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

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Navy

# AGENCY:

Department of the Navy, DoD.

# ACTION:

Notice of open meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Board of Visitors of the Marine Corps University (BOV MCU) will meet to review, develop and provide recommendations on all aspects of the academic and administrative policies of the University; examine all aspects of professional military education operations; and provide such oversight and advice, as is necessary, to facilitate high educational standards and cost effective operations. The Board will be focusing primarily on the internal procedures of Marine Corps University. All sessions of the meeting will be open to the public.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on Thursday, October 7, 2010, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at Marine Corps University President's Conference Room (Hooper Room). The address is: 2076 South Street, Quantico, Virginia 22134.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Randy Smith, Director of Academic Support, Marine Corps University Board of Visitors, 2076 South Street, Quantico, Virginia 22134, telephone number 703-784-9781.

Dated: August 26, 2010.

D.J. Werner,

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2010-21920 Filed 9-1-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
#### STATE v. REESE

No. 202P01

Case below: 140 N.C. App. 790

Petition by defendant pro se for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 3 May 2001.
#### CARL KIRK v. OLLIE KIRK.

March 4, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
The Hono rable Joseph E. Stevens, Jr., United States District Judge for th e 1 Western District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-2160

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Missouri. * Darrell D. Whitmore, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: December 9, 1997 Filed: December 19, 1997

_____________ Before BOWMAN, FLOYD R. GIBSON, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Appellant Darrell D. Whitmore appeals his convictions after trial by jury o n cocaine charges. His sole issue on ap peal, that the District Court erred in denying his 1 motion for a judgment of acquittal, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Having re viewed the case, we are satisfied that the government's evidence , consisting of the testimony of an accomplice who testified at trial pursuant to a plea-2-

agreement, was sufficient to al low the jury to find Whitmore guilty as charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the convictions are affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Converted by EDGARwiz


Exhibit 4.8
















CONSENT OF VITAL PEARSON







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, Vital Pearson, participated in the preparation of the technical entitled “Technical Report and Recommendations, 2013 Exploration Program, Coulon Project, Quebec Mines Virginia Inc., December 2013” concerning mineralized material in the Coulon property for the Company. Portions of the Report are summarized under headings “Item III – Description of the Business – 3.1.4 Geological Setting; 3.1.5 Exploration and Drilling; and 3.1.6 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/

Vital Pearson

	 
	 

	 
	Name:

Vital Pearson, M.Sc., Eng.

	 
	 












May 15, 2014
No. 11,041.

#### Liggett et al. *v.*Firestone.

Stjpbeme *Cotjbt.*— Brief.—A paper giving what is denominated “ a history of the case,” and stating that *“*appellants contend that the sheriff’s sale was not completed till July 7th, 1882,” is not a brief.

*Same.*— Duty *of Ooimsel.*— It is the duty of counsel to do more than make assertions; they should state reasons for their propositions, and, if necessary, cite authorities in their support.

From the Marshall Circuit Court.

*J.*D. *McLaren*and *H. Corbin,*for appellants.

*A. C. Capron,*for appellee.

*515Filed May 9, 1884;

petition for a rehearing overruled Oct. 8th, 1885.

Elliott, J.

A paper lias been filed giving what is denominated *“*a history of the case,” and stating that *“*appellants contend that the sheriff’s sale was not complete till July 7th, 1882.” This statement is all that even approaches an argument, and it certainly is not such a presentation of a point as settled rules require. It is the duty of counsel to do more than make assertions; they should state reasons for their propositions, and, if necessary, cite authorities in their support. In the present instance, we should have been informed why the sale was not complete until July 7th, 1882, and if not complete how that fact affected the appellants. This court has very many times declared what constitutes a brief, and, under the rules laid down by those decisions, the paper before us falls very far short of possessing the requisites of a brief.

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

The schedule contains summary financial information from Trump's Castle
Associates, L.P.  This data has been extracted from the Consolidated Balance
Sheets and Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three month period
ended March 31, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>  0000911534
<NAME> TRUMP'S CASTLE ASSOCIATES, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         29,239
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   8,298  <F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                     3,264
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               42,345
<PP&E>                                        537,349
<DEPRECIATION>                                 58,854
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                535,312
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          58,970
<BONDS>                                       390,247
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  535,312
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               63,971
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  55,251
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                4,341  <F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             13,997
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     0
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,368)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
<FN>
<F1>Asset values represent net amounts.
<F2>Represents depreciation and amortization expenses.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM JUNE 20,
2000 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          14,749
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  119,069
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               144,639
<PP&E>                                       1,603,666
<DEPRECIATION>                                 614,912
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,177,079
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          163,530
<BONDS>                                        479,173
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           314
<OTHER-SE>                                     501,320
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,177,079
<SALES>                                        350,249
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               326,544
<CGS>                                          124,148
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  124,148
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                65,989
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,339
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                111,068
<INCOME-TAX>                                    38,555
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             72,513
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    72,513
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.14


</TABLE>
S. 2195 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen 

An Act 

To deny admission to the United States to any representative to the United Nations 

who has been found to have been engaged in espionage activities or a terrorist 

activity against the United States and poses a threat to United States national 

security interests. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. VISA LIMITATION FOR CERTAIN REPRESENTATIVES TO 

THE UNITED NATIONS. 

Section 407(a) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal 

Years 1990 and 1991 (8 U.S.C. 1102 note) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘such individual has been found to have 

been engaged in espionage activities’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘such individual— 

‘‘(1) has been found to have been engaged in espionage 

activities or a terrorist activity (as defined in section 

212(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iii)))’’; and 

(2) by striking ‘‘allies and may pose’’ and inserting the 

following: ‘‘allies; and 

‘‘(2) may pose’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00139

- CV

ARBOR E &T , LLC, D/B/A RESCARE WORKFORCE S YSTEM S v. LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD , INC. , D/B/A WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS, INC

. On Appeal from the 398th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. C

- 2213

- 11

- I

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appell ee

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 5, 2013
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CHARLES A. SERBE.

July 10, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0023

CITY OF MISSOULA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

MARK FOLLWEILER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant's motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including May 22, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve the Appellant's opening brief on appeal. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 17 2024

04/17/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0023
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 Titan Global Holdings Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Scott
Hensell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
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 and Exchange Actof
      1934; and





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and resultof
      operations of the Company.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to Titan Global Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Titan Global
Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.





Date:
      January 20, 2009
              By:/s/Scott HensellScott
      HensellChief
      Financial Officer
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 20, 

2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________ 

NO. 14-11-00365-CV

____________

LJR SERVICES, L.L.C., GENERAL PARTNER OF CORPORATE FINANCE 

PARTNERS, L.P., D/B/A CORPORATE FINANCE ASSOCIATES, Appellant

V.

JOHN SIMONETTI, Appellee

On Appeal from the 152nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2008-06663A

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed March 25, 2011. On October 12, 2011, 

appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is 

granted.

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Brown, Boyce, and McCally.
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5 D 20 22

- 2031 LT Case No. 2022

- 33316

- COCI

_____________________________
J ACQUELINE J ONES , Appellant,

v.

C LYDE M ORRIS L ANDINGS P ARTNERS , LTD d/b/a Clyde Morris Landings
, Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the County Court for Volusia County

. Robert A. Sanders, Jr. , Judge

. Jacqueline Jones, Daytona Beach
, pro se

.
William J. McCabe
, Longwood
, for Appellee.

April 3 0, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.

E DWARDS , C.J., and M AKAR and M AC I VER , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
NUMBER 13-16-00255-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN THE INTEREST OF N.F., A CHILD

On appeal from the County Court at Law

of Aransas County, Texas.

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Order Per Curiam

This is an accelerated parental termination case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4. On 

April 13, 2015, the trial court terminated the parental rights of appellant M.F. to N.F., a 

child. On May 4, 2016, M.F. filed his pro se notice of appeal, claiming that he “was never 

served or notified of the matter” and that he was “never appointed an attorney to represent 

[him] on the termination of [his] parental rights.”

The appointment of an attorney for indigent parents contesting the termination of 

their parental rights is mandatory. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.013 (West, Westlaw 
2

current through 2015 R.S.). Appeals in parental termination cases are accelerated 

appeals with extremely short deadlines. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4; TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 

6.2(a), reprinted in TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN., tit. 2, subtit. F app. (West, Westlaw current with 

amendments received through Dec. 1, 2015).

Due to the nature of a termination hearing and the right of an indigent parent to 

have appointed counsel, we now ABATE this appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial 

court with instructions to hold a hearing to determine: (1) whether M.F. should be 

appointed counsel; and (2) any other issues to ensure an expeditious resolution.

Because an appeal of this type must be disposed of within 180 days from the day

appellant files the notice of appeal, see TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a), the trial court shall 

conduct the hearing and make its findings and recommendations, together with any 

orders it may enter regarding these matters, within TEN days from the date of this order. 

If the trial court determines that counsel should be appointed, the name, address, 

telephone number, email address, and state bar number of the newly appointed counsel 

shall be included in the order appointing counsel. Furthermore, the trial court shall cause 

a supplemental reporter's record of any proceedings to be prepared. The supplemental 

clerk’s record and supplemental reporter’s record, if any, shall be filed with the Clerk of 

this Court on or before the expiration of FOURTEEN days from the date of this order.

Finally, we note that the notice of appeal was untimely and defective in that it 

contained no certificate of service and no statement that it was an accelerated appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5, 21.5, 25.1(d)(6). Counsel, should one be appointed, is hereby 

given notice of these defects so that steps may be taken to correct the defects, if it can 

be done.
3

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

10th day of May, 2016.
|   | 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 operation of the      Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | September      8, 2008 |   | By:    |  /s/      A. Dale Mayo                                                                   |   |
|--------|-----------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |                        |   |   | A.      Dale MayoPresident      and Chief Executive Officer(Principal      Executive Officer) |   |

----
1

NO. 03-14-00654-CR

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

JAMES PALACIO § APPELLANT

VS. §

THE STATE OF TEXAS § APPELLEE

APPEAL FROM THE 427TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

CAUSE NO. D1-DC-14-904021

STATE'S FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

The State of Texas respectfully moves for an extension of the deadline for filing

the State’s brief and, in accordance with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.6 and

10.5(b), advises the Court as follows:

(a) Following his conviction for Aggravated Assault Bodily Injury with a

Deadly Weapon – Family Violence, the appellant filed his notice of appeal in the above

causes on September 26, 2014. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief on July 20, 2015.

ACCEPTED

03-14-00654-CR

6547060

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

8/18/2015 3:18:19 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/18/2015 3:18:19 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
2

(c) The State’s brief is currently due on August 19, 2015.

(c) This request is that the deadline for filing the State’s brief be extended by

30 days.

(d) The number of previous extensions of time granted for submission of the

State’s brief is: none.

(e) The State relies upon the following facts to reasonably explain the needfor

an extension of the deadline:

1. During the period since this brief was filed, the attorney assigned to this case

has been working on other pressing appellate matters and has not hadsufficient

time to prepare an adequate response to this brief.

2. This request is not made for the purpose of delay, but to ensure that the Court

has a proper State’s brief to aid in the just disposition of the above cause.
3

WHEREFORE, the State of Texas respectfully requests that the deadline forfiling

the State’s brief be extended to September 18, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

ROSEMARY LEHMBERG

District Attorney

Travis County, Texas

/s/ Matthew Foye

Matthew Foye

Assistant District Attorney

State Bar No. 24043661

P.O. Box 1748

Austin, Texas 78767

(512) 854-9400

Fax No. 854-4810

Matthew.Foye@traviscountytx.gov

AppellateTCDA@traviscountytx.gov
4

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i), I hereby certify, based

upon the computer program used to generate this motion, that this motion contains

235 words, excluding words contained in those parts of the motion that Rule 9.4(i)

exempts from inclusion in the word count. I certify, further, that this motion is printed

in a conventional, 14-point typeface.

/s/ Matthew Foye

Matthew Foye

Assistant District Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on the 18th day of August, 2015, a true and correct copy of

this motion was served, by U.S. mail, electronic mail, facsimile, or electronically

through the electronic filing manager, to the Appellant’s attorney, Linda IcenhauerRamirez, Attorney at Law, 1103 Nueces, Austin, Texas 78701, ljir@aol.com.

/s/ Matthew Foye

Matthew Foye

Assistant District Attorney