alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | (a) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                    |   |                                                                                                          |
|-------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated: November 2, 2010 |   | /s/ Stoney M. Stubbs, Jr.                                                                                     |
|                    |   | Stoney M. Stubbs, Jr.Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)           |
|                    |   |                                                                                                          |
| Dated: November 2, 2010 |   | /s/ John R. McManama                                                                                          |
|                    |   | John R. McManamaSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

----

----
#### Phelps & Jones *v.*Patterson.

The right of an attorney to sue for services does not accrue until the termination of the suit in which he was employed, unless the relation of client and attorney is sooner ended — and so the statute of limitation does not commence running against him until then.

*Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.*

Hon. L. L. Mack, Circuit Judge.

Stillwell & Wassell, for appellants.

Watkins & Bose, contra.

Compton, J.

This was an action of assumpsit for professional services, commenced by Patterson against Phelps & J ones, on the 2-3d of February, 1867.

The defendants pleaded non-assumpsit-and the statute of limitations; to which pleas issues were regularly made up and submitted to a jury, who found for the plaintiff; and thereupon the defendants moved for a new trial, which was denied, and they appealed.

The evidence discloses the following facts: The suit in which the professional services were rendered was brought by Patterson, as attorney for Phelps & Jones, in May, 1861. In the month of July or August, next following, the suit was compromised and settled by the parties, without any participation by Patterson in the settlement. Soon thereafter an agent of Phelps & Jones — they being non-residents — applied to Patterson and instructed him to dismiss the suit, which he did not do until October, 1865. Why the suit was not dismissed at an earlier day is not shown, nor does it appear that any provision was made for payment of the attorney’s fee, or the cost.

*186It is insisted for the • appellants that Patterson’s claim— which was an open account — was barred by the limitation act of three years; because, as is contended, the statute commenced running at the time of the compromise and settlement, in 1861. The court thinks differently. The right of an attorney to sue for services does not accrue until the termination of the suit in which he was employed, unless the relation of client and attorney is sooner ended; *Nichols v. Wilson, 11 M. & W. Excheq. Rep., 106; Fenno v. English, 22 Ark., 170;*and in this case, we are clearly of opinion that the suit did not terminate until it was dismissed. The statute, therefore, did not commence running until October, 1865; and consequently the claim was not barred. As before remarked, the evidence does not show why Patterson did not dismiss the suit at an earlier period; but, if he was eveng uilty of negligence in this respect, it is-not easy to perceive how it could affect the question here presented.

It follows that the court did not err in refusing to give the instructions moved by the appellants; nor is there any error in those given by the court, of which the appellants can complain.

Judgment affirmed.
H. Res. 229

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

August 3, 1993.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 2330) to authorize appropriations for fiscal

year 1994 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of

the United States Government and the Central Intelligence

Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with.

Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to

comply with section 302(f) or 303(a) of the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided

and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member

of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. After

general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment

under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as

an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
2

HRES 229 EH

minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in

the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title rather

than by section. Each title shall be considered as read. Points

of order against the committee amendment in the nature of

a substitute for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI

or section 302(f) or 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act

of 1974 are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order unless

printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated

for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII prior to its consideration. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to

the House with such amendments as may have been adopted.

Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on

any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to

the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a

substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
3

HRES 229 EH

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit

with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
No. 00-974.

#### Cadlerock Properties Joint Venture, L. P. *v.*Connecticut Commissioner of Environmental Protection et al.

Sup. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied.
| Official Journalof the European Union | ISSN 1725-2423C 318Volume 50**29 December 2007** |
| --- | --- |

Official Journalof the European Union

ISSN 1725-2423C 318Volume 50**29 December 2007**

| English edition | | Information and Notices | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| |
| Notice No | Contents | page | |
| | | IV *Notices* | |
| | | **NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES** |
| | | **European Parliament** |
| 2007/C 318/01 | Report on budgetary and financial management — Financial year 2006 | 1 |

English edition

Information and Notices

---

Notice No

Contents

page

IV *Notices*

**NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES**

**European Parliament**

2007/C 318/01

Report on budgetary and financial management — Financial year 2006

1

| **EN** | |
| --- | --- |

**EN**
EXHIBIT
32





Certification
of Periodic Report by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


As
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




Pursuant
to, and for purposes only of, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, Dennis J. Mouras, Chief
Executive Officer and acting principal financial officer of CareAdvantage, Inc.
(the “Company”), hereby certify that (i) the Annual Report of the Company on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii)
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: March
      31, 2009
              /s/ Dennis J. MourasDennis
      J. MourasChief
      Executive Officer and acting Principal Financial
  Officer
EXHIBIT 99.21



CONSENT OF March
Consulting Associates Inc.



March 27, 2013



Brigus Gold Corp.

United States Securities and Exchange Commission



Re: Brigus Gold Corp.



Ladies and Gentlemen:



We hereby consent to (i) the use of our name in connection with
the following documents and reports, which are either referenced in or filed as exhibits with the Annual Report on Form 40-F for
the year ended December 31, 2012 (the “Form 40-F”) of Brigus Gold Corp. (the “Company”) to which this consent
relates: (A) the technical report entitled “NI 43-101 Technical Report, Pre-feasibility Study, Brigus Gold Corp., Goldfields
Project, Saskatchewan, Canada” dated effective October 6, 2011 (the “Report”), (B) the Company’s Annual
Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2012 and (C) the Company’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis for
the year ended December 31, 2012, (ii) the inclusion or incorporation by reference of information derived from the Report in the
Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-113889, 333-162558 and 333-167757), as amended, and Form F-10 (File No. 333-174604),
as amended, or any related abbreviated registration statement filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission
pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or in any amendment to any of the foregoing, or to any prospectuses
or amendments or supplements thereto and (iii) all other references to us included or incorporated by reference in the above-referenced
Registration Statements and in any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto.



|Sincerely,                       |                  
|-------------------------------- | -----------------
|                                 |                  
|March Consulting Associates Inc. |                  
|                                 |                  
|/s/ Barry Schmitke               |                  
|Name:                            | Barry Schmitke   
|Title:                           | Authorized person
No. 00-908.

#### County of San Bernardino et al. *v.*Bank of America National Trust and Savings Assn.

Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
254 La. 785

#### Artie VEULEMAN v. BITUMINOUS CASUALTY CORPORATION.

No. 49979.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 8, 1969.

In re: Mrs. Artie Veuleman and her husband, Ivy Veuleman, applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Sabine. 223 So.2d 258.

Writs refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law in the judgment reached by t.hat Court.

FOURNET, C. J., and SANDERS and BARHAM, JJ., are of the opinion that the writ should be granted. The medical facts as found and recited by the majority on rehearing establish as a matter of law that plaintiff with the attendant conditions of “ * * * elevated blood pressure, her tendency toward obesity, and her occupation * * * ” is unable to return to work without an increased hazard to her health and the necessity to work in pain. The *773majority on rehearing further erred as a matter of law in its failure to accord the proper weight to the testimony of the attending physician, especially where the physicians who examined her upon only one occasion were not specialists in vascular diseases and where one of these, according to the majority’s summary of his testimony, corroborated the attending physician with his opinion that “ * * * a superficial thrombophlebitis would predispose her to a recurrence * * * contingent upon the presence or absence of other conditions”, which are shown to exist in this case.
263 La. 994

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Thankful FEAZEL v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 53057.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 21, 1972.

In re: Thankful Feazel applying for writs of habeas corpus, mandamus and/or certiorari.

Writ refused. The relator previously appealed his case to this Court. See State v. Feazel, 263 La. 134, 267 So.2d 548 (1972). In this petition relator reurges matters already disposed of in the appeal. This he cannot do. See State ex rel. Barksdale v. Dees. 252 La. 434, 211 So.2d 318.
# Official Journal C 194A/30 J

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 194A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4730 July 2004 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 194A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4730 July 2004

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Notices |
| | Council |
| 2004/C 194A/1 | Notice of vacancies — European Defence Agency — Directors | 1 |
| | European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia |
| 2004/C 194A/2 | Call for applications HOUA-A-2004 | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Notices

Council

2004/C 194A/1

Notice of vacancies — European Defence Agency — Directors

1

European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia

2004/C 194A/2

Call for applications HOUA-A-2004

2

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

EN

---

III Notices

Council

| 30.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 194/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 194/1

---

NOTICE OF VACANCIES

European defence agency

Directors

(2004/C 194 A/01)

The European Defence Agency intends to recruit four Directors for its four directorates:

| — | Military Capabilities Development (Ref. EDA/A/2004/012), |
| --- | --- |

—

Military Capabilities Development (Ref. EDA/A/2004/012),

| — | Research and Technology (Ref. EDA/A/2004/0029), |
| --- | --- |

—

Research and Technology (Ref. EDA/A/2004/0029),

| — | Armaments (Ref. EDA/A/2004/042), |
| --- | --- |

—

Armaments (Ref. EDA/A/2004/042),

| — | Defence Industry and Market (Ref. EDA/A/2004/051). |
| --- | --- |

—

Defence Industry and Market (Ref. EDA/A/2004/051).

More information (available in English) and application forms may be obtained on the Council website at the following address: http://ue.eu.int (contacts/job offers)

Deadline: 3 September 2004, the postmark serving as proof.

---

European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia

| 30.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 194/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 194/2

---

CALL FOR APPLICATIONS HOUA-A-2004

(2004/C 194 A/02)

The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) seeks candidates with a view to filling certain posts. Detailed information on these vacancies, the missions of the Centre and the procedure to be followed to prepare an application are published on the EUMC Internet site at the following address: http://eumc.eu.int.

---
257 La. 175

#### SUCCESSION of William Fleet PETERSON.

No. 50986.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 14, 1970.

In re: John Lee Peterson et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 240 So.2d 39.'

Writ refused. The result is correct.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nathan L. Hawkins, Also Known as William Hawkins, Also Known as Terrence Howard, Appellant.

[736 NYS2d 39]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered July 21, 1999, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of one year, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s constitutional speedy trial motion was properly *321denied (see, *People v Taranovich,*37 NY2d 442, 445). The 41/2-year delay was caused primarily by defendant’s failure to return to court for scheduled court dates, his interstate flight, and his use of an alias in order to avoid prosecution (see, *People v Wing Keung Tsang,*284 AD2d 218; *People v Brown,*281 AD2d 340, *lv denied*96 NY2d 899). Furthermore, the crime was serious, there was no pretrial incarceration resulting from the delay, and defendant has not established any prejudice. Concur — Williams, J.P., Tom, Rosenberger, Wallach and Mar-low, JJ.
#### James DYCUS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-285.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 18, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A0378. KELLEY GAMBLIN DIXON v. VEDENNIS DIXON.

Kelley Gamblin Dixon seeks appellate review of a Final Judgment and decree

of divorce. Under the Georgia Constitution of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (6), the

Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over “[a]ll divorce and alimony cases.”

Accordingly, this appeal is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court of

Georgia.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

10/21/2014

October 21, 2014
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Michael Brosnan, Chief Financial Officer 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 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
Company.

/s/ Michael Brosnan
----------------------------
Michael Brosnan
Chief Financial Officer
November 13, 2003
#### Russell, *et*al., *v.*Shute.

Constitutional *law*— contracts *for slaves.*Where a judgment was rendered upon a note given upon the purchase of a slave, and the statutory judgment accrued upon the delivery bond before the adoption of the Constitution of 1868, the former judgment was satisfied by the latter before that Constitution was adopted, and neither judgment is within the inhibition of section 14, article 15.

*Appeal from Phillips Circuit Court.*

Hon. John E. Bennett, Circuit Judge.

English, Gantt & English, for appellants.

Garland & Nash, for appellee.

Harrison, J.

The appellants, who were complainants in the court below, sought by their bill to enjoin proceedings on a judgment against them in favor of the appellee, on a forfeited delivery bond, upon the ground that its collection was within the inhibition of section 14, article 15, of the Constitution of the State.

The original judgment, which was on a note given for the purchase of a slave, was rendered against Osear F. Russell and Geo. *W.*Gray, on the 19th day of June, 1866, and the delivery bond, in which Lycurgus Cage, the other complainant, was the *470security, was returned forfeited, and the statutory judgment accrued thereon at the May term, 1867, and before the adoption of the present Constitution.

The court, rrpon demurrer, for want of equity, dismissed the bill.

The provision of the Constitution relied upon by the complainant, as inhibiting the collection of the judgment sought to be enjoined, reads as follows:

“All contracts for the sale or purchase of slaves are null and void, and no court of this State shall take cognizance of any suit founded on such contracts; nor shall any amount ever be collected or recovered on any judgment or decree which shall have been, or which hereafter may be, rendered on account of any such contract or obligation, on any pretext, legal or otherwise.”

The judgment upon the delivery bond had no connection whatever with the contract for the purchase of the slave. That was merged in and extinguished by the original judgment, and that judgment was satisfied and extinguished by this, upon the delivery bond; so that, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the judgment that had been rendered upon the contract for the purchase of the slave, had been satisfied, and no longer existed. *Biscoe, et al., v. Sandefur, admr., et al.,*14 *Ark.,*568; *Phillips, et al., v. Wells, Pease & Co., ib.,*595; *Dougherty v. McDonald,, ib.,*597; *Cochran v. Jordan, 16 Ark., 625; Rector v. Harris, Norton & Co.,*19 *Ark.,*265; *Frazier*v. *McQueen, et al.,*20 *Ark.,*68; *Neale v. Jeter, ib.,*98.

The grave question which may be raised, whether the provision of the State Constitution, above quoted, conflicts with that provision of the Constitution of the United States which prohibits the States from passing any law impairing the obligation of contracts, is not necessarily involved in the decision of the case, and we do not assume the responsibility of considering it.

The decree of the court below is affirmed.