alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 13.1  SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION  In connection with this amended transition report of Kiska Metals Corporation (the Company) on Form 20-F/A-2 (Amendment No. 2) for the transition period from February 1 to December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jason S. Weber, President, Chief Executive Officer & Director 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/ Jason S. Weber  Name: Jason S. Weber Title: President, Chief Executive Officer & Director November 21, 2011         EXHIBIT 13.2  SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION  In connection with this amended transition report of Kiska Metals Corporation (the Company) on Form 20-F/A-2 (Amendment No. 2) for the transition period from February 1 to December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Adrian Rothwell, 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/ Adrian Rothwell  Name: Adrian Rothwell Title: Chief Financial Officer November 21, 2011
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-12-00408-CR

Jose A. ESCALANTE,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of 

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009CR11013

Honorable Pat Priest, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 12, 2013

AFFIRMED

Jose A. Escalante was indicted for murder. Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, 

Escalante pled no contest to the reduced charge of manslaughter. Because the parties agreed 

Escalante’s plea would be open and the trial court would assess punishment, the trial court held a 

sentencing hearing. After hearing evidence related to punishment, the trial court sentenced 

Escalante to twenty years imprisonment. Escalante timely filed a notice of appeal. His courtappointed appellate attorney has filed a brief in which she raises three arguable points of error, 

but nonetheless concludes that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. 
04-12-00408-CR

- 2 -

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). 

Counsel states that appellant was provided with a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw, and 

was further informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Bruns v. State, 

924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Escalante did not file a pro se 

brief. 

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree that the appeal is frivolous 

and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore, we grant the motion 

to withdraw. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no 

pet.); Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. 

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of 

this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a 

petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition 

for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the later of (1) the date of this 

opinion; or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply 

with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 68.4.

Karen Angelini, Justice

Do not publish
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PUBLIC MEETING ON STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL FURNACES AND BOILERS

U.S. Department of Energy Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center Polaris Room 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington , DC 20004 September 29, 2004

Purpose The Department will present its methodology for the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) analysis and example results. The Department also will explain its plans for the remaining analysis the analysis to support the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking-and will seek input from stakeholders on its planned methodologies, assumptions, and data sources. 

## Agenda
9:00-9:05 am Welcome 9:05-9 : 15 am Introduction and Agenda Review

Doug Brookman 9:15-9:30 am Rulemaking Overview

Mohammed Khan This is an overview of the analyses in the rulemaking, the tools DOE uses to generate results for each analysis, and the issues on which DOE would like input during today's meeting. 9:30-10 : 00 am Comments from Participants

This is an open forum for participants to make a brief summary statement and/or identify their key issues regarding the ANOPR analyses, methods, and data. 10:00 -10:30 am Engineering Analysis Graham Stevens and Alex Lekov This is a summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach used and factors considered for the market and technology assessment, screening analysis, and engineering analysis, and a characterization of the results.10:30-10:45 am Break 10:45-11:30 am Engineering Analysis Continued 11:30 am-12:00 pm Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Jim Lutz This is a summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach used and factors considered for the life-cycle cost analysis, energy use, markups, and payback period analysis, and a characterization of the results. 12:00

- 1:00 pm 1:00-1:45 pm 1:45-2:45 pm Lunch (on your own)

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Continued National Impact Analysis Alex Lekov This is a summary presentation and discussion of issues regarding the approach used and factors considered for the national energy savings, net present value, and shipments analysis, and a characterization of the results. 2:45-3: 15 pm Discussion of Other Issues

This is an open forum to discuss any remaining questions or issues identified by participants. 3:15-3: 30 pm Break 3:30-4:30 pm NOPR Analyses and Next Steps

Jim McMahon, Mike Rivest and Mohammed Khan This is a summary presentation and discussion of issues regarding the planned revisions to the ANOPR analyses, and the planned approach and factors that will be considered for the manufacturer, utility, employment, and regulatory impact analyses, and the environmental assessment. 4:30-5: 00 pm Final Discussions

This is an opportunity to discuss any remaining issues. 5:00 pm Adjourn
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

v.

LARRY JOE BERNIARD,

Appellant.

No. 70357-9-1

DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED: May 27, 2014

Per Curiam. Larry Berniard appeals from his conviction for three counts of

unlawful delivery of cocaine. Berniard's court-appointed attorney has filed a motion

to withdraw on the ground that there is no basis for a good faith argument on review.

Pursuant to State v. Theobald. 78 Wn.2d 184, 470 P.2d 188 (1970), and Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), the motion to

withdraw must:

[1] be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that

might arguably support the appeal. [2] A copy of counsel's brief should

be furnished the indigent and [3] time allowed him to raise any points

that he chooses; [4] the court-not counsel-then proceeds, after a full

examination of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly

frivolous.

State v. Theobald, 78 Wn.2d at 185 (quoting Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744).

This procedure has been followed. Berniard's counsel on appeal filed a brief

with the motion to withdraw. Berniard was served with a copy of the brief and

informed of the right to file a statement of additional grounds for review. He did not

file a statement of additional grounds.
No. 70357-9-1/2

The facts are accurately set forth in counsel's brief in support of the motion to

withdraw. The court has reviewed the briefs filed in this court and has independently

reviewed the entire record. The court specifically considered the following potential

issues raised by counsel:

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported Berniard's convictions for delivery of

cocaine?

2. Whether the trial court erred in failing to give Berniard's proposed

reasonable doubt instruction?

The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is

granted and the appeal is dismissed.

For the Court:

^.ckuR, '

S too — r^cr

ni~'

~n '•- — ~> •

ZS. rr: J>

CO ~, U'i

XT o TM

co -•-•"-

3=»

—<
#### Sobczynski, Respondent, vs. Haraburda, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Culbertson & McPhee*of Stanley.

For the respondent: *Rush & Devos*of Neillsville.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit
32.1











Certification
of Chief Executive Officer





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned
officer of Tanger Properties Limited Partnership (the “Operating
Partnership”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge,
that:





(i)the accompanying Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Operating Partnership for the quarter ended September 30, 2008
(the “Report”)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(ii)the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Operating Partnership.








Date:  November
      7, 2008
            /s/ Stanley K. TangerStanley
      K. Tanger
              Chief
      Executive Officer of Tanger GP Trust, Sole General Partner of the
      Registrant
# C_2004300EN.01000801.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/8

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 7 October 2004

in Case C-247/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia): Sintesi SpA v Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Lavori Pubblici (1)

1

(Directive 93/37/EEC - Public works contracts - Award of contracts - Right of the contracting authority to choose between the criterion of the lowest price and that of the most economically advantageous tender)

(2004/C 300/15)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-247/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia (Italy), made by decision of 26 June 2002, received at the Court on 8 June 2002, in the proceedings pending before that court between Sintesi SpA and Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Lavori Pubblici, in the presence of: Ingg. Provera e Carrassi SpA — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M. Múgica Azarmendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 October 2004, in which it has ruled:

Article 30(1) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts is to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national rules which, for the purpose of awarding public works contracts following open or restricted tendering procedures, impose a general and abstract requirement that the contracting authorities use only the criterion of the lowest price.

---

(1)  OJ C 202 du 24.8.2002.

1

---
Exhibit 12.1
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                         AMERENENERGY GENERATING COMPANY
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                                                                                      For the
                                                                                      period
                                                        For the        For the       May 1, 2000
                                                        year ended     year ended     through
                                                        December 31,   December 31,  December 31,
                                                           2002           2001          2000
                                                       ------------  -------------  ------------
                                                          (Millions of Dollars, Except Ratios)
<S>                                                    <C>            <C>             <C>
Net income                                                  $ 32           $ 76          $ 44
Add - Cumulative effect of change in accounting
    principle, net of tax                                      -              2             -
                                                       ------------  -------------  ------------
Net income from continuing operations                         32             78            44

   Taxes based on income                                      20             47            27
                                                       ------------  -------------  ------------

Pre-tax income from continuing operations                   $ 52          $ 125          $ 71
                                                       ------------  -------------  ------------

Add - fixed charges:
   Interest expense on long term debt and amortization
      of discount on third-party indebtedness                 46             34             5
   Interest expense on intercompany indebtedness              40             41            30
   Interest capitalized                                        1              1             1
                                                       ------------  -------------  ------------
Total fixed charges                                         $ 87           $ 76          $ 36
                                                       ------------  -------------  ------------

Earnings available for fixed charges                       $ 139          $ 201         $ 107
                                                       ============  =============  ============

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                          1.59           2.64          2.97
                                                       ============  =============  ============

</TABLE>
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Docket ID: FEMA-2014-0034; OMB No. 1660-0040]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice; Correction; Extension of Comment Period.

                    On December 11, 2014, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published an agency information collection notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     at 79 FR 73604. In the                     **ADDRESSES**                     section, FEMA inadvertently listed the docket ID in (1)                     *Online*                     as FEMA-2013-0034. The correct Docket ID is FEMA 2014-0034. Because of the error, FEMA is also extending the comment deadline. The comment deadline has been extended from February 9, 2015 to February 16, 2015.                

Dated: February 4, 2015.

Charlene D. Myrthil,

Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.

[FR Doc. 2015-02549 Filed 2-6-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-53-P
# C_2004262EN.01006101.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/61

---

(2004/C 262/113)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the
  Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 251, 9.10.2004

OJ C 251, 9.10.2004

Past publications

OJ C 239, 25.9.2004

OJ C 228, 11.9.2004

OJ C 217, 28.8.2004

OJ C 201, 7.8.2004

OJ C 190, 24.7.2004

OJ C 179, 10.7.2004

These texts are available on:

| | EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex |
| --- | --- |

EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

| | CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex |
| --- | --- |

CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex

---
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 905 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Georges
Benarroch, President and Chief Executive Officer of Osprey Gold Corp.., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge,
that:

(1)  the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the NINE MONTHS ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report") fully complies, in all material respects, 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 for
the periods presented therein.

                                      Date: January 3, 2007.


                                      By: /s/ Georges Benarroch
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Georges Benarroch
                                          Acting President &
                                          Chief Executive Officer
                                          And Acting Chief Financial Officer
Submitted on record and brief June 15,

reversed and remanded for reconsideration July 14, 1993

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of Donna C. Perry, Claimant. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE and Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation, *Petitioners, v.*Donna C. PERRY, *Respondent.*

(WCB No. 90-22047; CA A73601)

855 P2d 666

Lillian Quinn and Davis, Bostwick and Sheridan, Portland, filed the brief for petitioners.

Nelson R. Hall and Pozzi, Wilson, Atchison, O’Leary & Conboy, Portland, waived appearance for respondent.

Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration. *SAIF v. Herron,*114 Or App 64, 836 P2d 131, *rev den*315 Or 271 (1992).
HomeNuclear SecurityDomestic Safeguards

# Domestic Safeguards Licensing Requirements

On this page:
        - Licensing Requirements for Physical Protection
        - Licensing Requirements for Materials Control and Accounting (MC&A)

## Licensing Requirements for Physical Protection

Physical Protection, Safeguards Contingency, and Training and Qualification Plans are submitted to NRC for approval with license applications, as required by NRC's regulations in 10 CFR Part 73. (Fuel fabrication facilities that possess less than 10 kgs of low-enriched uranium are not required to submit physical protection plans.)

Licensees may subsequently revise the physical protection plans, without prior NRC approval, if the changes do not decrease the effectiveness of the plans. If proposed changes appear to decrease the effectiveness of the plans, the licensees must submit the change to the NRC requesting a license amendment. The physical protection plans for light water nuclear power plants are protected from disclosure as Safeguards Information. The physical protection plans of Category I fuel fabrication facilities are typically classified because of the nature of the work they do, and thus are also protected from disclosure. If they were not classified, they would then come under the protection requirements of  10 CFR 2.390, as discussed under Material Control and Accounting (MC&A).

## Licensing Requirements for Materials Control and Accounting

NRC's regulations require submittal of a Fundamental Nuclear Material Control (FNMC) Plan for applicants or licenses to possess and use more than one effective kilogram of special nuclear material (other than a production or utilization facility licensed in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50 or Part 70, or operations involved in waste disposal). These applicants or licensees must submit the FNMC Plan as part of their license application. The plans are protected from disclosure either under 10 CFR 2.390 or as classified National Security Information. See the FNMC Plan Frequently Asked Questions.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, June 8, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Physical Protection
          - Material Control and Accounting
          - Regulations, Guidance, and Communications
          - Licensing Requirements
          - Oversight

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, June 8, 2020