alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Net Reserves
    
    
    Future Net Revenue ($)Oil
    
    
    Gas
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Present WorthCategory
    
    (Barrels)
    
    
    (MCF)
    
    
    Total
    
    
    at 10%Proved Developed Producing
    
    
    377,492
    
    
    
    34,398,860
    
    
    
    52,111,100
    
    
    
    30,492,900Proved Developed Non-Producing
    
    
    73,366
    
    
    
    9,831,090
    
    
    
    14,353,000
    
    
    
    5,068,500Proved Undeveloped(1)
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    0Total Proved
    
    
    450,858
    
    
    
    44,229,950
    
    
    
    66,464,100
    
    
    
    35,561,400
 
 (1)
    
    There are no proved undeveloped reserves at the prices and costs used in this
report.




---



##### 








---



##### 



Sincerely,NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-002699By:
    /s/ C.H. (Scott) Rees IIIC.H. (Scott) Rees III, P.E.Chairman and Chief Executive Officer By:
    
    /s/ Craig H. Adams
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ William J. KnightsCraig H. Adams, P.E. 68137
    
    
    
    
    
    William J. Knights, P.G. 1532Vice President
    
    
    
    
    
    Vice PresidentDate Signed: January 18, 2010
    
    
    
    Date Signed: January 18, 2010
Exhibit 99.12


VIA EDGAR




TO:  United States Securities and Exchange Commission




Re:   Keegan Resources Inc. (the "Company")
 Annual Report on Form 40-F
 Consent of Expert
  This consent is provided in connection with the Company's annual report on Form 40-F for the year ended March 31, 2012, and any amendments thereto (the "Annual Report"),as filed by the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Annual Report incorporates by reference, among other things, the Company's Management Discussion and Analysis for the financial years ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 (the "MD&A).
 
 I, Andrea Zaradic, P. Eng., DO HEREBY CONSENT,to:
 
 ●the use of my name and the disclosure of my involvement in the preparation of information that forms the basis for disclosure of a technical and scientific nature related to the Company's Esaase gold project, Ghana, contained in the MD&A; and
 
 ●the inclusion and incorporation by reference of such information in the Annual Report.
   Dated the 10thof January, 2013
 
 /s/ Andrea Zaradic
 
 Andrea Zaradic, P. Eng.
v39667_x101052312.htm


 


Exhibit 10.1




AMENDMENT


TO


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT












THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) is made May 23, 2012 by and between Valassis Communications, Inc. (the “Corporation”) and Robert Recchia (the “Executive”).







WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive entered into that certain Employment Agreement effective as of March 18, 1992, as amended on January 2, 1996, January 3, 1997 and December 9, 1998, December 23, 1999, June 8, 2000, March 14, 2001, July 8, 2002, January 9, 2004, January 11, 2005,  May 24, 2007 and December 23, 2008 (the “Employment Agreement”); and







NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, the parties hereto agree as set forth below.







1.         Section 1(b) of the Employment Agreement shall be amended to read in its entirety as follows:







 “The Employment Period shall commence as of March 18, 1992 (the “Effective Date”) and shall continue until the close of business on June 30, 2014.”







2.     Section 3(c) shall be amended to remove all references to “Good Reason.”


 


3.      Sections 3(h) “Restricted Shares”, 4(c) “Good Reason”, and 7 “Excise Taxes”of the Employment Agreement shall be removed in their entirety.


 


4.   Sections 4(d)and 4(e) shall be amended to remove all references to “Good Reason.”


 


5.    Article 5 shall be amended to remove all references to “Good Reason.”


 


6.    Section 10(m) shall be replaced with the phrase “Reserved.”


 


7.   All other terms of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


                       This instrument, together with the Employment Agreement, contains the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof.


 

 







 











  





  











  








IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive and the Corporation have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written.








	  	
VALASSIS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.


	  	  
	  	By:	
/s/ Todd Wiseley


	  	
Name: Todd Wiseley


	  	
Title:   Secretary


	  	  
	  	  
	  	
/s/ Robert Recchia


	  	
Robert Recchia
EXHIBIT 35.2
                  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)
                               GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC
             RALI SERIES 2006-QS16 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of GMAC Mortgage,  LLC, as servicer
(the "Servicer")  pursuant to the applicable  servicing  agreement,  does hereby
certify that:

1.   A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during the  period  covered by the
     Issuing  Entity's  report  on Form 10-K and of the  Servicer's  performance
     under  the   applicable   servicing   agreement  has  been  made  under  my
     supervision.

2.   To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  on such  review,  the  Servicer  has
     fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing  agreement
     in all material respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

By:      /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:    Executive Vice President
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

 

**SECTION 1350CERTIFICATION**

 

**In connection with this quarterlyreport of ML Trend-Following Futures Fund L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Justin C. Ferri, ChiefExecutive Officer, President and Manager of Merrill Lynch AlternativeInvestments LLC, the general partner of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:**

 

1. This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: May 14, 2010 |                                            |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                    |                                            |
|                    |                                            |
| By:                     | /s/ JUSTIN C.  FERRI                            |   |
|                    | Justin  C. Ferri                                |   |
|                    | Chief Executive  Officer, President and Manager |   |
|                    | (Principal  Executive Officer)                  |   |

 

----
Exhibit 99.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Braun Consulting, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas A. Schuler, Senior Vice President of Corporate Development and Investor Relations (Principal
Financial Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/THOMAS A. SCHULERThomas A. Schuler Senior Vice President of
Corporate Development and Investor Relations (Principal Financial Officer) |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|March 11, 2003                                                                                                                            |  | 

---

QuickLinks
#### Leopold Mannaberg, Appellant, *v.*Ely Culbertson et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Argued November 15, 1943;

decided November 24, 1943.

*729
      *Gustave B. Garfield*for motion to have appeal heard on two copies of ease, etc., and in opposition to cross motion to dismiss appeal.

*Jack K or shin*for motion to dismiss appeal and in opposition to appellant’s motion.

Motion to have appeal heard on two copies of case, et cetera, dismissed.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted and appeal dismissed on the ground the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### John KARCZEWSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONANT AUTO RETAIL, SAN DIEGO, INC., a California Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-55893

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 6, 2017* Pasadena, California

Filed July 10, 2017

Russell Clive Handy, Esquire, Mark D. Potter, Esquire, Potter Handy LLP, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Aaron Harris Jacoby, Attorney, George N. Koumbis, Esquire, Arent Fox LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Christopher Chen-Hsin Wang, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae United States of America

Before: GRABER, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, Fed. R, App. P, 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

We vacate the district court’s dismissal of this action, and we remand for reconsideration in light of Karczewski v. DCH Mission Valley, LLC, No. 15-55633.

VACATED and REMANDED. Costs on appeal awarded to Plaintiff.

BYBEE, Circuit Judge,

acquiescing dubitante:

I acquiesce *dubitante*for the reasons articulated in my separate opinion in *Karczewski v. DCH Mission Valley, LLC,*No. 15-55633.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### IN RE: Alan Andrew MACKETY, Petitioner.

No. 17-1214

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 5, 2017

Decided: April 12, 2017

Alan Andrew Mackety, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alan Andrew Mackety petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 *183U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. He seeks an order from-this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court has dismissed the § 2241 petition. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Mackety’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
#### Joseph Pius ANARI, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-70728

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 27, 2017

Joseph Pius Anari, Pro Se

Nehal Kamani,, Attorney, OIL, DOJ— U.S, Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Joseph Pius Anari, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions pro se from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part, dismiss in part, and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Anari failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Nigerian government. *See id.*at 1073.

As to Anari’s claim for relief based on problems with his ex-girlfriend’s ex-husband, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that he failed to establish that this was on account of a protected.ground. *See Molina-Morales v.*
      *731
      *INS,*237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2001) (personal dispute is not-grounds for relief unless connected to a protected ground). We lack jurisdiction to review Anari’s contentions regarding the Black Axe Cult or his membership in a particular social group because these contentions were not raised to the agency. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional).

As to Anari’s claim for relief based on religion, substantial evidence does not support the agency’s finding that the harm that Anari and his family suffered did not rise to the level of persecution. *See Guo v. Ashcroft,*361 F.3d 1194, 1203 (9th Cir. 2004) (totality of the circumstances compelled finding of past persecution).

Thus, we deny in part and grant in part Anari’s petition for review, and remand his asylum and withholding of removal claims for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of ArthroCare Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended September 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |                                                  
|------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 24, 2009 |  | /s/ Todd Newton                                  
|                         |  | Todd Newton                                      
|                         |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of the written statement required by
Section 906, has been provided to ArthroCare Corporation and will be retained by ArthroCare Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of BellaVista
Capital, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report"),
and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Michael Rider, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify 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 Partnership.


/s/ MICHAEL RIDER
-----------------------------------------
Michael Rider, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of
BellaVista Capital, Inc.
May 6, 2005
----

**Exhibit 23.****3**

**LETTER OF CONSENT**

TO:     Lundin Mining Corporation

I refer to the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Lundin Mining Corporation datedMarch 31, 2009 (including all exhibits, the "Annual Report").

I hereby consent to the use of my report and the appearance of my name in theAnnual Report.

Dated this 31st day of March, 2009.

Yours sincerely, for and on behalf of Wardell Armstrong International

/s/ Owen Mihalop                               Owen MihalopTechnical Director 

 

 

|  | Wardell Armstrong    International Ltd, Wheal Jane, Baldhu, Truro, Cornwall, TR3 6EH, UK | Tel+ 44 (0) 1872    560738 Fax + 44 (0) 1872 561079 Web //www.wardell-armstrong.comRegistered Office Sir    Henry Doulton House, Forge Lane, Stoke on Trent, Staffordshire. ST1 5BD.    Company No 3813172 |
|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 32.1

Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the Authority), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:



| | (a) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Authority for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Authority.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    MITCHELL GROSSINGER
ETESSMitchell Grossinger Etess Chief Executive Officer, Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority August 14, 2008


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to the Authority and will be retained by the Authority and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvar Gante TOLEDO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-16185

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 17, 2017

Mark Alexander Inciong, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Office of the US Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Alvar Gante Toledo appeals from the district court’s order granting in part his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court reduced Toledo’s sentence to 108 months, the bottom of the amended guideline range. .This was the *702lowest sentence the court could impose. *See*U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2)(A). Toledo’s claim that he was eligible for a further reduction fails because he does not meet the requirements of U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2)(B). *See*U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.3; *United States v. Finazzo,*841 F.3d 816, 818-19 (9th Cir. 2016).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

JONATHAN F. BEARD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

UNPUBLISHED

September 14, 2023

v No. 360695

Wayne Circuit Court

PROGRESSIVE MARATHON INSURANCE, also

known as PROGRESSIVE MARATHON 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

LC No. 21-016469-NF

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: PATEL, P.J., and SWARTZLE and HOOD, JJ.

SWARTZLE, J. (concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment).

I respectfully concur in part, dissent in part, and concur in the judgment. I agree with the 

majority’s analysis in all respects with the exception of the majority’s discussion of the plain-error 

standard (including footnote 4) and Part IV. I would not reach the subrogation issue because it 

was not raised—or, for that matter, glanced at, even with a side-eye—before the trial court. Under 

our “raise or waive” jurisprudence in traditional civil matters, Napier v Jacobs, 429 Mich 222, 

232-234; 414 NW2d 862 (1987), Beard waived appellate review on this claim. Although I 

acknowledge that there is published case law for applying the Carines plain-error review in this 

circumstance,see, e.g., Henderson v Dep’t of Treasury, 307 Mich App 1, 9; 858 NW2d 733 (2014), 

for reasons similar to those set forth by Judge M.J. KELLY in his concurring opinion in Mr Sunshine 

v Delta College Bd of Trustees, __ Mich App __, __; __ NW2d __ (2022) (M.J. KELLY, P.J., 

concurring), I believe that the sounder approach in traditional civil appeals like this is the “raise or 

waive” rule.

Until a conflicts panel of this Court (of which I am not calling for here, given that the matter 

is not outcome determinative, MCR 7.215(J)(3)(a)) or our Supreme Court definitively settles this 

matter (again), panels of this Court will continue to apply inconsistent standards of review to 

unpreserved claims in cases like this. In the meantime, litigants and trial courts will suffer from 

the uncertainty engendered by our inconsistency. While it might just be easier to get in-line with 

the least-restrictive approach (here, the Carines plain-error standard), I believe that precedent, 

principle, and prudence all favor the stricter standard in run-of-the-mill civil matters like this one.
-2-

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent with respect to the majority’s decision to reach the 

merits of the subrogation argument, and I otherwise concur as to the remainder of its opinion and 

the judgment.

/s/ Brock A. Swartzle