alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 5.2**

 CERTIFICATION 

I, Gaétan Mercier, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Virginia Gold Mines Inc.;

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 company as of, and for,  the periods presented in this report; 

4. The company’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 company and 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 company, 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 company’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; 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control  over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual  report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,  the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based  on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,  to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s  board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(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 company’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 company’s internal control over financial  reporting. 

Date: May 31, 2005

/s/ Gaétan Mercier   Gaétan Mercier  Chief Financial Officer
# L_2012294EN.01000901.xml

| 24.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 294/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 294/9

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 16 July 2012 establishing the deadline in the event of underutilisation of fishing opportunities under the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community on the one hand, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland, on the other hand

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 293 of 23 October 2012
  )

In the title of the Regulation, in the table of contents and on page 1:

for:

‘Council Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 16 July 2012 ...’,

read:

‘Council Regulation (EU) No 972/2012 of 16 July 2012 ...’.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: ESTATE OF HELEN J.

DISABATO, DECEASED

PETITION OF: PETER DIGIOVANNI :

:

:

:

: No. 151 MM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8th day of November

, 2017, the Petition for Leave to File Petition

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5210 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5210

   To suspend temporarily the duty on Black NBR rubber O-ring, 3150 
         millimeters diameter, 9896 millimeters circumference.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 29, 2008

Mrs. Tauscher introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on Black NBR rubber O-ring, 3150 
         millimeters diameter, 9896 millimeters circumference.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. BLACK NBR RUBBER O-RING, 3150 MILLIMETERS DIAMETER, 9896 
              MILLIMETERS CIRCUMFERENCE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00        Black NBR rubber   Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          O-ring, 3150                                                       31/2011.......
                          millimeters
                          diameter, 9896
                          millimeters
                          circumference
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          4016.93.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent

v.
JAMAL SHAREEF BRADLEY , Petitioner.

No. 1 CA

- CR 17

- 0185 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2007

- 142931

- 001 The Honorable Jose S. Padilla , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office , Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent Jamal Shareef Bradley, Florence Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Chief Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court. FILED 11-28-2017STATE v. BRADLEY Decision of the Court

2 PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Jamal Shareef Bradley seeks review of the superior court's order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner's second successive petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this cou rt will not disturb a superior court's ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner's burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court's order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5266 

To require certain semiautomatic pistols manufactured, imported, or sold 

by Federal firearms licensees to be capable of microstamping ammunition. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2008 

Mr. BECERRA (for himself, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. EMANUEL, Mrs. MCCARTHY

of New York, and Mr. RANGEL) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To require certain semiautomatic pistols manufactured, imported, or sold by Federal firearms licensees to be capable of microstamping ammunition. 

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 ‘‘National Crime Gun 

5 Identification Act’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5266 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT THAT CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC 

2 PISTOLS MANUFACTURED, IMPORTED, OR 

3 SOLD BY FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES BE 

4 CAPABLE OF MICROSTAMPING AMMUNITION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 923 of title 18, United 

6 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(m)(1)(A) A person licensed under this chapter shall 

9 not manufacture, import, or transfer a semiautomatic pis10 tol to which this subparagraph applies that is not capable 

11 of microstamping ammunition. 

12 ‘‘(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), a pistol is 

13 capable of microstamping ammunition if— 

14 ‘‘(i) a microscopic array of characters that iden15 tify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol 

16 is etched into the breech face and firing pin of the 

17 pistol; and 

18 ‘‘(ii) when ammunition is fired from the pistol, 

19 the characters are copied from the breech face and 

20 firing pin onto the cartridge case of the ammunition. 

21 ‘‘(C) Subparagraph (A) shall apply only to semiauto22 matic pistols which— 

23 ‘‘(i) are manufactured, or imported into the 

24 United States, on or after the effective date of this 

25 subsection; and 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5266 IH

1 ‘‘(ii) have not been transferred to a person not 

2 licensed under this chapter. 

3 ‘‘(2) Whoever violates paragraph (1) shall be fined 

4 an amount equal to— 

5 ‘‘(A) in the case of a first such violation by the 

6 violator, $1,000 multiplied by the number of semi7 automatic pistols involved in the violation; 

8 ‘‘(B) in the case of a second such violation by 

9 the violator, $2,000 multiplied by the number of 

10 semiautomatic pistols involved in the violation; or 

11 ‘‘(C) in the case of a third such violation by the 

12 violator, $3,000 multiplied by the number of semi13 automatic pistols involved in the violation.’’. 

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

15 subsection (a) shall take effect on January 1, 2010. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 2165

MONICA JEFFRIES , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. WAL

- MART STORES EAST, LP , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. George Jarrod Hazel , District Judge. ( 8:15

- cv
- 00473

- GJH )

Submitted : January 21, 2020 Decided: January 23, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Monica Jeffries, Appellant Pro Se. Gilda Bethany Ingle, LITTLER MENDELSON PC, Tysons Corner, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Monica Jeffries seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting Defendant’s
motion to dismiss her claims brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42
U.S.C.A. §§ 12101 to 12213 (2018)

. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

. Parties are accorded 30 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). “[T]he timely filing of a notic e of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on July 11, 2016 . The notice of appeal was filed on October 21 , 2019. Because Jeffries faile d 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
Exhibit 4.11      CONSENT OF SIMON HÉBERT   Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 28, 2014 (the Annual Report) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the Company), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  I, Simon Hébert, participated in the preparation of the technical report entitled Technical Report and Recommendations, Reconnaissance and Trenching Program, Ashuanipi Project, Québec completed in January 2014 (the Report), concerning mineralized material in the Ashuanipi property for the Company. Portions of the Report are summarized under headings Item III  Description of the Business  3.4.4 Geological Setting; 3.4.5 Exploration and Drilling; and 3.4.6 Mineralization in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 28, 2014 (included as Exhibit 1 of the Annual Report, which Exhibit is incorporated by reference herein). I hereby consent to the inclusion of the foregoing written disclosure and to the references to such disclosure and to my name under the foregoing heading and to all other references to such disclosure and to my name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report.   Very truly yours,


| |                                          |  | 
| | ---------------------------------------- |  | 
| | /S/
Simon Hébert                         |  | 
| | Name:
Simon Hébert
Geologist in training |  | 

May 15, 2014
```

                                                             Exhibit No. EX-24.2

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

The  undersigned  officer and/or  director of Sovereign  Exploration  Associates
International,   Inc.  (the  "Company")  hereby  appoints  Robert  D.  Baca  his
attorney-in-fact and agent, in all capacities,  to execute,  deliver and file in
the name of the  undersigned,  any and all  instruments  that said  attorney and
agent may deem  necessary  or advisable to enable the Company to comply with the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules,  regulations and interpretations
thereunder,  including  but not  limited  to, any Annual  Report on Form 10-K or
Current  Report  on Form  8-K,  any  other  document  to be filed  with the U.S.
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  and any and all  documents  required to be
filed with respect thereto with any other regulatory authority.  The undersigned
grants to the said attorney, full authority to do every act necessary to be done
in order to effectuate  the same as fully,  to all intents and  purposes,  as he
could do if personally present, thereby ratifying all that said attorney-in-fact
and agent may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

The  undersigned  officer and/or director hereby executes this Power of Attorney
as of the 25th day of September 2006.

                                           /s/ Peter Knollenberg
                                           Peter Knollenberg, Chairman
```
60 Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018

 Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquisition Policy; DoD’s Military Installations, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis; U.S. Census Bureau; and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions, B = billions) 

Raytheon $4.7 B

General Electric $1.6 B

General Dynamics $1.1 B

Massachusetts Institute of Technology $1.0 B

Charles Stark Draper Laboratory $461.5 M

Noble Sales & Logisitics $389.1 M

MITRE $339.1 M

United Technologies $280.7 M

QinetiQ Group $162.2 M

Brighton Marine Health Center $143.1 M

Contract Awards Performed (by fiscal year, billions)

MASSACHUSETTS

#12 #20 2.9% $2,091 #9 #32 #32

$14.4 B SPENT 

IN STATE

2.5% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $13.4 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

23,510 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$1.1 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$1.1 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

23,510

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Middlesex 1,202 4,258 2,043 2,073 9,576

Hampden 169 1,084 1,546 2,753 5,552

Barnstable 91 437 1,948 ND

Suffolk 440 416 138 310 1,304

Plymouth 28 40 510 448 1,026

Bristol ND 60 428 496

Worcester 21 104 568 220 913

Essex 13 151 386 39 589

Norfolk ND 18 254 260

Hampshire 11 17 188 ND

Construction: 0%

Research and 

Development: 20%

Service: 21%

Supplies and

Equipment: 58%

Active Duty: 9% 

Civilian: 28%

National Guard: 35%

Reserve: 28%

31%

26%

26%

17%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

52%

8%

36%

3%

$12.2 $11.3 $10.6 $9.2

$5.4

$9.2 $9.8

$13.4

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

ND

ND

ND

ND
Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018 61

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

(M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

Essex

Berkshire

Middlesex

Hampshire Worcester Suffolk

Plymouth

Norfolk

Bristol

Barnstable

MASSACHUSETTS FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions) (M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018

Middlesex

Essex

Bristol

Plymouth

Norfolk

Berkshire

Suffolk

Worcester

Barnstable

Hampshire

(M = millions)

$6.1 B

$4.4 B

$787.6 M

$527.8 M

$473.1 M

$329.5 M

$292.5 M

$168.4 M

$155.0 M

$112.0 M

Middlesex

Hampden

Barnstable

Suffolk

Essex

Plymouth

Worcester

Bristol

Norfolk

Berkshire

$591.3 M

$171.3 M

$91.9 M

$82.5 M

$21.8 M

$21.8 M

$20.4 M

$19.9 M

$15.4 M

$7.7 M

Essex

Berkshire

Middlesex

Worcester Suffolk

Hampden

Plymouth

Norfolk

Bristol

Barnstable
YULE v. BEMHARDY-YULE

No. COA05-406

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed February 7, 2006

Certification Date February 27, 2006

Appeal from Cabarrus (02CVD2442).

Case reported without published opinion. Appeal dismissed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Shane ANDERSON.

No. 691P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Shane Anderson, Pro Se.

William Hart, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 13th day of December 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Buncombe County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of January 2006."
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7389
AARON LAMONT BARNES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-736-AM) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron Lamont Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Aaron Lamont Barnes seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and denying him motion for reconsideration. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U .S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Barnes has not satisfied this standard. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , U.S. , 2003 WL 431659, at *10 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662). Accordingly, we deny Barnes’ motion for a writ of mandamus and his motion for appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
- 51 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

STATE v. MUELLER

Cite as 302 Neb. 51

State of Nebraska, appellee, v.

Zachary A. Mueller, appell

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed January 18, 2019. No. S-17-387.

supplemental opin

Appeal from the District Court for Morrill County: Leo P

Dobrovolny, Judge. Supplemental opinion: Former opinio

modified. Motion for rehearing overruled.

Sarah P. Newell, of Nebraska Commission on Public 

Advocacy, for appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Stacy M. Foust 

for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller‐Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, 

Papik, JJ

Per Curiam

This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the 

appellant, Zachary A. Mueller, concerning our opinion in State 

v. Mueller.

1

 We overrule the motion, but we modify the opinion 

as follows:

In the statement of facts section, we withdraw the word “no” 

in the second sentence in the 16th paragraph and substitute the 

word “another” in the quotation.2

1 State v. Mueller, 301 Neb. 778, 920 N.W.2d 424 (2018).

2 Id. at 786, 920 N.W.2d at 432.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

03/01/2019 09:06 AM CST
- 52 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

STATE v. MUELLER

Cite as 302 Neb. 51

In the analysis section, we withdraw the fifth paragraph3

under the subheading “Venue Instruction” and substitute the 

following:

We note that although Mueller argued that the court 

should have given a venue instruction based on § 29-1306, 

he did not actually tender such an instruction, and that 

therefore, to the extent Mueller asserts on appeal that the 

court erred when it refused a requested instruction, under 

the applicable standards set forth above, we do not ordinarily review whether the “tendered instruction” was a 

correct statement of the law or whether it was warranted 

by the evidence. See State v. Swindle, 300 Neb. 734, 

915 N.W.2d 795 (2018). Here, we can review whether 

the venue instruction the court actually gave was proper 

under the circumstances; a consideration of whether the 

instruction should have included the content of § 29-1306 

is an incidental part of that analysis.

The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified.

 Former opinion modif

 Motion for rehearing overru

Freudenberg, J., not participatin

3 Id. at 791, 920 N.W.2d at 435.