alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Atlas America Series 25-2004 (A) L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Freddie M. Kotek, Chief Executive Officer of the Managing General
Partner, 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 the
      Partnership.





By:
            /s/ Freddie M.
      KotekName:
            Freddie
      M. KotekTitle:
            Chief
      Executive Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            November
      13, 2008
<PAGE>

                EXHIBIT 12.1 - STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF RATIO
                          OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                 AND RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES

          LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST / LIBERTY PROPERTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                   (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT RATIO AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                              ----------------------------------------------------
                                                2003       2002       2001       2000       1999
                                              --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
<S>                                           <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Earnings before fixed charges:
Income from continuing operations             $170,243   $171,504   $183,343   $179,617   $154,107
Add: Interest expense                          119,894    112,046    105,917    102,661     93,121
     Depreciation expense on cap'd interest      3,140      2,944      2,311      1,809      1,396
     Amortization of deferred
       financing costs                           4,013      3,979      4,015      4,066      4,951
                                              --------   --------   --------   --------   --------

Earnings before fixed charges                 $297,290   $290,473   $295,586   $288,153   $253,575
                                              ========   ========   ========   ========   ========

Fixed charges:
Interest expense                               119,894    112,646    108,859    104,793     95,243
Amortization of deferred financing charges       4,013      3,979      4,015      4,066      4,951
Capitalized interest                            10,947     16,498     22,347     17,784     15,288
                                              --------   --------   --------   --------   --------

Fixed charges                                 $134,854   $133,123   $135,221   $126,643   $115,482
                                              --------   --------   --------   --------   --------

Preferred share distributions                        -      7,242     11,000     11,000     11,000
Preferred unit distributions                    12,416     11,619     10,612     10,070      3,783
                                              --------   --------   --------   --------   --------

Combined fixed charges                        $147,270   $151,984   $156,833   $147,713   $130,265
                                              ========   ========   ========   ========   ========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                2.20       2.18       2.19       2.28       2.20
                                              ========   ========   ========   ========   ========

Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges       2.02       1.91       1.88       1.95       1.95
                                              ========   ========   ========   ========   ========
</TABLE>

Certain amounts from prior periods have been restated to conform to
current-period presentation.
STATE of North Carolina v. Marlon Eduardo COLINDRES

No. COA17-1229

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 17, 2018

NO ERROR.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 24, 2017 

# Order

Clerk January 24, 2017

154396( 85 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

SC: 154396

v COA: 325782

Wayne CC: 14

- 006454

- FH

GARY PATRICK LEWIS,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant

- appell ee to extend the time

for filing his supplemental brief to March 1 , 2017, is GRANTED. The time for filing the

supplemental brief of plaintiff

- appell ant is also extended to March 1 , 2017.
#### Judith A. Sanders, Appellant, v Darryl T. Johnson, Respondent.

[718 NYS2d 844]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (David Victor, H.E.), entered on or about December 1, 1999, which denied petitioner’s application for support arrears under a support order dated December 13, 1983, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We reject petitioner’s argument that if it is against public policy to waive future child support, then it should be against public policy to waive the right to collect child support arrears. The parties’ March 23, 1993 stipulation, in which they settled a proceeding brought by petitioner to collect child support arrears due under the 1983 support order with mutual waivers of any right to child support and a transfer of the child’s custody to respondent, is not against public policy insofar as past support was waived (cf., *Dox v Tynon,*90 NY2d 166, 174). Nor does the stipulation fail for lack of consideration. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 95-5967 GARY SCOTT WARD, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-95-216) Submitted: August 27, 1996 Decided: September 19, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Christopher C. Finch, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, John David Kuchta, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

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

_________________________________________________________________OPINION PER CURIAM: Gary Scott Ward appeals the 120-month sentence he r eceived after he pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of crackcocaine. 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West Supp. 1996). He appeals his sentence, contending that the district court erred in finding that his two criminal history points made him ineligible for a sentence below the mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to USSG § 5C1.2* eventhough the court departed from criminal history category II to category I. We affirm. To be eligible for a sentence under the safety valve provision, adefendant must not "have more than 1 criminal history point, as determined under the sentencing guidelines." 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(f)(1); USSG § 5C1.2(1). Application Note 1 to section 5C1.2 states that the phrase "as determined under the sentencing guidelines," means "as determined under § 4A1.1 (Criminal History Category)." After reviewing the commentary, the district court decided that USSG § 5C1.2 did not apply to Ward because he had been assigned two criminal history points under USSG § 4A1.1, despite the subsequent departure to category I, which by definition includes defendants with zero or one criminal history points. The Second Circuit came to the same conclusion in United States v. Resto , 74 F.3d 22, 27-28 (2d Cir. 1996). Ward argues that Resto is not dispositive, and that the resultreached by the district court is unfair because the safety valve provision was intended to soften the effect of mandatory minimum sentences. However, we are persuaded that the district court and the Second Circuit correctly interpreted the guideline. The sentence imposed by the district court is therefore affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-

_________________________________________________________________ *United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov. 1995).
2tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 3
# Official Journal L 283/2017

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 283 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6031 October 2017 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 283

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6031 October 2017

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’) | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’)

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### Marcus Carlice KING v. STATE of Alabama.

CR-01-0247.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Sept. 27, 2002.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 15, 2002.

Certiorari Denied Jan. 24, 2003 Alabama Supreme Court 1020340.

Stephen R. Glassroth, Montgomery, for appellant.

William H. Pryor, Jr., atty. gen., and Robin Blevins, asst. atty. gen., for appel-lee.

BASCHAB, Judge.

AFFIRMED BY UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM.

McMILLAN, P.J., concurs; COBB, J„ concurs in the result, with opinion; SHAW and WISE, JJ., concur in the result.

COBB, Judge,

concurring in the result.

I write specially to point out that I believe Part III addressed in the majority’s unpublished memorandum to be properly preserved for appellate review. Additionally, I do not wish to be characterized as condoning the prosecutor’s actions in Part III. However, after a review of the *1046record, I realize that Marcus Carlice King suffered no prejudice, because the witness testified that the prosecutor’s comments did not in any way change his testimony. Accordingly, I concur only in the result.
Converted by EDGARwiz


Exhibit 4.08
















CONSENT OF PAUL ARCHER







Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 28, 2013 (the “Annual Report”) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the “Company”), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.




I, Paul Archer, participated in the preparation of the technical reports entitled “Technical Report and Recommendations, Reconnaissance and Trenching Program, Ashuanipi Project, Québec” completed in March 2012 (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 – 3.6.4 Geological Setting; 3.6.5 Exploration and Drilling; and 3.6.6 Mineralization” in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 28, 2013 (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/ Paul Archer

	 
	 

	Name:

Paul Archer, M.Sc., P.Eng.

	 
	 









May 13, 2013
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4562 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4562

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 23, 2014

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To authorize early repayment of obligations to the Bureau of 
 Reclamation within the Northport Irrigation District in the State of 
                               Nebraska.

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

SECTION 1. EARLY REPAYMENT OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 213 of the Reclamation 
Reform Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390mm), any landowner within the 
Northport Irrigation District in the State of Nebraska (referred to in 
this section as the ``District'') may repay, at any time, the 
construction costs of project facilities allocated to the landowner's 
land within the District.
    (b) Applicability of Full-Cost Pricing Limitations.--On discharge, 
in full, of the obligation for repayment of all construction costs 
described in subsection (a) that are allocated to all land the 
landowner owns in the District in question, the parcels of land shall 
not be subject to the ownership and full-cost pricing limitations under 
Federal reclamation law (the Act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, 
chapter 1093), and Acts supplemental to and amendatory of that Act (43 
U.S.C. 371 et seq.), including the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (13 
U.S.C. 390aa et seq.).
    (c) Certification.--On request of a landowner that has repaid, in 
full, the construction costs described in subsection (a), the Secretary 
of the Interior shall provide to the landowner a certificate described 
in section 213(b)(1) of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 
390mm(b)(1)).
    (d) Effect.--Nothing in this section--
            (1) modifies any contractual rights under, or amends or 
        reopens, the reclamation contract between the District and the 
        United States; or
            (2) modifies any rights, obligations, or relationships 
        between the District and landowners in the District under 
        Nebraska State law.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 22, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
NOONSAB v. STATE of NC

131P16-10

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2018

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Somchai Noonsab, for Noonsab, Somchai.

Somchoi Noorsob, for Noorsob, Somchoi.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of July 2018 by Defendant for Constitutional Questions:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2018."
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

                    The Small Business Administration publishes an interest rate called the optional “peg” rate (13 CFR 120.214) on a quarterly basis. This rate is a weighted average cost of money to the government for maturities similar to the average SBA direct loan. This rate may be used as a base rate for guaranteed fluctuating interest rate SBA loans. This rate will be 4.500 (4                    1/2                    ) percent for the October-December quarter of FY 2006.                

James E. Rivera, 

Associate Administrator for Financial Assistance.

[FR Doc. 05-19975 Filed 10-4-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
STATE of North Carolina v. Dominick Romeo DELEGGE

No. COA17-1002

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 17, 2018

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 21**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

 

Parent

 

TF Financial Corporation

 
| **Subsidiaries**                        | ** ** | **Percentage  Owned** | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of  Incorporation** | ** ** |
|-----------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------|------------|------------------------------------|------------|
|                                    |       |                  |       |                               |       |
| Third Federal Bank (a)                  |       | 100                   | %          | United  States                     |       |
|                                    |       |                  |       |                               |       |
| TF Investments Corporation (a)          |       | 100                   | %          | Delaware                           |       |
|                                    |       |                  |       |                               |       |
| Teragon Financial Corporation (a)(b)    |       | 100                   | %          | Pennsylvania                       |       |
|                                    |       |                  |       |                               |       |
| Penns Trail Development Corporation (a) |       | 100                   | %          | Delaware                           |       |
|                                    |       |                  |       |                               |       |
| Third Delaware Corporation (a) (b) |       | 100                   | %          | Delaware                           |       |

 

----

(a)                                  Theoperations of this subsidiary are included in the consolidated financialstatements contained in the 2004 Annual Report to Stockholders incorporatedherein by reference.

 

(b)                                 ThirdDelaware Corporation  and TeragonFinancial Corporation are a wholly-owned subsidiaries of Third Federal Bank.

 

1

----
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Randy Lee SEARS.

No. 2002-KO-3000.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Sears, Randy Lee; — Defendant; Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Terrebonne, 32nd Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 326,310; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 KA 0506.

Denied.
# Official Journal L 227/2008

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 227 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5126 August 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 227

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5126 August 2008

---

| Contents | | I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | | Commission Regulation (EC) No 837/2008 of 25 August 2008 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 1 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EC) No 838/2008 of 22 August 2008 establishing a prohibition of fishing for skate and ray in EC waters of IIa and IV by vessels flying the flag of Germany | 3 |

Contents

I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory

page

REGULATIONS

Commission Regulation (EC) No 837/2008 of 25 August 2008 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 838/2008 of 22 August 2008 establishing a prohibition of fishing for skate and ray in EC waters of IIa and IV by vessels flying the flag of Germany

3

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Exhibit 23.3

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board
of Directors of

Regency Centers Corporation,

the general partner of

Regency Centers, L.P.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-149856) on Form S3ASR and (No. 333-127274) on Form S-4 of Regency Centers, L.P. of our report dated
March 27, 2008, with respect to the combined statements of operations, changes in members capital and cash flows of Regency Retail Partners for the period from December 21, 2006 (inception) to December 31, 2007, which report
appears in the December 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K/A of Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P.

LOGO

March 31, 2010

Jacksonville, Florida

Certified Public Accountants
EXHIBIT 32.1  Certification of the Chief Executive Officer 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 Monadnock Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William M. Pierce, Jr., 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 and in connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q that:  1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and  2. The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the companys financial condition and results of operations.   Date: May 7, 2009/s/ William M. Pierce, Jr.William M. Pierce, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer  25