alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lillian Fazio, Appellant, v. Stanley-Mark-Strand Corporation, Respondent. Frank Fazio, Appellant, v. Stanley-Mark-Strand Corporation, Respondent.

Argued January 5, 1943;

decided February 25, 1943.

*548
      *Bernard Ellenbogen, Samuel E. Aronowitz*and *Andrew J. Malatesta*for appellants.

*John J. Scully*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
---

EXHIBIT 99.15

VIA EDGAR

|TO: | United States Securities and
      Exchange Commission
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                       
|Re: | Asanko Gold 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 financial year ended December 31, 2016, 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 Annual Information
Form for the financial year ended December 31, 2016 (the Annual Information
Form), and the Managements Discussion and Analysis for the year ended
December 31, 2016 (the MD&A).

I, Malcolm Titley, CSA Global Pty Ltd
Principal Geologist, DO HEREBY CONSENT, to:

- the use of my name and the disclosure of me in the Annual Information Form
  as the person responsible for approving the new mineral resource estimates for
  the Nkran deposit and the Dynamite Hill deposit, each forming part of the
  Asanko Gold Mine located in Ghana, West Africa;
- the use of my name and the disclosure of me as the person responsible for
  verifying of certain scientific and technical information contained in the
  MD&A in respect of the Asanko Gold Mine; and
- the inclusion and incorporation by reference of such information in the
  Annual Report.



Dated March 15, 2017



|/s/ Malcolm Titley  | 
|------------------- | 
|Malcolm Titley, AIG | 

---
#### Michel v. Michel.

Appeal: no showing of service of notice. Where the abstract con" tains a notice of appeal, but contains no evidence or averment that such notice was served on the appellee or his attorney, or on the clerk of the trial court, this court has no jurisdiction except to dismiss the cause.

*Appeal from Linn District Qourt.*

Filed, May 31, 1888.

*Thompson & Lanning,*for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Reed, J.

Plaintiff brought an action for divorce in the district court of Linn county, on the ground of abandonment. He has filed in this court an abstract, which contains the petition and evidence introduced on the trial, and the order of the court dismissing the petition. The record also shows that the original notice was served by publication in a newspaper published in the county. What purports to be a notice of appeal is also set out in the abstract; but there is no evidence in the record that this notice was ever served, either on the defendant or the clerk; nor is there any averment in the abstract that it was served. An appeal to this court can be taken only by serving a written notice upon the adverse party, or his attorney, and the clerk. Code, secs. 3178, 3179. The service of such notice is essential to give this court jurisdiction of the cause, and the facts essential to jurisdiction must be shown by the record. As it does not appear that an appeal has been perfected in the case, the only action we can take in it is to strike it from the docket. Dismissed.
# Den Europæiske Unions C 19A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0871
  doi:10.3000/19770871.CA2014.019.dan |
| --- | --- |
| Den Europæiske Unions
  Tidende | C 19A |
| | |
| Dansk udgave | Meddelelser og oplysninger | 57. årgang22. januar 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0871

doi:10.3000/19770871.CA2014.019.dan

Den Europæiske Unions

Tidende

C 19A

Dansk udgave

Meddelelser og oplysninger

57. årgang22. januar 2014

---

| Informationsnummer | Indhold | Side |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Øvrige meddelelser |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURER |
| | Det Europæiske Lægemiddelagentur |
| 2014/C 019A/01 | Annulleringsmeddelelse | 1 |

Informationsnummer

Indhold

Side

V   Øvrige meddelelser

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURER

Det Europæiske Lægemiddelagentur

2014/C 019A/01

Annulleringsmeddelelse

1

OVERSIGT OVER UDVÆLGELSESPRØVER I EU-TIDENDE, C ... A-UDGAVEN

Nedenstående liste viser, hvilke udvælgelsesprøver der er offentliggjort i indeværende år.

Medmindre andet er angivet, er de pågældende EU-Tidender udkommet på alle sprog.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |

5

6

11

19

| DA | |
| --- | --- |

DA

---

V Øvrige meddelelser

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURER

Det Europæiske Lægemiddelagentur

| 22.1.2014 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | CA 19/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2014

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

CA 19/1

---

Annulleringsmeddelelse

(2014/C 19 A/01)

Det Europæiske Lægemiddelagentur har besluttet at annullere de følgende udvælgelsesprocedurer:

| — | EMA/CA/S/039: Kontraktansat (korttidskontrakt), Videnskabelig støtte til den europæiske overvågning af veterinært forbrug af antimikrobielle stoffer (ESVAC) (FG IV) (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/CA/S/039: Kontraktansat (korttidskontrakt), Videnskabelig støtte til den europæiske overvågning af veterinært forbrug af antimikrobielle stoffer (ESVAC) (FG IV) (1)

| — | EMA/CA/S/040: Kontraktansat (korttidskontrakt) i det videnskabelige sekretariat for Europa-Kommissionens udtalelser om antimikrobiel resistens, Afdelingen for veterinærlægemidler (FG IV) (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/CA/S/040: Kontraktansat (korttidskontrakt) i det videnskabelige sekretariat for Europa-Kommissionens udtalelser om antimikrobiel resistens, Afdelingen for veterinærlægemidler (FG IV) (2)

---

(1)  EUT C 320 A af 6.11.2013, s. 2.

(2)  Se fodnote 1.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             401
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1218
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1819
<PP&E>                                            2172
<DEPRECIATION>                                     225
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    3939
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3751
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               11
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            26
<OTHER-SE>                                      (2282)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      3939
<SALES>                                             45
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    45
<CGS>                                             2598
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2512
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  14
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3653)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3653)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3653)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.57)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lowell BAISDEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-15023

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017 *

Filed June 30, 2017

Melissa Briggs, Attorney, Bruce R. Elli-sen, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division/Appellate Section, Washington, DC, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Lowell Baisden, Pro Se

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Lowell Baisden appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment modifying a permanent injunction under 26 U.S.C. § 7408 barring Baisden from promoting an abusive tax scheme. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions, for clear error its factual findings, and for an abuse of discretion its decision to grant a permanent injunction and the scope of the injunction. *Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung,*710 F.3d 1020, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by issuing the permanent injunction, as modified, because the injunction “state[s] its terms specifically” and “describe[s] in reasonable detail ... the act or acts restrained.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1); *United States v. Kapp,*564 F.3d 1103, 1114 (9th Cir. 2009) (upholding against a vagueness and overbreadth challenge an injunction prohibiting a defendant from preparing tax returns claiming a specified tax deduction).

We reject as meritless Baisderis contentions that the injunction punishes past conduct and violates his First Amendment rights. *See United States v. Estate Pres. Servs.,*202 F.3d 1093, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000) (upholding against a First Amendment challenge a 26 U.S.C. § 7408 injunction because it “proscribes only fraudulent conduct” and defendants “may continue to publish legitimate tax planning advice”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition -is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Titus Mark BRYANT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30198

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 31, 2017 * Seattle, Washington

Filed September 6, 2017

Lori Anne Harper Suek, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

Steven C. Babcock, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT—Federal Defenders of Montana (Billings), Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: McKEOWN and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and FOOTE,** District Judge.

*

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

**

The Honorable Elizabeth E. Foote, United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Titus M. Bryant appeals a special condition of his supervised release sentence. That special condition imposed by the district court requires Bryant to comply with the violent offender registration requirements of any state in which he resides. Bryant contends that the court abused its discretion because the condition does not reasonably relate to the statutory goals of sentencing and imposes a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary. We reject these arguments and we affirm.

First, the requirement that Bryant comply with violent offender registration laws is reasonably related—indeed, it is perfectly tailored—to the goal of deterring him from violating those laws. That relationship is enough. *See United States v. Bare,*806 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2015) (“A condition of supervised release does not have to be related to the offense of conviction, because the sentencing judge is statutorily required to look forward in time to crimes that may be committed in the future by the convicted defendant.”) (quoting *United States v. Blinkinsop,*606 F.3d 1110, 1119 (9th Cir. 2010)). Also, if a state requires Bryant to register as a violent offender, then the goals of deterring future acts of violence and protecting the public are served by notifying people about the potential danger Bryant poses.

Second, the condition does not deprive Bryant of any liberty he would otherwise *504enjoy. Violent offender registration laws may encroach on Bryant’s liberty interests, but the condition requiring compliance with these laws does not. Bryant was not ever free to break the law. Uncertainty about the precise requirements of the laws of fifty states does not make this special condition unduly restrictive.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 25, 2020.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, March 25, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20D0330. JENIFER PRINDIVILLE SUAREZ v. PAUL ALEXANDRE SUAREZ.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

SPDR1901652
#### Rodger Dale MITCHELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Karen PSZCZOLKOWSKI, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-7434

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2017

Decided: April 13, 2017

Rodger Dale Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Zachary Aaron Viglianco, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rodger Dale Mitchell seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mitchell 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 701 

To restrict the appointment of certain military personnel to diversity, equity, 

and inclusion positions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2023 

Mr. BANKS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and 

Accountability, 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 restrict the appointment of certain military personnel 

to diversity, equity, and inclusion positions. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘DEI Pay Cap Act of 

5 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION PERSONNEL 

7 GRADE CAP. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense may not 

9 appoint to, or otherwise employ in, any position with duVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:28 Feb 18, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H701.IH H701

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 701 IH

1 ties as described in subsection (b) a military or civilian 

2 employee with a rank or grade in excess of E–5 base pay 

3 or GS–5 not adjusted for locality. 

4 (b) COVERED DUTIES.—The duties referred to in 

5 subsection (a) are as follows: 

6 (1) Developing, refining, and implementing di7 versity, equity, and inclusion policy. 

8 (2) Leading working groups and councils to de9 veloping diversity, equity, and inclusion goals and 

10 objectives to measure performance and outcomes. 

11 (3) Creating and implementing diversity, equity, 

12 and inclusion education, training courses, and work13 shops for military and civilian personnel. 

14 (c) APPLICABILITY TO CURRENT EMPLOYEES.—Any 

15 military or civilian employee appointed to a position with 

16 duties described in subsection (b) who holds a rank or 

17 grade in excess of that allowed under subsection (a) shall 

18 be reassigned to another position not later than 180 days 

19 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
# Maximizing Assistance To Respond to COVID-19

# Memorandum for the Secretary of Homeland Security [and] the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the “Stafford Act”), I hereby order as follows:

**Section 1**                    .                     *Policy*. It is the policy of my Administration to combat and respond to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with the full capacity and capability of the Federal Government to protect and support our families, schools, and businesses, and to assist State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments to do the same, including through emergency and disaster assistance available from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and through Federal support of the Governors' use of the National Guard.                

**Sec. 2**                    .                     *Assistance for Category B COVID-19 Emergency Protective Measures*. FEMA shall provide a 100 percent Federal cost share for all work eligible for assistance under Public Assistance Category B, pursuant to sections 403 (42 U.S.C. 5170b), 502 (42 U.S.C. 5192), and 503 (42 U.S.C. 5193) of the Stafford Act, including work described in section 3(a) of the Presidential Memorandum of January 21, 2021 (Memorandum to Extend Federal Support to Governors' Use of the National Guard to Respond to COVID-19 and to Increase Reimbursement and Other Assistance Provided to States), and in section 2 of that memorandum on the Governors' use of the National Guard, performed from January 20, 2020, through July 1, 2022.                

**Sec. 3**                    .                     *General Provisions*. (a) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:                

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

                    (d) The Administrator of FEMA is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the                     *Federal Register*.                

[FR Doc. 2022-04778

Billing code 9111-23-P
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                 --------------

                                 CERTIFICATIONS
                                 --------------

I, Steve Bailey, certify that:


      1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form
            10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this
            report on Form 10-K of CHL Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2006-18 (the
            "Exchange Act periodic reports");

      2.    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
            whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
            omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
            in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
            not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

      3.    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
            information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
            covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic
            reports;

      4.    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
            servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance review(s)
            conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement(s) required
            in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
            disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer(s) have
            fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all
            material respects; and

      5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
            criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation
            reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
            asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in
            accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
            13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report,
            except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
            of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
            this report on Form 10-K.

      In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
      information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank
      of New York, as Trustee.

Date: March 26, 2007


      /s/ Steve Bailey
      ----------------------------
      Steve Bailey
      Senior Managing Director, Loan Administration