alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Timberline Resources Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Randal Hardy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: August 10, 2012 By:   /s/ Randal Hardy
_____________________________
Randal Hardy
Chief Financial Officer
Principal Financial Officer   The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.      1
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5341 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 100 Orndorf Drive in Brighton, Michigan, 

as the ‘‘Joyce Rogers Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5341 EH

1 SECTION 1. JOYCE ROGERS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 100 Orndorf Drive in Brighton, 

4 Michigan, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Joyce 

5 Rogers Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Joyce Rogers Post 

10 Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 22, 2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5341 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostBuilding’’. ton, Michigan, as the ‘‘Joyce Rogers Post Office al Service located at 100 Orndorf Drive in Brigh-
Exhibit 23a

                 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the use of our report dated February 17, 1997, with
respect to the balance sheet of Cramer, Inc. as of December 31,
1996, not separately presented herein, and the related statements
of income, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for the
year then ended, in the Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
31, 1997 of Cramer, Inc. which is incorporated by reference in
Registration Statement No. 33-77954 pertaining to the 1989
Incentive Stock Option Plan of Cramer, Inc. on Form S-8.



                                            /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Kansas City, Missouri
March 20, 1998
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

P.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Phoenix, AZ, Employer 

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1074

Issued: September 28, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

David Miller, for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On June 12, 2021 appellant filed a timely appeal from a December 18, 2020 merit decision 

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

assigned Docket No. 21-1074.

In a letter dated August 12, 2021, and received August 18, 2021, appellant’s representative 

requested that the appeal be dismissed.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that the representative’s request 

for the dismissal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 

 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the dismissal of the appeal is 

granted. The appeal docketed as No. 21-1074 is dismissed.

Issued: September 28, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
#### FRED L. EIKELBERGER, Appellant, v. NEVADA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY, Respondent.

No. 7556

February 13, 1975

531 P.2d 853

*99*Lohse and Lohse,*Reno, for Appellant.

*Laxalt, Berry & Allison, Charles David Russell,*and *Melvin Brunetti,*Carson City, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

The appellant, Fred L. Eikelberger, complained to the Nevada State Board of Accountancy regarding certain alleged unprofessional services rendered by a certified public accountant who was licensed to practice in Nevada. The Board, after investigating Eikelberger’s charges, filed a complaint against the C.P.A. Formal hearings were held, and witnesses, including Eikelberger, testified before the Board. The C.P.A. was disciplined. Eikelberger, however, was displeased with the punishment imposed. He appealed the Board’s decision to the district court, seeking a review of its order. The district judge, finding Eikelberger had no standing to file the petition for review because he was not an aggrieved party within the meaning of NRS 628.410,1 dismissed the petition. We agree. The law is well settled that the right to review an administrative *100decision is limited to those parties to the proceedings before the administrative agency whose rights, privileges, or duties are affected by the decision. See Wyoming State Bd. of Accountancy v. Macalister, 493 P.2d 1268 (Wyo. 1972); Castleman v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 206 N.E.2d 514 (Ill.App. 1965).

The order of the court below is affirmed.

1

 NRS 628.410, in relevant part:

> “10. Any person adversely affected by any order of the board may obtain a review thereof by filing a written petition for review with the district court within 30 days after the entry of the order. . . .”
**Exhibit 12**

 

INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION ANDSUBSIDIARIES

 

Computation of Ratio of Earnings to FixedCharges

(unaudited)

 

(in thousands)

 

 
|                                                     |   | **THREE  MONTHS ENDED** |   | **SIX MONTHS  ENDED** |       |
|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|-----------------------|------------|
|                                                     |   | **Aug. 30,  2003**      |   | **Aug. 31,  2002**    | ** ** | **Aug. 30,  2003** | ** ** | **Aug. 31,  2002** | ** ** |
| Earnings from  continuing operations before income taxes |   | $                       | 750    |                  | $          | 7,020 |   | $ | 252 |   | $ | 12,353 |   |
| Plus:  Fixed charges (1)                            |   | 6,610                   |   | 11,315                |       | 13,405 |   | 22,800 |   |
| Less:  Capitalized interest                         |   | (45                     | )      | (125                  | )          | (136 | ) | (190 | ) |
| Earnings available to  cover fixed charges               |   | $                       | 7,315  |                  | $          | 18,210 |   | $ | 13,521 |   | $ | 34,963 |   |
|                                                     |   |                    |   |                  |       |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of earnings to  fixed charges                      |   | 1.11                    |   | 1.61                  |       | 1.01 |   | 1.53 |   |

 

----

(1) Fixed charges consisted of the following:

 
|                       |   | **THREE  MONTHS ENDED** | ** ** | **SIX MONTHS  ENDED** | ** ** |
|----------------------------|--------|-------------------------|------------|-----------------------|------------|
|                       |   | **Aug. 30,  2003**      |       | **Aug. 31,  2002**    | ** ** | **Aug. 30,  2003** | ** ** | **Aug. 31,  2002** | ** ** |
| Interest expense,  gross   |   | $                       | 6,178      |                  | $          | 8,980 |   | $ | 12,553 |   | $ | 18,079 |   |
| Rentals (Interest  factor) |   | 432                     |       | 2,335                 |       | 852 |   | 4,721 |   |
| Total fixed charges        |   | $                       | 6,610      |                  | $          | 11,315 |   | $ | 13,405 |   | $ | 22,800 |   |

 

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

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-41427 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus NICANDRO CASTRO-ALCALA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 98-CR-424-1

- - - - - - - - - - August 27, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Nicandro Castro-Alcala (“Castro”) challenges his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry of a deported alien, 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Castro contends that the district court erred by failing to comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1) during rearraignment and that the failure requires that his conviction be reversed. This appeal is frivolous. In reviewing whether the district court complied with the dictates of Rule 11, this court “conduct[s] a straightforward, two-question `harmless error’No. 98-41427 -2- analysis: (1) Did the sentencing court in fact vary from the procedures required by Rule 11, and (2) if so, did such variance affect substantial rights of the defendant?” United States v. Johnson , 1 F.3d 296, 298 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc). Although he acknowledges his argument is subject to harmless-error review, counsel makes no argument that Castro’s substantial rights were affected; accordingly, there is no reversible error. See id. The appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore frivolous. Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Accordingly, it is DISMISSED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4840 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.4840

                      One Hundred Eleventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
             the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 1981 Cleveland Avenue in Columbus, Ohio, as the ``Clarence D. Lumpkin 
                             Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CLARENCE D. LUMPKIN POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1981 Cleveland Avenue in Columbus, Ohio, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Clarence D. Lumpkin Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Clarence 
D. Lumpkin Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.N., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, KEDZIE GRACE 

POST OFFICE, Chicago, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0771

Issued: October 28, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On April 19, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a January 7, 2021 decision of the Office 

of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned 

Docket No. 21-0771.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’Compensation Act.1 

This jurisdiction encompasses any final decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the date 

appellant filed his appeal.2 The case record as transmitted to the Board does not contain a final 

adverse decision of OWCP issued within 180 days from the date of docketing of the current 

appeal.3

In this regard, by a January 7, 2021 decision, OWCP’s hearing representative vacated an 

October 19, 2020 decision denying authorization for compounded medication, and remanded the 

case for further development due to an unresolved conflict in medical opinion, to be followed by 

a de novo decision on the issue of authorization for compounded medication. The Board finds that 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”

3

Id.
2

this does not constitute a final adverse decision as it is interlocutory in nature and it has no

jurisdiction with respect to any interlocutory matters decided or not decided.4

As there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP over which the Board may properly 

exercise jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 21 -0771 must be 

dismissed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-0771 is dismissed.

Issued: October 28, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4

Id. at § 501.2(c)(2), which provides: “There will be no appeal with respect to any interlocutory matter decided 

(or not decided) by OWCP during the pendency of a case.” S.U., Docket No. 20-0636 (issued December 3, 2020); 

Jennifer A. Guillary, 57 ECAB 485 (2005).
#### David ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 61345.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 29, 2003.

Brice R. Taylor, Robert J. Young, Kansas City, MO, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Anne E. Edgington, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.

Before: LOWENSTEIN, P.J, and SMART and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David Robinson appeals from an order of the circuit court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. After a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, the appellant was convicted of assault in the second degree, § 565.060, and armed criminal action, § 571.015, for which he was sentenced to concurrent terms of three and six years, respectively, in the Missouri Department of Corrections.

The appellant raises what he denominates as one point on appeal, but what in reality are two points. In both points, he claims that the motion court erred in denying his Rule 29.15 motion, without an evi-dentiary hearing, because he alleged facts, not conclusions, which were not refuted by the record, and which, if true, would establish that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. In his first point, he claims that his counsel was ineffective because he failed to investigate potential witnesses that would have caused him to present at trial the viable defense of defense of others. In his second point, he claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request an instruction on the lesser-included offense of assault in the third degree.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.D., Appellant

and

U.S. GOVERNMENT, Employer

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1139

Issued: December 15, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On July 22, 2021 appellant sought an appeal from a purported decision of the Office of Workers’

Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 21-1139.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that the Board has jurisdiction to review final adverse 

decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’Compensation Act.1 This jurisdiction encompasses any 

final decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the date appellant filed her appeal.2 Appellant has not provided 

a valid OWCP file number; therefore, no final adverse decision has been identified over which the Board may 

properly exercise jurisdiction. As such, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 21-1139 must be 

dismissed.3 Accordingly,

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of a 

decision of the OWCP.”

3 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” 20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-1139 is dismissed.

Issued: December 15, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 531 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to require that the Commissioner 

of Social Security notify individuals of improper use of their Social 

Security account numbers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 14, 2009 

Mrs. MYRICK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to require 

that the Commissioner of Social Security notify individuals of improper use of their Social Security account 

numbers. 

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 ‘‘Social Security Num5 ber Fraudulent Use Notification Act of 2009’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 531 IH

1 SEC. 2. NOTIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS OF IMPROPER USE 

2 OF THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT NUM3 BERS. 

4 Section 205(c)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 

5 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 

6 following new subparagraph: 

7 ‘‘(I) In any case in which the Commissioner of Social 

8 Security determines that— 

9 ‘‘(i) the social security account number in the 

10 wage records provided to the Social Security Admin11 istration by an employer with respect to any em12 ployee does not match relevant records otherwise 

13 maintained by the Social Security Administration, or 

14 ‘‘(ii) the social security account number issued 

15 to an individual has otherwise been used by any 

16 other person in a fraudulent or otherwise illegal 

17 manner, 

18 the Commissioner shall promptly provide the individual (if 

19 any) to whom such social security account number was 

20 issued with written notification of the Commissioner’s de21 termination.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
<PAGE>   1

                                  EXHIBIT 23.1



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No.33-91296 and Form S-8 No. 333-56125) pertaining to the Bull Run
Corporation 1994 Long Term Incentive Plan and the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-91298) pertaining to the Bull Run Corporation Non-Employee Directors'
1994 Stock Option Plan of our reports dated February 9, 1999, except as to Notes
4 and 7 to the financial statements, for which the date is March 24, 1999, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Bull Run
Corporation included herein or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) of Bull Run Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1998, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



                                            /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 26, 1999
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 209 (Monday, October 31, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 62350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21628]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Biological Sciences; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Advisory Committee for Biological Sciences (BIO) (1110).
    Date and Time: November 17, 2005, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.; November 18, 
2005, 8:30 a.m.-3 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 
Arlington, VA 22230, Room 375.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Dr. James P. Collins, Assistant Director, 
Biological Sciences, Room 605, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230 Tel No.: (703) 292-8400.
    Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed above.
    Purpose of Meeting: The Advisory Committee for BIO provides 
advice, recommendations, and oversight concerning major program 
emphases, directions, and goals for the research-related activities 
of the divisions that make up BIO.
    Agenda: Planning and Issues Discussion:
    <bullet> Committee of Visitors Reports
    <bullet> Cyberinfrastructure
    <bullet> NEON Update

    Dated: October 26, 2005.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-21628 Filed 10-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M