alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 10.13**

 

MINES   MANAGEMENT,INC. Bill of Sale of Equipment State of Montana County: Uncoln IN   CONSIDERATION OF the sum of $4151000.00 U.S. Dollars,the receipt of which Is   acknowledged, Mines Management,Inc.of 905 W Riverside,Suite 311,Spokane,Washington   99201(the 'Seller') DOES HEREBY SEL AND TRANSFER to Amalgamated Mining Inc.   of 9 15 37 Ave NW,Edmonton, AB T6E 6V9, Canada (the 'Purchaser'),the   following equipment (the 'Equipment'): Year Description ISandvik Underground   Bolter Drill Make Serial# Model Sandvik Rebolt S-126XL 2007 L07B4183 The   Seller warrants that {1} the Seller is the legal owner of the Equipment;{2)   the Equipment is free from all liens and encumbrances;and (3) the Seller has   full right and authority to sell and transfer the equipment. The Equipment is   being sold in 'as is' condition and the Seller e>Cpressly disclaims all   warranties,whether expressed or implied,including but not limited to any   Implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. Further,the   Seller disclaims any warranty as to the condition of the Equipment. The   Seller does not assume,or authorize any other person to assume on the behalf   of the Seller,any liability In connection with the sale of the Equipment. The   Seller's above disclaim of warranty does not, In any way, affect the terms of   any applicable warranties from the manufacturer of the Equipment. The   Purchaser has been given the opportunity to inspect the Equipment or to have   it Inspected and the Purchaser hereby accepts the Equipment in its existing   condition. The Purchaser is responsible for shipping charges and assumes   allrisk of loss or damage during transit from the Montanore Project site near   Libby,Montana. This Bill of Sale will be construed in accordance with and governed   by the laws of the State of Montana. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have   executed this Bill of Sale on October 21, 2015. -... ' .. '",.. By:   i'J.-Data: 1 /..;tt Jt S: ..... aY:->.. · Date: Oc\\ '· Mines   Mala8emlr\tllnc. (Seller) Amalgamated Mining Inc. (Buyer)
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gregory F. Kowal, Chief Executive Officer of Mera Pharmaceuticals, certify that (1) Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.s Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 3 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 31, 2009 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Date:  Sept 09, 2009

| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ Gregory F. Kowal   
| | Gregory F. Kowal       
| | Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order entered September 1 9 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00234
- CR JOHN HENRY WILSON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F12
- 55608
- S



### O RDER
The Court REINSTATE S the appeal. On September 13, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s brief had not been filed. On September 17, 2013, we received appellant’s brief, together wit h an extension motion. Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeal, we VACATE the September 13, 2013 order requiring findings.
We GRANT the September 17, 2013 extension motion and ORDER appellant’s brief
filed as of the date of this order. In his brief, appellant raises an issue related to the costs assessed against him. The record, however, does not contain a cost bill or other document with an itemized list of costs assessed in this case.Accordingly, we ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN

DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing a detailed itemization of the costs assessed in this case, including but not limited to, specific court costs, fees, and court appointed attorney fees. In accor dance with Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 103.001, the cost bill shall be signed by the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment for the cost. We further ORDER that the supplemental clerk’s record include a document explaining any and all abbreviations used to designate a particular fee, cost, or court appointed attorney fee.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
##### 



Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Ingo K. Kozak the Vice President Finance & Administration and CFO,
certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Bio-Lok
International Inc.;

2.     Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, nor misleading with respect to
the period covered by this quarterly report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flow
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
quarterly report;

4.     The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
the establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and
have;

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report
is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.     The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and
the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in
internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal controls; and

6.     The registrants other certifying officer and I have indicated in
this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in
internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,
including any corrective actions with regards to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

|                         |  |                                         
|------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------
|Date: September 12, 2003 |  | /s/ Ingo K. Kozak , VP  Finance and CFO
|                         |  |                                         
|                         |  | Signature and Title
Exhibit 32.2

 

**                                                THE MONARCH CEMENT COMPANY                                                   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 Annual Report of The Monarch Cement Company (the"Company") on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the "Report"), theundersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects,the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to The MonarchCement Company and will be retained by The MonarchCement Company and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

Dated:  March 15, 2007

                                                                                           /s/ Debra P. Roe                                                                                                                       Debra P. Roe, CPA                                                                                            Chief Financial Officer and                                                                                            Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
#### D. W. Sanders, etc., *v.*Merchants' Bank.

Bills and Notes — Bill of Exchange — Enforcement of Obligation.

A bank b^,s tbe right to look to the .parties to a bill of exchange, for payment, and can coerce it out of an indorser in preference to the examiner or drawer if it desires to do so.

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

September 20, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

We are satisfied the act incorporating the Kentucky Savings Bank, now the Merchants Bank, invested that institution with the power to transact ordinary banking business, such as buying and selling exchange, discounting notes, etc. By the third section of the act approved January 16, 1864 (Myer’s Supplement 354), the statement by the notary in his protest is made *prima facie*evidence that such notices were given or sent as therein stated by the notary. The bill and protest filed with the petition was shown the notary and. he says he presented it to the teller of the Bank of Kentucky in Louisville for payment and it was refused, and that he delivered notice of protest to Sanders’ wife on the 20th of September, 1871, the day the note matured, at his, Sanders’, residence in Louisville. Notice seems to have been given and forwarded to all the parties upon the paper and the notary in his deposition identified the bill, protest, and statement of notice made. If the statement of the witness is to be taken without reference to the paper before him evidencing what had been done by him, there might be some question as to the sufficiency of the proof of protest, but the statement of the witness, connected with the protest itself, leaves no room for argument on the ques*112tion. Nor can we perceive how the fact of the appellant being a mere accommodation endorser on the paper can affect his liability to the bank. The bank had the right to look to all the parties to the bill for payment, and can coerce it out of the endorser in preference to the acceptor or drawer for whose accommodation it was endorsed, if it sees proper. It may be a hardship on the endorser to be compelled to pay it under the circumstances in this case, as the testimony indicates that he assumed the liability for the benefit of and at the instance of those who were interested in getting the money and should pay it, but as to the bank, the money was loaned upon the credit of all the names on the paper and each one of the parties is liable therefor. Judgment *affirmed.*

*Muir & Bijoit,, for appellants.*

*Barret & Roberts, for appellee.*
No. 87-1297.

#### Able, a Minor Under the Age of Fourteen Years, by his Guardian ad Litem, Day *v.*Upjohn Co., Inc., et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT
23.1








CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.
333-163943 on Form S-1 and Registration Statements No. 333-69428 and 333-143544
on Form S-8, and to the inclusion in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bay
National Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2009, of our report dated
March 31, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Bay
National Corporation.











/s/
      Stegman & Company





Baltimore,
Maryland


March 31,
2010













121
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4569 

To provide for the development of a national plan for the control and management of Sudden Oak Death, a tree disease caused by the fungus-like 

pathogen Phytophthora ramorum, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 15, 2004 

Mr. BURNS (for himself, Mr. SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. KINGSTON, 

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Ms. 

MAJETTE, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. ISSA, Mr. 

NUNES, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. FARR, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. GARY G. MILLER

of California, Mr. OSE, Mr. THOMPSON of California, and Mrs. CAPPS) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To provide for the development of a national plan for the 

control and management of Sudden Oak Death, a tree 

disease caused by the fungus-like pathogen Phytophthora 

ramorum, 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. NATIONAL PLAN FOR CONTROL AND MANAGE4 MENT OF SUDDEN OAK DEATH. 

5 (a) DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL PLAN.—Subject to 

6 the availability of appropriated funds for this purpose, the 
2 

•HR 4569 IH 

1 Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Animal Plant 

2 and Health Inspection Service, shall develop a national 

3 plan for the control and management of Sudden Oak 

4 Death, a forest disease caused by the fungus-like pathogen 

5 Phytophthora ramorum. 

6 (b) PLAN ELEMENTS.—In developing the plan, the 

7 Secretary shall specifically address the following: 

8 (1) Information derived by the Department of 

9 Agriculture from ongoing efforts to identify hosts of 

10 Phytophthora ramorum and survey the extent to 

11 which Sudden Oak Death exists in the United 

12 States. 

13 (2) Past and current efforts to understand the 

14 risk posed by Phytophthora ramorum and the re15 sults of control and management efforts regarding 

16 Sudden Oak Death, including efforts related to re17 search, control, quarantine, and hazardous fuel re18 duction. 

19 (3) Such future efforts as the Secretary con20 siders necessary to control and manage Sudden Oak 

21 Death, including cost estimates for the implementa22 tion of such efforts. 

23 (c) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary shall develop the 

24 plan in consultation with other Federal agencies that have 
3 

•HR 4569 IH 

1 appropriate expertise regarding the control and manage2 ment of Sudden Oak Death. 

3 (d) IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN.—The Secretary 

4 shall complete the plan and commence implementation as 

5 soon as practicable after the date on which funds are first 

6 appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropria7 tions in subsection (e) to carry out this section. 

8 (e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

9 authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary such sums 

10 as may be necessary to carry out this section. 

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             552
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,347
<ALLOWANCES>                                        95
<INVENTORY>                                      1,553
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,214
<PP&E>                                          29,967
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,689
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  27,196
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,545
<BONDS>                                         10,181
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,947
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,902)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    27,196
<SALES>                                         31,065
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,615
<CGS>                                           15,740
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,980
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (6,008)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,734
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,909
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,242)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,151
<DISCONTINUED>                                     234
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,385
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    24.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    24.69
        

</TABLE>
10967.

#### Tompkins *v.*American Land Co.

Decided May 12, 1920.

Levy and claim; from Johnson superior court — Judge Kent. June 21, 1919.

*Hines, Hardwick & Jordan, A. L. Hatcher, B. H. Moye,*for plaintiff in error.

*Faircloth & Claxton, B. T. Rawlings, Lamar C. Rucker,*contra.

Luke, J.

1. Shares, of stock in a corporation may be levied upon by giving notice of the levy to the defendant and to the officers or agents who have access to the books of the corporation, and sale of the stock under the levy may be made only by the sheriff or his deputy. See *Weaver*v. *Tuten,*144 *Ga.*9 (5) (85 S. E. 1048) ; Park’s Ann. Code, §§ 6035, 6036.

2. In this case the evidence was somewhat conflicting, or not definite, as to the particular day of the transfer of the shares of stock levied upon to the claimant by the' defendant in fi. fa., the books of the corporation having been destroyed by fire; but the evidence does show that the transfer was made, and the shares of stock did not stand in the name of the defendant in fi. fa. at the date of the judgment upon which was based the fi. fa. levied upon the stock; nor at the time of the levy of the fi. fa. did the defendant in fi. fa. have any such shares of stock as levied upon standing in his name upon the books of the corporation.

*(a)*The claimant carried the burden of proving that she was the owner of the stock at a time prior to the rendition of the judgment upon which was based the execution levied thereon. The evidence did not authorize a verdict for the plaintiff, and for this reason it was error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
#### S. W. Duncan v. Carter & Bros.

Exceptions, Bill of — Signature to.

Where the paper copied into the transcript as a bill of exceptions is not signed by the judge nor by bystanders, it forms no part of the record.

APPEAL FROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

October 29, 1873.

*Wilson, Merriott, for appellant#.*

*B'rowm & Murray, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

A bill of exceptions, in order to be filed and to form a part of the history of a case, must be signed by the judge who presided at the trial, and filed with the pleadings. In case the judge refuses to allow and sign the bill of exceptions presented by the party excepting, provisions are made for having one signed by by-standers. Sec. 367, Civ. Code.

In this case, theo paper copied in the transcript before us as or for a bill of exceptions, is not signed by the judge nor by bystanders, and we are not authorized to regard it as a bill of exceptions, or to recognize it as forming any part of the record. There is nothing before us, therefore, to inform us of the history of the proceedings, or that any error was committed by the presiding judge.

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>

                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 Historic Preservation Properties 1989
LP ("HPP'89") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
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 his knowledge:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 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 HPP'89.


/s/ Robert Gunn
-------------------------------------
Robert Gunn
Asset Manager
(Performing similar functions of
Financial Officer)

Date: March 11, 2006