alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
April 19, 2017

VIA EDGAR

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

|Re: | First Mining Finance Corp. (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, 2016 (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, 2016.

I, Mark Drabble, B.App.Sci (Geology), MAIG, MAusIMM, of Optiro
Pty Limited, hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with reference
to my involvement in the preparation of the following technical report:

Technical Report on the Cameron
Gold Deposit, Ontario, Canada, with an effective date of January 17, 2017 (the
Technical Report).

and to references to the Technical Report, 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.

Yours truly,

|/s/ Mark Drabble, B.App.Sci (Geology), MAIG,
      MAusIMM
|----------------------------------------------------------
|Mark Drabble, B.App.Sci (Geology), MAIG, MAusIMM          
|Principal Consultant                                      
|Optiro Pty Limited
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00080-Z-BR

§

CHRISTOPHER MARRUGO (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

CHRISTOPHER MARRUGO (1), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 

1997), has appeared before me pursuant to FED. R.CRIM. P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment.

After cautioning and examining CHRISTOPHER MARRUGO (1) under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in 

Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense charged is supported by an 

independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore recommend that the plea of 

guilty be accepted, and that CHRISTOPHER MARRUGO (1) be adjudged guilty of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) 

- CONVICTED FELON IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM and have sentence imposed accordingly. After being found 

guilty of the offense by the District Judge,

☒ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community 

if released.

☐ The Government does not oppose release.

☐ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

☐ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a 

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence 

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released.

Date: September 14, 2022

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its 

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States 

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Case 2:22-cr-00080-Z-BR Document 30 Filed 09/14/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 60
<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 Smithway Motor Xpress Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas
C. Sandvig, 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 to the best of 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 results of operations
            of the Company.

                                            /s/ Douglas C. Sandvig
                                            --------------------------------
                                            Douglas C. Sandvig
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            May 11, 2005
# Official Journal C 238/2016

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 238 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5930 June 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 238

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5930 June 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| 2016/C 238/01 | Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European GNSS Agency for the financial year 2015 — amending budget No 3 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

2016/C 238/01

Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European GNSS Agency for the financial year 2015 — amending budget No 3

1

---

All amounts in this budget document are expressed in euro unless otherwise indicated.

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

EN
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7142

MARIO BALLARD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RED ONION STATE PRISON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District

Judge. (CA-03-388-3)

Submitted: November 21, 2003 Decided: December 8, 2003

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mario Ballard, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Mario Ballard seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing without prejudice his successive petition filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), for lack of jurisdiction and the court’s

order denying Ballard’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. An appeal

may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless

a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will

not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that

any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed

the record and conclude that Ballard has not made the requisite

showing. To the extent that Ballard’s notice of appeal and

appellate brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to

file a successive § 2254 motion, we deny authorization. See United

States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), cert.

denied, U.S. , 2003 WL 22232622 (U.S. Nov. 3, 2003) (No. 03-

6548). 
3

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
(logo) pwc

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

To the Board of Directors andshareholders of CoreLogic, Inc.:

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessmentof Compliance, that CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. (the"Company"), a subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with theservicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and ExchangeCommission's Regulation AB for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcingcustomers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider(the "Platform"), as of December 31, 2016 and for the year thenended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(2)(v),1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has determined are applicable to theservicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Managementis responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on ourexamination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting OversightBoard (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our examination included testing of selected servicingactivities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Companyperformed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicing activitiesperformed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Ourprocedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors thatmay have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affectedthe balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the periodcovered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonablebasis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determinationon the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementionedapplicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 forall loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which theCompany served as the commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in allmaterial respects.

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers

 

February 6, 2017

 

 

*PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas TX 75201-2997*

*T: 214-746-6500, F:214-712-6660,*www.pwc.com
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

07/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jul 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.77 N 77.11 W Meters AGL
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5


<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        JAN-23-2000
<PERIOD-START>                           APR-26-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             JUL-25-1999
<CASH>                                            61
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     60
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    1,033
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,153
<PP&E>                                           869
<DEPRECIATION>                                   361
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,815
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,033
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                       713
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,815
<SALES>                                          631
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 631
<CGS>                                            469
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    469
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (4)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (2)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (2)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (2)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.03)


</TABLE>
Case 7:22-cr-00031-O Document 24 Filed 10/05/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 49
Case 7:22-cr-00031-O Document 24 Filed 10/05/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 50
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7971

SHAWN THOMAS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-05-415-2) Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 5, 2006 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shawn Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Shawn Thomas, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thomas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
United States District Court

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 

§ 

v. § CRIM. ACTION NO. 3:21-CR-00035-S

§ 

OSVALDO CRUZ (1) § 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY 

 OSVALDO CRUZ (1), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 1997), has 

appeared before me pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment. 

After cautioning and examining OSVALDO CRUZ (1) under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, 

I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense charged is supported by an 

independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore recommend that the plea of 

guilty be accepted, and that OSVALDO CRUZ (1) be adjudged guilty of (Count One) 18 U.S.C. § 751, Escape from 

Custody and have sentence imposed accordingly. After being found guilty of the offense by the District Judge: 

տ The Defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody. 

տ The Defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the Defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community 

if released. 

տ The Government does not oppose release. 

տ The Defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release. 

տ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b) or (c). 

տ The Government opposes release. 

տ The Defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release. 

տ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government. 

տ The Defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless: (1)(a) the Court finds there is 

a substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the Defendant should not be detained; and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence 

that the Defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released. 

SIGNED April 27, 2021. 

 

 _____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

NOTICE 

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its 

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States 

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B). 

Case 4:22-cr-00182-O Document 21 Filed 04/27/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID 40
#### YARBOROUGH v. STATE.

No. 21707.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 5, 1941.

No attorney for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for theft of cattle, punishment assessed being two years in the penitentiary.

The record is before the court without statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 269 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 269

   Concerning consideration of United States military action against 
                                 Haiti.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 19, 1994

  Mr. Goss (for himself, Mr. Goodlatte, Ms. Dunn, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. 
 Linder, Mr. Horn, Mr. Grams, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Bachus of 
 Alabama, Mr. Thomas of Wyoming, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Smith of Texas, 
   Mr. Kyl, Mr. Baker of California, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Canady, Mr. 
 Boehner, Mr. Talent, Mr. Walker, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Miller of Florida, 
Mr. McCollum, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mrs. Meyers of Kansas, 
Mr. Stump, Mr. Roth, Mr. Herger, Mr. Lewis of Florida, Mr. Weldon, Mr. 
    Schaefer, Mr. Grandy, Mr. Livingston, Mr. Gilman, and Mr. Shaw) 
 submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Concerning consideration of United States military action against 
                                 Haiti.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should not 
undertake any military action directed against Haiti unless the 
President first certifies to the Congress that there exists a clear and 
present danger to the citizens of the United States and that United 
States interests require such action.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# ACTION:

Notice of Meeting.

# SUMMARY:

This notice sets forth the schedule and summary agenda for the next meeting of the Panel to Assess the Capabilities for Domestic Response to Terrorist Attacks Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction. Notice of this meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. (Pub. L. 92-463).

# DATES:

November 27 and 28, 2000.

# ADDRESSES:

RAND, 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050.

# PROPOSED SCHEDULE AND AGENDA:

Panel to Assess the Capabilities for Domestic Response to Terrorist Attacks Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction will meet from 8:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on November 27, 2000 and from 8:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. on November 28, 2000. The meeting will include classified briefings on cyber terrorism and therefore portions of the meeting will be closed to the public. Time will be allocated for public comments by individuals or organizations.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

RAND provides information about this Panel on its web site at http://www.rand.org/​organization/​nsrd/​terrpanel; it can also be reached at (703) 413-1100 extension 5282. Public comment presentations will be limited to two minutes each and must be provided in writing prior to the meeting. Mail written presentations and requests to register to attend the open public session to: Priscilla Schlegel, RAND, 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050. Public seating for this meeting is limited, and is available on a first-come, first-served basis.

Dated: November 6, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00-28861 Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M