alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:14-CR-1

)

CRISSY TILL, a/k/a CRISSY CARDONE, )

a/k/a CRISSY YOUNG )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Roger B.

Cosbey, on January 29, 2014, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel for the

defendant, and counsel for the United States of America. The Defendant waived in open Court

prosecution by indictment and consented that the proceedings may be by information rather

than by indictment.

The hearing on defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney

and of counsel for defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;
(2) that the defendant’s waiver of indictment is knowing and voluntary;

(3) that the defendant understands her right to trial by jury, to persist in her plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses,

and her right against compelled self-incrimination;

(4) that the defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and defendant understands that the sentencing guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(5) that the plea of guilty by the defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made

and is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between

the parties;

(6) that defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(7) that the defendant understands that her answers may later be used against her in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(8) that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept both the defendant’s waiver of indictment and

plea of guilty and that the Defendant be adjudged guilty of Counts 1 and 2 as charged in the

Information and have sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this

Report and Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will

be scheduled before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections

to the Findings and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14)

days. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 29th day of January 2014.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

2
Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

3
Exhibit 12

FILED UNDER SEAL

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 524-2 Filed 05/30/17 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31(d)

I, Mark R. Bachmann, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Zep Inc.;
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this annual report does 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;
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|Date: December 22, 2009                             
|                                                    
|/s/ Mark R. Bachmann                                
|Mark R. Bachmann                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
has been provided to Zep Inc. and will be retained by Zep Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
Exhibit 10-d


 


THIRD AMENDMENT

OF

ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.

DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN

(1989 Restatement)


 


 


The “ADC
Telecommunications, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan (1989 Restatement)” adopted
by the Board of Directors of ADC Telecommunications, Inc., a Minnesota
Corporation, on September 24, 1989, effective November 1, 1989, as amended by
First and Second Amendments effective March 12, 1996 (hereinafter collectively
referred to as the “Plan Statement”), is hereby further amended as follows:


 


1.             Effective December 9,
2003, the following Section 2.5 shall be added to Section 2 of the Plan
Statement as follows:


 


2.5           Plan Termination
Transition – Effective December 9, 2003, no further deferrals of Deferrable
Compensation may be made by any Participant, and no otherwise Eligible
Employees may become Participants in the Plan. 
The Plan shall remain in existence until such time as all Account
balances have been fully paid to Participants in accordance with their elections,
at which time the Plan shall be automatically terminated.


 


2.             Except as herein
expressly amended, the Plan Statement shall continue in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, ADC Telecommunications, Inc. has caused this Third Amendment to be
executed by a duly authorized officer.


 


 


	
  December 9,
  2003

  	
   

  	
  ADC
  TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Jeffrey
  D. Pflaum

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Jeffrey D.
  Pflaum

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Its:

  	
  Corporate
  Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>


<S>                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>      DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>           SEP-30-2000

<CASH>                          2,241,174
<SECURITIES>                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                      27,596
<ALLOWANCES>                         0
<INVENTORY>                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                2,268,770
<PP&E>                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  2,373,958
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              86,931
<BONDS>                              0
<COMMON>                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          0
<OTHER-SE>                       (532,917)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    2,373,958
<SALES>                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  102,988
<CGS>                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  384,849
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (214,760)
<INCOME-TAX>                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (214,760)
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                     (214,760)
<EPS-BASIC>                        (.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (.56)



</TABLE>
Ronald Marvin Robert WULF, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10244.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
#### Steven D. ROLLINS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 03-7688.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 31, 2004.

Decided April 28, 2004.

Steven D. Rollins, Appellant pro se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Steven D. Rollins seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed.R.App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on September 10, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on October 15, 2003.* Because Rollins failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.

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.

*DISMISSED*

*

 For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
Spiel) oleh Yo cS ay GIs

Ce 88 ually Chae gts os pple cyl [asin Cus g eal) col) Ged AY) Sa all coll ged ol gt Ad GS) Le Js ols
ON cial gl cee GUS A) Led A ps) GS 9 dy yd oN 5 qual OS ab esha (te Gas Gls il jut gl B sis ee iB gl) ud nb gals i gamers
Saal ol) Gadi y J jhall (8 eld) pte bade) ou

©

ee
ee

aie

S

ae

se
SS
se

ee
a
se
Se

sees

ee
Bs
se
eee
se

se
es
ss
=
ee
ss
ee

=
Ss
Se
SS
SS

ae

oe

sae

Ss

eee
ee
sesetesetenn

=

ee

ee

sess
Sse
sete
eset
seca
sete
eset
seca

ss
ws

sae
se
a

=

“NS cuugh IS Aue igi alah!) pla Lesic g

A et “  % * she we
On le je dass Auth gal gee) Cat pilus JG) le Glarg <d sis Slit lis culs

sl) Ciluiiy gailus wae) od

bab anand Si al Ugiclurs cuts Sei 5 cumueall epadll Jad o) cole ols Ua pally JA) Lead 33 Ardea) (68 (err CdS) cal) ah jg Adaee ob all coe colts Qui gl US lay coluual) (8
ccgld jure Crsd padeal) GIS) dary GV) Guta Gh geil cane Lily agt aac) Qi) 4369) Joli sa; idle) tals ic igh Ade Od Yl A gills
coal Ale f Als (4) padeal) GEL: Apaneall 5 Jay) culdy

—

Lida yo CS V3) J pial) jab Y. Gls JS cod Gulill dylan Gd plus
Richard Anthony WALKER, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-9724.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, denied.
2021

臨床試験と女性

= 希望

臨床試験は、検査や治療が効果があり、安全であ

るかどうかを調べるのに役に立つ研究です。臨床

試験に参加する方法は、たくさんあります。臨床試

験の幾つかは、既に受けている治療について質問

するものです。別の臨床試験では、新しい薬を服

用します。一部の臨床試験では、健康な人に参加

してもらいます。 他の臨床試験では、特定の健康

の問題を抱えている人に参加してもらいます。

女性が臨床試験に参加していますか?

はい。 女性はすでに臨床試験に参加しています。 しかし、様々なバックグラウンドを持つ女性が、

もっと参加する必要があります。 全ての年齢層、人種および民族グループの女性、そして、障害ま

たは慢性的な病気を抱えている女性は、臨床試験に参加することを検討すべきです。

あなたが臨床試験への参加を検討することは、世の役に立ちます。 医師達が女性の健康につい

てもっと学ぶのを助けることで、医学に貢献することができます。

なぜ女性が臨床試験に参加するべきなのか?

医療製品は、男性と女性に異なる影響を与える可能性があります。 女性は時には異なる副作用

を示す場合があるため、女性が参加することは重要です。 女性の体は、薬や医療器具の働き方に

も影響を与える可能性があります。

臨床試験があなたに適し

ているかどうか、医療提供

者に尋ねてください。

FDA 婦人保健部

www.fda.gov/womeninclinicaltrials

臨床試験と女性 (JAPANESE)
臨床試験に参加する前に知っておくべき15のこと臨

床試験に参加するかどうかは、あなたの選択です。参加するように圧力を受けた、と感じるよう

なことがあってはいけません。あなたには、いつでも辞める権利があります。 臨床試験で人々を

保護するための規則があります。

インフォームド・コンセントは、臨床試験に参加する前に、臨床試験に関する重要な事実を学ぶ

プロセスです。このリストは、あなたが知る必要がある全てではありませんが、あなたが医師と会

話を始めるのに役立つでしょう。参加に同意する前に、あなたの疑問の全てに回答して貰ってく

ださい。以下のことに答えを見つけてください:

目的と、何が行われるか

1. 調査研究の目的

2. 受ける可能性のある薬、検査、治療

3. 調査研究の期間と、医師訪問頻度

4. あなたの情報が、どのように秘密に守られ

るのか

5. 調査研究が終了した時には、どうなるのか

考えられるリスクとメリット

臨床試験では、治療やスクリーニングを行うかもしれま

せんが、あなたの病気が良くなるという保証はありませ

ん。薬、検査、または治療がうまくいかない場合も、あり

ます。

6. 治療のメリット

7. 治療のリスクと副作用

8. あなたの病気への治療、または他の選択肢

9. あなたが服用中の他の薬と併用出来るか

どうか

その他のサポートまたは考えられる費用

10. 臨床研究が支払う治療またはサービス 

11. 臨床研究がチャイルドケアまたは交通 

 手段を提供するかどうか

12. あなたが支払わなければならないかも 

 しれない費用

13. あなたの保険がカバーするもの

詳細情報を入手する方法

14. 質問や問題がある場合の連絡先

15. 結果を入手する方法

FDAの役割は?

米国食品医薬品局(FDA)は、治療が安全で効果的に人に使われることを、認定する機関です。 

FDAが直接新しい治療法を開発したり、臨床試験を実施したりすることは、ありません。

FDA婦人保健部はNIHの婦人健康問題研究室と提携して、臨床試験へ多様な女性の参加を促進

する活動を行っています。これらの活動の詳細については、次のサイトにアクセスしてください。

www.fda.gov/womeninclinicaltrials
John CALLEN, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6805.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STARVONNA HARRIS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BEST BUY STORES, L.P.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00446-HSG 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' 

MOTION TO EXTEND PLAINTIFFS' 

DEADLINE TO PRODUCE AN EXPERT 

REPORT

Re: Dkt. No. 67

On August 31, 2017, Plaintiffs moved to extend their expert report deadline until 45 days 

of Defendant’s production of information regarding putative class members, or to file a 

supplemental report by that time. Dkt. No. 67 (“Mot.”). On September 14, 2017, Defendant filed 

an opposition to the motion. Dkt. No. 74 (“Opp.”). Plaintiffs replied on September 21, 2017. 

Dkt. No. 77. After considering these filings, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for an 

extension to produce an expert report or for a supplemental expert report. Plaintiffs have failed to 

show unfair prejudice in the absence of an extension or the opportunity to file an additional report. 

See Mot. at 2–3; Opp. at 4–7. Plaintiffs also have not shown good cause for modifying the Court’s 

Scheduling Order. See id.; Dkt. No. 44.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

10/31/2017
Ronnie Wayne CRADDOCK and Sherrie Denise Hawkins, petitioners, v. BEAUFORT COUNTY SHERIFF'S, DEPARTMENT, et al.

No. 12-9700.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 12, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
CHUEN PIU KWONG, aka Phillip Kwong, petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General.

No. 12-150.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 27, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
* Pursuant to Local 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-40199 

(Summary Calendar)

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAVIER BERMEA, a/k/a JAVIER MIRELEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(USDC No. C-94-CR-144-1)

- - - - - - - - - -

July 8, 1996

Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Javier Bermea appeals his sentence from his guilty-plea

conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute

approximately 159 kilograms of marijuana. Bermea argues that the

district court erred by enhancing his base offense level for his

participation as a manager or supervisor in a conspiracy involving

five or more participants and by relying on the Presentence Report
2

as basis for its findings. Because Bermea raises these issues for

the first time on appeal, we review for plain error. See United

States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc),

cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995).

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties 

and find that the district court did not commit plain error by

increasing Bermea's base offense level for his role in the offense.

United States v. Ayala, 47 F.3d 688, 690 (5th Cir. 1995); United

States v. Elwood, 999 F.2d 814, 817 (5th Cir. 1993). 

AFFIRMED.
Brian GRANT, et al., petitioners, v. FIA CARD SERVICES, dba Bank of America.

No. 12-1189.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
IN RE: Maurice R. FRANKS

No. 2018-B-1483

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 2019

Rehearing denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant rehearing.
<PAGE>
 
                              E X H I B I T   1 1


                STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                             Three Months Ended   Nine Months Ended
                                                September 30         September 30
(Thousands of dollars and shares)               1997     1996        1997      1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                           <C>      <C>         <C>      <C>

Net income                                    $  742   $   22       $  785   $  714
                                             =======================================
 
 
Weighted average shares of
 Common Stock outstanding                     18,537   16,647       18,367    16,411
 
Shares of Common Stock issuable upon
 conversion of Convertible Preferred Stock     5,535    7,423        3,690     7,423
 
Shares of Common Stock issuable upon
 exercise of employee stock options            1,558    2,274          923     2,022
                                             ---------------------------------------
Total shares of Common Stock and
 Common Stock equivalents                     25,630   26,344       22,980    25,856
                                             =======================================

Net income per share                         $  .029  $  .001      $  .034   $  .028
                                             =======================================
------------------

(1) Primary and fully diluted per share earnings are substantially the same for
    each period presented.

(2) Common Stock equivalents were anti-dilutive in the first quarter of 1997.
</TABLE>

                                       19
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12189]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP95-492-000]


Colorado Interstate Gas Co.; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

May 12, 1995.
    Take notice that on May 10, 1995, Colorado Interstate Gas Company 
(CIG), Post Office Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944, filed in 
Docket No. CP95-492-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 
157.212 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 
CFR 157.205, 157.212) for authorization to construct and operate a new 
delivery facility for service to Utilicorp United, Inc. (Utilicorp), a 
local distribution company, in Douglas County, Colorado, under CIG's 
blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-21-000 pursuant to 
Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the 
request that is on file with the Commission and open to public 
inspection.
    CIG proposes to construct approximately 3.3 miles of 6-inch loop 
line on CIG's existing line in Douglas County for deliveries to 
Utilicorp to accommodate growth in the Castle Rock, Colorado, area. It 
is stated that CIG would use the proposed delivery point for the 
delivery of approximately 3,500 Mcf of gas per day transported for 
Utilicorp under the terms of its Rate Schedule TF-1. It is stated that 
the volumes to be delivered would not exceed the volumes presently 
delivered to Utilicorp. The construction cost is estimated at $468,000. 
CIG states that it has sufficient capacity to render the proposed 
service without detriment or disadvantage to its other existing 
customers and that its tariff does not prohibit the addition of 
delivery points.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-12189 Filed 5-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Daniel D'AMELIO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-780.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Thunder Mountain Gold, Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, E. James Collord, 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 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 Thunder Mountain Gold, Inc.







/s/ E. James Collord                                  DATE:  August 14, 2008

E. James Collord, President and

Chief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Thunder Mountain Gold, Inc. and will be retained by Thunder Mountain Gold, Inc. to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Aart) 48) Jal, lh Jad)

caady Laila aby «cyte JS ob Gull! Aslan (8 abl
CLAN ASAUS) Cur Calg) gba g wile g