alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 99.3**

 

**PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION**

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

 

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

 

(1)                                 The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

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

 

Date: March 23, 2017

 
|   | /s/ John Wilson               |
|--------|-------------------------------|
|   | John Wilson                   |
|   | Principal Executive   Officer |

 

----
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00614-CR

Ex parte Kelly James McCarty

FROM THE 33RD DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY

NO. 30842D, THE HONORABLE J. ALLAN GARRETT, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant Kelly James McCarty, representing himself pro se, filed a notice of 

appeal from the district court’s order denying his application for writ of habeas corpus.

McCarty’s brief on appeal was originally due April 20, 2022, but on McCarty’s motions, the 

time for filing was extended to July 20, 2022. After this deadline passed, McCarty filed a 

fourth motion for extension of time, requesting an extension to September 6, 2022. To date,

McCarty’s pro se brief has not been filed.

We order appellant to file his pro se brief no later than October 3, 2022. No 

further extension will be granted. If the brief is not filed by that date, the appeal may be 

submitted on the record alone. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(4).

It is ordered on September 9, 2022.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Smith

Do Not Publish
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

AT KNOXVILLE

C. M. REAGAN ) HAMILTON COUNTY

) 03A01-9805-CH-00173

Plaintiff-Appellee )

)

 )

v. )

) HON. R. VANN OWENS,

 ) CHANCELLOR

TROY MALONE, SANDRA MALONE )

and DAN CONNELLY )

) AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

Defendants-Appellants ) and REMANDED

MARVIN BERKE OF CHATTANOOGA FOR APPELLANT DAN CONNELLY

SCOTT N. BROWN, JR., and SCOTT A. MILLER OF CHATTANOOGA FOR APPELLEE

O P I N I O N

 Goddard, P.J. 

This is an appeal by Dan Connelly from an order entered by the Chancellor

pursuant to a motion by C. M. Reagan, seeking to discover assets of Mr. Connelly for the

purpose of satisfying a judgment rendered in Mr. Reagan’s favor.

Because the Chancellor was of the opinion that Mr. Connelly was not honoring

previous orders to produce documents, he entered an order (see appendix), which is the subject of

this appeal.

FILED

November 23, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court

Clerk
2

During oral argument in this Court, counsel for Mr. Reagan conceded that he had

received all the necessary information addressed by the Chancellor’s order, except the bank

records from the Northwest Georgia Bank.

Counsel for Mr. Connelly conceded that he and his client would have no objection

to counsel for Mr. Reagan examining the Georgia bank records provided counsel for Mr.

Connelly could be present when they were examined.

In light of the concessions on both sides, the Court vacates the order previously

entered by the Chancellor, except that part of the order relating to the Georgia Bank, which will

remain in full force and effect, provided counsel for Mr. Connelly has the opportunity to be

present when any bank records are examined.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Trial Court, as modified, is

affirmed and the cause remanded for such proceedings, if any, as may be necessary and

collection of costs below. Costs of appeal, as are costs below, are adjudged one-half against Mr.

Reagan and one-half against Mr. Connelly.

_______________________________

Houston M. Goddard, P.J. 

CONCUR:

________________________________

Herschel P. Franks, J.
3

 (Not Participating) 

Don T. McMurray, J.
#### VISALI TIE BEAM v. J. R. S. CONSTRUCTION CO.

No. 38869.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 1970.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
PROTOCOL

Amending the Agreement between

the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the 

States of Guernsey for the Exchange of Information Relating to Taxes, 

signed at Washington, on September 19, 2002.

The Government of the United States of America and the Government of 

the States of Guernsey (hereinafter “the parties”),

Desiring to amend the Agreement between the Government of the United 

States of America and the Government of the States of Guernsey for the 

Exchange of Information Relating to Taxes, signed at Washington, on September 

19, 2002,

Acknowledging that the Government of the States of Guernsey has been

entrusted, under the terms of the Entrustment from the United Kingdom of Great 

Britain and Northern Ireland, to negotiate, conclude, perform and subject to the 

terms of this Agreement terminate a tax information exchange agreement with the 

Government of the United States of America,

Have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE I

The following shall be added after Article 5 (Exchange of Information 

Upon Request):

“ARTICLE 5A

Automatic Exchange of Information

1. The competent authorities of the parties may automatically transmit 

information to each other for the purposes referred to in Article 1 (Scope of 

the Agreement). The parties shall determine the items of information to be 

exchanged pursuant to this Article and the procedures to be used to 

exchange such items of information. 

2. The competent authorities of the parties may mutually agree on 

additional procedures to be used for the purposes of this Article.

ARTICLE 5B

Spontaneous Exchange of Information

The competent authority of a party may spontaneously transmit to the 

competent authority of the other party information that has come to the attention 

of the first-mentioned competent authority and that the first-mentioned competent 

authority supposes to be foreseeably relevant to the accomplishment of the 

purposes referred to in Article 1 (Scope of the Agreement). The competent 

authorities of the parties shall determine the procedures to be used to exchange 

such information.”

ARTICLE II

The parties shall notify each other in writing when their necessary internal 

procedures for entry into force of this Protocol have been completed. This

Protocol shall enter into force on the date of the later of such written notifications. 

In witness whereof, the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto by the 

respective parties, have signed this Protocol. 

Done at _____ in duplicate, this __ day of _____, 20__.

FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF 

THE UNITED STATES OF THE STATES OF GUERNSEY:

AMERICA:
OSWER/OSRTI

Washington, DC 20460

NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST (NPL) 

***Proposed Site*** March 2015 

BJAT LLC Franklin, Massachusetts

Norfolk County

 Site Location:

BJAT LLC is an approximately 18.3-acre property located at 300 Fisher Street in Franklin, Norfolk County, Massachusetts.

 Site History:

Beginning in the late 1800s the BJAT LLC property was used for industrial operations including the manufacture of rubber 

and plastic products. The property has not been active since 1985. 

The current owner of the site has conducted four environmental investigations from 2005 to 2012. These include an 

Environmental Site Assessment in 2005; a Subsurface Investigation in 2007; a Site Inspection in 2008 and a 

Comprehensive Site Assessment in 2012. Previous investigations have found process waste and debris containing 

hazardous substances including metals and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) at concentrations above applicable 

state standards.

 Site Contamination/Contaminants:

Lead, mercury and zinc, as well as a number of SVOCs are contaminating the soil, sediment and ground water. Over the 

years manufacturing activity has left areas of process waste and debris on the property. 

 Potential Impacts on Surrounding Community/Environment: 

A town of Franklin public water supply well is located less than 1⁄2 mile from the property. There is also a town beach 

within one mile. Contamination has migrated to surrounding wetlands and surface water sediments.

 Response Activities (to date):

The entire site has been fenced to discourage trespassers. Additional fencing has been constructed in areas identified as 

posing an elevated hazard due to high levels of metals and SVOCs in soils and sediments. 

 Need for NPL Listing:

The commonwealth of Massachusetts referred the site to the EPA because the contaminated ground water plume is 

affecting nearby properties and wetlands, and contamination on the property poses a hazard to people that may come in 

contact with soil and debris. Other cleanup approaches were considered, but are not viable at this time because of the extent 

of contamination. The EPA received a letter of support for placing this site on the NPL from the state.

[The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was evaluated with the HRS. The description may change 

as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination. See 56 FR 5600, February 11, 1991, or subsequent FR notices.]

For more information about the hazardous substances identified in this narrative summary, including general information regarding the effects of exposure to these 

substances on human health, please see the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ToxFAQs. ATSDR ToxFAQs can be found on the Internet 

at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/index.asp or by telephone at 1-888-42-ATSDR or 1-888-422-8737.
# L_2005340EN.01001701.xml

| 23.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 340/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 340/17

---

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2117/2005

of 21 December 2005

amending Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 133 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

| (1) | By Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (1) the Council adopted common rules for protection against dumped imports from countries which are not members of the European Community. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (1) the Council adopted common rules for protection against dumped imports from countries which are not members of the European Community.

| (2) | In view of the very significant progress made by Ukraine towards the establishment of market economy conditions, as recognised by the conclusions of the Ukraine-European Union Summit on 1 December 2005, it is appropriate to allow normal value for Ukrainian exporters and producers to be established in accordance with the provisions of Article 2(1) to (6) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In view of the very significant progress made by Ukraine towards the establishment of market economy conditions, as recognised by the conclusions of the Ukraine-European Union Summit on 1 December 2005, it is appropriate to allow normal value for Ukrainian exporters and producers to be established in accordance with the provisions of Article 2(1) to (6) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In Regulation (EC) No 384/96, in the first sentence of Article 2(7)(b), the term ‘the Ukraine’ shall be deleted.

Article 2

This Regulation shall apply to all investigations initiated pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 384/96 after the date of entry into force of this Regulation, either on the basis of an application for initiation lodged after such date, or at the initiative of the Commission.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

Done at Brussels, 21 December 2005.

For the Council

The President

B. BRADSHAW

---

(1)  
  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 12).

1

---
#### Michele BELLOISE, wife of John Belloise, deceased, Petitioner, v. BARIATRIC CORPORATION et al., Respondents.

No. 42687.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 21, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
#### Clarence COTTON, Petitioner, v. The STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION of the State of Florida and the Marion County School Board, Respondents.

No. T-182.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 13, 1973.

*53John F. Welch, Ocala, for petitioner.

Charles E. Miner, Jr., Tallahassee, Herbert D. Sikes, Jacksonville, and John P. Mc-Keever of Pattillo, MacKay & McKeever, Ocala, for respondents.

JOHNSON, Judge.

In this petition for writ of certiorari, the petitioner contends that the Order of the Marion County School Board did not contain any specific findings of fact.

A review of the record on appeal discloses that the petitioner was actually guilty of willful neglect of duty by reason of his failure, without good cause, to be in his classroom on the date of August 26, 27, 28 and 31, 1970. The order of the School Board recites these facts, that is, that the petitioner was not in his classroom on said dates, and without good cause.

We are of the opinion, and so hold, that the order appealed does stand the test enunciated in Powell v. Board of Public Instruction of Levy County, 229 So.2d 308 (Fla.App. 1st, 1969), and Ford v. Bay County School Board, 246 So.2d 119 (Fla. App. 1st, 1970) as to the findings of fact required in the Order terminating the petitioner’s employment. But, inasmuch as it would probably save the School Board and the courts if the School Board’s attorneys would insist upon more detailed statements of the facts as found being stated in the Order, we suggest that this be done hereinafter by the School Boards.

Petition for certiorari is denied.

RAWLS, C. J., and HOWELL, CHARLES COOK, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
#### Blanche REXFORD v. Patricia ROWELL.

No. 49624.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 14, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 26, 1977.

James Sideris, Gulfport, for appellant. Hawkins & Henry, Joe Ben Hawkins, Biloxi, for appellee.

Before SMITH, P. J., and BROOM and LEE, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 60672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29842]


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

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

20 CFR Part 404

[Regulations No. 4]
RIN 0960-AE35


Reduction of Disability Benefits--Workers' Compensation and 
Public Disability Benefits and Payments

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Proposed rules; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On September 4, 1997, in the Federal Register (62 FR 46682), 
we published a proposal to revise our rules on the reduction of Social 
Security benefits based on disability on account of receipt of workers' 
compensation and/or public disability benefits and payments provided 
under Federal (other than Social Security), State, or local laws or 
plans to clarify our existing policies. To allow the public additional 
time to send us comments, we are extending the comment period. We are 
also making a few changes in the address and contact information.

DATES: To be sure that your comments are considered, we must receive 
them no later than January 5, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted in writing to the Commissioner 
of Social Security, P.O. Box 1585, Baltimore, MD 21235, sent by telefax 
to (410) 966-2830, sent by E-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8aeaeaf8efedffe6ebfee3e5e4f9caf9f9eba4ede5fc">``<span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e7958280928b86938e888994a7949486c9808891">[email protected]</span></a>'', or 
delivered to the Office of Process and Innovation Management, Social 
Security Administration, L2109 West Low Rise Building, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-0001, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on 
regular business days. Comments may be inspected during these same 
hours by making arrangements with the contact person shown below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel T. Bridgewater, Legal 
Assistant, Office of Process and Innovation Management, Social Security 
Administration, L2109 West Low Rise Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, 
Baltimore, MD 21235, (410) 965-3298 for information about these rules.

    Dated: November 6, 1997.
Kenneth S. Apfel,
Commissioner of Social Security.
[FR Doc. 97-29842 Filed 11-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4190-29-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000741612
<NAME> TNP ENTERPRISES, INC
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      921,248
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      5,344
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          39,099
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        27,119
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 992,810
<COMMON>                                       190,267
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            112,096
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 302,363
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,240
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           374,436
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  130,100
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 182,671
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  992,810
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      125,399
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             2,366
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     105,045
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     107,411
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         17,988
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 198
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  18,186
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        13,561
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,625
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         38
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    4,587
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         3,569
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       12,498
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                        (10,963)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62771-62772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30871]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Freight Forwarder License; Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission applications for licenses as ocean 
freight forwarders pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 
(46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR 510).
    Persons knowing of any reason why any of the following applicants 
should

[[Page 62772]]

not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of Freight 
Forwarders, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, D.C. 20573.

J.E.S. Forwarding Inc., 130A Kinderkamack Road, Montvale, NJ 07645, 
Officer: John E. Staib, Jr., President
A A Shipping, 100 Market Street, Suite 116, Inglewood, CA 90301, Peter 
Mozie, Barbara Mozie, Partnership

    Dated: November 19, 1997.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-30871 Filed 11-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

NCS MULTISTAGE, LLC

,
Appellant,

v.

BOYD & MCWILLIAMS ENERGY GROUP, INC.; BOYD & MCWILLIAMS OPERATING; RUBICON OIL & GAS II LP; OIE WINKLER JV, LP; HARRY M. BETTIS, JR., LLC; JOHN D. BETTIS LLC; COLLINS PERIMAN, LP; ROCKPORT OIL & GAS LLC; DAVID MCWILLIAMS; and EKH MINERALS

,
Appellee s

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00 219

- CV

Appeal from the

109th Judicial District Court

of Winkler County, Texas

(TC# DC 19

- 17669 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before this Court is Appellant’s unopposed motion to dismiss. Appellant’s motion states

that the parties have settled the dispute underlying this appeal and seeks a dismissal pursuant to

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2) ( voluntary dismissal by agreement)

. That rule

provides for this Court to: “(A) render judgment effectuating the parties’ agreement; (B) set aside

the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and remand the case to the trial court for2 rendition of judgment in accordance with the agreement; or (C) abate the appeal and permit

procee dings in the trial court to effectuate the agreement

. ” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A)

– (C)

.

Because t he parties have not filed a joint motion or a settlement agreement with the clerk

as required by Rule 42.1(a)( 2 ) , we construe the motion and relief requested therein as a motion by

Appellant to dismiss the appeal under Rule 42.1(a)(1)

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a) (1) (allowing

appe llate courts to dismiss an appeal on the motion of the appellant.). The motion to dismiss the

appeal is granted. Costs of the appeal are taxed against the party incurring the same pursuant to

the unopposed motion

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(d)

.

LISA J. SOTO

, Justice

February 1 5 , 202 4

Before Alley , C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.