alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Modified Mercalli intensities (MMI) for large earthquakes near New Madrid, Missouri, in 1811-1812 and near Charleston, South Carolina, in 1886      

      May 1, 2002    

View Document

Large historical earthquakes occurred in the eastern United States on December 16, 1811 near New Madrid, MO, on January 23, 1812 near New Madrid, MO, on February 7, 1812 near New Madrid, MO, and on September 1, 1886 near Charleston, SC. Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) assignments for these earthquakes were used by Bakun et al. (submitted) to estimate the location and moment magnitude M of these earthquakes from MMI observations. The MMI assignments used by Bakun et al. (submitted) are listed in this report.

## Citation Information

### Study Area

### Contact

####               Earthquake Science Center          

350 N. Akron RoadMoffett Field, CA94035United States

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - Missouri;South Carolina
                  - missouri
                  -  South Carolina

View All **
### CCA # 13-13-00547-CR 

## STYLE: Jorge Garcia v. TheStateof Texas TRIAL COURT: TRIAL COURT #: TRIAL COURT JUDGE: 

### 138th District Court 98-CR-446-B Hon. Arturo Nelson Cisneros DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED 

### DATE: JUSTICE: PC PUBLISH: CLK RECORD: RPT RECORD: 

### STATE BR: APPBR: DNP: 

# iao-/r FILE COPY 

## OFFENSE: Aggravated Sexual Assault COUNTY: Cameron 

### FOR REHEARINGIS:. DATE: 12/18/2014 JUDGE: LONGORIA

SUPPCLKRECORD



### SUPPRPTRECORD. SUPP BR

PROSE BR MOTION



## IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS 

# APPELLANT'S Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# DATE: Qt///S/Zp/S~ JUDGE:


### CCAIS:. JUDGE: 

# fA U*SUfrC~ MOTION FOR REHEARING IN 

### ON 

### CCA# 

# \Q.O-/f Disposition: DATE: JUDGE: 

### SIGNED:. PUBLISH: PC: DNP: MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE IS: 

## ON JUDGE:
Lorenzo SCOTT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D16-2844

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 9, 2018

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Stephen J. Weinbaum, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SUAREZ and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 139 (Thursday, July 20, 1995)]
[Corrections]
[Page 37500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-20720]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 94-NM-224-AD; Amendment 39-9286; AD 95-13-06]


Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747 Series Airplanes 
Equipped With General Electric Model CF6-80C2 Series Engines or Pratt & 
Whitney Model PW4000 Series Engines

Correction

    In rule document 95-15300 beginning on page 33338 in the issue of 
Wednesday, June 28, 1995, make the following correction:


Sec. 39.13  [Corrected]

    On page 33342, in the first column, in Sec. 39.13, in airworthiness 
directive 95-13-06, pargraph (c), in the table, in the first column, 
the last entry should read ``92-24-51''.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Walter Lee RHONE, Jr. v. STATE

CR-15-1236

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Magnetic studies of lunar samples      

      January 1, 1970    

The remanent magnetism of a lunar type C breccia sample includes a large viscous component with a time constant of several hours, and a high coercivity remanence, possibly acquired by impact processes on the lunar surface. Ilmenite(?) and metallic iron in breccias, and ferrous and metallic iron in glass beads separated from lunar fines (type D) were identified by high-field and low-temperature experiments. The iron appears to occur in a wide range of grain sizes including the single domain and multidomain states.

## Citation Information
MAROLAX NAPLES, INC., a Florida Corporation, Petitioner, v. PARRISH, WHITE & YARNELL, P.A., a Florida Professional Association, f/k/a Parrish & Yarnell, Respondent.

Case No. 2D17-2209

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Exhibit 32.1

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that, to hisknowledge, the annual report on Form 10-K/A (the “Report”) of Intermost Corporation, a Wyoming corporation (the “Company”),for the period ended June 30, 2010:

 

1.     Fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

This certificationis being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be deemed a part of this Report, nor is it to be deemed to be “filed”for any purpose whatsoever.

 

Date: March 14, 2012
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 155 (Friday, August 11, 1995)]
[Corrections]
[Page 41157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-20811]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Part 219


Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Subcontracting 
Plans

Correction

    In rule document 95-5959 beginning on page 13074 in the issue of 
Friday, March 10, 1995, make the following correction


219.703  [Corrected]

    On page 13075, in the second column, in section 219.703(a), in the 
fourth line, ``Commission'' should read ``Committee''.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Order entered March 30, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01418-CV

ISAIAS GONZALEZ, Appellant

V.

NORTHFORK INVESTMENTS, LTD, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-05764-D

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s March 25, 2015 unopposed motion for an extension of time to 

file a brief. Appellant shall file a brief by APRIL 13, 2015. We caution appellant that no further 

extension of time will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sunway Global Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Samuel Sheng, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





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.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.





Date: May 10, 2011
By:
/s/ Samuel ShengSamuel ShengChief Financial Officer(principal financial and accounting officer)
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 86 (Thursday, May 4, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 22021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-10504]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-50779

USDC No. A-98-CR-281-2-JN

USDC No. A-00-CV-593-JN

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CURTIS DARRYL NORRIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

--------------------

April 16, 2002

Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Curtis Norris seeks a certificate of appealability (COA)

to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion. 

Norris must obtain a COA to proceed on appeal. See 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A COA may be issued only if Norris has

made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Norris can satisfy this standard
O R D E R

No. 01-50779

- 2 -

if he shows "that 'reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for

that matter agree that) the [§ 2255 motion] should have been

resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were

adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'" Wheat v.

Johnson, 238 F.3d 357, 359-60 (5th Cir.) (citations omitted), cert.

denied, 121 S. Ct. 2226 (2001). Furthermore, "[w]here a district

court has rejected constitutional claims on the merits, . . . [t]he

[movant] must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the

district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable

or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

The district court made insufficient findings on the

controlling factual question, whether Norris requested counsel to

file an appeal and whether counsel agreed to do so. See United

States v. Daly, 823 F.2d 871, 872 (5th Cir. 1987) (findings and

conclusions upon which the district court’s rulings are based are

required when denying section 2255 motions). COA is therefore

GRANTED, the judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the

district court for the purpose of making the necessary findings on

the controlling issue. If the district court finds that counsel

agreed, after sentencing, to file a direct appeal, it has authority

to grant 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief if such relief is appropriate. If

the district court finds otherwise, the case should be returned to

this court for full briefing.

COA is DENIED on the issues whether Norris’s term of

supervised release exceeded the statutory maximum and whether his

sentence was excessive pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.
O R D E R

No. 01-50779

- 3 -

466 (2000). Norris’s motion to substitute counsel is also DENIED.

COA GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART; SUBSTITUTION OF

COUNSEL DENIED; JUDGMENT VACATED AND REMANDED.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

In re:

Chance & Anthem, LLC,

Debtor.

/

 Case No.: 18-16248-MAM

 Chapter 7

Robert C. Furr, 

Plaintiff,

v.

Jeffrey M. Siskind; Siskind Legal Services; 

Tanya Siskind; Second Siskind Family 

Trust; Frank R. Zokaites; CannaMed 

Pharmaceuticals, LLC; OB Real Estate 

Holdings 1732, LLC; Sovereign Gaming and 

Entertainment, LLC; Florida’s Association 

of Community Banks and Credit Unions, 

Incorporated; Sympatico Equine Rescue, 

Inc.; Wellington 3445, LP; Zokaites 

Properties, LP; and Robert Gibson;

Defendants. 

/

Adv. Proc. No.: 19-01298-MAM

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on November 1, 2019.

Mindy A. Mora, Judge

United States Bankruptcy Court

_____________________________________________________________________________

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 96 Filed 11/04/19 Page 1 of 2
2

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON AMENDED MOTION TO 

DISMISS ADVERSARY COMPLAINT [ECF No. 91]

THIS MATTER came before the Court upon the Amended Motion to Dismiss 

Adversary Complaint [ECF No. 91] (the “Motion to Dismiss”) filed by defendant

Jeffrey M. Siskind (“Defendant”). With the Court being fully advised in the premises, 

it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

1. Not later than 14 days after entry of this Order, Robert C. Furr (the 

“Plaintiff”) may file and serve on Defendant a response to the Motion to Dismiss along 

with a memorandum. The title of Plaintiff's response shall reference the title of the 

original Motion to Dismiss. If the Plaintiff fails to file a timely response, the Motion 

may be granted without further notice or hearing. 

2. If Plaintiff files a response to the Motion to Dismiss, not later than 21 

days after entry of this Order, Defendant may file and serve on Plaintiff a reply along 

with a memorandum. The title of the reply shall reference the title of the original 

Motion to Dismiss. 

###

Copies Furnished To:

Jeffrey M. Siskind, Esq.

3465 Santa Barbara Drive

Wellington, FL 33414

Mr. Siskind is directed to serve a conformed copy of this Order on all appropriate 

parties and file a certificate of service.

Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 96 Filed 11/04/19 Page 2 of 2
Order entered October , 2012 

In The 

Court of appeato 

jriftb IlDi5stritt of Texass at /Dams 

No. 05-11-01268-CR 

No. 05-11-01269-CR 

TIEN JUNG KUO, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. F10-55962-J, F10-55963-J 

ORDER 

The Court REINSTATES the appeals. 

On September 18, 2012, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the 

reporter's record has not been filed. On October 4, 2012, we received appellant's motions to 

dismiss the appeals, signed by both appellant and his attorney. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). 

Accordingly, we conclude findings are no longer necessary and VACATE the September 18, 

2012 order. 

We DENY appellant's January 7, 2012 motions to dismiss because they were not signed 

by both appellant and counsel. 
We will dispose of appellant's October 4, 2012 motions to dismiss the appeals in due 

course. 

15AVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 D0 27 0 . VI OLA D. GARRI S et a l . v . BANK OF AMERI C A, N.A., et a l

.

On Feb ru ary 1 6, 2 0 1 6, Vi o l a D. Garri s fi l ed t h i s p ro s e a p p l i cat i o n fo r

d i s c r e t i o nary ap p eal s eek i n g rev i ew of t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s J an uary 1 2

, 2 0 1 6 o rd e r

g ran t i n g t h e d efen dan t s ’ m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s h er p ro se co m p l a i n t fo r q u i et t i t l e.

A l t h o ug h it ap p ears fro m t h e m at eri al s b efo re u s t hat t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd e r i s a

d i rect l y a p p e a l ab le fi n al j u d gm en t

, see OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (a), we l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n to

co n si d er Garri s ’ s ap p l i cat i on b ecau s e i t i s u n t i m el y

.

Ord i n ari l y

, i f a p art y ap p l i es fo r d i s cret i on ary rev i ew o f a d i rect l y ap p eal ab l e

o rd er, we g ran t t h e ap p l i cat io n u n d er OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (j). To fal l w it hi n t h i s g en eral

ru l e, h o wev er, t h e ap pl i cat i on m u s t b e fi l ed wi t h in 3 0 d ay s o f en t ry o f t h e o rd er t o b e

ap p eal ed

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5 (d ) an d (j); Hi l l v. S t a te

, 2 0 4 Ga. Ap p

. 5 8 2 (4 2 0 SE2 d

3 9 3 ) (1 9 9 2 ). Th e req ui rem en t s o f OCGA § 5-6 -3 5 are ju ri s di ct i o n al

, an d t h i s Co u rt

can n ot accep t an ap p l i cat i o n fo r ap peal n o t m ad e i n co m p l i an ce t h erewi t h

. See Bo yl e

v. S t at e

, 1 9 0 Ga. Ap p

. 7 3 4 (3 8 0 SE2 d 5 7 ) (1 9 8 9). Becau s e Garri s fi l ed h er

ap p li cat io n 3 5 d ay s aft er en t ry o f t h e o rd er s h e s eek s t o ap peal

, 1 t he ap p l icat i o n i s

u n t i m el y , an d i t i s h ereb y DISM ISSED fo r l ack o f ju ri s d i ct i on

.

1 Al t h o ug h i t ap p ears t h at Garri s at t em p ted to fi l e h er ap p l i c a t i o n earl i er t h an

Feb ru ary 1 6

, 2 0 1 6

, th e ap pl i cat i o n was n o t accep ted b ecau s e Garri s fai l ed t o fo l l o w

t h e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s ru les

. February 26, 2016C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 02/26/2016
# EUR-Lex - 32004R0132 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32004R0132

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 132/2004 of 27 January 2004 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables **

*
Official Journal L 021 , 28/01/2004 P. 0005 - 0006 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 132/2004

of 27 January 2004

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1947/2002(2), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.

(2) In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 28 January 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 27 January 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. Silva Rodríguez

Agriculture Director-General

(1) OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66.

(2) OJ L 299, 1.11.2002, p. 17.

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 27 January 2004 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

>TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TOMAS LOPEZ-MEZA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 14-73874

Agency No. A099-473-569

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Immigration Judge

Submitted August 25, 2015** 

Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges

Tomas Lopez-Meza, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review

of the immigration judge’s reasonable fear determination.

FILED

SEP 08 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
In the answering brief, respondent requests remand for further analysis and

explanation of the immigration judge’s decision. We agree the current

immigration judge decision lacks sufficient explanation to permit our review. 

REMANDED directly to the immigration judge.

2 14-73874
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

IN RE: 

LEANA I. ADORNO 

AKA LEANA IDZA ADORNO 

AKA LEANA IDZA ADORNO MARTINEZ, 

DEBTOR. 

___________________________________/ 

CASE NO.: 19-26674-RAM 

CHAPTER 13 

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION NOTICE OF POSTPETITION MORTGAGE 

FEES, EXPENSES AND CHARGES 

On June 16, 2020, the Court conducted a hearing on the Objection to Notice of Postpetition 

Mortgage Fees, Expenses and Charges (Doc. No. 34) (the “Objection”) filed by Debtor Leana I. 

Adorno (the “Debtor”). For the reasons stated orally and recorded in open court that shall constitute 

the decision of this Court, it is 

 ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 

1. The Objection is OVERRULED. 

2. Creditor, THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, F/K/A THE BANK OF NEW 

Robert A. Mark, Judge

United States Bankruptcy Court

_____________________________________________________________________________

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on June 30, 2020.

Case 19-26674-RAM Doc 52 Filed 07/01/20 Page 1 of 2
YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF CWABS, INC., ASSETBACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-5, shall not seek any additional attorney’s fees related 

to the fees listed on the filed Notice of Postpetition Mortgage Fees, Expenses and Charges and 

provided that that Amended Chapter 13 Plan gets confirmed at next month’s July 2020 

confirmation hearing. 

### 

Prepared and submitted by: 

Maya Rubinov, Esq. 

Van Ness law Firm, PLC 

1239 E. Newport Center Drive, Suite 110 

Deerfield Beach, FL 33442 

Phone (954) 571-2031 

bankruptcy@vanlawfl.com 

Attorney for the Movant 

Maya Rubinov, Esq. is directed to serve copies of this Order on all interested parties and to 

file a certificate of service. 

Case 19-26674-RAM Doc 52 Filed 07/01/20 Page 2 of 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 Pengrowth Energy Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher G. Webster, Chief Financial 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 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; and2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  February 26, 2015


/s/ Christopher G. WebsterName:  Christopher G. WebsterTitle:    Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 37 (Friday, February 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 10413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-100224]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------