alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
123 STAT. 3486 PUBLIC LAW 111–125—DEC. 28, 2009 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3819: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009): 

Oct. 20, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 23, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 111–125 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To extend the commercial space transportation liability regime. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION LIABILITY 

REGIME EXTENSION. 

Section 70113(f) of title 49, United States Code, is amended 

by striking ‘‘December 31, 2009.’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 

2012.’’. 

Approved December 28, 2009. 

Dec. 28, 2009 

[H.R. 3819] 


anorris on DSK5R6SHH1 with PUBLIC LAWS
WATTS, GRIFFIS AND McOUAT
LIMITED





CONSENT
OF EXPERT




TO:




United
      States Securities and Exchange Commission
            The
      Toronto Stock ExchangeBritish
      Columbia Securities Commission
            Alberta
      Securities CommissionSaskatchewan
      Financial Services Commission
            The
      Manitoba Securities CommissionOntario
      Securities Commission
            Autorité
      des marchés financiersNew
      Brunswick Securities Commission
            Nova
      Scotia Securities CommissionPrince
      Edward Island Securities Office
            Government
      of Newfoundland and LabradorRubicon
      Minerals Corporation




Dear
Sirs/Mesdames:




RE:  Rubicon
Minerals Corporation (the “Issuer”)


Annual
Information Form dated March 31, 2010 (the “AIF”) and


Form
40-F dated March 31, 2010 (the “Form 40-F”)




I, Michael W. Kociumbas, B.Sc.,
P.Geo., Senior Geologist and Vice-President of Watts, Griffis and McOuat
Limited, do hereby consent to the filing, with the regulatory authorities
referred to above, of the technical report titled “Technical Report Update on
Exploration Activities (November 2008 to April 2009) of the Phoenix Gold Project
(NTS 52N/04), Red Lake, Ontario for Rubicon Minerals Corporation” and
dated October 8, 2009 (the “Technical Report”) and to its use for obtaining any
required regulatory acceptance or approvals in connection with the Property
which is the subject matter of the Technical Report, and:




a)
            consent
      to the public filing of extracts from
      the Technical Report in the AIF;




b)
            consent
      to incorporating by reference in the Form
40-F




c)
            confirm
      that I have read the AIF and the Form 40-F and that both documents fairly
      and accurately represents the information in the Technical Report that
      supports the disclosure.




Dated
this31stday
of March, 2010.




Sincerely,





“Michael
Kociumbas”








Michael
Kociumbas, B.Sc., P.Geo.


Senior
Geologist and Vice-President


WATTS, GRIFFIS AND McOUAT
LIMITEDSUITE 400 - 8 KING STREET EAST,
TORONTO, CANADA, M5C 1B5
 tel:
(416) 364-6244    fax:
(416) 864-1675    email:
info@wgm.ca    web:
www.wgm.ca
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, 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.

 December 21, 2016

Order 

Clerk

December 21, 2016

154763(86)

LESLEY G. MCCARTHY, f/k/a LESLEY

KEITH,

Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 154763

v COA: 327647

Oakland CC: 2014-142351-CZ

EUGENE PALLISCO, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellee to extend the time 

for filing her answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The answer 

will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before January 5, 2017.
Exhibit 32.01    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 Friendly Energy Exploration (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas B. Tallant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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 result of operations of the Company.      /s/Douglas B. Tallant By: Douglas B. Tallant Chief Executive Officer  Dated: November 15, 2010  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2013079EN.01001901.xml

| 16.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/19

---

Action brought on 21 December 2012 — Nissan Jidosha/OHIM (CVTC)

(Case T-572/12)

2013/C 79/34

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nissan Jidosha KK (Yokohama-shi, Japan) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister and D. Cañadas Arcas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of appeal’s Decision of 6 September 2012, (Case R 2469/2011-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of appeal’s Decision of 6 September 2012, (Case R 2469/2011-1);

| — | Order that the Respondent pays the Appellant its costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that the Respondent pays the Appellant its costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘CVTC’ for goods in classes 7, 9 and 12

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected partially the CTM renewal

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Art 50 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.2

           NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"),
provides that if part of a registration statement at the time it becomes
effective contains an untrue statement of a material fact, or omits a material
fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein
not misleading, any person acquiring a security pursuant to such registration
statement (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition such person
knew of such untruth or omission) may assert a claim against, among others, an
accountant who has consented to be named as having certified any part of the
registration statement or as having prepared any report for use in connection
with the registration statement.

Smith International, Inc. ("Smith") dismissed Arthur Andersen LLP ("Arthur
Andersen") on April 15, 2002 as its independent public accountants. Arthur
Andersen has ceased operations and, as such, is unable to consent to the
incorporation by reference of their previously issued audit report with respect
to Smith's financial statements as of December 31, 2001 and for the year then
ended into Smith's previously filed registration statements File No. 33-31556,
No. 33-69840, No. 33-56693, No. 333-34249, No. 333-47729, No. 333-62629, No.
333-76633, No. 333-76635, No. 333-80091, No. 333-40734, No. 333-65912 and No.
333-88918.

Under these circumstances, Rule 437a under the Securities Act permits Smith to
file this Form 10-K, which is incorporated by reference into the above listed
registration statements, without a written consent from Arthur Andersen. As a
result, with respect to transactions in Smith securities pursuant to the
Registration Statements that occur subsequent to the date this Form 10-K is
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Arthur Andersen will not have
any liability under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act for any untrue
statements of a material fact contained in the financial statements audited by
Arthur Andersen or any omissions of a material fact required to be stated
therein. Accordingly, investors would be unable to assert a claim against Arthur
Andersen under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act.
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS

I, Winston Johnson, the principal executive and financial officer, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Media and Entertainment.com Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) * for the small business issuer and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

*;

(c)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



Date:

May 21, 2004



/s/
Winston Johnson

Principal executive and financial officer



* Indicates material omitted in accordance with SEC Release Nos. 33-8238; 34-47986.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6338

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEROME E. JOHNSON, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-331, CA-93-482) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: June 3, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerome E. Johnson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Levchuk, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jerome Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial without prejudice of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion, which the district court construed as a second or successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Johnson , Nos. CR-90-331; CA-93-482 (E.D. Va. Jan. 29, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Meadows Wye & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6836.

Entry No. 728775, etc.

Invoices dated Bristol, England, May 1943, etc.

Certified May 1943, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., May 26, 1943, etc.

(Decided February 5, 1947)

*Jordan & Klingaman*for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for tüe defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto: .

(Stipulation omitted.)

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 values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors 

NATCO Group Inc.: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (Nos. 333-71480, 333-111298, 333-1117164 and 333-32020) on Form S-8 of NATCO Group Inc. of ourreports dated March 30, 2005, except as to note 1, which is as of December 20, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of NATCO Group Inc. as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements ofoperations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over reporting asof December 31, 2004 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, which reports appear in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K/A of NATCO Group Inc. 

 

Our report refers to a change in the method of accounting for asset retirement obligationsand accounting for goodwill and other intangible assets. 

 

KPMG LLP 

 

Houston Texas 

December 20, 2005
# C_2014315EN.01004901.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/49

---

Order of the General Court of 25 June 2014 — Accorinti and Others v ECB

(Case T-224/12) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Economic and monetary policy - ECB - National central banks - Restructuring of the Greek Government debt - Eligibility of marketable debt instruments issued or fully guaranteed by Greece for the purposes of Eurosystem monetary policy operations - Sufficient maintenance of the credit quality threshold in order to remain eligible - Collateral enhancement in the form of a buy-back scheme for debt instruments for the benefit of the national central banks - Private creditors - Whether certain legal effects may be attributed to the contested measure - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))

2014/C 315/83

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Alessandro Accorinti (Nichelino, Italy) and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the order (represented by: S. Sutti and R. Spelta, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: initially A. Sáinz de Vicuña Barroso, S. Bening and P. Papapaschalis, and subsequently S. Bening and P. Papapaschalis, Agents, and E. Castellani, T. Lübbig and B. Kaiser, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Decision 2012/153/EU of the European Central Bank of 5 March 2012 on the eligibility of marketable debt instruments issued or fully guaranteed by the Hellenic Republic in the context of the Hellenic Republic’s debt exchange offer (ECB/2012/3) (OJ 2012 L 77, p. 19).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

| 2. | Mr Alessandro Accorinti and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Alessandro Accorinti and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.

1

---
#### Cohen & Mann *v.*United States

No. 5967.

Invoice dated Biala Krakowska, Poland,. August 13, 1938.

Certified August 24, 1938.

Entered at New York, N. Y., September 8, 1938.

Entry No. 726870.

*343(Decided December 21, 1943)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Ausier,*special attorney),, for the defendant.

Cole, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement brings for determination the proper dutiable value of a shipment of wool fabrics, exported from Poland, in August 1938, and entered at the port of New York, in September 1938.

The case has been submitted for decision on a written stipulation, filed December 13, 1943, wherein the parties agree that the proper-basis of appraisement for the merchandise described as “Adria E. Cloth” on invoice 2 of the entry in question, to which the appeal is. limited, is export value within the statutory definition thereof set forth in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402. (<!)), that the issue and merchandise involved herein are substantially the same as those which were before the court in *United States*v. *Cohen & Mann,*Reap. Dec. 4865, and that the record in the said case be incorporated herein.

The issue in the incorporated case involved an item of 5 per centum of the New York landed price of the merchandise, presenting the-question whether the amount thereof was a buyer’s or a seller’s, commission. It was established of record that an agent in this country acted for certain importers of the goods, the latter agreeing to-payment of 5 per centum commission to the former for acquiring the merchandise from the foreign manufacturers at satisfactory prices;that the manufacturers at no time received any part of the item in dispute; and that title to the goods never vested in the agent, but always passed directly from the manufacturers to the importers. The-court found as a matter of fact that the *“5*per centum commission hero in dispute was a buying or purchasing commission paid by the-importer herein to its agent for services rendered by him in buying and procuring the instant merchandise from the manufacturer abroad,”" and held, as a matter of law, citing authorities, that “said commissions constitute no part of the value of the merchandise for appraisement purposes.”

On the stipulated facts, I find the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question to be export value as defined in section 402 (d), *supra,*and hold such value to be the appraised value less the item, *“5%*Tax,” added under duress on entry by the importer. Judgment, will be rendered accordingly.
Addendum to Docket No FAA-2015-3736

The reasons why granting Mike Nilsson would be in the public interest. This is how it would benefit the 

public as a whole.

 Pollution; if a traditional aircraft performed the same intended operations then 20-30 gallons of 

fuel would be used to pollute our already polluted air. The public will benefit from less pollution 

since our UAS are using rechargeable lithium ion batteries versus fossil fuels.

 Safety; if a traditional aircraft performed the same intended operations with low flying aircraft it 

would be very difficult and unsafe to get low enough to the subject to provide useful footage. In 

addition, an accident with a traditional aircraft can have devastating and often lethal effects on 

misfortunate bystanders compared to a UAS. The public will benefit from safer airspace 

operations.

 Noise; If a traditional aircraft performed the same intended operations the local FSDO's would 

be flooded with public complaints of low flying aircrafts and the noise generated by them. The 

public will benefit from less noise generated from our UAS versus traditional aircrafts.

 Cost; if a traditional aircraft performed the same intended operations the cost to achieve 

comparable quality photos would end up costing 10 times as much and quality of footage would 

never be reached. The public will benefit by getting a better product for less cost.

 Efficiency; if a traditional aircraft performed the same intended operations it would need to take 

off from the local airport. With 360's intended usage of UAS, take off and landing can be done 

safely at the subject properties and thereby reducing the congestion at the otherwise used 

airport. The public will benefit from eliminating the usage of already crowded airports. 

Summary of why granting Mike Nilsson the 333 exemption and how this would benefit the public as a 

whole. 

It would give the public less pollution, more safety, less, noise, less cost and it would increase the overall 

efficiency of air space usage.
No. 74-374.

#### Times-Picayune Publishing Corp. *v.*Schulingkamp.

Appeal from Sup. Ct. La. dismissed as moot.

Mr. Justice Douglas would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.
Exhibit 32.1


                    Bingham Canyon Corporation

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned executive officer of Bingham Canyon Corporation (the
"Company") certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
that:

a.    the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended
      March 31, 2006, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

b.    the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.


                                 /s/ Brett D. Mayer
Date: May 10, 2006                __________________________________________
                                  Brett D. Mayer
                                  Principal Executive Officer
                                  Principal Financial Officer