alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
LOAN AGREEMENT January 18, 2023  Caitlin L. Jeffs (the “Lender”) of 48 Peter Street, Thunder Bay, Ontario P7A 5H3, advanced total of USD$20,000 (the “Principal Sum”) to Red Metal Resources Ltd. (the “Borrower”) of 1130 Pender Street, West, Unit 820, Vancouver, BC V6E 4A4.  At the request of the Borrower, the funds were wired to the Borrower’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Minera Polymet SpA, with an address at 3260 Baldomero Lillo, Vallenar, Chile.  The Borrower agrees to repay the Principal Sum on demand, together with interest calculated and compounded monthly at the rate of 8% per year (the “Interest”) from the date of this loan agreement.  The Borrower is liable for repayment of the Principal Sum and accrued Interest and any costs that the Lender incurs in trying to collect the Principal Sum and the Interest.  The Borrower will evidence the debt and its repayment of the Principal Sum and the Interest with a promissory note in the attached form.  LENDERBORROWERCaitlin L. JeffsRed Metal Resources Ltd.Per:Per:/s/ Caitlin L. Jeffs/s/ Joao da CostaCaitlin L. JeffsJoao da Costa, CFO                        PROMISSORY NOTE  Principal Amount:  USD$20,000January 18, 2023   FOR VALUE RECEIVED Red Metal Resources Ltd., (the “Borrower”) promises to pay on demand to the order of Caitlin L. Jeffs (the “Lender”) the sum of $20,000 lawful money of United States of America (the “Principal Sum”) together with interest on the Principal Sum accrued from the date of the Loan Agreement, as explicitly specified in that Loan Agreement dated for reference January 18, 2023 (“Effective Date”) both before and after maturity, default and judgment at the Interest Rate as defined below.  For the purposes of this promissory note, Interest Rate means 8 per cent per year.  Interest at the Interest Rate must be calculated and compounded monthly not in advance from and including the Payment Date (for an effective rate of 8.3% per annum calculated monthly), and is payable together with the Principal Sum when the Principal Sum is repaid.  The Borrower retains the right but not an obligation, to repay the Principal Sum and the Interest in whole or in part at any time.  The Borrower waives presentment, protest, notice of protest and notice of dishonour of this promissory note.   BORROWER Red Metal Resources Ltd.  Per:   /s/ Joao da Costa Joao da Costa, CFO
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

         We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
Statements  on Form S-8 (Nos.  33-81044,  333-19753,  333-59902,  333-74197  and
333-86728)  (pertaining to the 1991 Qualified Stock Option Plan, the Amended and
Restated 1993 Stock Option and Restricted  Stock Purchase Plan, the 1995 Amended
and Restated  Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan and the 1998 Non-Executive
Employee  Stock Option and  Restricted  Stock  Purchase Plan) and Form S-3 (Nos.
333-95361,  333-33986,  333-37630,  333-45818,  333-49628, 333-59346, 333-63514,
333-99559,  333-99673,  333-106420,  333-110729,  and  333-112611) of our report
dated March 24, 2005 with respect to the consolidated  financial  statements and
schedule  of Arotech  Corporation  for each of the three  years  included in the
period ended  December 31, 2004  included in this Annual  Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 2004.



                                    /s/    Kost, Forer, Gabbay & Kassierer
                                    ---------------------------------------
                                           Kost, Forer, Gabbay & Kassierer
                                           A Member of Ernst & Young Global



Tel-Aviv, Israel
March 31, 2005


<PAGE>


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

         We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration
Statements  of  Arotech  Corporation  on Form  S-8  (Nos.  33-81044,  333-19753,
333-59902,  333-74197 and 333-86728)  (pertaining  to the 1991  Qualified  Stock
Option Plan,  the Amended and Restated  1993 Stock Option and  Restricted  Stock
Purchase Plan, the 1995 Amended and Restated  Non-Employee Director Stock Option
Plan and the 1998  Non-Executive  Employee  Stock  Option and  Restricted  Stock
Purchase Plan) and Form S-3 (Nos. 333-95361,  333-33986,  333-37630,  333-45818,
333-49628, 333-59346, 333-63514, 333-99559, 333-99673,  333-106420,  333-110729,
and  333-112611)  of our  report  dated  January  31,  2005 with  respect to the
financial  statements of Armour of America,  Inc. for the period August 11, 2004
to December 31, 2004 referred to in Arotech  Corporation's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.


                                      /s/   Stark Winter Schenkein & Co., LLP
                                            STARK WINTER SCHENKEIN & CO., LLP



Denver, Colorado
March 30, 2005
EXHIBIT
23.2





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS





As
independent petroleum engineers, Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc.
hereby consents to the inclusion or incorporation by reference in the
registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-149190), the registration statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-159888), the registration
statement (File No. 333-153579) on Form S-3/A and the 2008 Annual Report on Form
10-K/A Amendment No. 2 of BreitBurn Energy Partners L.P. of information from our
firm’s reserve report dated January 21, 2009, entitled " Reserves and Future Revenue of
Certain BreitBurn Operating L.P. Oil and Gas Properties As of December 31,
2008" and all references to our firm included in or made a part of the
BreitBurn Energy Partners L.P. Annual report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No.
2.





NETHERLAND,
SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.





By: /s/ Danny D.
    Simmons





Danny D.
Simmons, P.E.


President
and Chief Operating Officer


Houston,
Texas


March 17,
2010
Exhibit 32.4

Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Southern California Gas Company (the "Company") certifies that:

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the "Quarterly Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

August 3, 2006

/S/  Steven D. Davis
Steven D. Davis
Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

CHRISTOPHER VANISTENDAEL,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 533 WAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of February, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
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 

I, Thomas J. Farrell, Chief Executive Officer of Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Registrant”), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based upon my knowledge: 

| (1) | this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date: March 20, 2015 | /s/ Thomas J. Farrell                 |
|----------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                 | Thomas J. Farrell                     |
|                 | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### Graham George CULLIFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Glen QUEEN, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-1698.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 17, 2002.

Decided Nov. 6, 2002.

Graham George Culliford, Appellant Pro Se. Fred Henry Moody, Jr., McKeever, Edwards, Davis *&*Hays, P.A., Bryson City, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Graham George Culliford appeals the district court’s order dismissing his slander of title action without prejudice under Fed.R.CivP. 12(b)(6). We vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

Generally, a dismissal without prejudice is not an appealable order. *See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). However, because no amendment of Culliford’s complaint would permit his action to proceed, we find the order of dismissal appealable. *Id.*

The district court dismissed Culliford’s complaint for lack of diversity jurisdiction. The court found that Culliford is an alien admitted to the United States as a permanent resident. It accordingly concluded that Culliford is a citizen of North Carolina for diversity purposes. We have reviewed the record and find inadequate support for the district court’s finding that Culliford is a permanent resident of the United States. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); *Foy v. Schantz, Schatzman & Aaronson, P.A.,*108 F.3d 1347, 1349 (11th Cir.1997). We therefore vacate the district court’s order and re*115mand for reconsideration of whether diversity jurisdiction exists.*

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*VACATED AND REMANDED.*

*

 We express no opinion as to whether diversity jurisdiction is present or, if so, whether the district court may decline to exercise jurisdiction on abstention grounds.
<PAGE>   1
                    PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                   Exhibit 12

COMPUTATION OF TOTAL DEBT TO TOTAL CAPITALIZATION
(Unaudited; dollars in millions)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 June 30,       December 31,
                                                   2000            1999
                                                 --------       -----------
<S>                                              <C>            <C>
Short-term debt                                  $  418.0           451.2
Current portion of long-term debt                   121.9           131.3
Long-term debt                                    2,157.7         2,172.5
                                                 --------        --------

     Total debt                                   2,697.6         2,755.0
Minority interests in subsidiaries                   87.8            96.3
Common shareholders' equity                       3,132.5         3,276.8
                                                 --------        --------

     Total capitalization                        $5,917.9         6,128.1
                                                 ========         =======


Ratio of total debt to total capitalization          45.6%           45.0%
                                                 ========         =======
</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Sean M. RAMSEY, Defendant— Appellant.

No. 01-10685.

D.C. No. CR-97-40153-DL.J.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.

Decided Nov. 12, 2002.

Before HAWKINS, GRABER, and RICHARD C. TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant Sean Ramsey appeals his conviction, after his third jury trial, of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm.1 We affirm.

Defendant first argues that, at his third trial, the prosecutor elicited perjured testimony from witnesses Ramee and Gray. *See Killian v. Poole,*282 F.3d 1204, 1208-10 (9th Cir.2002). We are not persuaded. In some respects, the testimony of Ramee and Gray was different at the third trial than it had been at the first two trials, but nothing in the record indicates that their testimony at the third trial was perjured. To the contrary, the record suggests that the most recent testimony likely was the most truthful: This testimony was consistent with the witnesses’ separate statements to police on the night of the arrest, the two witnesses always have maintained that the gun found in Ramee’s purse was Defendant’s, and Defendant had threatened the witnesses after his arrest but before their earlier testimony. The presentation of mere inconsistencies is not improper. *United States v. Necoechea,*986 F.2d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir.1993). Resolving them was properly left to the jury.

Next, Defendant argues that the prosecutor improperly commented, during summation, on Defendant’s decision not to testify. *See Griffin v. California,*380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965). The prosecutor’s single comment was isolated and ambiguous (apparently attempting to refer to what Defendant failed to say during a telephone call between Defendant and Ramee, which was presented to the jury by the testimony of other witnesses); the trial court immediately ordered the comment stricken from the record; the comment did not seek or emphasize an inference of guilt from silence as a basis for conviction; and the court gave curative instructions. In the circumstances, reversal is not required. *United States v. Chan Yu-Chong,*920 F.2d 594, 598 (9th Cir.1990).

Finally, Defendant argues that the “cumulative effect” of the other two errors deprived him of a fair trial. There was no error in eliciting the testimony of Ramee and Gray, and we already have held that reversal is not required due to the prosecutor’s arguably improper remark during summation. Thus, there is no additional error that could enhance any prejudice *853flowing from the remark during summation.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. *See United States v. Ramsey,*No. 99-10116, 2000 WL 429691, 216 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. Apr.20, 2000) (unpublished disposition), reversing and remanding for a new trial after the second trial. The first trial had resulted in a hung jury. At the third trial, the jury acquitted Defendant of a second count.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6358 

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

of Social Security to enter into agreements with States to share data 

related to individuals subject to guardianship, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2022 

Mr. CRIST (for himself and Ms. MACE) introduced the following bill 

JANUARY 10, 2022 

Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to require 

the Commissioner of Social Security to enter into agreements with States to share data related to individuals 

subject to guardianship, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Senior Guardianship 

5 Social Security Protection Act of 2022’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6358 IH

1 SEC. 2. INFORMATION SHARING RELATED TO STATE 

2 GUARDIANSHIP STATUS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 205(j)(11) of the Social 

4 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(j)(11)) is amended— 

5 (1) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as sub6 paragraph (C) and by inserting after subparagraph 

7 (A) the following: 

8 ‘‘(B) The Commissioner of Social Security shall— 

9 ‘‘(i) enter into agreements with each State for 

10 the purpose of sharing and matching data, on an 

11 automated monthly basis, in the system of records 

12 of the Social Security Administration with the sys13 tem of records of each State to identify individuals 

14 subject to guardianship in the State who, with re15 spect to such month, are entitled to benefits under 

16 this title that are certified for payment to a rep17 resentative payee; and 

18 ‘‘(ii) in any case in which the guardianship ar19 rangement for such an individual has changed in 

20 such month, redetermine the appropriate representa21 tive payee for such individual.’’; and 

22 (2) in subparagraph (C) (as redesignated by 

23 paragraph (1)), by amending clause (i) to read as 

24 follows— 

25 ‘‘(i) the term ‘State’— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6358 IH

1 ‘‘(I) when used in subparagraph (A), has 

2 the meaning given such term for purposes of 

3 part E of title IV; and 

4 ‘‘(II) when used in subparagraph (B), has 

5 the meaning given such term for purposes of 

6 subtitle B of title XX;’’. 

7 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 180 days after the date 

8 of the enactment of this Act, and every 6 months there9 after, the Administrator of the Social Security Adminis10 tration shall submit to Congress a report containing the 

11 number of social security payments that are being diverted 

12 to non-family members as representative payees, broken 

13 down by State. 

14 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

15 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to months begin16 ning on or after the date that is 90 days after the date 

17 of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 13, 2020

No. 04-20-00025-CV

Diana Martinez MCGLOWN,

Appellant

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A.,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CV05083

Honorable Melissa Vara, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court signed a final judgment on December 6, 2019. Therefore, the notice of 

appeal was due to be filed on January 6, 2020. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a), 26.1. A motion for 

extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on January 20, 2020. See TEX. R. APP. P.

26.3. Although appellant filed a notice of appeal within the fifteen-day grace period allowed by 

Rule 26.3, she did not file a motion for extension of time.

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good 

faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen-day 

grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. 

Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However, 

the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a 

timely manner. See id.; TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C).

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant file, within fifteen days from the date of this 

order, a response presenting a reasonable explanation for failing to file a notice of appeal in a 

timely manner. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, the appeal will be 

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). All other appellate deadlines are suspended until further 

order of this court.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of February, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
LOAN AGREEMENT April 6, 2023  Caitlin L. Jeffs (the “Lender”) of 48 Peter Street, Thunder Bay, Ontario P7A 5H3, advanced total of CAD$2,000 (the “Principal Sum”) to Red Metal Resources Ltd. (the “Borrower”) of 1130 Pender Street, West, Unit 820, Vancouver, BC V6E 4A4.  The Borrower agrees to repay the Principal Sum on demand, together with interest calculated and compounded monthly at the rate of 8% per year (the “Interest”) from the date of this loan agreement.  The Borrower is liable for repayment of the Principal Sum and accrued Interest and any costs that the Lender incurs in trying to collect the Principal Sum and the Interest.  The Borrower will evidence the debt and its repayment of the Principal Sum and the Interest with a promissory note in the attached form.  LENDERBORROWERCaitlin L. JeffsRed Metal Resources Ltd.Per:Per:/s/ Caitlin L. Jeffs/s/ Joao da CostaCaitlin L. JeffsJoao da Costa, CFO                        PROMISSORY NOTE  Principal Amount:  CAD$2,000April 6, 2023   FOR VALUE RECEIVED Red Metal Resources Ltd., (the “Borrower”) promises to pay on demand to the order of Caitlin L. Jeffs (the “Lender”) the sum of $2,000 lawful money of Canada (the “Principal Sum”) together with interest on the Principal Sum accrued from the date of the Loan Agreement, as explicitly specified in that Loan Agreement dated for reference April 6, 2023 (“Effective Date”) both before and after maturity, default and judgment at the Interest Rate as defined below.  For the purposes of this promissory note, Interest Rate means 8 per cent per year.  Interest at the Interest Rate must be calculated and compounded monthly not in advance from and including the Payment Date (for an effective rate of 8.3% per annum calculated monthly), and is payable together with the Principal Sum when the Principal Sum is repaid.  The Borrower retains the right but not an obligation, to repay the Principal Sum and the Interest in whole or in part at any time.  The Borrower waives presentment, protest, notice of protest and notice of dishonour of this promissory note.   BORROWER Red Metal Resources Ltd.  Per:   /s/ Joao da Costa Joao da Costa, CFO
Exhibit 32.2

                Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Paradise, Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jack M.
Laskowitz, as Chief Financial Officer of Paradise, Inc., certify pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:


     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
          or 15(d) of the Securities and 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 Paradise, Inc.



       /s/ Jack M. Laskowitz            Date:  August 13, 2003
       -----------------------------
       Jack M. Laskowitz
       Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer