2001
#### James D. Franklin v. James P. Mansfield.

Notice of Hearing. What is sufficient.

*Heard and Decided April*21st.

Error to Wayne Circuit.

*A.*Russell, moved to strike this cause from the docket for the want of a proper notice of hearing. The following is a copy of the notice:

“ State of Michigan. In the Supreme Court for the state of Michigan. James D. Franklin, plaintiff in error *v.*James P. Mansfield, defendant in error. Detroit, March 2'7, 1860. Sir: .Take notice that the above entitled cause will be brought on for hearing and argument, at the next term of said Court, to be held at the city of Detroit.

Tours &c.,

Moore *&*Blackmar, *Att’ys for Deft in error.*

To Messrs. Walker & Rvssell, *Atty's for Plff. in error.”*

Mr. Russell claimed that the notice failed to comply with the rules in three particulars:

1. It does not show to what clerk’s office the papers were originally returned: *Rule*43. 2. It does not name the term at which it is designed to bring the cause to *100a hearing. 3. It is not a notice of hearing for the *first day*of the term: *Rule 25.*

*W.*A. Moore., contra.

The Coukt held the notice sufficient.
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

 Docket Number: FAA-2015-4202

 Directorate Identifier: 2014NM016AD

A320-25-1156 --- R02, 10/26/99

A320-25-1265 --- 6/6/01

Air Cruisers A320 004-25-84 --- 2/5/10

Air Cruisers A320 004-25-84, R1 --- 4/9/10

Air Cruisers A320 004-25-84, R2 --- 2/11/11

Air Cruisers A320 004-25-84, R3 --- 10/28/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
**Exhibit 32.1**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
I, Steven H. Kane; Chief Executive Officer of Protalex, Inc. (the“Registrant”), do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 15d-l4(b) of the Securitiesand Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title18 of the United States Code that:
(1) the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of the Registrant for theyear ended May 31, 2004 (the “Report”), to which this statement is filed as anexhibit, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.        Dated: August 20, 2004 By:  Steven H. Kane    Steven H. Kane    Chief Executive Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT ZACHARY O. SMITH, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D12-3764 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed January 29, 2016. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Collier County; Frederick R. Hardt, Judge. Zachary O. Smith, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Susan M. Shanahan, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. Zachary Smith appeals the denial of his postconviction motion f iled pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affir m the denial of his motion on all grounds except for the summary denial of his clai ms alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to impeach the victim's testi mony.- 2 - The postconviction court summarily denied Mr. Smith's claim tha t his trial

counsel was ineffect ive for failing to investigate and impeach the victim's account of the acts underlying the charge of lewd and lascivious assault of a minor under the age of sixteen. Mr. Smith also argues that the trial court erred in d enying his claim that

counsel was ineffective for not i nvestigating and examining the victim's statements to others after the assault. The State did not present any eyewit nesses to or physical evidence of the crime. Because the victim's testimony was the only evidence connecting Mr. Smith to this crime, her trustworthiness was cri tical to the State's case. The record excerpts the court attached to its order do not conc lusively refute Mr. Smith's claim that he suffered prejudice because tri al counsel was ineffective for not impeaching the only eyewitness's statements. See Pierc e v. State, 137 So. 3d 578, 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (reversing summary denial of postco nviction motion where record did not conclusively refute movant's claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach the State's only witness—the victim—with prior incon sistent statements); Bulley v. State, 900 So. 2d 596, 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (revers ing summary denial of postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counse l that "identified the witnesses, provided what their testimony would have been, state d that they were available to testify, and alleged that he was prejudiced by the ir absence at trial"). Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of these grounds in Mr. Smith's motion and remand for an evidentiary hearing. In all o ther respects, the postconviction court's order is affirmed.

ALTENBERND, CRENSHAW, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. JACOB RUBIN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.

Argued June 18, 1918

Decided June 18, 1918.

On error to the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 91 *N. J. L.*368.

For the defendant in error, *J. Henry Harrison.*

For the plaintiff in error, *Benjamin M. Weinberg.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Gummere in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Swayze, Bergen, Minturn, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, JJ. 10.

*For reversal*— None.
| (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. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May 22, 2014 | By:    | /s/ Dr. Y.K. Wong                                   |   |
|--------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|               |   | Dr. Y.K. Wong                                       |   |
|               |   | President, Secretary andPrincipal Financial Officer |   |