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

March 27th, 2013

VIA EDGAR

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

|Re: | Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd.
      (the "Company")
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                     
|    | Annual Report on Form 40-F                          
|    |                                                     
|    | Consent of Expert                                   

This letter is provided in connection with the Company's Form
40-F annual report for the year ended December 31, 2012, (the Annual Report)
to be filed by the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (the SEC).

I, Hassan Ghaffari, P.Eng , hereby consent to the use of my
name in connection with reference to my involvement in the preparation of the
following technical report (the "Technical Report"):

                          
Preliminary Assessment of the Pebble Project, Southwest Alaska dated February
17, 2011

and to references to the Technical Report, or portions thereof,
in the Annual Report and to the inclusion and incorporation by reference of the
information derived from the Technical Reports in the Annual Report.

Yours truly,

|Original
      document signed by Hassan Ghaffari
|---------------------------------------------------
|Hassan Ghaffari                                    

---
#### In the Matter of State of New York, Respondent, v Gary M., Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 483]

Order of confinement, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene D. Goldberg, J.), entered on or about June 17, 2010, which, upon a jury finding of mental abnormality, and upon a finding, after a dispositional hearing, that respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement, committed him to a secure treatment facility, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s claims regarding hearsay contained in testimony about his criminal history are largely unpreserved *(see e.g. Matter of State of New York v Timothy JJ.,*70 AD3d 1138, 1142 [2010] ), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, we would find that the court did not err in allowing the State’s psychiatric expert, who examined respondent, to testify to details of some of respondent’s criminal history. The purpose of the testimony was to explain the basis for the expert’s opinion *(see*Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 [b]; *Matter of State of New York v Anonymous,*82 AD3d 1250, 1251 [2011] , *lv denied*17 NY3d 702 [2011]). In any event and respondent provided no reason to question the reliability of the information contained in the criminal complaints. Moreover, the facts underlying respondent’s sexual offenses provided ample support for the jury’s finding that he suffers from a mental abnormality.

The court did not commit error by allowing into evidence certain redacted medical records used by the parties’ experts in forming their opinions *(see*Mental Hygiene Law § 10.08 [c]). Even assuming that the admission of the records constituted error, such error was harmless since the records were not published to the jury.

The evidence adduced at the dispositional hearing was clear and convincing that respondent’s level of risk of reoffending required that he be confined rather than be subject to strict and intense supervision *(see*Mental Hygiene Law § 10.07 [f]).

*522We have considered respondent’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Catterson, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels, Román, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00473-CR

IN RE Jason MIEARS

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 3, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On July 6, 2011, relator Jason Miears filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court 

has considered relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief 

sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2009-CR-6566, 2009-CR-6567, 2009-CR-6568, and 2009-CR-6569, 

styled State of Texas v. Jason Miears, pending in the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the 

Honorable Ron Rangel presiding.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 460 

To prohibit the Secretary of Education from promulgating or enforcing 

regulations or guidance regarding gainful employment. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 2, 2011 

Mr. RISCH (for himself, Mr. COBURN, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. LEE, and Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Education from promulgating 

or enforcing regulations or guidance regarding gainful 

employment. 

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 ‘‘Education for All Act 

5 of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sec8 retary of Education may not use any Federal funds to— 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 460 IS

1 (1) implement, administer, or enforce the final 

2 regulations on ‘‘Program Integrity: Gainful Employ3 ment—New Programs’’ published by the Depart4 ment of Education in the Federal Register on Octo5 ber 29, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 66665 et seq.); 

6 (2) issue a final rule or otherwise implement 

7 the proposed rule on ‘‘Program Integrity: Gainful 

8 Employment’’ published by the Department of Edu9 cation on July 26, 2010 (75 Fed. Reg. 43616 et 

10 seq.); 

11 (3) implement, administer, or enforce section 

12 668.6 of title 34, Code of Federal Regulations, (re13 lating to gainful employment), as amended by the 

14 final regulations published by the Department of 

15 Education in the Federal Register on October 29, 

16 2010 (75 Fed Reg. 66832 et seq.); or 

17 (4) promulgate or enforce any new regulation 

18 or rule with respect to the definition or application 

19 of the term ‘‘gainful employment’’ under the Higher 

20 Education Act of 1965 on or after the date of enact21 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Bliss H. GREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANALYTICAL SURVEYS, INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 08-1723.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2008.*

Decided Jan. 5, 2009.

*291Bliss H. Green, Myrtle Creek, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Stacy L. Prall, Baker & Daniels, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before FRANK H: EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge and DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge.

*

 This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

Order

Class actions under federal securities laws against Analytical Surveys and other defendants were filed and consolidated in the Southern District of Indiana. Bliss Green, a member of the certified class, attempted to pursue an individual action. Told that he could do this only by opting out of the class, Green did so. But when the class action was settled, Green opted back in and accepted the benefit of the settlement. Ever since, he has been attempting to have his cake and eat it too— retaining the settlement’s benefits while pursuing additional relief. The district court has blocked his maneuvers, and we have affirmed. E.g., *Green v. Analytical Surveys, Inc.,*84 Fed.Appx. 640 (7th Cir. 2003) (unpublished order). But Green refuses to accept defeat. He continues to file in the district court motions functionally identical to those already litigated and resolved. These motions waste the district court’s time and require counsel who resolved the class action to spend resources defeating the requests.

Green’s most recent attempt to reopen the litigation is as frivolous as its predecessors. He proposes to “amend his complaint”, but that step is appropriate only in pending litigation. Complaints can’t be amended after the suit is concluded. Both the district court and this court have informed Green repeatedly that a judgment may be reopened only by a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), and that the sort of arguments that Green has offered in the past (and continues to advance) do not justify reopening under that Rule.

It is long past time for Green to put this dispute behind him. More to the point, the other parties, the lawyers, and the district court are entitled to the repose granted by a valid judgment.

Green’s current appeal is frivolous and an appropriate subject of sanctions under Fed. RApp. P. 38. We direct Green to show cause within 14 days why sanctions (potentially including a fine and attorneys’ fees) should not be imposed. Counsel for the class should file within the same time a statement of the attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred in opposing the current appeal. Green must understand that, if sanctions are imposed, failure to pay will lead to the entry of an order under *Support Systems International, Inc. v. Mack,*45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir.1995), curtailing his further litigation in the courts of this circuit.

Affirmed; Order to Show Cause Issued.
[No. 38889-4-I.

Division One.

October 13, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Leonel Baustista Mendoza, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 95-1-08680-9, Richard A. Jones, J., entered May 24, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Coleman, J., concurred in by Becker and Ellington, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          47,543
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              27
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 6,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    299,499
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         130,176
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           130,941
<LOANS>                                      1,186,443
<ALLOWANCE>                                     10,250
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,700,565
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,357,139
<SHORT-TERM>                                    72,697
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              8,580
<LONG-TERM>                                    112,898
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        62,504
<OTHER-SE>                                      86,747
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,700,565
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 46,857
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               13,691
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   103
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                60,651
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              23,386
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,842
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           33,809
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,895
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  64
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 25,326
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,774
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      11,774
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,133
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .65
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.58
<LOANS-NON>                                      8,167
<LOANS-PAST>                                       465
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   265
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 9,766
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,615
<RECOVERIES>                                       204
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               10,250
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            10,250
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000075430-APR-201308:12 AM
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATIONS I, Alan H. Lund, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of International Lease Finance
Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this 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; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to
the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: December 10, 2004 /S/ Alan H. Lund
ALAN H. LUND
Vice Chairman, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer -9-
!"#"##
$#%&'	
	" !!"
!		$#

%&'	

	
!" !(!(!
$#

%&)*+

,

-.	  ,/  0
 +1   
 * * 
  ,

,


2+*

  
       
,+
   3   
1,,



	


  *  
 
1

4





7KLV RSLQLRQ ZDV VXEPLWWHG WR WKH F

-RQHV¶ GHSDUWXUH IURP WKH FRXUW HIIHFWLYH 





7KH +RQRUDEOH :LOOLDP - +D\QHV 

IRU WKH 0LGGOH 'LVWULFW RI 7HQQHVVHH VLWW



5(&200(1'(' )25 )8//

3XUVXDQW WR 6L[WK &LUF

(/(&7521,& &,7$7,21  )

)LOH 1DPH D

	

	

 560)7+890)

::::::::::::

21,7(' +7$7(6 2) 30(5,&$


	





0+20$6 % +$1'/,1

	

	

3,,2+

=<0

((	@><0

3
A5

< A3

BA>57+




C5567%

<>


::::::::::::

	



	B
8E5 E68 7DC,0
	
	
	


+, 3++8+030 2807< +0307+ 300567D>?0  3,,
B
 8

E5 8%75 B62%786=8E68 7DC,0 +, B +? 5 8%7 5  0)7 7<763F G2BF8% <7 7<76 56 0)7 =7+076<8+068%0 5  077++77 C, 0 3,,  0 6 +, 3++8+030 2807<+0307+300567D>?03,,







30)387F 6 >57+ %
 >
  <

0%+$-+/&

2+<%
=<0

,

.	,*2+%H
"$&$&,
  *   2+% H
"$&$& 

  ,

  

?
*2+%H
	#+,
*  %
 8 

  , 

.,0  
   ,

  *1+,, 
1




5 C  ((( +     

+$0&G<,C%

C(((

 ,  0  
C(((

C((()  

  .  	  ,
**
,,  )        ,
,C(((

	
 ,


   , ,
   ,,  

	,



5 ,, + 
 

*



,,* ,  

,   *
     **    
B


4


+,,
,

 ! 	# 	! $# % & $,  ,  ?IJ/

?
&'! "#	 "# $# % *,,/&'"$- I
*





8


 +1   .
     H
"$&$&$3&+,
    , ,H
"$&$&$3&

 
+1



5

 	
	
	


0   
   
1   

	
	"# !	$#%&F?

+	, 
 


,



4
0	?+,
,,,0
),1*      , 
 


,
,A

),K

*,
,

'

,

,
,
    
  
   
 ,'     
      ,,  *  
  
 
  ),
4
F?),K
*   -
 
/  4
*   4
  ,  
 
,


,,*.

.


	!
,,  +      

	,, 
    ?   

	,04
*+,

4
+


+
*4


,
,  
 

 
  *     ,, ,

	
 

5+,(((


++

.	,2+% H
"$&$& , .	,2+% H
"$&$&  




*

5C(+



,  ,  H
"$&$&0,G+6,$-G+6/&0,,0*.,,
  +88+ E
 $-E
)*   
H
"$&$&$3&$*&

5C	+

4
**

,,+,
,
,*,

  ,,


0  
 
 

C 	   3  4,,,0  E
   	#
" 	
	
	



  
,
+

	#!


0*,
?

*+0+,,
  1 
  
 +1*
+,C%
,+,*,, ,
       

,

0 *  ,    

.+1*,+1,,B
,


,-IJ

*


/
+


5,,+
A$&




 
  
 ,,   
  
  

     

'  $& 4





 !
	!2+"##+%!"
"F7"!	$&

*,	
"#


# !("#("($#%((
&






+,


*4-=4
,

	
 $%
	&
	
" 	$
$%
	&
	    ,,
'

0


+    .,,


, 3
 +* ? 
  
  
  , *

 



+


      ,
,    

.7*
,,  
   3,
,*,

8%


-IJ,




/"




,  6
  % G -$& L1 $& LIJ
1/!2+"#"###+%	""$
(
		2+!&

 	
	
	


*,*
,,

,
*

    * 
   
*

0

*

3+ *  ,   ,, , ,
?   +       ,,0 
   *  =6
MB
,+1     +1 -,/ 6
M
+1-,/
,,..,
,
C*+1  *  + 
   

6
M

+
   -,/      +
*,
,,.
  ,
 ,  0
  *
 +1*1.,    
 
   
.    
   


+



,  
    ,   , 

 , ** 8+
,
*H
"$&=+,
, ,        *8+*	,

,

,8 
,,   
 +  	
 


(
 	$	%((!&	


	
  (' 6 %5,0 G 	$&

/+
,	
)' !7*.        ,$	

!"!+%!F7



  !"#!$% 

+    





**   
 


*?
'' 
  ,
,

C 
   

*
,
)


0
,,
  *

	
*!	


#	   ,,   ,,     **    )*


8*

,
A
.?    ? ,*
# 	
	
	


,
**
?


**  , *   2+% H 
"$&  8
?*
%1
-*/H
"$&$&$3&4
   

  ,,  
*! !""-8
2+%H
"$&$&$3&,,

*
,


*,/"

****,*



*

.G',
,
,
,

,*C

**      , =    
4
,


*-4/

 4 

 ,     ,3,?

,
*
,**

 ,
   
   *
  8 
 ,
    



*,


4




8 

  ,, *   



.0 

,


4
,0
,,((!

#	 !"(3***

*((((! 

	
 ,0




*4

,=* * ((!   *-6
*/   "(  -6 6

4
,,
,*,/

8


/  - *.
**    -


4*
*
  , *        H
"$&$&$3&8,+ 

  *,+>3"5,,+,
,

0 


0

,
,   ,   
*8+ , 
  
,34
,+
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lamar EDISON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-50306.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2011.*

Filed June 7, 2011.

Dorothy C. Kim, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kurt J. Mayer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

*785Lamar Edison, Jr., appeals from the 262-month sentence imposed following the district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduced sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Edison contends the district court erred at the section 3582(c)(2) proceeding by treating the policy statement articulated in U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b) as binding, even though its promulgation and implementation violated the Separation of Powers doctrine and Administrative Procedure Act. This contention is foreclosed by *United States v. Fox,*631 F.3d 1128, 1131-33 (9th Cir.2011).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*785ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### In the Matter of Essence S. and Another, Infants. Abbott House, Appellant; Jacobie S., Respondent, et al., Respondent.

[941 NYS2d 842]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney H. Gribetz, J.), entered on or about July 19, 2010, which dismissed the termination of parental rights petitions against respondent mother, Jacobie S., and respondent father, Jeffrey H., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner agency failed to meet its burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that diligent efforts were made to strengthen the parental bond between the children and respondent mother (Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [a]), since it failed to develop a plan that was tailored to fit her individual circumstances *(see Matter of Sheila G.,*61 NY2d 368, 385 [1984]). The agency submitted referral letters not addressed to the mother’s home address and its sole witness testified regarding events that occurred over two years prior to the proceedings, without benefit of any records of these events, and as to matters outside her personal knowledge. The court was entitled to resolve the conflicting testimony in favor of respondent mother and its credibility determination is entitled to deference *(see Matter of Frantrae W.,*45 AD3d 412, 413 [2007]).

Moreover, the agency was without authority to unilaterally suspend respondent mother’s visitation rights *(see*18 NYCRR 431.14), and then fault her for not complying with the service plan which included, *inter alia,*visitation *(see Matter of Jesus JJ.,*232 AD2d 752, 753 [1996], *lv denied*89 NY2d 809 [1997] [plan must be realistic and tailored to fit a parent’s individual situation]).

The court also properly found that the agency failed to meet its burden with respect to respondent father. The record *527establishes that the agency met with him on only one occasion *(see Matter of Charmaine T.,*173 AD2d 625 [1991]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Catterson, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels, Román, JJ.
**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**

|   | (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 result of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                           |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Reed                      Fisher      |   |   |        |
| Reed                      Fisher               |   |   |        |
| Chief                        Financial Officer |   |   |   |
|                                           |   |   |   |
| April                        26, 2006          |   |   |   |