alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2016 WY 115

 October Term, A.D. 2016

November 30, 2016

WILLIAM KENNETH HALL,

Appellant

(Defendant),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee

(Plaintiff).

S-16-0178

ORDER AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT’S JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE

[¶1] This matter came before the Court upon its own motion following notification 

that Appellant has not filed a pro se brief within the time allotted by this Court. Pursuant 

to a plea agreement, Appellant entered unconditional guilty pleas to five felonies: two 

counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree; one count of immoral or indecent 

acts; and two counts of sexual assault in the third degree. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-

315(a)(i); § 14-3-105(a); and § 6-2-304(a)(i). Appellant filed this appeal to challenge the

district court’s June 13, 2016, “Judgment and Sentence.”

[¶2] On September 7, 2016, Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a 

“Motion to Withdraw as Counsel,” pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 

87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The same day, this Court entered an “Order 

Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Pro Se Brief.” This Court ordered that 

Appellant “may file with this Court a pro se brief specifying the issues he would like this

Court to consider in this appeal.” This Court also provided notice that, after the time for 

filing a pro se brief expired, this Court would “make its ruling on counsel’s motion to 

withdraw and, if appropriate, make a final decision on this appeal.” Later, this Court 

granted Appellant’s request for an extension of time to file his brief. This Court ordered 

that Appellant could file a pro se brief on or before November 21, 2016. 
[¶3] This Court notes that Appellant has not filed a pro se brief or other pleading in the 

time allotted. However, on November 17, he filed a letter indicating he desired to 

withdraw his appeal “unless this Court is willing to appoint an attorney who can actually 

perform the necessary investigation to acquire the evidence to support my claims.” After 

careful consideration of the letter, the Court finds it cannot accept such an equivocal

withdrawal of an appeal, especially when the withdrawal does not satisfy the 

requirements of W.R.A.P. 18. 

[¶4] Now, following a careful review of the record and the “Anders brief” submitted by 

appellate counsel, this Court finds that appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw should be 

granted and the district court’s June 13, 2016, “Judgment and Sentence” should be 

affirmed. It is, therefore, 

[¶5] ORDERED that the Wyoming Public Defender’s Office, court-appointed counsel 

for Appellant, William Kenneth Hall, is hereby permitted to withdraw as counsel of 

record for Appellant; and it is further

[¶6] ORDERED that the district court’s June 13, 2016, “Judgment and Sentence” be, 

and the same hereby is, affirmed.

[¶7] DATED this 30

th day of November, 2016.

BY THE COURT:

/s/

E. JAMES BURKE

Chief Justice
#### Weissgerber, Appellant, vs. Industrial Commission and another, Respondents.

*December 11, 1942*

January *12, 1943.*

*182
      *L. A. Tarrell*of Milwaukee, for the appellant.

For the respondent Industrial Commission, there was a brief by the *Attorney General*and *Mortimer Levitan,*assistant attorney general, and oral argument by *Mr. Levitan.*

For the respondent Kohler Company there was a brief by *Lyman C. Conger*of Kohler and *Stroud, Stebbins & Wingert*of Madison, and oral argument by *E. L. Wingert.*

Fairchild, J.

This is an application of the widow of an employee for a death benefit under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, where death allegedly resulted from disease. The claim is barred by the statute. 'The last day the employee worked was June 27, 1934, he died on March 30, 1940, and no claim was filed until February 26, 1941. The law applicable to the events here involved is found in secs. 102.46 and 102.17 (4), Stats. 1933. Sec. 102.46 was before us in the case of *Kohler Co. v. Industrial Comm.*224 Wis. 369, 271 N. W. 383. It was there held that the application for a claim must be filed within the time fixed after the date of injury or death, that the right of a dependent-was limited in amount to what the deceased might have recovered had he lived.

Sec. 102.17 (4), Stats. 1933, provides:

> “The right of an employee, his legal representative or dependent to proceed under this section shall not extend beyond six years from the date of the injury or death or from the date that compensation (other than medical treatment or burial expenses) was last paid, whichever date is latest.”

By sec. 102.01 (2), Stats. 1933, “ ‘date of injury’ is . . . in the case of disease, the last day of work for the last employer whose employment caused disability.” If it occurred in this case, it could not be later than June 27, 1934. Here, then, although the six-year period had not expired at the time the *183employee died, it had expired by the time the widow filed her claim. Under the holding in the *Kohler Case, supra,*the dependent can get no greater right than the employee would have had, had he survived. Since an application filed by Weiss-gerber on February 26, 1941, would have been barred, the same is true for the claim of the present plaintiff. The death of the employee does not start a new period of limitations running in favor of his dependent.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.

Barlow, J., took no part.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report ofLake Victoria Mining Company, Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period end ofJune 30, 2007as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, David Gamache, Chief Executive Officer and 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|   
|    | Dated this 27thday of September, 2007.                                                                                                               
|   

DAVID GAMACHEDavid GamacheChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



















---
[LOGO]  Kronick                                 Officers/Shareholders
 KKB    Kalada                                  Donald M. Kronick, CPA
        Berdy & Co.                             Joseph J. Kalada, CPA
        A Professional Corporation              Paul Berdy, CPA
                                                William R. Lazor, CPA/PFS
   Certified Public Accountants                 Deborah A. Eastwood, CPA
                                                Kevin R. Foley, CPA
                                                William Fromel, CPA
                                                Mario Ercolani, CPA




                          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


An independent  auditors, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in
registration  Statement  File No.  333-80441  of  Farnsworth  Bancorp  Inc.  and
Subsidiary  on Form S-8 of our report dated  November 27, 2001  incorporated  by
reference in the 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2001.


Kronick Kalada Berdy & Co.                        /s/Kronick Kalada Berdy & Co.
Kingston, Pennsylvania
December 28, 2001



190 Lathrop Street-Kingston, PA 18704 - (570) 283-2727 - (570) 283-1670 Telefax
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

301 Market Street       101 West Broad Street           24 N. Seventh Street
Berwick, PA 18603        Hazleton, PA 18201             Stroudsburg, PA 18360
 (570) 759-8625            (570) 459-1373                  (570) 420-9500
EXHIBIT 99D

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Qu Shuzhi, director and Chief Financial Officer of Yantai Dahua Holdings
Company Limited (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

      The annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d); and

      The information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.

Dated: December 15, 2005


/s/  Qu Shuzhi
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
32.2








CERTIFICATION
OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF


THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002










I, Ben
Zadik, certify that:




In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Adex Media, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the
period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ben Zadik, 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
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, as amended;
  and




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








Date:
November 13, 2009




/s/
      Ben ZadikBen
      ZadikChief
      Financial Officer
                (Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)
IRF-2014.6.29-EX10.2






EXHIBIT 10.2




August 14, 2014


Michael Barrow


Dear Mike:


Reference is made to your offer letter (“Offer Letter”) dated March 28, 2008, for your employment with International Rectifier Corporation (“Company”). 


The purpose of this letter is to supplement the terms of the Offer Letter to memorialize an increase in base salary and elimination of car allowance effective as of the commencement of the Company’s 2015 fiscal year (“Effective Date”), as follows:


		
	1.
	Effective as of the Effective Date, your annual salary is increased from $350,000 per year to $357,000 per year; and




		
	2.
	Effective as of the Effective Date, all references in the Offer Letter to “Car Allowance” are hereby deleted and there shall be no further benefits thereunder.




Please indicate your agreement with the foregoing by signing where indicated below.


Regards,


INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER CORPORATION 




/s/ Lawrence Michlovich
By:  Lawrence Michlovich
Its:  Assistant Secretary




Acknowledged and agreed:




/s/ Michael Barrow                
Michael Barrow
Date:  8/18/2014
##### 



Certification of the Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934;(2)
    
    The information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of
the Company.
 /s/ John G. DuffyJohn G. DuffyChief Executive Officer  
 *
    
    The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as
a separate disclosure document.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2011 - 0716 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2011 -NM - 013 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3244 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3244

 To amend title 49, United States Code, relating to the airport noise 
                       and access review program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 26 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

  Mr. Schumer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 49, United States Code, relating to the airport noise 
                       and access review program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
    Section 47524(d) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (5)(B);
            (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by inserting at the end the following:
            ``(7) a local restriction limiting the hours of operation 
        of an airport adopted by the airport operator but disallowed by 
        a court before 1985 if--
                    ``(A) the airport operator adopted before 1985 a 
                policy of encouraging voluntary limitation of the hours 
                of operation; and
                    ``(B) the airport operator entered into an 
                agreement before 1985 with scheduled air carriers 
                regulating the capacity of the airport terminal.''.
                                 <all>
```
---

---

EXHIBIT 15.2

# Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-09840, 333-12146, 333-14238,
333-109874 and 333-118930) of Retalix Ltd. of our report dated July 21, 2006, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of Retalix Ltd., included in this Annual Report
(Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2006.

/s/ Kost, Forer, Gabbay & Kasierer
A Member of Ernst & Young Global
Tel Aviv, Israel
June 21, 2007

# Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-09840, 333-12146, 333-14238,
333-109874 and 333-118930) of Retalix Ltd. of our report dated January 23, 2005, with
respect to the financial statements of Cell-Time Ltd., included in this Annual Report
(Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2006.

/s/ Kost, Forer, Gabbay & Kasierer
A Member of Ernst & Young Global
Tel Aviv, Israel
June 21, 2007



---

---
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 201 (Thursday, October 17, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 83702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-23985]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-486 and 731-TA-1195-1196 (Second Review)]


Utility Scale Wind Towers From China and Vietnam

Determinations

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
reviews, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the 
Act''), that revocation of the countervailing duty order on utility 
scale wind towers from China and antidumping duty orders on utility 
scale wind towers from China and Vietnam would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the 
United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in Sec.  207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted these reviews on April 1, 2024 (89 FR 
22445) and determined on July 5, 2024 that it would conduct expedited 
reviews (89 FR 73723, September 11, 2024).
    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its 
determinations in these reviews on October 11, 2024. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5553 (October 2024), 
entitled Utility Scale Wind Towers from China and Vietnam: 
Investigation Nos. 701-TA-486 and 731-TA-1195-1196 (Second Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: October 11, 2024.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024-23985 Filed 10-16-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
Exhibit
99.9

SRK
Consulting (Canada) Inc.
1500, 155 University
Avenue
Toronto, Ontario,
Canada
M5H
3B7

T:
+1.416.601.1445
F:
+1.416.601.9046

toronto@srk.com
www.srk.com














CONSENT








Ladies and
Gentlemen:








The undersigned company
hereby consents to (1) the references to the undersigned
company’s name included or incorporated by reference in the
Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp. in connection
with the reports entitled (a) “Technical Report with
an Updated Mineral Resource Estimate for the Midwest Property,
Northern Saskatchewan, Canada” dated March 26, 2018, and
(b) “Technical Report with an Updated Mineral Resource
Estimate for the Waterbury Lake Property, Northern
Saskatchewan” dated December 21, 2018, and (2) all other
references to the undersigned company included or incorporated by
reference in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines
Corp.








Dated: March 13,
2020














SRK
CONSULTING (CANADA) INC.











(Signed) “Mark
Liskowich”


___________________________


Mark
Liskowich, PGeo.


SRK
Consulting (Canada) Inc.


Local Offices:
Saskatoon
Sudbury
Toronto
Vancouver
Yellowknife
Group Offices:
Africa
Asia
Australia
Europe
North America
South America
#### State ex rel. Wattawa, Respondent, vs. Manitowoc Public Library Board, Appellant.

*September 16*

October *11, 1949.*

*493
      *Edward Meyer*of Manitowoc, for the appellant.

*John R. Cashman*of Manitowoc, for the respondent.

Hughes, J.

Respondent (relator) concedes that the library board is not authorized by statute to grant tenure to its employees, but contends that under its general authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the library it may adopt rules for terminating employment which thereafter are binding upon it.

Counsel contends that, “tenure means the right to hold,- — ■ the rules of tenure mean the rules set up in the right of tenure governing procedure, but do not mean the right of tenure.”

We agree with counsel’s definition of tenure, but we are unable to follow the reasoning to the conclusion that where no tenure exists there may be rules of tenure governing procedure.

In the absence of tenure rights the right to hire carries the concomitant of the right to fire. This power may be exercised by the board arbitrarily and without cause.

Respondent argues that since the board is authorized by statute to administer, it has power to make rules and regulations. Counsel cites many cases holding that, “ ‘to regulate’ means ‘to adjust, order, or govern by rule, method, or established mode; direct or manage according to certain standards or laws; subject to rules, restrictions or governing principles.’ ” *State ex rel. v. Fields*(1924), 218 Mo. App. 155, 167, 263 S. W. 853, and others. From this broad premise *494respondent reasons that since the board has the power to administer and therefore the power to make rules and regulations, even though it has no power to establish tenure, it may adopt rules and regulations for termination of employment.

To hold that the board has no power to establish tenure but that it may adopt rules governing the procedure of tenure, one of which may be that an employee can be discharged only for cause, leads to a ridiculous result. To hold that the regulation requires preferment of charges which, if unfounded, are immaterial because the board may then discharge without cause, leads to an equally ludicrous end.

The library board, having no authority to establish tenure rights', has no power to establish rules governing tenure. The board having power to discharge without cause, even though it be done unfairly and unreasonably, the courts have no right to interfere. The alternative writ must be quashed because the petition upon which it is based fails to state a cause of action.

*By the Court.*— Order reversed and cause remanded with directions to quash the alternative writ of mandamus.
|   | 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|            |            | TRANSGLOBAL ASSETS, INC.      |
|-----------------|-----------------|-------------------------------|
|            |            |                          |
| August 15, 2011 | By:   | /s/ Kent A. Strickler         |
|            |            | Kent A. Strickler             |
|            |            | President and Director        |
|            |            | (Principal Executive Officer) |

----