alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>        DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                                   381,659
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             14,588
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         423,030
<PP&E>                                                12,200,978
<DEPRECIATION>                                         3,462,503
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         9,161,505
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    337,501
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                             8,420,256
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           9,161,505
<SALES>                                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       2,284,481
<CGS>                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          2,317,018
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          34,360
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         3,927
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          (70,824)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      (70,824)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                             (70,824)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  0
        

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

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             376,745
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      548,442
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,554,694
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,318,098
<PP&E>                                          61,001,501
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,707,103
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  60,861,334
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,220,206
<BONDS>                                          6,110,961
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         5,279,385
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,250,782
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    60,861,334
<SALES>                                         11,394,009
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,854,606
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,281,139
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,910,556
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,912,949
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (9,103,113)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (9,103,113)     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (0.0)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0 
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 61 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 61

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
               repeal the sixteenth article of amendment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 28, 2021

Mr. Davidson (for himself, Mr. Babin, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Bishop of North 
Carolina, Mr. Norman, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Hice of 
  Georgia, Mr. Cloud, and Mr. Cawthorn) submitted the following joint 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
               repeal the sixteenth article of amendment.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein),
    Sec. 1. That the following article is proposed as an amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 
intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the 
legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years 
after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Effective 2 years after the ratification of this article of 
amendment, the sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States is repealed, and the Congress shall have no power to 
lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, except 
in time of war declared by the Congress.''.
    Sec. 2. Not later than 180 days after the ratification of the 
article of amendment in section 1, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
submit a report to Congress containing recommendations for any 
legislation that may be necessary to implement such article.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 08-6199 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SEAN JERVITT HOPKINS, a/k/a Sean Jackson,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the United States

District Court of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr.,

District Judge. (8:99-cr-00224-AW-1; 8:04-cv-00162-AW)

Submitted: April 24, 2008 Decided: April 30, 2008

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sean Jervitt Hopkins, Appellant Pro Se. James Marton Trusty,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Sean Jervitt Hopkins seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration

of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.

2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hopkins has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
EX-4.4







	 	 	 	 	 



Exhibit 4.4




Consent of Gary Giroux





     I, Gary Giroux, hereby confirm that I have read the Notice of Meeting and Management
Information Circular of Aurora Energy Resources Inc. (“Aurora”) dated March 20, 2009 (the
“Circular”) relating to the special meeting of shareholders of Aurora to approve the amalgamation
of Aurora and 59801 Newfoundland & Labrador Inc., which Circular incorporates by reference the
annual information form of Fronteer Development Group Inc. (“Fronteer”) dated March 27, 2008 for
its year ended December 31, 2007 (the “AIF”).



     I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with references to my preparation or
involvement in the preparation of the following technical reports in the AIF or other documents
incorporated by reference therein: (i) the technical report dated February 19, 2007 as amended
March 1, 2007 entitled “The Exploration Activities of Aurora Energy Resources Inc. on the CMB
Uranium Property, Labrador, Canada During the Period January 2006 to January 2007” prepared
together with Dr. D.H.C. Wilton, and (ii) the amended technical report dated November 20, 2007
entitled “An Update on the Exploration Activities of Aurora Energy Resources Inc. on the CMB
Uranium Property, Labrador, Canada, During the Period January 1, 2007 to October 31, 2007” prepared
together with Christopher Lee, Dr. D.H.C. Wilton, Mark O’Dea, Jim Lincoln and Ian Cunningham-Dunlop
(collectively, the “Technical Reports”). I further consent to the inclusion in the Circular and
Fronteer’s registration statement on Form F-8 relating to the Circular filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Registration Statement”) of the Technical Reports (through
the inclusion by way of incorporation by reference of the AIF in the Circular) and of extracts from
or a summary of the Technical Reports in the Circular and the Registration Statement or any
documents incorporated by reference therein.



     I also hereby confirm that I have read the Technical Reports and extracts from or a summary of
the Technical Reports contained in the Circular and the Registration Statement by way of
incorporation by reference of the AIF and that I have no reason to believe there are any
misrepresentations in the information contained therein that is derived from the Technical Reports
or that is within my knowledge as a result of the services that I have performed in connection with
the Technical Reports.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	March 20, 2009 	(signed) Gary Giroux
 	 
	 	Gary Giroux, P.Eng.
IA 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 97 

Disapproving of the rule submitted by the Department of Homeland Security 

relating to ‘‘Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2022 

Mr. NEHLS (for himself, Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. TIFFANY, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. BUCK, 

Mr. ISSA, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. BABIN, and Mr. GOHMERT) submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving of the rule submitted by the Department of 

Homeland Security relating to ‘‘Public Charge Ground 

of Inadmissibility’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the De4 partment of Homeland Security relating to ‘‘Public 

5 Charge Ground of Inadmissibility’’ (87 Fed. Reg. 5547), 

6 and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 121 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 121

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 13, 2022

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
     Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a 
          correction in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 7776.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 7776, the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives shall make the following correction: Amend the long 
title so as to read: ``An Act to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2023 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for 
military construction, and for defense

              

 activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 8, 2022.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 79 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 79

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 10 (legislative day, March 7), 2022

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
     Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a 
               correction in the enrollment of H.R. 2471.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 2471, the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives shall make the following correction:
     Amend the title so as to read: ``Making consolidated 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 

              

30, 2022, and for providing emergency assistance for the situation in 
Ukraine, and for other purposes.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 9, 2022.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.

                               By Kevin McCumber,

                                                          Deputy Clerk.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

PAULA ZELESNIK,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CORBETT CAUDILL, et al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:18-cv-478

Judge Timothy S. Black

Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. 

Bowman

DECISION AND ENTRY

ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 4)

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United 

State Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate 

Judge reviewed the pleadings and, on July 20, 2018, submitted a Report and 

Recommendation. (Doc. 4). No objections were filed. 

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has 

reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all 

of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does 

determine that such Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby adopted in its

entirety. 

Accordingly:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4) is ADOPTED; 

2. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted;
2

3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), an appeal of this Order would not be taken 

in good faith and therefore Plaintiff is denied leave to appeal in forma 

pauperis. Plaintiff may apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of 

Appeals; 

4. Plaintiff is warned that she will be subject to sanctions if she continues to 

file frivolous lawsuits with this Court. Sanctions may include, but are not 

limited to, a pre-filing restriction that would prohibit her from filing any 

additional complaints without leave of Court; and

5. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this action is 

TERMINATED on the docket of this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 11/21/18 s/ Timothy S. Black

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Michael A. Bohm, Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of American Skandia Life Assurance Corporation (the Company), hereby certify that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: November 13, 2006



/s/ Michael A. BohmName:

Michael A. BohmTitle:

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### Charles E. PITTS *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 74-34

509 S.W. 2d 809

Opinion delivered June 3, 1974

*694
      *Gene Worsham,*for appellant.

*Jim Guy Tucker,*Atty. Gen., by: *0. H. Hargraves,*Dep. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

Appellant Charles E. Pitts was charged on three counts of having possessed with intent to deliver morphine, cocaine, and secobarbital contrary to the Controlled Substance Act, (Act 590 of 1971 as amended by Acts 67 and 68 of 1972). He was also charged as a habitual offender. The jury found him guilty on each count and fixed his punishment at 45 years on the morphine count, 45 years on the cocaine count and 4 *Vi*years on the secobarbital count. The trial court determined that the sentences should run consecutive and thus committed appellant to the penitentiary for a total of 94 *Vi*years. For reversal appellant contends among other things that the trial court in instructing the jury erred by commenting on the weight of the evidence and that he was thrice placed in jeopardy for the same offense.

The record shows that appellant’s convictions arose out of a search of his apartment where the drugs were found by the officers.

Identical instructions (trial court’s instruction No. 8) on the presumption created by Ark. Stat. Ann. § 82-2617(d) were given on each count. The instruction on the morphine count told the jury:

> “If you find the defendant possessed a quantity of Morphine, as charged in the Information, in excess of 300 milligrams, then, although you are not required to do so, you are permitted to infer that the defendant possessed with intent to deliver in violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. However, you must be convinced of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the whole case.”

*695This instruction in effect told the jury that possession alone of a quantity of drugs in excess of a certain amount was sufficient to support an inference of guilt. We have consistently held such instructions improper and prejudicial as being a comment on the weight of the evidence. See *Lott*v. *State,*223 Ark. 841, 268 S.W. 2d 891 (1954) and *Thiel*v. *Dove,*229 Ark. 601, 317 S.W. 2d 121 (1958).

While the State contends that the other points raised in appellants’ brief are raised for the first time on appeal, with which we agree, and that we should observe the well known canon that such matters will not be considered on review, we find that in view of a new trial, orderly criminal procedure demands that we comment on the double jeopardy contention. As we construe the Controlled Substance Act, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 82-2617 (Supp. 1973), the simultaneous possession for delivery of drugs classified as a narcotic drug under subsection (a)(l)(i) constitutes but one offense. Likewise the simultaneous possession of drugs classified under subsection (a)(1)(h) would constitute only one offense. However, the simultaneous possession of drugs classified under subsection (a)(l)(i) and of drugs classified under subsection (a)(1)(h) would constitute separate offenses.

Reversed and remanded.
Christian DE LA BARRA, Appellant, v. FREIGHT LOGISTICS, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 3D17-646

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:18-cr-109-2

v. JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE

SERGHEI VERLAN,

Defendant.

CRIMINAL MINUTES: CHANGE OF PLEA ON INDICTMENT

Defendant appeared with counsel Paul Laufman

Defendant arraigned and specifically advised of rights

Defendant pled GUILTY to Count 1

Plea accepted by the Court

Referred to Probation Department for Presentence Report

Defendant remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshal

Judge: Douglas R. Cole

Courtroom Deputy: Scott Lang

Court Reporter: Sue Lopreato-Official

Date: August 23, 2022

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 261 Filed: 08/23/22 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 1785