alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 The Electric Network.com, Inc. a
Nevada corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March
31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), Stephen Hanson, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


/s/ Stephen Hanson
--------------------------
Stephen Hanson
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
May 15, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to The Electric Network.com, Inc., and will be retained by The Electric
Network.com, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“W hen denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 1

required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).

NUMBER 13-10-00315-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE LENOX MORTGAGE XII, LLC

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Vela

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1

Relator, Lenox Mortgage XII, LLC, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above

cause on June 4, 2010. The Court requested that the real parties in interest file responses

to the petition for writ of mandamus, and such responses were received from: (1) Marco

Ramirez, Bebe Ramirez, individually and d/b/a Now Management Company, Seville

McAllen Apartments, LLC, and Now Co. Loan Services, LLC (“the Ramirez parties”), and

(2) Herman A. Neidhart, individually and as General Partner of 6th and Nolana Apartments,
2

Ltd., and Neidhart Family Limited Partnership. On August 13, 2010, relator filed a reply

to the response filed by the Ramirez parties.

Mandamus is an “extraordinary” remedy. In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., L.P., 235 S.W.3d

619, 623 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding); see In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257,

259 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). In order to obtain mandamus relief, the relator must

show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate

remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004)

(orig. proceeding); see In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 462 (Tex. 2008)

(orig. proceeding). 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

and the responses thereto, is of the opinion that the relator has not shown itself entitled to

the relief sought in the petition for writ of mandamus. First, considering the particular

factual and legal background of this proceeding, relator has not shown that its appellate

remedy is inadequate. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136. Second,

relator has not shown that the trial court could reasonably have reached only one decision

on the facts presented herein, and accordingly, has not established a clear abuse of

discretion. See Liberty Nat’l Fire Ins. Co. v. Akin, 927 S.W.2d 627, 629 (Tex. 1996);

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992). Third, and finally, relief by

mandamus is not appropriate where there are factual disputes about the relator’s right or

the respondent’s duty. Brady v. Fourteenth Court of Appeals, 795 S.W.2d 712, 714 (Tex.

1990). Thus, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 17th 

day of August, 2010.
EXHIBIT 99.6(a)


CONSENT OF GEOFFREY C. REED, B APP SC








CONSENT OF AUTHOR OF NORRA KARR REE TECHNICAL REPORT




To the Board of Directors of Tasman Metals Ltd,





Reference is made to the technical report entitled “NI 43-101 Technical Report, Norra Karr REE - Zirconium Deposit, Granna, Sweden”  dated January 20, 2011, which the undersigned has prepared (the “Technical Report”).  The undersigned hereby consents to the written disclosure of the references to and extracts from the Technical Report or summaries thereof, either directly incorporated or incorporated by reference, in this Annual Information Form (the “AIF”) of Tasman Metals Ltd. (the “Company”) for the financial year ended August 31, 2011 (which is filed as Exhibit 99.1 to the Annual Report) and this Form 40-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2011 (the “Annual Report”).  In addition, the undersigned hereby consents to being named in the AIF and this Annual Report as having prepared the Technical Report.











/s/ Geoffrey C. Reed


Geoffrey C. Reed, B App Sc


Senior Consulting Geologist


Runge Inc.  d.b.a Pincock, Allen and Holt





December 28, 2011


Date








ReedLeyton Consulting




Geoff Reed, B App Sc, MAus/MM


45 Manse Rd Edinburgh EH127SW United Kingdom


Ph: +44 781 701 3720 8698  Mob: +61 419 202 619  Email: geoff.reed@leyton.com.au









EXHIBIT 99.6(b)


CONSENT OF GEOFFREY C. REED, B APP SC








CONSENT OF AUTHOR OF SAUTUSVAARA AND VIETO IRON PROPERTIES TECHNICAL REPORT




To the Board of Directors of Tasman Metals Ltd,





Reference is made to the technical report entitled “Technical Report for Seven Mineral Exploration Claims in Northern Sweden including Calculation of Current Mineral Resource Estimates for the Sautusvaara and Vieto Iron Properties”  dated May 1, 2009, which the undersigned has prepared (the “Northern Sweden Technical Report”).  The undersigned hereby consents to the written disclosure of the references to and extracts from the Northern Sweden Technical Report or summaries thereof, either directly incorporated or incorporated by reference, in this Annual Information Form (the “AIF”) of Tasman Metals Ltd. (the “Company”) for the financial year ended August 31, 2011 (which is filed as Exhibit 99.1 to the Annual Report) and this Form 40-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2011 (the “Annual Report”). In addition, the undersigned hereby consents to being named in this AIF and this Annual Report as having prepared the Northern Sweden Technical Report.











/s/ Geoffrey C. Reed


Geoffrey C. Reed, B App Sc


Reed Leyton Consulting








December 28, 2011


Date
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 61859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30358]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Advisory Circular 20-2B, Certification of Transport Category 
Rotorcraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of issuance and availability.

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

SUMMARY: Advisory Circular (AC) 29-2B, Certification of Transport 
Category Rotorcraft, is a total revision of AC 29-2A dated September 
16, 1987, with changes 1, 2, and 3, dated April 24, 1989, September 24, 
1991, and June 1, 1995, respectively, incorporated. In addition, new 
material plus changes to existing paragraphs have been incorporated to 
bring the AC up-to-date with various rule changes to 14 CFR Part 29. As 
part of the FAA effort to achieve national standardization in 
rotorcraft certification, the AC serves as a ready reference for 
manufacturers, modifiers, FAA design evaluation engineers, flight test 
engineers, and engineering flight test pilots and has been harmonized 
with the Joint Aviation Authority (JAA) to establish common guidance 
for the U.S. and for JAA member nations. The AC material has no legally 
binding status and must be treated as advisory only.

DATES: AC 29-2B was issued by the Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft 
Certification Service, on July 30, 1997.

    How to Order: A copy of AC 29-2B may be purchased from the 
Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, U.S. Government Printing 
Office, Washington, DC 20402, or from any of the Government Printing 
Offices located in major cities throughout the United States. Identify 
the publication as AC 29-2B, Certification of Transport Category 
Rotorcraft, Stock Number 050-007-01187-3. The cost if $63.00 per copy 
for orders mailed within the U.S. and $78.75 for orders mailed outside 
of the U.S. Send a check or money order, made payable to Superintendent 
of Documents, with your request. Requests may also be made by calling 
the Government Printing Office at 202-512-1800. No c.o.d. orders are 
accepted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kathy Jones, FAA, Rotorcraft 
Standards Staff, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0110, telephone (817) 222-5359, fax 
(817) 222-5961.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 7, 1997.
Eric Bries,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 97-30358 Filed 11-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-13-M
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Lewis J. PAYTON, Respondent.

No. 39098.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 15, 1970.

William H. Robbinson, Orlando, for The Florida Bar, complainant.

Lewis J. Payton, in pro. per.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us for review of the judgment entered by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar on October 24, 1969, which judgment reads in part as follows :

> “After notice and hearing, the referee found that while representing one Margaret June Horner, the respondent received from said client the sum of $1,-600.00 in attorney fees and $680.00 in trust funds. The respondent has failed to account for these funds. In addition to these sums, the accused lawyer has taken personal property, to wit, certain stainless steel tanks belonging to his client and converted them to his own use. After liquidating the tanks, he has not accounted for the proceeds of the sale.

> “The referee further found that the respondent represented one John Huber and misappropriated $5,000.00 of the trust funds of said client. Mr. Huber was unable to obtain restitution until he retained other counsel. Restitution was made before the day of final hearing.

> “It was further found that the respondent received $50,000.00 in trust from his client, Robert M. Adams. The respondent misappropriated $25,000.00 of this amount and has failed to restore or account for said funds.

> “It was further found that the respondent, in connection with his representation of Lena T. Dalpay, received some $60,000.00 in trust for said client. The respondent misappropriated said funds and in spite of numerous requests has failed to render a complete accounting and settlement. He has made restitution of $15,000.00 of said amount, but the balance of $45,871.93 remains outstanding and unaccounted for.

> “The referee observed that in spite of numerous notices and opportunities to the respondent to appear and explain his conduct, he was not present at the final hearing. The referee found the respondent guilty as aforesaid and recommended that he be disbarred. The Board of Governors concurs. It is therefore,

> “ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Lewis J. Payton be disbarred from the practice of law and that he pay the costs in this proceeding in the amount of $453.-95.”

No request for hearing before us has been submitted by respondent.

The record and judgment of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar have been examined by this Court. It is ordered that the judgment of said Board that respondent Lewis J. Payton is guilty as charged and that he be disbarred from the practice of *338law in Florida and pay the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $453.95, be and the same is approved and adopted as the judgment of this Court. Execution is hereby directed to issue for the costs against respondent.

. . j It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ-, concur.
#### Dorothy D. CASEY v. DEESON CASH GROCERY and State Auto Mutual Insurance Company.

No. 46195.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 29, 1971.

Fountain D. Dawson, Greenville, for appellant.

Lake, Tindall & Hunger, Frank S. Thackston, Jr., Greenville, for appellee.

ETHRIDGE, Chief Justice:

Mrs. Dorothy D. Casey, appellant, received on August 21, 1963, an injury to her back which arose out of and in the course of her employment for Ed Mitchell, doing business as Deeson Cash Grocery. However, she did not file her claim for workmen’s compensation benefits until April 24, 1968, approximately four years and eight months after the date of the injury. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission held that based upon what it considered substantial evidence, the claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The Circuit Court of Bolivar County properly affirmed the Commission’s order.

*535Section 6998-18, Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated (1956), provides:

> Regardless of whether notice was received, if no payment of compensation (other than medical treatment or burial expense) is made, and no application for benefits filed with the commission within two years from the date of the injury or death, the right to compensation therefor shall be barred.

The great weight of the evidence supports the Commission’s finding that claimant knew or should have known within two years after the accident that she had sustained a work-connected injury. In fact, immediately after the accident she knew that she had injured her back on the job. During the next two years she went to several doctors, had surgery, and indicated to at least one orthopedist that she thought she had a workmen’s compensation claim. She got the doctor to transmit his medical findings to an able attorney whom she had retained. Childs v. Miss. Industries for Blind, 184 So.2d 872 (Miss.1966).

 Claimant asserts that the employer and insurance carrier should be es-topped from pleading the two-year statute of limitations, on the ground that the lateness of her claim was the result of the employer’s misrepresentations to her. She testified that the employer told her he had no insurance. However, on the day after the accident, her employer brought an insurance adjuster to see her. She indicated to her doctor that she had a compensation claim and had him send his medical findings to her attorney. Assuming the employer made the alleged misrepresentation to her, she did not rely on that statement. She apparently knew the misrepresentation was false. The evidence shows that she was aware of her rights before the expiration of the limitation period. Childs v. Miss. Industries for Blind, *supra.*Hence claimant has not shown actionable fraud or misrepresentation which would effectively estop the employer and insurance carrier from pleading the two-year statute of limitations. See McCain v. Cochran, 153 Miss. 237, 120 So. 823 (1929); Anderson Dunham, Inc. v. Aiken, 241 Miss. 756, 133 So.2d 527 (1961); 3 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law § 78.45 (1970) (excuses based on employer fault).

Affirmed.

GILLESPIE, P. J., and RODGERS, BRADY, INZER and HARPER, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 11210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4681]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday March 25, 2011.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance and Enforcement Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-4681 Filed 2-25-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29815]



[[Page 60895]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket Nos. RP97-275-000 and TM97-2-59-000]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Informal Settlement 
Conference

November 6, 1997.
    Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened 
in the above-captioned proceeding at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, November 
12, 1997, at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC, for the purpose of exploring the 
possible settlement of the above-referenced dockets.
    Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as 
defined in 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to 
become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status 
pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214) prior to 
attending.
    For additional information please contact Michael D. Cotleur, (202) 
208-1076, or Russell B. Mamone (202) 208-0744.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-29815 Filed 11-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Mrs. Winnie K. PARKER v. William L. MITCHELL and Palmyra Hunting Club.

No. 45509.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 24, 1969.

Teller, Biedenharn, Rogers & Marcus, Landman Teller, Jr., Vicksburg, for appellant.

Brunini, Everett, Grantham & Quin, John C. Wheeless, Jr., Vicksburg, for ap-pellees.

BRADY, Justice:

This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Warren County, Mississippi, which affirmed a judgment of the county court granting to the appellees possession of certain property seized by the sheriff under a writ of replevin.

After reviewing the briefs filed by counsel representing the litigants, and after a most careful study of the testimony, we find that the evidence in the record warrants the finding of the county court as affirmed by the circuit court that the appellant by her letters and overt acts exercised such authority and control over the personal property, situated upon her land, which was re-plevined as to show that she was in possession thereof.

For these reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Warren County is affirmed.

Affirmed.

GILLESPIE, P. J., and RODGERS, JONES and INZER, JJ., concur.
# L_2005333EN.01003201.xml

| 20.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 333/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 333/32

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2085/2005

of 19 December 2005

determining the extent to which applications lodged in December 2005 for import licences for certain egg sector products and poultrymeat pursuant to Regulations (EC) No 593/2004 and (EC) No 1251/96 can be accepted

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 593/2004 of 30 March 2004 opening and providing for the administration of the tariff quotas in the egg sector and for egg albumin (1), and in particular Article 5(5) thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1251/96 of 28 June 1996 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas in the poultrymeat sector and albumin (2), and in particular Article 5(5) thereof,

Whereas:

The applications for import licences lodged for the period from 1 January to 31 March 2006 are, in the case of certain products, for quantities less than or equal to the quantities available and can therefore be met in full, but in the case of other products the said applications are for quantities greater than the quantities available and must therefore be reduced by a fixed percentage to ensure a fair distribution,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   Applications for import licences for the period 1 January to 31 March 2006 submitted pursuant to Regulations (EC) No 593/2004 and (EC) No 1251/96 shall be met as referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.

2.   Applications for import licences for the period 1 April to 30 June 2006, may be lodged pursuant to Regulations (EC) No 593/2004 and (EC) No 1251/96 for the total quantity as referred to in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 December 2005.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 94, 31.3.2004, p. 10.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 161, 29.6.1996, p. 136. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1043/2001 (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 24).

2

---

ANNEX

| Group No | Percentage of acceptance of import licences submitted for the period of 1 January to 31 March 2006 | Total quantity available for the period of 1 April to 30 June 2006
  (t) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| E1 | 100,0 | 134 833,700 |
| E2 | 40,047434 | 1 750,000 |
| E3 | 100,0 | 9 257,817 |
| P1 | 100,0 | 3 684,000 |
| P2 | 100,0 | 3 861,500 |
| P3 | 1,754385 | 175,000 |
| P4 | 100,0 | 484,000 |

Group No

Percentage of acceptance of import licences submitted for the period of 1 January to 31 March 2006

Total quantity available for the period of 1 April to 30 June 2006

(t)

E1

100,0

134 833,700

E2

40,047434

1 750,000

E3

100,0

9 257,817

P1

100,0

3 684,000

P2

100,0

3 861,500

P3

1,754385

175,000

P4

100,0

484,000

---
#### Maximo DeCARDENAS, Appellant, v. MANCHESTER INSURANCE AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellees.

No. 73-689.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 27, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Series Id:

Compensation Component:

Employer/Employee Charac.:

Sector:

Years:

Year Period Cost of compensation (Cost per hour worked)

2010 Qtr1 9.75

2010 Qtr2 9.72

2010 Qtr3 9.79

2010 Qtr4 9.75

Series Id:

Compensation Component:

Employer/Employee Charac.:

Sector:

Years:

Year Period Cost of compensation (Cost per hour worked)

2010 Qtr1 3.36

2010 Qtr2 3.35

2010 Qtr3 3.39

2010 Qtr4 3.42

Full Time Average 31%

Part Time Average 22%

All full-time workers

Employer Costs for Employee Compensation

Original Data Value

CMU2030000000610D,CMU2030000000610P

Total benefits

2004 to 2010

Private industry

2004 to 2010

CMU2030000000620D,CMU2030000000620P

Total benefits

All part-time workers

Private industry
Percent of total compensation

30.7

30.6

30.7

30.5

Percent of total compensation

21.5

21.6

21.6

22.0