alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Attorney General Eric H. *

Holder, Jr. has been substituted for former Attorney General Michael

B. Mukasey as the respondent.

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 08-2276

FRANKLIN MCCREATH,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,*

Respondent.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on July 21, 2009 is amended

as follows:

On page 4, line 6, "December 12, 2001" should be replaced

with "December 12, 1997"
---

March 30, 2010

VIA EDGAR

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

|Re: | Great Basin Gold Ltd. (the "Company")
|--- | -------------------------------------
|    | Annual Report on Form 40-F           
|    | Consent of Expert                    

This letter is provided in connection with the Company's Form
40-F annual report for the year ended December 31, 2009, and any amendments
thereto, (the Annual Report) to be filed by the Company with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC). The Annual Report
incorporates by reference the Annual Information Form of the Company for the
year ended December 31, 2009.

I, Johan Oelofse, hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with reference to my involvement in the preparation of the following technical report  (the "Technical Report"):

- Revised Technical Report on the June 2009 Update of the Mineral Resource Estimate for Hollister Gold Mine dated October 30, 2009,
- Revised Technical Report Update on the September 2009 Mineral Resource Estimate for the Burnstone Gold Project dated November 9, 2009

and to references to the Technical Reports, or portions thereof, in the Annual Report and to the inclusion and incorporation by reference of the information derived from the Technical Report in the Annual Report.

I also consent to the use of my name in connection with reference to my involvement in the preparation of the Technical Reports and to references to the Technical Reports, or portions thereof, and to the inclusion and incorporation by reference of the information derived from the Technical Reports in the Companys Form F-10 Registration Statements, as amended, filed with the SEC under File No. 333-157767 and File No. 333-163021.

Yours truly,

|/s/ Johan Oelofse     | 
|--------------------- | 
|Johan Oelofse, FSAIMM | 

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906


of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Not Filed Pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Friedman Industries,
Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Ben Harper, Senior Vice
President-Finance and Secretary/Treasurer of the Company,
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 requirement 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 Company.

Dated: February 14, 2005



| |                  
| | -----------------
| | By /s/ BEN HARPER
| |                  
| | Name: Ben Harper 

| |        |                                                      
| | ------ | -----------------------------------------------------
| | Title: | Senior Vice President-Finance and Secretary/Treasurer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM
10-Q FOR THE THREE FISCAL QUARTERS ENDED OCTOBER 3, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-03-1998
<CASH>                                          23,539
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  442,428
<ALLOWANCES>                                    21,354
<INVENTORY>                                  1,026,934
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,584,651
<PP&E>                                       1,652,084
<DEPRECIATION>                                 723,254
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,014,213
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,230,197
<BONDS>                                      1,130,440
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        96,325
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,030,002
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,014,213
<SALES>                                     11,511,835
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,511,835
<CGS>                                       10,385,064
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,321,203
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                11,969
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             124,411
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 54,252
<INCOME-TAX>                                    27,668
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,584
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,584
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .70
        

</TABLE>
#### Leonard ODUM, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43444.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 27, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 272 So.2d 886.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
**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





I,
      Scott
      Grisanti, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of Aduromed
      Industries, Inc., (the “Company”), hereby certify that, to the best of my
      knowledge and belief:





1.
      The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, of the Company for the three month period ended
      September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
      "Quarterly Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a)
      or
      15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.
      The
      information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Date:
      December 1, 2008








/s/
      Scott
      Grisanti





Scott
      Grisanti


President
      and Chief Executive Officer
#### Michael SCHUBOWSKY, Appellant, v. HEARN FOOD STORE, INC., a dissolved Florida corporation, and Quitman Eugene Hearn, Appellees.

No. 70-708.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 6, 1971.

Rehearing Denied May 26, 1971.

Ralph P. Ezzo, Miami, and Richard H. W. Maloy, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Jeanne Heyward and Robert H. Crary, Miami, for appellees.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HEN-DRY and SWANN, JJ.

CHARLES CARROLL, Judge.

Appellant, a customer in a grocery store owned by the appellees, was injured by a robber’s gunshot in a gunfire affray between the store proprietor and two armed robbers, when the proprietor resisted the robbers by attempting to get the “drop” on the robbers and to arrest them. The appellant sued the appellees for damages for personal injuries alleging resistance of the robbers by the proprietor which plaintiff charged was negligent, and alleging the owners were negligent in failing to have an alarm system and for entrusting a firearm to the employee for protection purposes. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed. We hold the ruling of the trial court was correct, and affirm the judgment.

The defendants’ employee was privileged and justified in defending his own life and the employers’ property when faced by the armed robbers. In resisting the robbers, the proprietor had justification over and above an ordinary elective act entailing risk to a third person. When an opportunity arose to get the “drop” on the robbers, the proprietor was entitled to act upon it in resistance of the robbery. The fact that in the course of his resistance, which succeeded in averting the robbery, the customer who was present was shot by one of the robbers, does not operate to negative the justification of the proprietor to so act in such circumstances. A victim of a violent crime, such as armed robbery, is justified and privileged against liability for an injury which may result from his resistance which otherwise could cause actionable damage. See Miracle v. Kriens, *485160 Fla. 48, 33 So.2d 644; Yingst v. Pratt, 1966, 139 Ind.App. 695, 220 N.E.2d 276; Helms v. Harris, Tex.Civ.App.1955, 281 S.W.2d 770; Noll v. Marian, 347 Pa. 213, 32 A.2d 18; 52 Am.Jur., Torts §§ 85, 86; Prosser on Torts, 3rd Ed., §§ 16, 19, 24.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10(a)


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Post-Effective Amendment
No. 25 to Registration Statement on Form N-4 (Reg. No. 2-78738) of Sun Life of
Canada (U.S.) Variable Account C of our report dated February 9, 2001
accompanying the financial statements of Sun Life of Canada (U.S.) Variable
Account C, and to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 7,
2001 accompanying the consolidated financial statements of Sun Life Assurance
Company of Canada (U.S.).

We also consent to the references to us under the heading "Condensed Financial
Information - Accumulation Unit Values" in the Prospectus, and under the heading
"Accountants" in the Statement of Additional Information, which are parts of
such Registration Statement.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
July 24, 2001
| CareAdvantage | 485C      Rt. 1 South                 |
|---------------|---------------------------------------|
|          | 4th      Floor, Suite 400             |
|          | Iselin,      NJ  08830-3037 |
|          | Tel:  866-863-6555          |
|          | 732-362-5000                          |
|          | Fax:  732-362-5005          |
|          | www.careadvantage.com                 |

|   |
|--------|
|   | Via:      U.S. Mail And Facsimile |

| Sincerely,                                   |
|----------------------------------------------|
|                                         |
| /s/      Dennis J. Mouras                    |
|                                         |
| Dennis      J. Mouras                        |
| President      & Chief Executive Officer |

| By:    | /s/ Don C. George                            |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   | Don      C. George                           |
|   | President      & Chief Executive Officer |

----

----
#### STATE of Louisiana, Through the SABINE RIVER AUTHORITY, State of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank J. PIERCE et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11322.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Jan. 6, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 3, 1970.

Writ Refused Feb. 27, 1970.

W. R. Jackson, Jr., Leesville, E. L. Edwards, Jr., Many, for plaintiff-appellant.

W. Charles Brown, Gordon B. Golsan, Jr., Goodwyn'H. Harris, Jr., Mansfield, for defendants-appellees.

Before AYRES, DIXON and WILLIAMS, JJ.

DIXON, Judge.

This case was consolidated for the purpose of trial with No. 11,323, State of Loui*752siana, through the Sabine River Authority, State of Louisiana v. Pierce et al., La.App., 230 So.2d 752. Both cases involve the expropriation of tracts of land in DeSoto Parish by the Sabine River Authority. There was judgment in each case in favor of the defendants.

The plaintiff appealed, but, until after the day fixed for submission of the case, made no appearance nor filed any brief.

Under the authority of Rule VII, Section 5(b) of the Uniform Rules of the Courts of Appeal, the appeal should be dismissed. See Benedict v. Stulb, 230 La. 995, 89 So.2d 768.

Appeal dismissed.
# Official Journal C 301/7 De

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 301 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 477 December 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 301

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 477 December 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2004/C 301/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2004/C 301/2 | Notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People's Republic of China | 2 |
| | The European Data Protection Supervisor |
| 2004/C 301/3 | Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on mutual administrative assistance for the protection of the financial interests of the Community against fraud and any other illegal activities (COM(2004) 509 final of 20 July 2004) | 4 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2004/C 301/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2004/C 301/2

Notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People's Republic of China

2

The European Data Protection Supervisor

2004/C 301/3

Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on mutual administrative assistance for the protection of the financial interests of the Community against fraud and any other illegal activities (COM(2004) 509 final of 20 July 2004)

4

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### Michael L. STONE et al., Appellants, v. Nancy Jane STONE, now known as Nancy Jane Sonnentag, and Roger Sonnentag, her husband, Appellees.

No. 71-202.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 18, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAY-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                         3701
<SECURITIES>                                   31981
<RECEIVABLES>                                  14576
<ALLOWANCES>                                   190
<INVENTORY>                                    21823
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               74275
<PP&E>                                         36702
<DEPRECIATION>                                 24833
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 96018
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          11242
<BONDS>                                        372
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       9164
<OTHER-SE>                                     57200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   96018
<SALES>                                        19712
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               21206
<CGS>                                          11109
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  17653
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               30
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             150
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3373
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1095
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2278
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2278
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.27



</TABLE>
GAIL LEE,

Appellant,

v.

REEMPLOYMENT 

ASSISTANCE APPEALS 

COMMISSION and ROLFE & 

LOBELLO PA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-4100

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 9, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission.

Gail C. Lee, pro se, Appellant.

Norman A. Blessing, General Counsel, and Cristina Angelica Velez, Appellate 

Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS and WETHERELL, JJ., and SOUD, ADRIAN G., ASSOCIATE 

JUDGE, CONCUR.
#### James RUTLEDGE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43674.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 6, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 275 So.2d 626.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN and BOYD, JJ., dissent.
#### Patrick K. GRIFFIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-407.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 11, 1973.

*81Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and Daniel A. Moriarty, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PIERCE, Judge (Ret.).

In this case appellant Patrick K. Griffin was informed against for unlawful possession of marijuana. He appeared before the lower Court with the local Assistant Public Defender as his Counsel, was arraigned on the charge, and entered a plea of not guilty. He thereafter filed a motion to suppress the evidence.

At the hearing on his motion to suppress, the evidence showed that Griffin was a full tenant of a motel operated by one Jack Shirley. As a part of the rent, the tenants were entitled to maid service once a week, of which fact Griffin was informed. On January 26, 1972, the maid entered Griffin’s room when he was away and found the room in disarray. On the dresser were five or six plastic bags containing what the maid supposed was marijuana. She immediately called the owner, Mr. Shirley, to come to the room. Mr. Shirley took one of the bags to the police station, then returned to his motel and called the sheriff’s office. One of the deputies came out and Shirley took him to Griffin’s room. He knocked on the door and Griffin called to them to come in. The deputy went inside the room and asked Griffin about the marijuana. Consent was given to search the room, and additional marijuana was found.

The motion to suppress was denied and Griffin entered a plea of nolo contendere, reserving the right to appeal the adverse ruling on his motion to suppress. He was adjudged guilty and sentenced to serve six months in the County Jail. This appeal ensued.

The Public Defender, appointed to represent him upon this appeal, has filed a brief in this Court stating that he had examined the record on appeal and could find nothing which could arguably support an appeal. For this reason the Public Defender requested that he be allowed to withdraw as attorney of record, citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493.

Thereafter, on September 5, 1972, this Court, having caused a copy of said brief to be served upon appellant Griffin, entered an order herein allowing appellant, within 30 days thereafter, if he so desired, to file an additional brief calling this Court’s attention to any matters that he feels should be considered in connection with the appeal in this cause. No such additional brief has been filed.

However, in justice to appellant, we have examined the entire files and records in this Court upon this appeal, but find nothing therein which would warrant or justify this Court in disturbing the judgment of conviction appealed.

The judgment appealed is thereupon — ■

Affirmed.

LILES, A. C. J., and McNULTY, J„ concur.
**Exhibit 99.3**

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**FIA Card Services, National Association**

**BA Master Credit Card Trust II**

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of FIA Card Services, National Association (the “Bank”), as Servicer pursuant to the Second Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 20, 2006 (as amended from time to time, the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) by and between the Bank and The Bank of New York            Mellon, as trustee (the “Trustee”) does hereby certify that:

1.     The Bank is Servicer under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

2.     The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement to              execute and deliver this Certificate to the Trustee.

3.     This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 3.05 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

4.     A review of the Servicer’s activities during the twelve-month period ended June 30, 2008 and of its              performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

5.     To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under              the Pooling and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such twelve-month period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 15th day of September 2008.

 

By:/s/ Elizabeth S. Buie                     

Name: Elizabeth S. Buie

Title: Senior Vice President