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

                                                                     Exhibit 32

                              FIRST M & F CORPORATION

                              SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of First M&F Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hugh S. Potts, Jr.,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:

A.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date:    August 6, 2004

                                                               /s/ Hugh S. Potts, Jr.
                                                              -------------------------------------
                                                              Hugh S. Potts, Jr.
                                                              Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of First M&F Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John G. Copeland,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:

A.       The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date:    August 6, 2004

                                                               /s/ John G. Copeland
                                                              -------------------------------------
                                                              John G. Copeland
                                                              EVP & Chief Financial Officer
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                CONSENT OF NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.

      We consent to the references to us under captions "Part I, Item 1 and 2.
Business and Properties - Natural Gas and Oil Reserves" in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of The Houston Exploration Company for the year ended December 31,
2001 and into Houston Exploration's previously filed Registration Statements on:
(i) Form S-3, file number 333-78843 dated May 25, 1999; (ii) Form S-8, file
number 333-36977 dated October 1, 1997; (iii) Form S-8, file number 333-47370
dated October 5, 2000; and (iv) Form S-8, file number 33-75264 dated December
17, 2001.


NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Houston, Texas
March 13, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements as of and for the nine months ended September 30, 1998
included herein and is qualified in its entirely by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001004036
<NAME>                        TANGER PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,654
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         519,678
<DEPRECIATION>                                  79,282
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 463,831
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        288,446
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     154,251
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   463,831
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                72,223
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,030
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,407
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,065
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,749
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,749
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (460)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,993
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.06
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 13.1

                             The Leap Group, Inc.

                           Common Stock Information

The Company's common stock is traded on the Nasdaq National Market under the
symbol LEAP. On April 15, 1997, there were 58 holders of record of the Company's
stock. The Company's high and low common stock prices for the last two quarters
since the Company's Initial Public Offering are:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Fiscal 1997                      High      Low
-----------------------------------------------
<S>                             <C>       <C>
3rd Quarter (from September 27) $10.50    $6.00
4th Quarter                     $ 7.63    $5.25
</TABLE>
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6015

EDDIE JAMES HARVEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES MOLONY CONDON, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-99-910-3-22BC) Submitted: July 25, 2000 Decided: August 22, 2000 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eddie James Harvey, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICEOF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s judgment and order are marked as “filed” on November 10, 1999, the district court’s record shows that the judgment and order were entered on the docket sheet on November 12, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the judgment or order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Eddie James Harvey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West1994 & Supp. 2000). We originally dismissed the appeal as untimely. After consideration of Harvey’s petition for rehearing we vacated the March 3, 2000, order dismissing the appeal. Although we now find the appeal to be timely, we find it to be withoutmerit. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and findno reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Harvey v. South Carolina , No. CA-99-910-3-22BC (D.S.C. Nov. 12, 1999). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,999,681
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,315,680
<ALLOWANCES>                                   349,000
<INVENTORY>                                    342,884
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,029,361
<PP&E>                                       5,540,369
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,011,986
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,735,116
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,764,313
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       137,249
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,815,271
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,735,116
<SALES>                                      2,768,043
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,768,043
<CGS>                                          278,091
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,776,113
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,286,161)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,768,043
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,286,161)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)
        

</TABLE>
October 19, 2012

Mr. David L. Potts

131 Llanfair Lane NW New Philadelphia, OH 44663

Dear Mr. Potts:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from § 21.191(i)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can’t process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can’t Process Your Request

We entered your September 17, 2012, exemption request into the public docket (FAA-2012-1024), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent doesn’t comply with the requirements of 14 CFR § 11.81(d) or (e) (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you m ust send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we receive this required information from you. Please note that 14 CFR § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Don’t Hear From You

If we don’t hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/ Brenda. D. Courtney Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
# C_2005093EN.01002102.xml

| 16.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/21

---

Action brought on 21 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-96/05)

(2005/C 93/39)

Language of the case: Greek

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Gerald Braun and Georgios Zavvos, of the Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 amending Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC and 86/635/EEC as regards the valuation rules for the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies as well as of banks and other financial institutions, (1) and in any event by failing to inform the Commission of such measures, the Hellenic Republic is failing to fulfil its obligations under that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 amending Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC and 86/635/EEC as regards the valuation rules for the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies as well as of banks and other financial institutions, (1) and in any event by failing to inform the Commission of such measures, the Hellenic Republic is failing to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

1

| 2. | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 1 January 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 283 of 27.10.2001, p. 28.

1

---
| 1.   | The Report is not in compliance with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the reasons discussed in Note 1B of the financial statements; and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Somerset International Group, Inc. |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                         | SOMERSET INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. |                                                       |
|------------------------------|------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         |                               |                                                       |   |
| Date: November 15, 2010 | By:                                | /s/ John X. Adiletta                                  |   |
|                         |                               | John X. Adiletta                                           |   |
|                         |                               | President, Chief Executive Officer,Chief Financial Officer |   |
• •

CO)

•

"'7

t.

•

7 1.;

/1717352 ZEA

I.

.: 5;

.•

n•

c •

a ••.,

33 .7;1 .

1 1%61 ION VITH STLDIES OF A ND/ S:-1;.'.1:.11 LINE TO HAVE SYSTEM, DR. UHEELON

3,-; AVA!LADI.E DE RESILTS OF RV DESIGN 

STLOIF.S 

1 U:Z.t

CO:DUCTED CY Tr MR FORCE. CR -ernno• SPECIFICALLY, ERSTLID I SHOL1.D LIKE TO BECCIZ .

THL7i0WLY

i ,,.; 7A;.:IL CZ: TITH THE 2P.RK 8 DESIGN BY GE, EVEN I ::::`,ELCPED, THOM NEVER AM TO UMMSTA:D T1E REASONS FOR T S CA,::ELLf.T ION. MOM° HAS AEIVISM DR. 17 FZEL ON TO conACT

(?".11

„,0

FR :02

.••

•

`.) 0 17:EC:IV AID LA:l KNCZN HIS S?EC!FIC DESIRES. -fG,Cta0

•••

n•-.1 REQUESTS YOU PROVIDE DESIRED INFORIAT ION DIRECT TO DR. Vasa.ox.

IS-tRO

173 EN GREEKDR. CHEELON Crt. 7.1f.2710:1 RV

BT 0 DR. VINEELON GliDtRO DR. VHEELON

' • •••••

•••n••

I
Exhibit 8




ALMADEN MINERALS LTD.
 Corporate Organizational Chart
 December 31, 2012









Almaden Minerals Ltd.
("Almaden")
Canada
TSX: AMM
NYSE MKT: AAU
ATW Resources Ltd.
("ATW")
Canada
50%
Williams Creek 50%
Gold Mountain Mining Corp.
("Gold Mountain")
Canada
TSX-V: GUM
~39% (26.75MM) shares
Puebla Holdings Inc.
("Puebla")
Canada
100%
Pangeon Holdings Ltd.
("Pangeon")
Canada
100%
ATW Joint Venture
66%
Williams Creek 30%
Harry Winston 4%
Minera Gorrin SA de CV
("Gorrin")
Mexico
49,999 shares
99.9%
Minera Alondra SA de CV
("Alondra")
Mexico
49,999 shares
99.9%
Compaa Minera Zapata SA de CV ("Zapata")
Mexico
49,999 shares
99.9%
Almaden de Mexico SA de CV
("Almaden de  Mexico")
Mexico
49,999 shares
99.9%
Minera Gaviln SA de CV
("Gaviln")
Mexico
49,999 shares
99.9%
Ixtaca Precious Metals Inc.
("Ixtaca")
Canada
100%
Republic Resources Inc.
("Republic")
Canada
100%
Almaden America Inc.
("Almaden America")
USA 
100%
o

D

0

0

a

a

a

a

*Rs

13 July 1968

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Report of the NSAM 156 Ad Hoc Committee

On 8 July, I met with Dr. Flax to discuss his reaction to the

draft report of the NSAM 156 Ad Hoc Committee dated 7 July 1966.

Mr. Reber and I had already briefed him on numerous editorial

changes which had been made at the meeting on 6 July.

It was Dr. Flax's feeling that Recommendation 6(a) would be

improved by eliminating the last 4 lines.

I got in touch with Mr. Garthoff on the evening of 8 July, and

passed this recommendation to him. He felt that he would have

trouble getting Ambassador U. Alexis Johnson's concurrence on

this change. After consultation with Ambassador Johnson, he proposed deleting "and could improve security" and prefacing the final

sentence with a statement such as "one of the considerations is the

fact that...

I relayed this information to Dr. Flax, who concurred with the

proposal. He stated, however, that he would still send a memorandum to Mr. Johnson, recommending, for the record, the deletion of

the last 4-1/2 lines of Recommendation 6(a).

On 11. July, I called Mr. Garthoff to ask if there would be a

committee meeting that day. He said that he could not be sure as

of that time; he had received a number of proposed revisions to the

7 July draft from the CIA. These were as follows:

Delete most of paragraph 11.

Reword Recommendation (1) to include language saying that

one would "carefully consider any possible impingement on the

security of the NRP Elm to authorising earth sensing activities by

NASA!

MID
Move the last sentence of paragraph 4 up to paragraph 1.

Change paragraph 7 to read in its first sentence that "the

DCI in consultation with the DNRO should review... "

Later in the morning. Mr. Garthoff's secretary called to

advise there would be no meeting that day and that afternoon 0

Mr. Garikoff called to state that he had an acceptable final draft.

a

PAUL z. wORTEIMAN

Colonel, USAF

0

0

0

2
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 2012

- 0725 Directorate Identifier: 2011

-NM

- 207

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

c ost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet

1.0 $ 85.00 $ 85.00 111 $9,435.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in co mpliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $9,435 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $
**On**
**- Condit**  **ion Costs:** Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- h ours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @ $8 5 /hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 

### $0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO
* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES * NO
* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibi lity Act:**  Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appro priate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO


### * Explanation 

### :