alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Converted by EDGARwiz


Exhibit 4.11
















CONSENT OF ROBERT OSWALD







Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 29, 2012 (the “Annual Report”) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the “Company”), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.




I, Robert Oswald, participated, as an independent Qualified Person (as such term is defined in Canadian National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects), in the preparation of a technical report entitled “Technical Report and Recommendations, Technical Report on Summer 2011 Geological Exploration, Poste Lemoyne Extension Property, Quebec” completed in March 2012 (the “Report”) concerning mineralized material in the Poste Lemoyne Extension property for the Company. Portions of the Report are summarized under headings “Item III – Description of the Business – 3.2.4 Geological Setting; 3.2.5 Exploration and Drilling; and 3.2.6 Mineralization” in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 29, 2012 (included as Exhibit 1 of the Annual Report, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference herein). 




I hereby consent to the inclusion of the foregoing written disclosure and to the references to such disclosure and to my name under the foregoing heading and to all other references to such disclosure and to my name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.







Very truly yours,










	
	/s/  Robert Oswald


	Name:  Robert Oswald, P.Geo.



















May 14, 2012
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Depomed, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tammy L. Cameron, Principal Accounting and Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(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.

 
|   | Date:   May 6, 2011  |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   |                      |
|   |                      |
|   | /s/   Tammy L. Cameron    |
|   | Tammy   L. Cameron        |
|   | Vice   President, Finance |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Mitchell JOHNSON Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-1990

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: October 26, 2017

Filed: October 31, 2017

Kristin Huntington Bryant, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Mitchell Johnson, Pro Se

Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement that included a limited waiver of his right to appeal, Mitchell Johnson pleaded guilty to a charge of producing child pornogra*593phy. The district court1 sentenced him to 262 months in prison, within the advisory Guidelines range, and he appeals. Johnson’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable; Johnson has filed a pro se supplemental brief, challenging a ruling on one of the sentence enhancements; and the, government has filed a motion to dismiss based on the appeal waiver.

Following careful review, we grant the government’s motion and enforce the appeal waiver because the arguments for reversal fall within the scope of the waiver, the record shows the requisite knowledge and voluntariness, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.2003) (en banc). In addition, having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues that are not covered by the appeal waiver. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and defense counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

1

. The Honorable D.P. Marshall, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT VIR GINIA DEL C ARM EN RIVER A, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-73366 Age n c y No. A072-523-249 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 18, 2014 * * B e fore : ALAR C ÓN, O’ SC ANNLAIN, a nd FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Virginia de l C arm e n R ive ra , a

native and c itiz e n

of El Sa lva dor, pe t itions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing her a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing he r a pplic ation for a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture



# FIL ED FEB 24 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, Ze haty ev . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184- 85 (9th C ir. 2006), a

nd we de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s finding tha

t, e ve n if c re dible , R ive ra fa ile d to e sta

blish a ne xus be t

we e n a ny pa st or future ha

rm in El Sa lva dor a

nd one of the prote c te d grounds. Se eMolina-Estrada v . IN S , 293 F.3d 1089, 1094-95 (9th C ir. 2002) (e vide nc e did not c om pe l finding tha

t Gua te m a l an gue rilla s atta c ke d fam ily on a c c ount of im

p ute d politic a l opinion or me m be rship in a pa

rtic ula r soc ia l group); Oc hav ev . IN

S, 254 F.3d 859, 865 (9th C ir. 2001) (“ Asy l um ge ne ra lly is not a va ila ble to vic t im s of c ivil strife , unle ss the y are single d out on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground.” ). Ac c ordingly , R ive ra ’ s a sy lum c la im fa ils. B e c a use R i ve ra

fa i le d to m e e t the lowe r burde n of proof for a sy lum , he r c la im for withholding of rem ova l ne c e ssa rily fa ils. Se eZe haty e , 453 F.3d a t 1190. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f be c a u se R ive ra fa ile d to show it is m

ore like ly tha n not shewill betorture d with thec onse nt or a c quie sc e nc e of the gove rnm e nt if re t urne d to El Sa lva dor. Se eSilay a v . Muk ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th C ir. 2008). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

2 1 2 - 7 3 3 6 6
EXHIBIT 11.01
<TABLE>


                                                     THE INDUS GROUP, INC.

                                             STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PRO FORMA

                                                      NET INCOME PER SHARE

                                              (In thousands, except share amounts)

                                                          (Unaudited)

<CAPTION>
                                                                                Three Months Ended          Nine Months Ended
                                                                                  September 30,               September 30,
                                                                               -------------------        --------------------
                                                                                1996         1995           1996         1995
                                                                               ------       ------        -------      -------
<S>                                                                            <C>         <C>            <C>          <C>    
Pro forma net income .....................................................     $ 2,664     $ 1,512        $ 6,518      $ 4,995
                                                                               =======     =======        =======      =======
Shares used in per share computation:                                                                                 
     Weighted average outstanding ........................................      17,864      15,021         17,200       15,021
     Equivalent shares assumed to be outstanding had options granted
      prior to 1995 been exercised and used to repurchase shares
       at their then fair value ..........................................       1,537       1,315          1,617        1,315
     Shares issued or shares reserved for options granted in 1995,
       which shares are assumed to be outstanding for all prior periods
       (as required by SEC Staff Accounting Bulletins Topic 4 D) .........        --           519           --            519
     Shares assumed to be outstanding equivalent to dividends paid in
       1995 ($9,516,659) divided by expected offering price ($15 per
       share) (as required by SEC Staff Accounting Bulletins Topic 1B)....        --           635           --            635
                                                                               ------       ------        -------      -------
                                                                                19,401      17,490         18,817       17,490
                                                                               =======     =======        =======      =======
Pro forma net income per share ...........................................     $  0.14     $  0.09        $  0.35      $  0.29
                                                                               =======     =======        =======      =======
</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. John James RUMFIELD, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11518 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 26, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

John James Rumfield, Pro Se

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent John James Rumfield has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rumfield has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Rumfield’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cíe. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

A pril 25 , 2016

t0414 

# Order

Clerk April 2 5 , 2016

146819

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146819

COA: 314080

Wayne CC: 94

- 002089

- FC

CORTEZ ROLAND DAVIS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, in conformity with the mandate of the Supreme Court of the

United States, we REVERSE the January 16, 2013 order of the Court of Appeals, we

VACATE the defendant’s sentence for first

- degree murder, and we REMAND this case

to the Wayne Circuit C ourt for resentencing on that conviction pursuant to MCL 769.25

and MCL 769.25a. See Montgomery v Louisiana , 577 US ___; 136 S Ct 718; 193 L Ed

2d 599 (2016), and Miller v Alabama , 567 US ___; 132 S Ct 2455; 183 L Ed 2d 407

(2012). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Shawn LEE Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-3134

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 24, 2017

Filed: June 5, 2017

Hunter Bridges, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Shawn Lee, Pro Se

Before SHEPHERD, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Shawn Lee directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pled guilty to possessing a prohibited object in prison, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2) and (d)(1)(B). His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that Lee’s sentence is unreasonable.

After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unrea*446sonable sentence. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing appellate review of sentences; if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may apply, but is not required to apply, presumption of reasonableness). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

1

. The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6683 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6683

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to increase support for 
  physicians and other practitioners in adjusting to Medicare payment 
                                changes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 7, 2023

   Mr. Murphy (for himself, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Wenstrup, Mr. 
 Burgess, Mr. Panetta, and Mr. Bucshon) introduced the following bill; 
  which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 
    addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to increase support for 
  physicians and other practitioners in adjusting to Medicare payment 
                                changes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Preserving Seniors' Access to 
Physicians Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. INCREASING SUPPORT FOR PHYSICIANS AND OTHER PRACTITIONERS IN 
              ADJUSTING TO MEDICARE PAYMENT CHANGES.

    Section 1848(t)(1)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
4(t)(1)(D)) is amended by striking ``1.25 percent'' and inserting 
``4.62 percent''.

SEC. 3. MEDICAID IMPROVEMENT FUND.

    Section 1941(b)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396w-
1(b)(3)(A)) is amended by striking ``$5,796,117,810'' and inserting 
``$3,973,117,810''.
                                 <all>
```
EX PARTE Wayne Demetric PERRY

1160341 (CR-15-0955)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
ex10-11.htm




Exhibit 10.11

















 




  





1











  






 







  





2











  









 




  





3











  









 




  





4











  









 



5
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Entertainment Gaming Asia Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Clarence Chung, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Andy Tsui, Chief Accounting 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:

 

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 result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| By:    |   | /s/ Clarence Chung                    |   | Dated: | May 16, 2011 |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------|
|   |   | Clarence Chung                        |   |   |              |
| Title: |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |   |              |
|   |   |                                  |   |   |              |
|   |   |                                  |   |   |              |
| By:    |   | /s/ Andy Tsui                         |   | Dated: | May 16, 2011 |
|   |   | Andy Tsui                             |   |   |              |
| Title: |   | Chief Accounting Officer              |   |   |              |

 

This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.

 

----
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 3, 2023 No. 04-22-00795-CV IN THE ESTATE OF ELOISA M. MARTINEZ, DECEASED From the Probate Court No 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020PC3191 Honorable Oscar J. Kazen, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R The clerk’s record was originally due on December 19, 2022. On December 21, 2022, the trial court clerk filed a notification of late record, stating that the clerk’s record has not been filed because appellant failed to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. The trial court clerk’s notification further indicates that appellant did not file a statement of inability to afford payment court costs. However, appellant did file an affidavit of inability to pay court costs in this court on November 22, 2022. Accordingly, appellant is entitled to appeal without paying for the clerk’s record. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 20.1(c). The trial court clerk further states in her notification of late record that appellant has not filed a designation of the clerk’s record. However, a designation is not required. The contents of the clerk’s record are listed in Rule 34.5(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id
. 34.5(a). We ORDER the trial court clerk to file the clerk’s record on or before January 23, 2023
.

_________________________________ Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 3rd day of January, 2023.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3197

HENRY E. GOSSAGE,

Petitioner,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent.

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in

SE0731010261-1-5.

ON MOTION

Before MAYER Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Henry E. Gossage submits motions requesting extensions of time totaling 60

days to file his brief.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motions are granted. Gossage's brief is due within 60 days of the date of

filing of this order. No further extensions should be anticipated.

JUL 17 21109

	FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbalv

Date

cc:	Henry E. Gossage

Lauren S. Moore, Esq.

Jan Horbaly

Clerk ILE

U.S. COURT

F

OF ARtAIs FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

s17	

!JUL 17 2009

JAN HORNY

CERN
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6474 

To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to expedite geothermal exploration 

and development in previously studied or developed areas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 21, 2023 

Mrs. STEEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to expedite geothermal exploration and development in previously studied or developed areas. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. NEPA REVIEW. 

4 Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 

5 U.S.C. 15942) is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘, or the 

7 Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et 

8 seq.) for the purpose of exploration or development 

9 of geothermal resources’’ after ‘‘or gas’’; and 

10 (2) in subsection (b)— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6474 IH

1 (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘or gas’’ 

2 and inserting ‘‘, gas, or geothermal’’; and 

3 (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘or gas’’ 

4 and inserting ‘‘, gas, or geothermal’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











In connection with the Quarterly Report of Concierge Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Allen E. Kahn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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)           Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date:  May 17, 2011
By:
/s/ Allen E. KahnAllen E. KahnChief Financial Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Concierge Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Concierge Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.