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

Exhibit 32.





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 Dutch Gold Resources, Inc.  (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steve Keaveney, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





(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 result of operations of the Company.





Date: November 12, 2010
/s/Steve KeaveneyName:  Steve Keaveney

Title:  Chief Financial Officer

(Principal d Financial Officer)





This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
#### Van der Blomen, Respondent, vs. City of Milwaukee, Appellant.

*October 8*

October *23, 1917.*

*Municipal corporations: Defective sidewalk: Question for jury.*

A slight depression in one block and an elevation in the adjoining block of a cement sidewalk, the difference in level being about one and one-quarter inches, was, as a matter of law, not an actionable defect. *Kleiner v. Madison,*104 Wis. 339, followed.

Aeread from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: W. J. TueNer, Circuit Judge.

*Reversed.*

Personal injury. Pall on sidewalk.

On October 6, 1915, the plaintiff, while walking northwesterly on the easterly side of West Water street in the city of Milwaukee, fell and was injured. She alleges that her fall was caused by a depression in the cement sidewalk, which, according to undisputed evidence, was not to exceed one and one-quarter inches deep. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff upon a special verdict, and from that judgment defendant appeals. Other facts are stated in the opinion.

Por the appellant there was a brief by *Glifton Williams,*city attorney, and *E. L.*McIntyre, first assistant city attorney, and oral argument by *Mr. McIntyre.*

Por the respondent there was a brief by *Lehr & Kiefer,*
      *169attorneys, and *Julius B. Kiefer*and *Horace B. 'Wdlmsley,*of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. W aim s-ley.*

EoseNBehev, J.

Defendant claims that tbe judgment should be reversed for two reasons: (1) that the defect which existed in the sidewalk was not actionable, and"(2) that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.

The sidewalk in question was built of concrete and was constructed in the ordinary way in squares. At the point where the corners of four blocks came together there was an inequality in the sidewalk, caused, as appears from the cast offered and received in evidence, by a slight depression in one block and an elevation in the adjacent block immediately to the north of it. From the bottom of the depression to the top of the elevation was about one and one-quarter inches. The elevation was from three quarters of an inch to an inch above the general level of the sidewalk. Did the court err in permitting the jury to say whether or not the walk was defective ?

This case is clearly ruled in favor of the appellant by *Kleiner v. Madison,*104 Wis. 339, 80 N. W. 453. The decision in *Kleiner v. Madison*is not modified or overruled by *Johnson v. Eau Claire,*149 Wis. 194, 135 N. W. 481. It is not necessary to repeat here what was said in *Kleiner v. Madison.*The doctrine announced in that case finds support in a large number of cases from other jurisdictions, cited in 20 L. R. A. n. s. 640, and 43 L. R. A. n. s. 1158.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint upon the merits.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE CLAIRE RODRIGUEZ-LAFRASSE, ELIE 

HADCHITY,

______________________ 

2014-1545

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 12/528,118.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT 

______________________ 

MARINA T. LARSON, Larson and Anderson, LLC, Dillon, CO, argued for appellants. 

JAMIE LYNNE SIMPSON, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, 

argued for appellee. Also represented by NATHAN K.

KELLEY, JEREMIAH HELM. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and 

BRYSON, Circuit Judges). 
 

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

February 6, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING,
INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US$

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             366
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,958
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     11,083
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,375
<PP&E>                                           5,042
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,677
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,204
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,329
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,252
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,095
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,204
<SALES>                                         57,295
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                57,295
<CGS>                                           38,356
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   53,819
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (67)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,409
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,364
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,045
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,045
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.40


</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 23-3583

___________________________ 

Deon A. Stewart

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Department of Correctional Service Staff; Sherwood, Case Manager; NeuJahr, 

Case Manager; Sera Nelson, Warden; Cathy Sears, Warden; Taggart Boyd, 

Warden; M. Dicini, Corporal

 Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln

____________ 

Submitted: February 6, 2024

Filed: February 9, 2024

[Unpublished] 

____________ 

Before BENTON, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
-2- 

Deon Stewart appeals the district court’s1 orders granting his motion to 

voluntarily dismiss his complaint and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

relief from judgment. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Upon careful consideration of the record and Stewart’s arguments on appeal, 

this court concludes the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting 

Stewart’s motion to dismiss his case and denying Rule 60(b) relief. See Paulucci v. 

City of Duluth, 826 F.2d 780, 782-83 (8th Cir. 1987); Miller v. Baker Implement Co., 

439 F.3d 407, 414 (8th Cir. 2006). 

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the 

District of Nebraska.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,803
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,609
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,730
<INVENTORY>                                      6,360
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,925
<PP&E>                                          74,918
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,807
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 487,042
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,071
<BONDS>                                         41,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           207
<OTHER-SE>                                     207,245
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   487,042
<SALES>                                         14,084
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,254
<CGS>                                            4,327
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,254
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   280
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 781
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,484
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,994
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,490
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,490
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-12-00561-CV

IN RE ESTATE OF GEORGE LEE MABE, Deceased

From the Probate Court No. 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-PC-0373

Honorable Polly Jackson Spencer, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 13, 2013

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

Appellant filed a notice of appeal on August 30, 2012 indicating her intent to appeal an 

“Order on Motion to Compel Discovery Responses” signed on August 17, 2012 in the 

underlying probate proceeding. Having determined that the order appeared to be interlocutory, 

we ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack 

of jurisdiction. Appellant responded by filing several documents, none of which addressed the 

jurisdictional issue. Appellee filed a response requesting that the appeal be dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction because the order sought to be appealed is interlocutory. The appellate record 

confirms that the August 17, 2012 order is interlocutory in that it does not dispose of all pending 

claims and parties in the pending probate proceeding, and no severance order appears in the 

record. See City of Beaumont v. Guillory, 751 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Tex. 1988); Lehmann v. Har-
04-12-00561-CV 

- 2 -

Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001) (judgment that does not dispose of all parties and 

causes of action is not final and appealable). Further, this type of interlocutory order is not 

included within section 51.014 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code as an order from which 

an interlocutory appeal is authorized. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014. Therefore, 

we must dismiss the appeal. Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 200. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed 

for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

 

PER CURIAM
United States Department of the Interior

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING

RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

Washington, D.C. 20240 

Date: _______________ 

Subject: CHANGE NOTICE

Directive: GMT-10 

Title: Federal Assistance Manual

Approval: Glenda H. Owens, Deputy Director Signature: __________________________ 

Transmittal Number: _______________

1. Purpose

This Change Notice provides minor revisions to Directive GMT-10, Federal Assistance Manual 

(FAM), issued August 15, 2019. The revisions fulfill the corrective actions identified in 

Recommendations 4 and 9 in the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement’s (OSMRE) Oversight of the Abandoned Mine Lands Program 

(Report No. 2016-EAU-007). 

2. Summary of Changes

The revisions clarify that both coal and non-coal reclamation projects require the use of 

Authorizations to Proceed (ATPs) pursuant to 30 CFR 885.16(e) (Recommendation 4) and

clarify how to collect and track engineering and design project costs with new subaccounts 

(Recommendation 9). A summary of the changes for each chapter is included below: 

Part 1 - Requirements for All OSMRE Assistance Agreements

1-140 Removed reference to subaccounts

Part 4 - Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Grant Program

4-100 Replaced information on subaccounts with reference to FAM chapter 4-500 

4-130 Added reference to FAM chapter 4-500 

4-150 Added reference to FAM chapter 4-500 

4-170 Added clarification on the requirements of the use of ATPs for coal and non-coal 

projects

4-200 Replaced information on subaccounts with reference to FAM chapter 4-500 

4-240 Added reference to FAM chapter 4-500 

4-300 Replaced information on subaccounts with reference to FAM chapter 4-500 

4-500 Added new chapter with all information on subaccounts 
2

3. Effect on Other Documents

Other OSMRE directives with potential reference to ATPs and subaccounts are under review and 

will be updated if needed to ensure consistent information is provided regarding ATP and 

subaccounts. 

4. Effective Date

Upon signature. 

5. Distribution

By electronic format. All OSMRE directives are publicly available at 

http://www.osmre.gov/lrg/directives.shtm. 

6. Contact

Program Support Directorate, Division of Reclamation Support.
IA 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 4 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States granting 

Congress the authority to enact laws limiting the number of terms 

that Representatives and Senators may serve. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2017 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE (for himself and Mr. O’ROURKE) submitted the following 

joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States granting Congress the authority to enact laws 

limiting the number of terms that Representatives and 

Senators may serve. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 4 IH 

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

2 for ratification: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

4 ‘‘Congress may by law limit the number of terms that 

5 Representatives and Senators may serve.’’. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.2


              Certification of Chief Financial Officer 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 Mattson Technology, Inc. (the
     "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 27, 2004 as filed with
     the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
     Ludger Viefhues, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
     certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
     906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 result of operations of
          the Company.



August 6, 2004                              /S/ LUDGER VIEFHUES
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Ludger Viefhues
                                            Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Mattson Technology, Inc. and will
be retained by Mattson Technology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Hardware Mutual Casualty Company and another, Appellants, vs. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin and others, Respondents.

*October 9*

November *7, 1928.*

*158For the appellants there was a -brief by *Quarles, Spence & Quarles,*attorneys, and *Arthur B. Doe,*of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Doe.*

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

For the respondents F. J. Preston Company and Builders Mutual Casualty Company there was a brief by *Shannon & Cronin*of Oconomowoc and *Hannan, Johnson & Gold-schmidt*of Milwaukee, attorneys, and *W. J. Goldschmidt*of Milwaukee, of counsel, and oral argument by *W. J. Gold-schmidt.*

Eschweiler, J.

We deem it unnecessary to determine the exact legal relationship concerning the building of the scaffold as between the Hardware Company, having the contract for the .tin work and for which work the scaffold was necessary, and the Preston Company, furnishing some of *159the lumber and some of. the labor in connection with its erection.

Without discussing the evidence in detail, we think there was sufficient to warrant the conclusion reached below and that there was no such complete, temporary surrender of control by the Hardware Company over Morin, its employee, or recognition by him of the Preston Company as a temporary employer, so that it must be said as a matter of law, assuming now the verity of appellants’ version of the transactions, that the former relationship of employer and employee was for the moment severed and a new one created. Since such a claimed change in relationship cannot be pronounced as a matter of law, the judgment must be sustained.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed; respondents F. J. Preston Company and Builders Mutual Casualty Company to have one bill of costs.
UNITED ST AT ES ENVIRONMENT AL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105

5/26/2010 MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: C rude oil produced water ponds in San Joaquin

Valley
F ROM : Joanne Wells, Rules Office, EPA Region IX
T O : File
The purpose of this memorandum is to document a telephone conversation with Doug Watchell on May 26, 2010, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding the status of crude oil produced water ponds in San Joaquin Valley. Doug stated that a significant number of sumps and ponds in the San Joaquin Valley ha ve been closed since 1990s, even in th e last 10 years. The RWQCB has closed more than 600 acres of ponds. Pond closure, under Title 27, requires the operator to remove the sludge and to backfill to grade. A number of the large pond systems, such as those in the North Bellridge Oil Field, sto pped receiving wastewater in 2007, so they are just now completing closure. He noted that a few of the ponds would remain to be used for emergency spill containment at the oil producing facilities. A number of oil producers are using underground injection to dispose of the water produced during oil production in place of the ponds. Doug also noted that ponds in the Elk Hills Oil Fields are isolated from a usable aquifer therefore those ponds are being allowed to continue to operate by RWQCB.