alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.11 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, 2013, 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, 2013 (the Annual Information Form). I, Glenn Bezuidenhout, 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 Annual Information Form, and  · the inclusion and incorporation by reference of such information in the Annual Report.  Dated March 28, 2014   /s/ Glenn BezuidenhoutGlenn Bezuidenhout FSAIMM DRA Mineral Projects (Pty) Ltd
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,947
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,124
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     23,447
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,067
<PP&E>                                         146,069
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,431
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 210,068
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,773
<BONDS>                                         72,738
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           118
<OTHER-SE>                                      92,788
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   210,068
<SALES>                                         23,601
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,658
<CGS>                                           19,302
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,629
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   291
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,404
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,666)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       570
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,096)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,096)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)
        

</TABLE>
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 Annual Report of
China Agri-Business, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), I, Xiaolong Zhou, Principal Accounting Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and
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.





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





March
      31, 2009
                By:
                /s/
      Xiaolong ZhouXiaolong
      ZhouChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Accounting Officer)
#### IN RE: Jermaine Jerrell SIMS, a/k/a Justice, a/k/a Jus, Petitioner.

No. 17-1402

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 22, 2017

*791Jermaine Jerrell Sims, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jermaine Jerrell Sims petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court, United States Attorney’s Office, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to acknowledge allegedly exculpatory evidence Sims discovered after his conviction and to correct errors that led to his 1998 indictment for aiding and abetting bank robbery and related offenses. Sims also alleges that a witness gave false testimony during his trial. We conclude that Sims is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances where the petitioner “ha[s] no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires.” *Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402-03, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *United States v. Moussaoui,*333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988).

The relief sought by Sims is not available by way of mandamus. To the extent Sims seeks reversal of his conviction, mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal or collateral review. *In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,*503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007); *Kerr,*426 U.S. at 403, 96 S.Ct. 2119. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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*
Bo.ise Paper Administration 400 Second Street, International Falls, MN 56649 T218.285.5664 F208.3:31.5773 'j**~-** ...:·· ; August 15, 2012

Mr. Dennis 

### J. DeVany Office ofAviation Analysis U.S. Department ofTransportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. DeVany: On behalfof Boise Inc. and the 850 employees at our International Falls, Minnesota, paper mill, I am writing in strong support ofthe SkyWestAirlines Inc. bid to bring service to the area. Service by SkyWestAirlines would allow us to continue to provide timely customer support. This is critical to our operation as any delay in response time could potentially result in the loss ofcustomers. In addition to customer support, we also rely on suppliers to resp'OhCfto our needs. Their delay could result in additional hours of lost productivity and our inability to meet customer delivery requirements. We believe that SkyWestAirlines would serve our business needs and we askyou to accept the SkyWest bid to serve the International Falls airport. Sincerely,

# Gc~ Bert Brown Mill Manager

xc: Mr. Brad Rawson, SkyWestAirlines Inc. Falls Airport Commission International Falls City Council Koochiching County Board ofCommissioners
Exhibit 12.3

CERTIFICATIONPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002    (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code)

Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of AerCap Holdings N.V. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The
Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Form-20-F") of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: March 18, 2008
/s/KLAUS HEINEMANNKlaus Heinemann Chief Executive OfficerDated: March 18, 2008
/s/KEITH HELMINGKeith Helming Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Applied Graphics Technologies,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kenneth Torosian, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and
Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


                                 /s/ Kenneth G. Torosian
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Kenneth G. Torosian
                                 Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
                                 and Treasurer
                                 May 15, 2003

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT32.02**

 

SECTION 1350CERTIFICATION

 

In connection with thisquarterly report of ML Trend-Following Futures Fund L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report I, Barbra E. Kocsis, ChiefFinancial Officer of Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC, the generalpartner of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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:                                         | November 14, 2008 |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|------------------------|--------|
|                                          |                   |   |
| By                                            | /s/ BARBRA E. KOCSIS   |   |
| Barbra E. Kocsis                              |                   |
| Chief Financial Officer                       |                   |
| (Principal Financial  and Accounting Officer) |                   |
|                                               |                        |        |  |

 

----
#### Leodegario SALVADOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; Trustee Corps, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15750

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2017 *

Filed May 17, 2017

Leodegario Salvador, Pro Se

Marc James Ayers, Richard Aaron Chastain, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Birmingham, AL, Darren Brenner, Ariel Edward Stern, Esquire, Attorney, Akerman Senterfitt LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee Bank of America, N.A.

Richard J. Reynolds, Esquire, Attorney, Burke Williams *&*Sorensen LLP, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Trustee Corps

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Leodegario Salvador appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his diversity action seeking to quiet title. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Owen,*519 F.3d 1035, 1037 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Salvador failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Bank of America’s interest in the subject property had been extinguished by the foreclosure sale. *See*Nev. Rev. Stat. § 116.3116 (a Homeowners Association (“HOA”) has a “super priority” lien with respect to other liens, and the HOA’s super priority lien may constitute up to nine months of HOA fees); *SFR Invs. Pool 1 v. U.S. Bank, N.A.,*130 Nev. Adv. Op. 75, 334 P.3d 408, 414 (2014) (a holder of a first deed of trust may preserve its interest in the subject property if the amount of the super priority lien is tendered prior to the HOA foreclosure sale).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### James Lyle, Resp’t, v. The Manhattan R’way Co., App’It.

*Nelson Smith,*for resp’t; *Chas. H. Peck,*for app’It.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Affirming 25 N. Y. State Rep., 549.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Kodigbo Odelugo v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-12-00272-CR

Trial court case number: 1249648

Trial court: 248th District Court of Harris County

On May 2, 2014, the Court issued its mandate in the above-referenced appeal. Appellant

has filed a motion to “Recall and Stay the Court’s Mandate” because he “intends to file a Writ of 

Habeas Corpus as permitted by the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.” Appellant’s motion is 

denied.

1

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 16, 2014

 

1

See Ex parte Webb, 270 S.W.3d 108, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (concluding that court 

of appeals was not required to recall its mandate and considering merits of application for 

habeas relief).
Order entered December 20 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 01221
- CV
SHUMONE BURNETT AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS, Appellant V. DIRECT ACCESS CAPITA L HOLDINGS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 18
- 04771
- E



### O RDER The reporter’s record in this case has not been filed. By letter dated December 6, 2018, we informed appellant the court reporter notif ied us that the reporter’s record had not been filed because appellant had not (1) requested the record; or (2) paid for or made arrangements to pay for the record. We directed appellant to provide the Court with written verification showing the

r eporter’ s record had been requested and that appellant had paid for or made arrangements to pay for the record or had been found entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that failure to provide the required documentation within ten day s might result in the appeal being ordered submitted without the reporter’s record. To date, appellant has not provided the required documentation nor otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding thestatus of the reporter’s record. Accordingly, we OR DER this appeal submitted without a

reporter’s record. Appellant’s brief is due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order

.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 13, 2017. 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, November 13, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18D0140. JASON HILL v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2005- 3. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 17CV66953
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gustavo HERNANDEZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-4087

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed July 31, 2017

Cy H. Castle, Tyler Murray, Elizabeth-anne Claire Stevens, Esq., Jeannette Frazier Swent, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Gustavo Hernandez-Lopez, Pro Se

Before KELLY, BACHARACH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Per Curiam

After entering into a plea agreement that included an appeal waiver, Gustavo Hernandez-Lopez pled guilty to one count of possession of heroin with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment,

Despite the. appeal waiver, Hernandez-Lopez filed a pro se notice of appeal. The government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver. *See United States v. Hahn,*359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc). In response to the motion to enforce, Hernandez-Lopez states that he wishes to challenge his conviction and sen-, tence based on the ineffective assistance of counsel. We grant the motion to enforce and dismiss the appeal.

“Ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be brought in collateral proceedings, not on direct appeal. Such claims brought on direct appeal are presumptively dismissible, and virtually all will be dismissed.” *United States v. Galloway,*56 F.3d 1239, 1240 (10th Cir. 1995) (en banc). We address ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal only under a narrow set of circumstances, such as when the ineffective assistance claim is “fully developed on the record.” *United States v. Hamilton,*510 F.3d 1209, 1213 (10th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). When, as in this case, a defendant “offers no argument *652supporting a reason to depart from our general practice” we will not “do so, especially in light of [the] failure to meaningfully argue the claim.” *United States v. Porter,*405 F.3d 1136, 1144 (10th Cir. 2005).

The motion to enforce is granted, and this appeal is dismissed.

*

 This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.'
1 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jeanne J. Graham, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-2221

___________ Jesse Garcia, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Marty C. Anderson, Warden; * Dr. T. Tran; Dr. S. Stanton; * [UNPUBLISHED] Jane Doe; and John Doe, sued * in their individual/official capacities, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: November 2, 2010 Filed: November 17, 2010

___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Federal inmate Jesse Garcia app eals following the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Fe deral Tort Claims Act.-2- Having conducted de novo review, we c onclude that summary judgment was warranted. See Mason v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc. , 559 F.3d 880, 884-85 (8th Cir. 2009) (summary judgment standard of review); see also Melford Olsen Honey, Inc. v. Adee , 452 F.3d 956, 966 (8th Cir. 2006) (re viewing de novo district court’s application of state law). We also find no abuse of discretion in th e denial of Garcia’s motion to alter or amend judgment. See Christensen v. Qwest Pension Plan , 462 F.3d 913, 920 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). Accord ingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 820 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 820

To amend title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the increase in the 
retired pay multiplier for service in the uniformed services in excess 
of 20 years by members first entering the uniformed services after July 
                               31, 1986.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 18 (legislative day, May 15), 1995

Mr. Kerrey (for himself and Mr. Simpson) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to eliminate the increase in the 
retired pay multiplier for service in the uniformed services in excess 
of 20 years by members first entering the uniformed services after July 
                               31, 1986.
    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 ``Uniformed Services Retirement 
Economy Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. RETIRED PAY MULTIPLIER FOR PERSONS ENTERING THE UNIFORMED 
              SERVICES AFTER JULY 31, 1986.

    (a) Constant 2 Percent Per Year Multiplier.--Section 1409(b)(2) of 
title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
            ``(2) Members entering after july 31, 1986.--Subject to 
        paragraph (3), in the case of a member who first became a 
        member of a uniformed service after July 31, 1986, the 
        percentage to be used under subsection (a) is the product 
        (stated as a percentage) of--
                    ``(A) 2, and
                    ``(B) the member's years of creditable service (as 
                defined in subsection (c)).''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 1409(b)(1) of such title is 
amended by striking out ``(1) General rule.--Subject to paragraphs (2) 
and (3),'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``(1) Members entering before 
august 1, 1986.--Subject to paragraph (3), in the case of a member who 
first became a member of a uniformed service before August 1, 1986,''.
    (2) Section 1410 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
striking out ``on that date if--'' and all that follows and inserting 
in lieu thereof the following: ``on that date if increases in the 
retired pay of the member or former member under section 1401a(b) of 
this title had been computed as provided in paragraph (2) of that 
section (rather than under paragraph (3) of that section).''.
                                 <all>
```