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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6706

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner - Appellee,

v.

VICTOR PERKINS,

Respondent - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior 

District Judge. (5:92-hc-00654-BR)

Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 30, 2014

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Victor Bernard Perkins, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Dee Dannels, 

FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Victor Perkins appeals the district court’s order 

denying his “motion to relieve of judgment pursuant to Rule 

60(b)(5) & (6) of the FRCivP.” We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the order of 

the district court. United States v. Perkins, No. 5:92-hc00654-BR (E.D.N.C. Apr. 16, 2014). We further deny Perkins’ 

motions and supplemental motions “to classify civil action as a 

class action,” “for appeals conference,” and to appoint counsel. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 29 (Thursday, February 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 7882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02874]


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

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

Information Security Oversight Office

[NARA-2015-027]


National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory Committee 
(NISPPAC)

AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
U.S.C. app 2) and implementing regulation 41 CFR 101-6, NARA announces 
a meeting of the National Industrial Security Program Policy Advisory 
Committee (NISPPAC).

DATES: The meeting will be on March 18, 2015, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 
p.m., EDT.

ADDRESSES: National Archives and Records Administration; 700 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Archivist's Reception Room, Room 105, 
Washington, DC 20408.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Manning, Program Analyst, by 
mail at ISOO, National Archives Building; 700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20408, by telephone number at (202) 357-5474, or by 
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#acc1c5cfc4cdc9c082c1cdc2c2c5c2cbecc2cddecd82cbc3da"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ef82868c878e8a83c1828e8181868188af818e9d8ec1888099">[email protected]</span></a>. Contact ISOO at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d79e84989897b9b6a5b6f9b0b8a1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5b120814141b353a293a753c342d">[email protected]</span></a> and 
the NISPPAC at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#541a1d0704041517143a3526357a333b22"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7f31362c2f2f3e3c3f111e0d1e51181009">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this meeting is to discuss 
National Industrial Security Program policy matters. The meeting will 
be open to the public. However, due to space limitations and access 
procedures, you must submit the name and telephone number of 
individuals planning to attend to the Information Security Oversight 
Office (ISOO) no later than Friday, March 13, 2015. ISOO will provide 
additional instructions for accessing the meeting's location.

    Dated: February 4, 2015.
Patrice Little Murray,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-02874 Filed 2-11-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Handle via MAN 

Control System 

June 12, 1967 

NRO APPROVED OR

RELEASE 1 JULY 015 

MEMORANDUM FOR.RECORD 

SUBJECT: DORIAN Status Briefing to Dr. Hornig 

On 6 June a 1-hour MOL Program status briefing was given to 

Dr. Hornig and several members of his staff. A list of viewgraphs 

used for this briefing is attached. The briefing was received with 

great interest and several specific questions were asked. 

1. What is the status of the Image Velocity Sensor? 

We replied that there were presently two contractors 

working on the technology and that there still are significant problems 

to be resolved, primarily systems integration compatibility with the 

tracking system. General Stewart indicated that next month he intended 

to travel to these contractors and invited Dr. Steininger to join him 

in this review. 

2. Has the Acquisition and Tracking Scope been selected and 

have we accomplished the simulations necessary for the selection? 

We described the resolution capabilities and design 

features of the ATS, and it was affirmed that simulations were conducted. 

NOTE: I am concerned that at the next PSAC review, this will 

be a key subject of discussion. We will have difficulties, because I 

do not believe that the simulation program to determine viewing conditions 

through the ATS was done thoroughly enough. Particularly the aircraft 

simulation which was recommended by Dr. Land was not undertaken, and I 

am sure he will be disappointed. 

3. Dr. Steininger raised a question about the present status 

of acceptance of the resolution requirement although there was no 

particular reaction from Dr. Hornig that he shared in Dr. Steininger's 

concern. It seems that this question may be raised again by PSAC. 

4. In discussing our measures to prevent recurrence of the 

A? olio 204 type accident, Dr. Hornig--who just had received a thorough 

::ASA review on Safety--expressed the opinion that the mar. responsible 

for safety should not be part of the engineering team which is responsible 

for the design and development. 

5. The most significant discussion ensued from our statement 

that we have deferred the Readout System. Drs. Hornig and Steininger 

•••..0 r-a 

1

77ZCTir,;7-C- Au77--77--771 i t DOD LIR. 5200.10 DOES DOT APPLY 

. .• Page _i_ of pages 

Copy __/ of _... h copies. 

Control 

• „. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Handle via BYEMAN 

Control System 

Otlit1A1 

expressed surprise that we had done so since this was one of the key 

tools for utilization of man in MOL. When I suggested that the Readout 

System may have been an unfortunate victim of circumstances since the 

requirement for Readout had been denied to the GAMBIT3 prograa!e. Dr. 

Hornig responded rather strongly that this was a specific decision with 

regard to a specific unmanned program and does not apply to MOL. I ' 

have asked Dr. Steininger to help formulate this opinion more precisely 

in some written document. 

MICHAEL I.ARYMOVYCH 

17/ 

Technical erector 

MOL Prog am 

?ago ag- of _4,— pages 

Cw! _L_ of copies, 

9A1SLControl 

a Pe 7/-6- 7
(,' 

.; :1 

OJ, • .J JIo 

1 \ L I 

Approved for Release: 2017/08/17 COS099822 
• Approved fO~~08/17 C05099822jlYt71'I/Z)::/" 

Approved for Release: 2017/08/17 COS099822
EXHIBIT 14.1



Jesse J. Aarsen

Moose Mountain Technical Services

#210 1510 – 2nd Street North

Cranbrook, British Columbia, Canada V1C 3L2



CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON



I, Jesse Aarsen, in connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report
on Form 20-F/A of Almaden Minerals Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2022 (the “20-F/A”):



| | (a) | Consent to the public filing of the Amended Technical Report Summary entitled “Ixtaca Gold-Silver Project, Puebla State, Mexico” dated September 27, 2023, that was prepared in accordance with Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the 20-F/A;
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | Consent to the use of my name and my status as the “Qualified Person”, or any information, reference, quotation or summarization from the Amended Technical Report Summary for which I am responsible in the 20-F/A; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (c) | Confirm that I have read the portions of the 20-F/A relating to the Amended Technical Report Summary, and that such portions of the 20-F/A fairly and accurately reflect such information.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated at Vancouver, BC, this 27th day of September, 2023





“Jesse J. Aarsen”



Jesse J. Aarsen, P.Eng

Moose Mountain Technical Services
* Pursuant to 5THCIR. R.47.5, the court has determ ined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5THCIR. R.47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED September 7, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-30155 Summary Calendar GULF MARINE EQUIPMENT, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant versus C & G BOAT WORKS INC., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(2:05-CV-6684) Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM: * In this diversity action, Gulf Marine Equipment, Inc. contests a summary judgment awarded C & G Boat Works, Inc., concerning their 12 August 2002 brokerage agreement. In it, C & G agreed to pay Gulf Marine a brokerage fee upon C & G’s obtaining vesselconstruction contracts with five designated companies, including Rigdon Marine.

Gulf Marine’s principal, Chalin O. Perez, Jr., requested2

Rigdon Marine place C & G on its bid list. Rigdon did so, and C & G submitted a bid. That bid was rejected. Rigdon Marine solicited bids for another boat package in April 2003. C & G again placed a bid and was again rejected. Gulf Marine was not involved with the second bid. On 12 August 2003, C & G terminated its brokerage agreement with Gulf Marine. On 27 June 2004, C & G began discussing with Rigdon Marine the construction of a vessel; they entered into a construction contract on 30 September 2004. Gulf Marine maintains it was the procuring cause of C & G’s contract with Rigdon and, therefore, is entitled to a commission pursuant to the 12 August 2002 brokerage agreement. The district court awarded summary judgment to C & G, concluding: the brokerage contract had been terminated; and Gulf Marine was not the procuring cause of - and therefore not entitled to commission for - the C & G/Rigdon contract. Gulf Marine Equip., Inc. v. C & G Boat Works, Inc. , 471 F. Supp. 2d 679, 684 (E.D. La. 2007). “We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.” Rothgery
v. Gillespie County, Tex. , 491 F.3d 293, 296 (5th Cir. 2007). Summary judgment shall be granted when “there is no genuine issue

as to any material fact and [] the moving party is entitled to a3

judgment as a matter of law”. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). Essentially for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, summary judgment was proper. A broker is sometimes entitled to commission even when a transaction occurs after the termination of the brokerage relationship. Where, however, contracting parties brought together by a broker “fail to make a sale, part ways, and then come together again on their own initiative after a lapse of time, the broker does not earn a commission on the sale if he has no hand in the renewed dealings”. Snyder v. Champion Realty Corp. , 631 F.2d 1253, 1255 n.3 (5th Cir. 1980). AFFIRMED
#### Petersen, Appellant, vs. Smejkal and another, Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Outa-gamie county dated July 28, 1927: Edgar V. Werner, Judge.

Automobile accident. Judgment for defendants, from which plaintiff appeals.

For the appellant: *Ryan & Cary*of Appleton.

For the respondents: *Richmond, Jackman, Wilkie & Toebaas*of Madison.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
Order entered April 7 , 2014

In The



## Court of Appeals

**Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 14

- 00371

- CV

IN RE JUAN MURRAY, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F0055585

- MR



### O R DER

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus. We ORDER that relator bear the costs of this original proceeding.

.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                          26,828
<SECURITIES>                                    28,735
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,653
<ALLOWANCES>                                       212
<INVENTORY>                                      5,750
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                65,119
<PP&E>                                           7,242
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,305
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  71,464
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,265
<BONDS>                                            778
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           230
<OTHER-SE>                                      58,191
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    71,464
<SALES>                                         85,203
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                85,203
<CGS>                                           76,919
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,624
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  66
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (25,220)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (25,220)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.64)


</TABLE>
N O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO N IN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### NO. CAAP-20-0000750

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS O F THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

IN THE INTEREST OF LG

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(FC-S NO. 20-00082)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW APPEAL (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Nakasone, JJ.) Upon consideration of Mother-Appellant AG's February 7, 2021 Motion to Withdraw Appeal, the papers in support, and the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed, under Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 42(b).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, February 11, 2021. /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Presiding Judge /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-20-0000750 11-FEB-2021 09:07 AM Dkt. 34 OAWST
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00259-CV

NO. 02-16-00260-CV

THE CITY OF FORT WORTH AND 

DAVID COOKE, IN HIS OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS CITY MANAGER

APPELLANTS

V.

STEPHANNIE LYNN RYLIE, 

UNITED LAND HOLDING, LTD., 

NORTH TEXAS AMUSEMENTS, 

LLC, TEXAS C&D AMUSEMENTS, 

INC., BRIAN AND LISA SCOTT 

D/B/A TSCA AND D/B/A RIVER 

BOTTOM PUB, DSLH, INC., 

PROGRESSIVE AMUSEMENT, 

INC., ARS GROUP, INC.,

PARVINDER ‘PAUL’ SIDHU, ET AL.

APPELLEES 

----------

FROM THE 17TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 017-276483-15, 017-276483-15

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

----------

Having considered the petitions for permissive interlocutory appeal2 of 

Appellants the City of Fort Worth and David Cooke, in his official capacity as city 

manager, we deny the petitions.

3

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: August 29, 2016

 

2See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(d) (West Supp. 2016); 

see also Tex. R. App. P. 28.3(a), (j).

3See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(f).
**EXHIBIT 21**

 

 
| **List Of Subsidiaries**

 

Optimal Robotics, Inc., a Delaware corporationOptimal Services Group Inc., a Canadian corporationOptimal Payments Inc., a Canadian corporation4295382 Canada Inc. (formerly FireCash Ltd.), a Canadian corporationLFPD California Corp., a Delaware corporationOptimal Payments Holdings Limited, an English corporationOptimal Payments Limited, an English corporationOptimal Payments Corp., a Delaware corporationMicro Tempus Corporation, a Delaware corporation3507637 Canada Inc., a Canadian corporationMicro Tempus GmbH, a German corporationOnline Processing Limited, an Israeli corporation

FireOne Group plc, an Irish corporation

OG Processing Services Holdings, an Irish corporation

4287258 Canada Inc., a Canadian corporation

FPA Processing Services Inc., a New Brunswick corporation

FirePay Ltd., a Bermuda corporation

 

  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
<PAGE>
 
                                                                 
                                                              EXHIBIT 23.3     
   
REPORT AND CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS     
   
The Board of Directors     
   
IMPAC Group, Inc.:     
   
The audits of the consolidated financial statements of KFI Holding Corporation
and subsidiaries referred to in our report dated February 6, 1998, included
the related financial statement schedule for each of the years in the three-
year period ended December 31, 1997, included in the registration statement.
This financial statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on this financial
statement schedule based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial
statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated
financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material
respects the information set forth therein.     
   
We consent to the use of our reports included herein and to the reference to
our firm under the headings "Summary Historical Financial and Other Data--KFI
Holding Corporation", "Selected Historical Financial Information and Other
Data--KFI Holding Corporation", and "Experts" in the prospectus.     
                                             
                                          /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP     
   
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania     
   
August 28, 1998
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENE&L OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

WV 3 

I 

fdwill b6 54tod that %ho fees alimml 

a~6 'for 644il Or the . , . r666bt8 i6666d by 

Qurmoat to #6id la?m.*
UNITED STATES NAVY-MARINE CORPS 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

J.A. FISCHER, T.H. CAMPBELL, D.A. NORKIN

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

SALIH E. FALKE

LOGISTICS SPECIALIST SEAMAN (E-3), U.S. NAVY

NMCCA 201500393

SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL

Sentence Adjudged: 14 October 2015.

Military Judge: CAPT David M. Harrison, JAGC, USN.

Convening Authority: Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Japan, 

Yokosuka, Japan.

Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation: CDR T.D. Stone, 

JAGC, USN.

For Appellant: Maj Emmett Collazo, USMCR.

For Appellee: Mr. Brian Keller, Esq.

29 February 2016

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

OPINION OF THE COURT 

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

 After careful consideration of the record, submitted 

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence 

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform 

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

 

 

 For the Court 

 R.H. TROIDL 

 Clerk of Court
Pages 75-76 - *Confidential Statements of Formula may be entitled to confidential treatment*


Pages 79-80 - *Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
Page 81 - *Confidential Statements of Formula may be entitled to confidential treatment*