alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 13.2
 
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
 CFO CERTIFICATION
 
 In connection with the annual report of Almaden Minerals Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Korm Trieu, 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 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 results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/”Korm Trieu”
 
 Name: Korm Trieu
 Title: Chief Financial Officer
 March 28, 2013
TOP SECRET FR0111 

REF ID:A67907 

USCIB: 5.2/65 

S November 1954 

'fOF SE6Rf!li' Fftffl'H • e.s. lHES Olfti¥ 

MEMORANDtTh'l FOR THE MEMBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: Agenda for the 109th Meeting of USCIB. 

EO 3 . 3 ( h) ( 2 ) 

Reference: USCIB 5.2/63 of 4 November 1954. PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

1. Agreement having been reached on the matter which caused 

item 5 to be placed on subject agenda, :!ten1 ; is withdrawn. 

2. Meanwhile two additional items have been added to subject 

agenda, e.g.: 

Subject 

5. 

6. 

Su'anitted by 

Exec. Secy. 

Dept. of State 

Member 

3. A corrected agenda is enclosed herewith to replace the 

reference. 

Enclosure 

a/s 

UFUS L ~;a..li.!lllU.n. 

ptain, U. • Navy 

EXecutive Secretary, USCIB 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 06-30-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352\3 

USCIB: 5.2/65 

\ 

TOP SECRET FROTH 
TOP SECRET FROTH 

REF ID:A67907 ~ 

USCIB: 5.2/63 REVISED S November 1954 

!OP SEefl.:E'l'_ FRO'ffl t:J. S. HEB ONL¥ 

UNITED STATES COMMUNICATIONS INTELLIGENCE BOARD 

AGENDA FOR 

One Hundred Ninth Meeting at 1430, on Friday, 

12 November 1954, in the Projection Room, 

Administration Building, CIA, Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Allen W. Dulles, Chairman 

~o 3 . 3 ( h) ( 2 ) 

PART I - Agenda Items P.L 86-36/50 USC 3605 

Date of Initial Subject ~ideration Number Subject Submitted by 

15 Oct 1954 29.14/ I Director, NSA 

12 Nov 1954 29.9/ Director, NSA 

12 Nov 1954 29.11/ CIA Member 

12 Nov 1954 9.3/ 4. USCIB Master Requiremente Director, NSA 

List (USCIB 9.3/11) 

12 Nov 1954 29./17 \\\ Exec. Secy. 

12 Nov 1954 9.2/ Dept. of State 

Member 

*Paper in preparation'by" CIA.Member. ** Paper in preparation by State Member • 

USCIB: 5.2/63 

TOP SECRET FROTII
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5
<CIK>                    0000350194
<NAME>                   United Systems Technology, Inc.
<CURRENCY>               U.S. DOLLARS
<MULTIPLIER>                       1

<S>                      <C>               <C>          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS          3-MOS       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>        DEC-31-2000    DEC-31-1999   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>             MAR-31-2000    MAR-31-1999   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                    1              1             1
<CASH>                        720465              0        922838
<SECURITIES>                       0              0             0
<RECEIVABLES>                 262126              0        216577
<ALLOWANCES>                       0              0             0
<INVENTORY>                        0              0             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              982591              0       1139415
<PP&E>                        114462              0         86572
<DEPRECIATION>                 29272          28566        117116
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               1598046              0       1610404
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         860973              0        960594
<BONDS>                        22915              0         22915
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0              0             0
<PREFERRED>                    80000              0         80000
<COMMON>                     5406907              0       5156908
<OTHER-SE>                         0              0             0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 1598046              0       1610404
<SALES>                        60408         125575             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              355527         517472             0
<CGS>                          36967          38292             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 370596         415966             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              (10332)         (4970)            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0              0             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               471            551             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    0              0             0
<INCOME-TAX>                       0              0             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                0              0             0
<DISCONTINUED>                     0              0             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0              0             0
<CHANGES>                          0              0             0
<NET-INCOME>                   (4737)        116346             0
<EPS-BASIC>                        0              0             0
<EPS-DILUTED>                      0              0             0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>              Dollars

<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                           1
<CASH>                                              198,948
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         2,234
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    843,754
<PP&E>                                              899,983
<DEPRECIATION>                                      358,715
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   74,537,949
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            37,629,692
<BONDS>                                          35,761,471
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                      36,248,175
<COMMON>                                         23,768,519
<OTHER-SE>                                      (23,108,437)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     74,537,949
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    183,441
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1,977,940
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2,146,426
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (3,940,925)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (3,940,925)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (3,940,925)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (0.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.44)


</TABLE>
[No. 24944.

Department Two.

July 17, 1934.]

#### R. M. Gordon, *Respondent,*v. Jeff Bartell, *as Sheriff for Grays Harbor County, et al., Appellants.*
      *1*

*Paul O. Manley*and *J. E. Stewart,*for appellants.

*F. L. Morgan,*for respondent.

Reported in 34 P. (2d) 712.

Tolman, J.

This is an action in tort for damages • sustained by reason of an alleged assault. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict:

> “Against the defendants, E. C. Lewis and Jepp Bartell, in the sum of $800, and against the defend*259ant American Surety Company op New York, in the sum of $800.”

A motion for a new trial was interposed by the plaintiff, based upon irregularities and abuse of discretion; misconduct or mistake of the jury; accident and surprise; newly discovered evidence and

> “Damages so inadequate as unmistakably to indicate that the verdict must have been the result of passion, mistake or prejudice.

> “Error in the assessments of the amount of recovery, in that it is too small, and the verdict does not represent the true finding of the jury. ’ ’

A new trial was granted by a general order specifying no particular ground or grounds therefor. The defendants have appealed from the order granting a new trial.

We have held in many cases that, where the motion for a new trial embraces several grounds, among which are those calling for the exercise of judicial discretion, and a general order is made granting the motion, we will not go behind that order to determine upon which ground the motion was granted. The doctrine was very clearly announced in *More-house v. Everett,*136 Wash. 112, 238 Pac. 897, and has ever since been consistently adhered to. See *Huntington v. Clallam Grain Co.,*175 Wash. 310, 27 P. (2d) 583, and cases therein cited.

This case was submitted to a jury upon conflicting evidence. The court was asked to grant a new trial upon a number of grounds calling for the exercise of his discretion. The motion was granted by general order, and it not appearing that there was an abuse of discretion, the order of the trial court must be, and it is, affirmed.

Beals, O. J., Holcomb, Blake, and Geraghty, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   Exhibit 23.2
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
   
We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to the
use of our reports dated March 13, 1998, in Amendment No. 4 to the
Registration Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-57009) and related Prospectus of Iron
Age Holdings Corporation for the registration of $45,140,000 of its 12- 1/8%
senior discount notes due 2009.     
 
Ernst & Young LLP
Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
   
September 14, 1998
AGREEMENT CUM GUARANTEE

         This agreement is made on this 29th day of May, 2000, between:

         NetGuru Inc., a Company incorporated as a Delaware Corporation and
having its principal office at 22700 Savi Ranch Parkway, Yorba Linda, California
92887-4608, U.S.A. (hereinafter referred to as the Foreign Shareholders of
Interra Global Ltd., which expression shall unless contrary to the context
hereof includes its successors, legal representatives and permitted assigns) of
the FIRST PART

         AND

         NetGuru India Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the India
Companies Act having its principal office at E2-4, Block GP, Sector V, Calcutta
- 700 091 (hereinafter referred as major Indian Shareholders of Interra Global
Ltd., representing the minor shareholders of Interra Global Ltd., which
expression shall unless repugnant to law and the context or meaning of the
agreement be deemed to mean and includes its nominees, legal heirs, executors,
administrators and assigns and successors in interest) being the party of the
SECOND PART.

         Both parties have agreed to honor, fulfill and protect the terms of all
earlier agreements executed by either parties with whomsoever, related to
Interra Global Ltd.,


<PAGE>

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have here into set and
subscribed their respective hands and seals the day and year first hereinabove
written.

         For NetGuru Inc., USA

         /s/ Amrit K. Das
         ----------------

         (AMRIT K DAS)
         Chairman & CEO

         For NetGuru India Pvt., Ltd.,

         /s/ Gurudas Sarkar
         ------------------

         (GURUDAS SARKAR)
         Chief Operating Officer

         WITNESS:

         1.       Anup Das
                  GD-337, Salt Lake
                  Calcutta 700 091

         2.       Jyoti Chatterjee
                  742 S. Rock Garden Circle
                  Anaheim Hills, CA 92808


                                      -2-
#### The State ex rel. Curtin, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Curtin v. Indus. Comm.*(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 581.]

(No. 98-105

Submitted August 25, 1999

Decided September 22, 1999.)

*583
      *Mitchell A. Stem,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Michael A. Vanderhorst,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.

*Conway, Marken, Wyner, Kurant & Kem Co., L.P.A.,*and *Michael R. Stavnicky,*for appellee Action Door of Mentor, Inc.

*Per Curiam.*

Claimant asserts violations of two specific safety requirements. Finding that the commission did not abuse its discretion in denying a VSSR award, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Ohio Adm.Code 4121:l-3-03(J)(l) directs employers to provide lifelines, safety belts, and lanyards to employees “exposed to hazards of falling when the operation being performed is more than fifteen feet above ground or above a floor or platform.” The code does not define the phrase “operation being performed.” As such, its interpretation lies solely within the commission’s sound discretion. *State ex rel. Berry v. Indus. Comm.*(1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 193, 4 OBR 513, 448 N.E.2d 134. Equally important, specific safety requirements “must be strictly construed, and all reasonable doubts construing the interpretation of the safety standard are to be construed against its applicability to the employer.” *State ex rel. Burton v. Indus. Comm.*(1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 170, 172, 545 N.E.2d 1216, 1219.

These principles compel our conclusion that the commission’s interpretation was not unreasonable. Accordingly, we find that the commission did not abuse *584its discretion in measuring “operation being performed” as the distance between the employee’s feet and the ground, floor, or platform. Since that distance was less than fifteen feet, the commission’s refusal to find a violation of Ohio Adm.Code 4121:l-3-03(J)(l) was appropriate.

Claimant also alleges a violation of Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1 — 3—14(B)(8). Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1 — 3—14(B), however, is entitled simply “definitions.” As such, the commission ruled that subsection (B)(8), falling thereunder, was only a definition and not a specific safety requirement that imposed a duty on an employer. We agree and find that the commission did not abuse its discretion in denying a violation *of*this subsection.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Hall To Stay On As Director National 

Reconnaissance Office

January 22, 2001 

Mr. Keith Hall agreed to stay on as Director of the National Reconnaissance Office and Assistant 

Secretary of the Air Force for Space after being asked to do so by the Bush administration. Hall 

has served in this position since 1997. As DNRO, Hall is responsible for the acquisition and 

operation of all United States space-based reconnaissance and intelligence systems. In his ASAF 

(Space) role he is responsible for the overall supervision of Air Force space matters, with 

primary emphasis on policy, strategy, and planning.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 33 (Thursday, February 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 8866]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03441]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR15-14-000]


Panola Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory 
Order

    Take notice that on February 10, 2015, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) 
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of 
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2014), Panola Pipeline 
Company, LLC (Panola or Petitioner), filed a petition for declaratory 
order seeking approval of priority service and the proposed tariff rate 
structure and terms of service for a planned expansion of Panola's 
pipeline system, as more fully explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a0e6e5f2e3efceccc9cec5f3d5d0d0cfd2d4e0c6c5d2c38ec7cfd6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92d4d7c0d1ddfcfefbfcf7c1e7e2e2fde0e6d2f4f7e0f1bcf5fde4">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on March 10, 2015.

    Dated: February 12, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-03441 Filed 2-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 11. - COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (in thousands except 
              per share data) (unaudited)
================================================================================

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                                    THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                    -----------------------------------------------------
                                                          MARCH 31, 1997             MARCH 31, 1996
                                                    -------------------------  -------------------------- 
 
                                                    Common and                 Common and
                                                      Common                     Common
                                                    Equivalent      Full       Equivalent        Full     
                                                      Shares       Dilution      Shares        Dilution   
                                                   -----------    ----------   -----------   ------------ 
<S>                                                 <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>         
Weighted average common shares outstanding              16,535        16,535        16,182         16,182 
Other dilutive securities                                1,498         1,498           751            804 
                                                   -----------    ----------   -----------   ------------ 
Total shares outstanding for calculation                18,033        18,033        16,933         16,986 
                                                   ===========    ==========   ===========   ============ 
Net income available to common shareholders:                                                              
  Before extraordinary item                        $     3,891    $    3,891   $     9,216   $      9,216 
  Extraordinary item                                        --            --         8,507          8,507 
                                                   -----------    ----------   -----------   ------------ 
                                                   $     3,891    $    3,891   $       709   $        709 
                                                   ===========    ==========   ===========   ============ 
Net income per share:                                                                                     
  Before extraordinary item                        $      0.22    $     0.22   $      0.54   $       0.54 
  Extraordinary item                                        --            --   $     (0.50)  $      (0.50) 
                                                   -----------    ----------   -----------   ------------
                                                   $      0.22    $     0.22   $      0.04   $       0.04
                                                   ===========    ===========  ===========   ============

</TABLE>
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 76, 402

EX PA R TE D A V I D H A R D EM A N , A ppl i c ant
ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. 3 0 2 1 5 2 5 I N T HE 3 9 0 DI S TR I CT COURT TH FROM TRAVI S CO UNTY

P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crim i n al P ro ce dure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habe as cor

pus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 418 S.W
. 2 d 8 2 4 , 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant wa s convicted of one count of ag g ravated assault, sente nced to e ighty y ear s’ imprisonm en t an d one count of attempted murde r , sentenc ed to ninety -nine y ear s’ imprisonment. The Third Court of Appea ls affirme d his conviction. Ha rd e ma n v . S tate , No. 03-04-005236- CR (Tex. App.–Austi n, delivere d May 5, 2006). Applicant conte nds that his appellate counsel re ndere d ineff e c ti v e a s s is ta

n c e b e c a u s e counsel failed to timely

file a petition for discretionary revie w on his behalf a fter inf orming Applicant that2

he wo uld do so . Appellate c ounsel filed an affidavit with the trial court. B ased on that affidavit, the trial court ha s e nte re d fi nd ing s of fa c t and c on c lus ion s o f l aw that a pp e llate c ouns e l f

a ile d to fa ile d to tim e ly file a pe tition for discretionar y revie w. The trial court recommends that re lief be grante d. Ex pa rte W ilson , 9 56 S.W. 2d

25 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ). We a g re e . We fi nd , th e re fo re , th a t App li cant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of

-time petition for discre tionary revie w of the judg ment of the Third Court of Appea ls in Cause No. 03-04-00536- CR that aff irmed his conviction in Case No. 3021525 from the 390 J udicial District Court of Travis County . Applicant shall file his petition for th dis c re tio na

ry re vie w w iththe Th ir d

Court of Ap pe a ls w ith in 3 0 d ay s o f t he d ate on whic h th is Court ’s mand a te iss ue s.

Deliver ed: August 25, 2010 Do no t pu bli sh