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

Exhibit 99.6

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

Timmins Gold Corp. (the Company) is filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, Amendment No. 1 to its
annual report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the
Report).

I, Mark Backens, Interim Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to
section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

|/s/ Mark
Backens                       | 
|-------------------------------------- | 
|                                       | 
|Name: Mark Backens                     | 
|                                       | 
|Title: Interim Chief Executive Officer | 
|                                       | 
|Date: November 29, 2016                | 

---
No. 51146.

Suit 4513.

#### United *States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*

Reap. Dec. 6121 affirmed March 30, 1946. C. A. D. 334.
Before the Third Division,

June 8, 1960

No. 64282.

protests 321328-K, etc. (Buffalo).

#### C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# C_2007311EN.01000601.xml

| 21.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/6

---

DECISION

DECISION

(2007/C 311/06)

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

Having regard to the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities as established by Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 and last amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004, and in particular Article 30 thereof,

Having regard to the Bureau decision on the determination of appointing authorities, last amended on 26 October 2004,

Having regard to open competitions:

PE/90/A, PE/91/A, PE/94/A, PE/95/A, PE/96/A, PE/97/A, PE/98/A, PE/99/A, PE/66/S, PE/67/S, PE/68/S, PE/72/S, PE/80/S, PE/87/S, PE/88/S, PE/89/S, A/94, A/95;

EUR/A/155, EUR/A/158, EUR/A/159, EUR/A/161, EUR/A/167, EUR/A/169;

EUR/LA/156, EUR/LA/157;

PE/32/B, PE/34/B, PE/69/S;

PE/132/C, PE/133/C, PE/134/C, EUR/C/153, EUR/C/160,

Having regard to the opinion delivered by the Joint Committee at its meeting of 14 November 2007,

DECIDES:

Article 1

The period of validity of the reserve lists for open competitions:

| | PE/90/A, PE/91/A, PE/94/A, PE/95/A, PE/96/A, PE/97/A, PE/98/A, PE/99/A, PE/66/S, PE/67/S, PE/68/S, PE/72/S, PE/80/S, PE/87/S, PE/88/S, PE/89/S, A/94, A/95; |
| --- | --- |

PE/90/A, PE/91/A, PE/94/A, PE/95/A, PE/96/A, PE/97/A, PE/98/A, PE/99/A, PE/66/S, PE/67/S, PE/68/S, PE/72/S, PE/80/S, PE/87/S, PE/88/S, PE/89/S, A/94, A/95;

| | EUR/A/155, EUR/A/158, EUR/A/159, EUR/A/161, EUR/A/167, EUR/A/169; |
| --- | --- |

EUR/A/155, EUR/A/158, EUR/A/159, EUR/A/161, EUR/A/167, EUR/A/169;

| | EUR/LA/156, EUR/LA/157; |
| --- | --- |

EUR/LA/156, EUR/LA/157;

| | PE/32/B, PE/34/B, PE/69/S; |
| --- | --- |

PE/32/B, PE/34/B, PE/69/S;

| | PE/133/C, PE/134/C |
| --- | --- |

PE/133/C, PE/134/C

is extended until 31 December 2008.

Article 2

The period of validity of the reserve list for open competitions:

| | PE/132/C, EUR/C/153, EUR/C/160 |
| --- | --- |

PE/132/C, EUR/C/153, EUR/C/160

is not extended.

Luxembourg, 3 December 2007.

The Secretary-General

Harald RØMER

---
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2016

- 4551 Directorate Identifier: 

### 16

- NE

- 07

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance)

Work

- hours

(include

access, testing,

and close

- up) Labor

cost

(@$8 5 /h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs

(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S.

Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Removal and

installat ion of pawl

carrier pivot pins 3 .0 $ 255.00 $ 255.00 

### 4 $ 1,020.00



### Pawl Carrier Pivot

Pins $ 0.00 $860 $ 860.00 

### 4 $ 3,440.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance: 

### 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 4,460



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### 0

On

- Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work

- hours

(include access,

testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be ob vious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO

Explanation:

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

August 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 131006 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 131006 COA: 264976 Muskegon CC: 92-035104-FC JAMES ROYDEN RINARD, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 9, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

d0821 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

August 29, 2006

Clerk
---

Exhibit 99.6

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE U.S.
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Timmins Gold Corp. (the Company) is filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, its annual report on Form
40-F for the nine months ended December 31, 2011 (the Report).

I, Bruce Bragagnolo, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to
section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

|By:    | /s/ Bruce Bragagnolo                        | 
|------ | ------------------------------------------- | 
|Name:  | Bruce Bragagnolo                            | 
|Title: | Chief Executive Officer and
      Secretary | 

Date: April 4, 2012

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 2:12-cr-163

JUDGE SMITH

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAVERS

DEMANTRIA S. HUNT, 

Defendant.

ORDER

On August 29, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), recommending that the Court accept Defendant’s guilty plea to Count One

of the Information charging her with making false statements related to health care matters in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1035 and 2. Defendant, represented by counsel, waived her right to appear

on the matter before a District Judge. The Magistrate Judge conducted the colloquy required by

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Defendant’s plea was knowing, voluntary, free

from coercion, and had a basis in fact. 

Defendant was specifically informed of her right to contest the Report and Recommendation

by filing any objections within 14 days of the issuance of the Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant did

not file any objections. 

Case: 2:12-cr-00163-GCS-EPD Doc #: 12 Filed: 10/04/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and ACCEPTS

Defendant’s plea of guilty to Count One of the Information. Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty

of making false statements related to health care matters.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ George C. Smith 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2-

Case: 2:12-cr-00163-GCS-EPD Doc #: 12 Filed: 10/04/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
(Reap. Dec. 8204)

#### Wine Sellers *v.*United States

Entry No. 1694.

(Decided February 26, 1953)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*Charles J. Wagner,*Acting Assistant Attorney General *(Mollie Strum,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

This is an appeal for reappraisement of an importation of 300 cases of champagne which were entered at the port of .Baltimore, Md. Entry was made at the invoice price of $14.67 per ■case, plus an addition of $563.43 to equal the current price for home •consumption or exportation in the country of exportation. The •appraiser found a value of 4,860 francs'per case, net, packed, for the •champagne, and 240 francs per case, net, packed, for the glass bottles containing the liquor.- When converted into American dollars, the ■appraised value was less than the entered, value. As a change in classification resulted from the appraiser’s finding of value, a notice •of appraisement was duly forwarded to the importer who thereupon filed an appeal for reappraisement.

When this case was called for trial, counsel for the Government informed the court that her office had received a communication from ■the plaintiff advising that “we have made a check of our files and do not feel we have any claim pending in this matter, therefore it is not •our intention to make any appearance in Court on the date in question.” Accordingly, and pursuant to rule 5 of the Rules of the United •States Customs Court, the case was submitted.

An examination of the official papers in this case fails to reveal any facts tending to overcome the values found by the appraiser which :are presumptively correct. (28 U. S. C. § 2633.)

I, therefore, find that the values of the merchandise here involved .are as fixed by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 70 (Thursday, April 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 18513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6614]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 35009]


CG Railway, Inc.--Lease and Operation Exemption--Terminal Railway 
Alabama State Docks

    CG Railway, Inc. (CGR), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a 
verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to acquire by lease 
from Terminal Railway Alabama State Docks (TASD), an agency of the 
State of Alabama, and to operate approximately 0.583 miles of rail line 
consisting of track numbers North 14 and North 15 in TASD's North Yard 
in Mobile, AL.\1\ There are no mileposts associated with the two lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CGR states that it will shortly enter into an agreement with 
TASD for the lease of the rails.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CGR certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of 
this transaction will not result in the creation of a Class II or Class 
I rail carrier, and further certifies that its projected annual 
revenues from operation of the leased lines and current operations will 
not exceed $5 million.
    The transaction is expected to be consummated on or shortly after 
April 26, 2007. If the verified notice contains false or misleading 
information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the 
exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing 
of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the transaction. 
Petitions to stay must be filed no later than April 19, 2007 (at least 
7 days before the exemption becomes effective.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 35009, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a 
copy of each pleading must be served on Karl Morell, Of Counsel, Ball 
Janik LLP, 1455 F Street, NW., Suite 225, Washington, DC 20005.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov.

    Decided: April 2, 2007.
    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-6614 Filed 4-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

CHERYL ANN FORSTER,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action 2:11-cv-01005

v. Judge James L. Graham

Magistrate Judge E.A. Preston Deavers

JOHN C. ALCANTARA, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court for consideration of the February 28, 2011 Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 31.) The Magistrate Judge recommended

that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 7.)

The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge specifically advised the parties

that failure to object to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days results in a “waiver

of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment

of the District Court.” (Report & Recommendation 7, ECF No. 31.) The time period for filing

objections to the Report and Recommendation has expired. No party has objected to the Report

and Recommendation. 

The Court reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge

Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers, to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 

Noting that no objections have been filed and that the time for filing such objections has expired,

the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 31). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is DENIED. (ECF No. 7.)

Case: 2:11-cv-01005-JLG-EPD Doc #: 35 Filed: 03/21/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
IT IS SO ORDERED. 

S/ James L. Graham 

James L. Graham

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Date: March 21, 2012

2

Case: 2:11-cv-01005-JLG-EPD Doc #: 35 Filed: 03/21/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULES CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THOMASTON MILLS, INC. FOR THE 9 MONTH PERIOD ENDED MARCH
29, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                           1,297
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,402
<ALLOWANCES>                                       415
<INVENTORY>                                     52,612
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,245
<PP&E>                                         243,227
<DEPRECIATION>                                 156,206
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 192,572
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,786
<BONDS>                                         36,112
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,494
<OTHER-SE>                                      96,367
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,257
<SALES>                                        207,815
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               208,098
<CGS>                                          195,812
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  195,812
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,856
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,458
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6,028)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (2,290)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,738)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,738)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.57)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8950 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8950

To amend the Small Business Act to require penalties for small business 
 concerns falsely claiming goods or services are Made in America, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 8, 2024

Ms. Van Duyne (for herself, Ms. Hageman, and Mr. Van Orden) introduced 
   the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small 
                                Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Small Business Act to require penalties for small business 
 concerns falsely claiming goods or services are Made in America, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Made in America Integrity Act of 
2024''.

SEC. 2. PENALTIES FOR SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS FALSELY CLAIMING GOODS OR 
              SERVICES ARE MADE IN AMERICA.

    Section 16 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 645) is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(h) False Claims of Made in America.--In addition to any other 
applicable penalties, a small business concern that is awarded a 
Federal contract in part or in whole because the concern falsely claims 
the goods or services that are the subject of the contract are made or 
produced in the United States shall be subject to the penalties and 
remedies described in subsection (d)(2), except that subparagraph (D) 
of such subsection shall be applied to such concern by substituting `5 
years' for `3 years'.''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Nora K. Mullen,

Plaintiff

 v.

John S. Compton, Esq. & 

Lois Compton,

Defendants

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:11-cv-01159

Magistrate Judge Abel

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s April 3, 2013 motion for

reconsideration of the Court’s January 30, 2013 Order denying plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment as to liability (doc. 23). As a preliminary matter, the Court notes

that plaintiff’s motion was filed on the eve of trial and more than a month after the

decision was issued. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for a motion

to reconsider, and one should not be filed unless the judge clearly made an erroneous

assertion of fact or law. Judgment calls are not a proper subject of a motion to

reconsider.

Turning to the merits, plaintiff states that “the opinion appears to have held for

Compton’s affirmative defense under Section 1692k(c), without speaking to all three

elements there, lack of intention, ‘bona fide error,’ and ‘maintenance of procedures

reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.’” Here, the Court did not find that

1

Case: 2:11-cv-01159-MRA Doc #: 29 Filed: 04/18/13 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Compton met his burden of proof of each of the elements of an affirmative defense.

Indeed, Compton did not move summary judgment on the issue of the affirmative

defense. Consequently, I had no occasion to consider whether the uncontroverted

evidence supports his affirmative defenses. Even if Compton had moved for summary

judgment, “[t]he fact that one party fails to satisfy that burden on his or its own Rule 56

motion does not automatically indicate that the opposing party or parties has satisfied

the burden and should be granted summary judgment on the other motion.” Durthaler

v. Accounts Receivable Management, Inc., 854 2d 485, 488 (S.D. Ohio 2012). Here, plaintiff

failed to demonstrate that on the uncontroverted facts she is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law. I concluded that there was a question of material fact as to whether

defendants threatened legal action that they did not intend to take and another dispute

regarding whether they intended to and did misrepresent the amount of the debt. 

s/Mark R. Abel 

United States Magistrate Judge

2

Case: 2:11-cv-01159-MRA Doc #: 29 Filed: 04/18/13 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>