alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CONSENT OF AUTHOR





To:

BC Securities Commission

Alberta Securities Commission

Ontario Securities Commission

Securities & Exchange Commission



I, Curtis Freeman, do hereby consent to the filing, with the regulatory authorities referred to above, of the technical report titled EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT FOR THE ROB PROJECT, GOODPASTER MINING DISTRICT, ALASKA and to the written disclosure of the Technical Report and of extracts from or a summary of the Technical Report in the written disclosure of Freegold Ventures Limited to be filed with regulatory agencies.



I also certify that I have read the written disclosure being filed and I do not have any reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information derived from the Technical Report or that the written disclosures of Freegold Ventures Limited contains any misrepresentation of the information contained in the Technical Report.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 369 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 369

  To provide States with the authority to permit certain employers of 
             domestic workers to make annual wage reports.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 4, 1999

  Mr. Cleland introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide States with the authority to permit certain employers of 
             domestic workers to make annual wage reports.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION FOR STATE TO PERMIT ANNUAL WAGE REPORTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1137(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1320b-7(a)(3)) is amended by inserting before the semicolon the 
following: ``, and except that in the case of wage reports with respect 
to domestic service employment, a State may permit employers (as so 
defined) that make returns with respect to such service on a calendar 
year basis pursuant to section 3510 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 to make such reports on an annual basis''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to wage reports required to be submitted on and after the date of 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Schulz and another, Appellants, vs. Industrial Commission and others, Respondents.

*March 11*

April *12, 1949.*

*580For the appellants there was a brief by *Fisher, Reinholdt & Peickert*of Stevens Point, and oral argument by *Richard T. Reinholdt.*

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.*

Fairchild, J.

In order for an employee to recover compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, two things must be proved: (1) That he was acting in the course of his employment at the time of the accident; and (2) that the injury was in some way due to the employment.

The commission had grounds for its conclusion in the fact that deceased had entered upon his employment for Schulz Brothers as a student-driver. The only inference from that fact and the further fact that he was sent with Kearn to Chicago was to acquaint himself with all that was' reasonably necessary for him to- know to- enable him to discharge his duties. Kearn, the driver-instructor, said that he had been instructed by his employer to stop when someone was injured in an accident and give aid. The acts then to be performed would be such as called for by the circumstances; and whatever they were, his acts would be proximately and legally connected with his duties under the instructions. While an employee’s duties must appear from contract, an employer’s instructions *581may enlarge the scope of employment so as to include assistance in case of accident to a third person.

Seeing the two cars off the road, Kearn stopped. He had reason to believe that in such a situation there would be someone injured. There can be no question but that at the time he and the deceased were acting in the course of their employment because complying with the express command of their employer. It follows that in leaving the truck to go to the. scene of the accident, Malchow was acting within the course of his employment.

Since Malchow was acting in the course of his employment in walking to the accident, his death, which occurred when a passing car struck him, clearly was incidental to his employment.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
exhibit103q22014




FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (“First Amendment”), dated as of June 13, 2014, is entered into by and between HOOPER HOLMES, INC. (“Seller”), and MCELROY DEUTSCH MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP (“Purchaser”), with reference to the following facts:


A.Seller and Purchaser have entered into that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement dated as of May 13, 2014 (“Purchase Agreement”) for the sale of the Property, as more particularly described in the Purchase Agreement.


B.Seller and Purchaser now desire to amend the Purchase Agreement in certain respects, as provided for hereinbelow.  Capitalized terms not defined herein have the meanings specified in the Purchase Agreement.


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, Seller and Purchaser hereby agree as follows:


1.Amendments to Purchase Agreement.  The Purchase Agreement is hereby amended as follows:


a.End of the Inspection Period.  Seller and Purchaser agree Section 1.7 of the Purchase Agreement shall be amended to read as follows:  End of the Inspection Period  shall mean 5:00 p.m. New Jersey time on July 2, 2014.


2.Successor and Assigns.  This First Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties, their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns.


3.Counterparts.  This First Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts each of which is deemed an original but together constitute one and the same instrument.  Signatures sent via facsimile or electronic mail, including but not limited to signatures in the form of PDF files, scanned images, etc., shall constitute original signatures for the purposes of this Agreement.


4.Status of Purchase Agreement.  Except as specifically amended by this First Amendment, the Purchase Agreement remains unchanged and, as amended by this First Amendment, the Purchase Agreement is in full force and effect.


    







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have duly executed this First Amendment as of the date first above written.


	
		
	SELLER:
	HOOPER HOLMES, INC.

	 
	



By:   /s/ Henry E. Dubois     
Name: Henry E. Dubois
Title: President & CEO









	PURCHASER:
	MCELROY DEUTSCH MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP




     /s/ Edward B. Deutsch     
Name: Edward B. Deutsch
Title:  Managing Partner







2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

ERASMO M. PIEDRA,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 536 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25th day of November, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
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 Annual Report of Sterling Oiland
Gas Company (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Richard G. Stifel, 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 7th day of October, 2009.




RICHARD STIFELRichard G. StifelChief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certificationof Principal Financial OfficerRequired by Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b)of the Exchange Act**

        Inconnection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Advanstar, Inc. (the “Company”)for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Theodore S. Alpert, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the bestof my knowledge:

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 
| By:    | /s/ Ted S. Alpert       |   |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|--------|
|   | Theodore S. Alpert      |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   |                    |   |
| Date:  | April 2, 2007           |   |

 

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 206 (Thursday, October 24, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 84943]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24633]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 24, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 17, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 494 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-109, K2025-107.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-24633 Filed 10-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 31.1


          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Roy Israel, certify that:

1. I have reviewed  this  quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of  clickNsettle.com,
Inc. (the "Registrant");

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial  condition,  results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.  The  Registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and  I  are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure  controls and procedures,  or caused such disclosure
controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to ensure that
material  information  relating to the  Registrant,  including its  consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,  particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  Registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions  about the effectiveness
of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant's internal control over
financial  reporting that occurred during the Registrant's  first fiscal quarter
that has materially affected,  or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,  based on our
most recent  evaluation of internal  control over  financial  reporting,  to the
Registrant's  auditors  and the audit  committee  of the  Registrant's  board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      a)    All significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
            control over  financial  reporting  which are  reasonably  likely to
            adversely  affect  the  Registrant's  ability  to  record,  process,
            summarize and report financial information; and

      b)    Any fraud,  whether or not  material,  that  involves  management or
            other  employees  who have a  significant  role in the  Registrant's
            internal control over financial reporting.



Date:  November 9, 2006

/s/ Roy Israel
-------------------------------------
Roy Israel - Chairman of the Board,
CEO and President
08/OG/2010 16:13 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS g|001/00 1 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In the Matte r of: DARBY AVIATION, INC. ^ 

Docket No. CP08SO0026 '^^ 

FDMS No. FAA.2008-1192 ^"^ 

Served: August 5, 2010 

SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME 

Administrative Law Judge Isaac D. Benkin served a wriiicn initial decision on June 3, 

2010, finding ihal Respondent Darby Aviation, Inc., did not violate 14 C.F.R. 

§ 135.293(a), as alleged in the complaint, and dismissing the case with prejudice. The 

FAA filed a timely notice of appeal from the written initial decision. Subsequently, the 

FAA was granted an extension of time until August 6, 2010, in which to perfect its 

appeal. 

By letter dated August 4, 2010, the agency attorney has requested second extension of 

time, until September 6, 2010, in which to perfect the agency's appeal. The agency 

attorney explained that the parties met on August 3, 2010, in mediation of a similar case 

which is now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. 

According to ihe agency attorney, ''[d]uring the course of the discussions it became 

apparent that settlement of all the cases associated with Darby Aviation, Inc., including 

this one, is a realistic possibility." He represented further that Respondent's counsel 

agreed to the request for the second extension of time. 

In light of the foregoing, the FAA's request for an extension of time in which to file its 

appeal brief is granted under 14 C.F.R. § 13.233(c)(r). The FAA'S appeal brief, 

therefore, is due to be filed on or before September 6, 2010. 

J. RANDOLPH BABBITT 

ADMINISTRATOR 

Federal Aviation Administration 

VICKU ^.^ ' 

Manner, Adjudication Branch 

' Issued under ainhority delegated to the Chief Counsel and the Assisiani Chief Counsel for 

Litigation by Memorandum dated October 27, 1992, under 49 U.S.C, § 322(b) and 14 C.F.R. 

§ 13-202 (see 57 Fed. Reg. 58,280 (1992)) and redelegated by the Assistant Chief Counsel for 

Litigation lo ihc Manager, Adjudication Branch, by Memorandum dated August 6, 1993. 

c5
1 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfa vors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 2/22/96 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) No. 95-4133 v. ) (D.C. No. CIV-94-191) ) (D. Utah) LUIS GALVEZ-VALDOVINOS, ) ) Defendant-Appellant. )

___________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT 1

____________________________ Before PORFILIO, MCKAY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

_____________________________

Because neither party has requested oral argument, we will consider this case on the briefs. The facts are well known to both sides and will not be set forth here in detail.- 2 -

The defendant, Luis Galvez-Valdovinos, was convicted of the possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. The illegal substance was found by investigating officers hidden in a vehicle defendant was driving in the state of Utah. The only argument raised on appeal is one which defendant denominates as a challenge of the sufficiency of the evidence. More particularly, however, the argument defendant presents is the jury should have believed his testimony rather than that of the government’s witnesses. Although defendant had made statements to the investigating officers during the investigation, he contradicted those statements at trial. Accordingly, he argues: “His testimony concerning the circumstances surrounding his arrest and his explanations for his being present at a location where controlled substances were found should have created reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.” This argument is fanciful. On appeal, we do not judge the credibility of witnesses or the weight of their testimony. United States v. Muldrow , 19 F.3d 1332, 1339 (10th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 175 (1994). While the argument advanced by defendant is appropriate before a jury, it is equally inappropriate on appeal. When a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is made, we judge that evidence and the inferences that can be drawn reasonably from that evidence in a light most favorable to the government to determine whether any rational fact-finder could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Pike , 36 F.3d 1011, 1012 (10th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1170 (1995).- 3 -

Having applied that test to the record before us, we conclude there is more than ample evidence to support the verdict. AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

JOHN C. PORFILIO CIRCUIT JUDGE
Exhibit 21.1
 Subsidiaries of Mediacom LLC
 State of Incorporation
    
    Names Under WhichSubsidiary
    
    or Organization
    
    Subsidiary does BusinessMediacom California LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    Mediacom California LLCMediacom Capital Corporation
    
    New York
    
    Mediacom Capital CorporationMediacom Delaware LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    Mediacom Delaware LLC
Maryland Mediacom Delaware LLCMediacom Illinois LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    Mediacom Illinois LLCMediacom Indiana Partnerco LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    Mediacom Indiana PartnercoMediacom Indiana Holdings, L.P.
    
    Delaware
    
    Mediacom Indiana Holdings, L.P.Mediacom Indiana LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    Mediacom Indiana LLCMediacom Iowa LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    Mediacom Iowa LLCMediacom Minnesota LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    Mediacom Minnesota LLCMediacom Southeast LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    Mediacom Southeast LLC
Mediacom New York LLCMediacom Wisconsin LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    Mediacom Wisconsin LLCZylstra Communications Corporation
    
    Minnesota
    
    Zylstra Communications Corporation
 Subsidiaries of Mediacom California LLC
 State of Incorporation
    
    Names Under WhichSubsidiary
    
    or Organization
    
    Subsidiary does BusinessMediacom Arizona LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    Mediacom Arizona LLC
Mediacom Cable TV I LLC
Mediacom Arizona Cable Network LLC
 Subsidiaries of Mediacom Illinois LLC
 State of Incorporation
    
    Names Under WhichSubsidiary
    
    or Organization
    
    Subsidiary does BusinessIllini Cable Holding, Inc.
    
    Illinois
    
    Illini Cable Holding, Inc.
 Subsidiaries of Illini Cable Holding, Inc.
 State of Incorporation
    
    Names Under WhichSubsidiary
    
    or Organization
    
    Subsidiary does BusinessIllini Cablevision of Illinois, Inc
    
    Illinois
    
    Illini Cablevision of Illinois, Inc.
EXHIBIT 99.2

               STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
               SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         The undersigned, Melanie Paisley Miller, Chief Financial Officer of AF
Bankshares, Inc. (the "Company").

         This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the
Company of Amendment No. 1 to the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report").

         By execution of this statement, I certify that:

          A)   the Report 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

          B)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
               covered by the Report.

         This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report
so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that
this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended.



October 18, 2002                                 /s/ Melanie Paisley Miller
----------------                                 --------------------------
Dated                                            Melanie Paisley Miller
Presidential Documents

83761 

Federal Register 

Vol. 89, No. 202 

Friday, October 18, 2024 

Title 3— 

The President 

Memorandum of September 25, 2024 

Delegation of Authority Under Section 506(a)(1) and Section 

614(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, including section 621 of the Foreign 

Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State: 

(1) the authority under section 506(a)(1) of the FAA to direct the drawdown 

of up to $375 million in defense articles and services of the Department 

of Defense, and military education and training, to provide assistance to 

Ukraine and to make the determinations required under such section to 

direct such a drawdown; and 

(2) the authority under section 614(a)(1) of the FAA to determine whether 

it is important to the security interests of the United States to furnish 

up to $103 million in assistance to Ukraine without regard to any provision 

of law within the purview of section 614(a)(1) of the FAA. 

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal 

Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, September 25, 2024 

[FR Doc. 2024–24313 

Filed 10–17–24; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PRESDOCBIDEN.EPS</GPH>