alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We  consent  to  the incorporation by reference  in  Halifax
Corporation's  Registration Statement (Form S-8)  pertaining
to  the  Halifax Corporation 1994 Key Employee Stock  Option
Plan of our report dated September 7, 1999, with respect  to
the  consolidated  financial  statements  and  schedule   of
Halifax  Corporation  for  the year  ended  March  31,  1999
included in Halifax Corporation's Annual Report (Form  10-K)
for the year ended March 31, 2001.


/s/Ernst & Young LLP
June 20, 2001
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 4080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2036]


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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Clean Air Act

    In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR Sec. 50.7 notice is 
hereby given that a proposed consent decree in United States v.  Price/
Costco, Inc., Civil Action No. C96-1965Z, was lodged on December 16, 
1996, with the United States District Court for the Western District of 
Washington. The consent decree settles claims brought under Sections 
113 and 608 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413 & 7671(g). The 
complaint alleged that Price/Costco sold canisters of freon to buyers 
who were not certified to handle ozone depleting substances in 
violation of 40 CFR Sec. 82.154(m). Under the proposed consent decree, 
Price/Costco will pay a civil penalty of $232,500 and institute a set 
of procedures at its check-out counters assuring that buyers of freon 
canisters are certified to handle ozone depleting substances within the 
meaning of 40 CFR Sec. 82.154(m).
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should refer to 
United States v. Price/Costco, DOJ Ref. #90-5-2-1-2050.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the office of the 
United States Attorney, 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3600, Washington 98104; 
the Region 10 Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Sixth 
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101; and at the Consent Decree Library, 
1120 G Street, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 624-0892. 
A copy of either proposed consent decree may be obtained in person or 
by mail from the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th 
Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005. In requesting a copy of either decree 
please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount 
of $3.00 (25 cents per page reproduction costs), payable to the Consent 
Decree Library.
Joel M. Gross,
Chief Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 97-2036 Filed 1-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
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
 
 Section 1350 Certification
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of COMSTOCK MINING Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Corrado De Gasperis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 Date:  May 16, 2011
 
 /s/ Corrado De GasperisCorrado De GasperisChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
 
 The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as an exhibit to the Report and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
# C_2013171EN.01001702.xml

| 15.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 March 2013 — C v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-150/13)

2013/C 171/34

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: C

Applicant: C

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

What limits do Article 4 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 3 and 7 thereof, impose on the method of assessing the credibility of a declared sexual orientation, and are those limits different from the limits which apply to assessment of the credibility of the other grounds of persecution and, if so, in what respect?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2201 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2201

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the renewable 
                             energy credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 15, 2012

    Mr. Grassley (for himself, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Brown of 
   Massachusetts, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Heller, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Bennet) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the renewable 
                             energy credit.

    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 ``American Energy and Job Promotion 
Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDIT.

    (a) Wind.--Paragraph (1) of section 45(d) of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``January 1, 2013'' and inserting 
``January 1, 2015''.
    (b) Biomass, Geothermal, Landfill Gas, Trash, Hydropower, and 
Marine and Hydrokinetic.--Each of the following provisions of section 
45(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
``January 1, 2014'' and inserting ``January 1, 2015'':
            (1) Clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (2)(A).
            (2) Clauses (i)(I) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(A).
            (3) Paragraph (4).
            (4) Paragraph (6).
            (5) Paragraph (7).
            (6) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (9).
            (7) Subparagraph (B) of paragraph (11).
                                 <all>
```
No. 44376.

#### Protest 967563-G of Wm. Shaland (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the banks in question are-similar to those the subject of Abstract 42749. The claim as hollow ware at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained.
# C_2014261EN.01002102.xml

| 11.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/21

---

Order of the President of the Court of 16 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Condor Flugdienst GmbH v Andreas Plakolm

(Case C-680/13) (1)

1

2014/C 261/41

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.

1

---
STATE OF DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY

655 S. Bay Road, Suije5N

DoVER,DELAWARE19901 Telephone: (302) 739 - 9402 Fax No.: (302) 739 - 3106 CERTIFICATION April 26, 20II

I hereby certify that a public hearing was held February 1,2011, on a revision to the State of Delaware State Implementation Plan for the Attainment and Maintenance oftheNational AmbientAir Quality Standards for Ozone, by amending 7 DEAdmin Code 1124­ CONTROL OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSIONS, byrevising, Section 47.0 "OffsetLithographic Printing. The revision updates relevant regulations to implement Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) controls on emission sources covered in EPA's Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) orAlternate Control Techniques (ACT). EPA has updated several CTGs and the afore-mentioned revision to 7 DE Admin Code 1124 reflect DE'sefforts accordingly. This revision is effective April 11, 2011.

I further certifythatthe hearing washeld in accordance withthe notice required by Subsection 51.102 of40 CFR 51.

Printed on Recycled Paper
### Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials as Solid Waste Application to Foundry Sand Proces sed in Thermal Reclamation Units

• EPA indicated that foundry sand processed in thermal reclamation units for re-use at the foundry is a solid waste because the contamin ants in the sand are being burned for discard

• Accordingly, foundry sand thermal reclama tion units would be subject to the new commercial and industrial solid wast e incinerator (CISWI) standards

• EPA acknowledged that foundry sand that is re -used on-site in the primary production process on a continuous basis in th e sand loop is not a solid waste

• Foundry sand processed in the thermal reclamation units, (i.e., the nonhazardous secondary material) has not been discarded be cause it is processed to be re-used in the mold and core making process at the foundry (i .e., in the primary production process on a continuous basis in the sand loop)

• Based on EPA’s interpretation, any thermal processing (reclamation) of nonhazardous secondary materials would involve burning fo r discard and would, therefore, subject all of those units to CISWI standards

• EPA claims that the foundry sand is not processe d as a fuel or an ingredient, so it is a solid waste, but the foundry sand is not disc arded and is processed to be re-used as foundry sand

• Thermal reclamation units used for pro cessing foundry sand are already subject to existing federal and state air permitting requirements

• Facilities have invested signi ficant capital expenses to install thermal sand reclamation units to re-use foundry sand, conserve natura l resources (i.e., virgin sand), and minimize the use of landfill capacity for foundry sand

• Imposing CISWI standards would have signifi cant negative impacts on the beneficial reuse of foundry sand due to a dditional regulatory burdens a nd costs, raise the stigma associated with permitting incinerators for these reclamation units, and substantial increase the amount of foundry sand that would have to be landfilled.

• EPA clearly did not contemplat e foundry sand thermal reclamation units being subject to the new CISWI standards because EPA estimated that only 88 facilities would be impacted by the new standards. Based on EPA’s interpretation for foundry sands processed in thermal reclamation units, as many as 100 foundries could be impacted by the new standards.

• Based on the broader scope of CISWI, EPA needs to conduct a revised economic impact analysis for the rule and assess the potential impacts on small business.
No. 96-5981.

#### Frazier *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Sorkin Music Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 7920.

Entry No. 771218, etc.

(Decided December 12, 1950)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiffs.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief 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:

> IT IS HEREl^ STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the appraised values of the merchandise involved in each of the cases enumerated in the attached schedule, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States at which 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, and that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that-the cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

Ou tbe 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.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
**896 CAF 14-01978**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF ROBERT E. TROMBLEY, JR., PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,
V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KRISTIN S. PAYNE, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

KELIANN M. ARGY, ORCHARD PARK, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
MICHAEL STEINBERG, ROCHESTER, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.
FARES A. RUMI, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, ROCHESTER.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Genesee County (Eric R. Adams, J.), entered October 2, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, directed respondent to pay a fine for three separate events constituting civil contempt. It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Same memorandum as in Matter of Trombley v Payne ([appeal No. 2] ___ AD3d ___ [Nov. 10, 2016]).

Entered: November 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2143 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify that paper which 

is commonly recycled does not constitute a qualified energy resource 

under the section 45 credit for renewable electricity production. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 29, 2012 

Ms. STABENOW introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify 

that paper which is commonly recycled does not constitute a qualified energy resource under the section 45 

credit for renewable electricity production. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF PAPER WHICH IS COMMONLY 

4 RECYCLED FROM DEFINITION OF MUNICIPAL 

5 SOLID WASTE. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 45(c)(6) of the Internal 

7 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘‘, except 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2143 IS

1 that such term does not include paper which is commonly 

2 recycled’’ after ‘‘(42 U.S.C. 6903)’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 this section shall apply to electricity produced and sold 

5 after the date of the enactment of this Act, in taxable 

6 years ending after such date. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Amendment to the Fortune Brands 2002 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan



 Exhibit 10.11 
 FORTUNE BRANDS, INC. 
 2002 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR STOCK OPTION PLAN 
 Amendment 
 The Plan is amended
by replacing the first sentence of Section 7(a) of the Plan with the following: 
 “In the event of any merger, consolidation, stock
or other non-cash dividend, extraordinary cash dividend, split-up, spin-off, combination or exchange of shares, reorganization or recapitalization or change in capitalization, or any other similar corporate event, the Committee may make such
adjustments in (i) the aggregate number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued under the Plan as set forth in Section 6(a) and the number of shares that may be issued to a Non-employee Director with respect to any year as set forth
in Section 4(a), (ii) the kind of shares that may be issued under the Plan and (iii) the amount and kind of payment that may be made in respect of unpaid dividends on shares of Common Stock whose receipt has been deferred pursuant to
Section 4(b), as the Committee shall deem appropriate in the circumstances; provided that, the Committee shall make such adjustments in the event of an equity restructuring (as defined in Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123
(revised)) as are necessary to prevent the dilution in value of a Participant’s Award.” 
  

					
		 	FORTUNE BRANDS, INC.
			
	Date: September 25, 2007	 		 	
			
		 	By:	 	 /s/ Mark A. Roche

		 	Its:	 	Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
Exhibit 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  each of the  undersigned  officers  GS  AgriFuels
Corporation (the "Company"), certifies that:

     1.   The  Quarterly  Report on Form  10-QSB of the  Company for the quarter
          ended June 30 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
          of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15
          U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/ Thomas Scozzafava
                                    --------------------------------
                                        Thomas Scozzafava
                                        Chief Executive Officer

                                    /S/ Kevin Kreisler
                                    --------------------------------
                                        Kevin Kreisler
                                        Chief Financial Officer

Date:  August 14, 2007




This  certification  is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,
subject  to the  knowledge  standard  contained  therein,  and not for any other
purpose.
# C_2012311EN.01001201.xml

| 13.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 311/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 311/12

---

Action brought on 6 August 2012 — Aleris v OHIM — Carefusion 303 (ALARIS)

(Case T-353/12)

2012/C 311/15

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Aleris Holding AB (Stockolm, Sweden) (represented by: A. Kylhammar and K. Westerberg, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carefusion 303, Inc. (San Diego, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 11 May 2012 (R 334/2011-5), as well as Section 2 of the Cancellation decision, and render a decision in accordance with the applicant’s request; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 11 May 2012 (R 334/2011-5), as well as Section 2 of the Cancellation decision, and render a decision in accordance with the applicant’s request; and

| — | Order the respondent as the losing party to bear all costs and fees incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division, the Board of Appeal and the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the respondent as the losing party to bear all costs and fees incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division, the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘ALARIS’, for goods and services in classes 10, 37 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 571521

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked the Community trade mark only in part

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of the fundamental principles that must be applied in revocation proceedings based on non-use. Infringement of Articles 15 and 9 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---
No. 96-6016.

#### Green v. United States.

C. A. Armed Forces. Certiorari denied.
#### Irene Schleimer, Appellant, *v.*Arrowhead Garage, Inc., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

January 13, 1966.

*776
      *Irving G. Schleimer*for appellant. *Dimitrios G. Fotopoulos*for respondent.

Order affirmed.

Concur — Hecht, J. P., Hoestadter and Gold, JJ.

Order affirmed.
(Reap. Dec. 9961)

#### Patrick & Graves *v.*United States

Entry No. 6448-H.

(Decided March 28, 1961)

Plaintiffs not represented by counsel.

*WiMam E. OrricJc, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant,

Lawrence, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeal for a re-appraisement was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff. The court thereupon ordered the case submitted.

Buie 5 (a) of the rules of the court provides that—

> The submission for decision of any ease shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the appeal before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome *646the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 47784.

#### Protests 994740-G, etc., of Otto H. Hinck et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 96-1193.

#### Beards et vir *v.*Bible Way Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith of Washington, D. C., et al.

Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.