alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION
BY THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Natcore Technology, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ending December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles R.
Provini, President and Chief Executive 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 Rule 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 as
 of, and for, the periods presented in the Report.

The
foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with the
provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended
to be used or relied upon for any other purpose.

| |                                              
| | ---------------------------------------------
| | Date: April
 28, 2016                        
| |                                              
| | By: /s/
 Charles R. Provini                  
| |                                              
| | Name:
 Charles R. Provini                    
| | Title:
 President and Chief Executive Officer

---
TRUSTBIZ, LLC, as Trustee only, Appellant, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON; Brenda A. Achee; and Brentwood Hills Homeowners Association, Inc., Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5473

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 4.9.1


 


 


 


	
    Additional Agreement No. 1

    to the LOAN AGREEMENT No. 4 

    dated 24 September 2021 

     

    31 December 2021

     

	
    Arras Minerals Corp., company established in
    accordance with the laws of the Province of British Columbia, Canada, entity No. BC1287773, located at: Suite 1610, 777 Dunsmuir Street,
    Vancouver, Canada, V7Y 1K4, represented by CFO Mr. Christopher Richards, acting on basis of the Articles, hereinafter referred to as the
    “Creditor”, on one part, and

     

	Ekidos Minerals LLP, a limited liability partnership established in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan, BIN 191040035309, located at: Republic of Kazakhstan, Almaty, 050000, Almaly district, Panfilov Street 158, Office 1, represented by Confidant, Mrs. Vlada Nam, acting on the basis of the Power of Attorney dated 26.11.2021, hereinafter referred to as the “Debtor”, on the other part, hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties” and individually as “Party”, have concluded this Additional Agreement No. 1 to the Loan Agreement No. 4 dated 24 September 2021 (hereinafter – the “Agreement”) as follows:

                                                         

	
    1. Clause 3.1 of Section 3 of the Agreement to revised
    as follows:

    “The Debtor shall repay the Loan in full on
    or before 30 June 2022 to the bank account of the Creditor as specified in this Agreement”.

     

	
    2. In all other matters that are not regulated by
    the terms of this Additional Agreement No. 1, the Parties are guided by the provisions of the Agreement.

     

	3. This Additional Agreement No. 1 enters into force on the
                                                                                                                         date of its signing.

                                                                                 

	SIGNATURES AND REQUISITES OF THE PARTIES:

                                                                                 

	
    On behalf of the Creditor

    Arras Minerals Corp.

     

    /s/ Christopher Richards       

    Christopher Richards

    CFO

     

	
    On behalf of the Debtor

    Ekidos Minerals LLP

     

     

    /s/ Vlada Nam    

    Vlada Nam

    Confidant
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

AUG 13 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

NICK ALFRED OWENS,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 98-6081

(D.C. No. CR-94-64-C)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, BRORBY and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

In his most recent effort to overturn his conviction for violating the federal

drug laws, Nick Alfred Owens filed a pleading entitled “Motion to Strike All
-2-

Pleadings by the United States.” He contended that the district court had no

jurisdiction over his original criminal proceedings. The district court dismissed

the pleading in a minute order. Mr Owens appeals and we affirm.

Mr. Owens was convicted in 1994 for violating 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We affirmed his conviction on appeal, although we remanded

for resentencing. United States v. Owens, 70 F.3d 1118 (10th Cir. 1995). On

May 15, 1997, Mr. Owens filed a pleading entitled “Motion for Judgment,” which

requested that his conviction and sentence be vacated for lack of jurisdiction. 

The district court denied the motion as being without legal foundation. We

dismissed Mr. Owen’s appeal as untimely. United States v Owens, 134 F.3d 383

(10th Cir. 1998). On February 2, 1998, Mr. Owens filed the current pleading

again seeking vacation of his conviction and sentence for lack of jurisdiction. 

The district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction over all

violations of federal law. 18 U.S.C. § 3231. See also United States v. Watson,

1 F. 3d 733, 734 (8th Cir. 1993). We agree with the district court that Mr.

Owen’s claim to the contrary is entirely without legal or factual foundation. 

While this appeal has been pending, Mr. Owens filed the following series

of motions in this court:

1. Motion for Expedited Ruling, March 17, 1998.
-3-

2. Motion to Correct Jurisdictional Errors and Venue, March 27, 1998.

3. Motion for Judgment and Costs, April 6, 1998.

4. Motion for Judgment of Acquital(sic) and Costs, April 27, 1998.

5. Motion to Dismiss, June 22, 1998.

Each of these motions asserts, among other things, that the district court lacked

jurisdiction over Mr. Owens’ original criminal case. We deny all of the motions

in their entirety.

The judgment of the district court dismissing Mr. Owens’ action is

AFFIRMED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephanie K. Seymour

Chief Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 759 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 759

 Expressing support for the designation of October as ``Manufacturing 
                                Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 3, 2023

Mr. Flood submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing support for the designation of October as ``Manufacturing 
                                Month''.

Whereas, in 2021, manufacturers contributed $2,496,000,000 to the economy, 
        accounting for 10.70 percent of gross domestic product;
Whereas this figure is an all-time high;
Whereas more than 13,200,000 people in the United States (or 10.3 percent of the 
        workforce) are employed directly in manufacturing in 2022, while many 
        millions more jobs are supported through the supply chain and related 
        industries;
Whereas, in August 2023, the average hourly earnings for the manufacturing 
        worker was $32.61 an hour;
Whereas, in 2022, every dollar spent in manufacturing adds an additional $2.79 
        to the economy, making it the highest multiplier of any economic sector;
Whereas, in 2022, manufacturing represented 60 percent of American exports; and
Whereas the month of October would be an appropriate time to designate as 
        ``Manufacturing Month'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports the 
designation of ``Manufacturing Month''.
                                 <all>
```
From: Joseph-J Dougherty/DC/USEPA/US To: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rosalina Rodriguez/ RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/ U Lee/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Michelle Wayland/RTP/U SEPA/US@EPA, Nealson Watkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EP A Cc: Mary Henigin/DC/U SEPA/US@EPA, Alan Rush/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 01/22/2010 11:29 PM Subject: NO2 NAAQS has been signed by the Administrator



### Elec file for web is below.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 1665

_____________________________
D ARRYL R AY G EER , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Union County

. Phillip A. Pena , Judge

. May 21, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
M AKAR , O STERHAUS , and B ILBREY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger , Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney Genera l, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
---



CONSENT OF EXPERT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 40-F
of Primero Mining Corp. (Primero) for the year ended December 31, 2014, and
any amendments thereto (the Form 40-F), I, Thomas Dyer, P.E., hereby consent
to the use of my name in connection with the references to and summaries of
scientific and technical information relating to Primeros mineral properties
(collectively, the Incorporated Information) and to the inclusion of the
Incorporated Information in the Annual Information Form filed as an exhibit to
the Form 40-F and incorporated by reference therein.

Yours very truly,

/s/ Thomas
DyerThomas
Dyer, P.E.

Dated: March 31, 2015







775-856-5700

210 South Rock Blvd. Reno, Nevada 89502 FAX:
775-856-6053

---
Nicholas Devon MCBRIDE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2628

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 7, 2018

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Judith Ellis, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Nicholas McBride seeks review of an order revoking his probation in two separate cases and the corresponding sentences.

*934We affirm in all respects. We note that the revocation order erroneously states that the sentence in count four in case 2013-CF-3593 is consecutive, as opposed to concurrent, to the sentence in count two in that case. However, this scrivener's error has not been preserved for review, and it appears that McBride will not be prejudiced by this error as the actual written sentence is correct.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, SILBERMAN, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-51018

Summary Calendar

Deborah Laufer, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Galtesvar OM, L.L.C., 

Defendant—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:20-CV-588

Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Deborah Laufer is a person with a disability within the meaning of 

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12182 et seq. She sued Galtesvar, owner and operator of the Quality Inn & 

Suites in Carizzo, Texas, alleging violations of federal regulations because 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 30, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-51018 Document: 00515843952 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/30/2021
No. 20-51018

2

third-party websites did not provide an option to book accessible rooms or 

information regarding whether such rooms were available at the Quality Inn 

& Suites. See 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e)(1). She has filed hundreds of similar 

lawsuits across the country, considering herself an ADA “tester.” The 

district court dismissed Laufer’s claims for lack of standing because her 

injuries were insufficiently “concrete” to confer standing. We AFFIRM.

We review the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction de novo. Campos v. United States, 888 F.3d 724, 729 (5th Cir. 

2018). Laufer bears the burden of proof for a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. 

See Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). Standing 

requires an injury in fact that is “an invasion of a legally protected interest 

which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not 

conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 

(1992) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

This court recently issued a decision that addressed the identical issue 

presented here by the same plaintiff. See Laufer v. Mann Hosp., L.L.C., No. 

20-50858, slip op. (5th Cir. Apr. 28, 2021). The result therefore must be the 

same. Laufer’s injury is insufficiently concrete to confer standing, as she 

never alleged in either case that she tried or intended to book a room at the 

relevant defendant’s hotel. See id. at 4. Just as in that case, she made only a 

general assertion of her “plans to travel to Texas as soon as the Covid crisis 

is over and it is safe to travel.” See id. at 4.

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 20-51018 Document: 00515843952 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/30/2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Sterling Drilling Fund 1984-1 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          36,259
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,757
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,016
<PP&E>                                       7,982,144
<DEPRECIATION>                              (7,050,232)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 975,928
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,575
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     973,353<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   975,928
<SALES>                                        148,149<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               148,149
<CGS>                                          182,862
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  182,862
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (34,713)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (3.57)<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Other -Se  includes total partners' equity.
<F2>Sales includes $1,113 of interest income.
<F3>The income associated with the limited partner group was divided by the
total number of limited partnerhsip units of 9,236.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Robert Owen LITTLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-4700

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1020 

To require the Administrator of the Economic Research Service to conduct 

research on consolidation and concentration in the livestock industry, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Ms. SMITH (for herself and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator of the Economic Research Service to conduct research on consolidation and concentration in the livestock industry, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Livestock Consolida5 tion Research Act of 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIVESTOCK CONSOLIDATION RESEARCH. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the 

8 date on which each latest Census of Agriculture is made 

9 publicly available, the Administrator of the Economic ReVerDate Sep 11 2014 20:12 Apr 07, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1020.IS S1020

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 1020 IS

1 search Service shall publish a report on consolidation and 

2 concentration in the livestock industry, including— 

3 (1) changes in the size and location of ranches, 

4 farms, processing facilities, and packers throughout 

5 the United States; and 

6 (2) the impact of the changes described in para7 graph (1) on farmers, ranchers, and downstream 

8 consumers, including— 

9 (A) financial impacts; 

10 (B) market entry impacts; 

11 (C) access to resources and inputs, includ12 ing processing facilities; and 

13 (D) dietary impacts. 

14 (b) SOURCES OF INFORMATION.—In preparing a re15 port under subsection (a), the Administrator of the Eco16 nomic Research Service shall draw on data available to 

17 the Secretary of Agriculture, including the Census of Agri18 culture, inspection records of the Food Safety and Inspec19 tion Service, and the packing plant data of the Packers 

20 and Stockyards Division of the Agricultural Marketing 

21 Service. 

22 (c) REPORT ORGANIZATION.—The report under sub23 section (a) shall separate information on beef cattle by 

24 cow-calf and fed cattle operations. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 1020 IS

1 (d) CONFIDENTIALITY.—A report published under 

2 subsection (a) shall not contain any confidential business 

3 information. 

4 (e) DEFINITION OF LIVESTOCK.—In this section, the 

5 term ‘‘livestock’’ includes beef, dairy, pork, and poultry 

6 production (including broilers, eggs, and turkeys). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Mark PHELPS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Anid Orbezo PHELPS, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-4975

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted. Dismissed.

Denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2197

TATYANA A. BABAKAEVA,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

CHRISTIE M. WILSON; WILSON & WILSON, P.C.,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson,

District Judge. (4:09-cv-00058-RAJ-FBS)

Submitted: April 29, 2011 Decided: May 17, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tatyana A. Babakaeva, Appellant Pro Se. James Harrell 

Shoemaker, Jr., PATTEN, WORNOM, HATTEN & DIAMONSTEIN, LC, 

Newport News, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tatyana A. Babakaeva appeals the district court’s 

order granting summary judgment to Defendants*

AFFIRMED

in this action 

raising several claims in connection with Defendants’ 

representation of Plaintiff in a divorce proceeding. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Babakaeva v. Wilson, No. 4:09-cv-00058-RAJ-FBS (E.D. Va. 

Sept. 23, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

 * Babakaeva named as Defendants Paul H. Wilson and Wilson & 

Wilson, P.C. Paul Wilson died after entry of the district 

court’s final order. His personal representative, Christie M. 

Wilson, was substituted as a party to this appeal.