alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                    FORM 6-K
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549


                        Report of Foreign Private Issuer


                        PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                                  March 9, 2005

                         Commission File Number: 0-22346

                                 HOLLINGER INC.
                 (Translation of registrant's name into English)

                                10 TORONTO STREET
                            TORONTO, ONTARIO M5C 2B7
                                     CANADA
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports
under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

                      Form 20-F [X]          Form 40-F [ ]

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): ________

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): ________


Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this
Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                             Yes [ ]          No [X]

If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in
connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82- ________

<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT LIST


Exhibit        Description
-------        -----------
 99.1          Press Release, dated March 8, 2005, regarding Hollinger Inc.
               Board Proposes Shareholders Vote on Proposed Share Consolidation
               and Privatization.


<PAGE>



SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Date:  March 9, 2005

                                     HOLLINGER INC.


                                     By /s/ Peter G. White
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name:  Peter G. White
                                        Title: Vice President, Operations
                                               and Secretary
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24E0071. ABBA YAKOB et al. v. KIDIST MARIAM ETHIOPIAN

ORTHODOX TEWAHEDO CHURCH, INC.

Upon consideration of the “Emergency Motion to Restore Consent

Interlocutory Injunction Pending Appeal,” the same is hereby DENIED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office,Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

May 24, 2024

05/24/2024
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 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 this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Websafety, Inc. fka Blindspot
Alert, In, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, John R. Williams, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby
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 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.




By:
                  /s/ John R. Williams, Jr.John
      R. Williams, Jr.Chief
      Financial Officer




Dated:
April 14, 2010





This certification accompanies this
report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the
Company for purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,
another document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to WebSafety, Inc.
fka Blindspot Alert, In. and will be retained and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6703

WILLIAM EARL MARSHALL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CA-00-146-5-BO)

Submitted: September 21, 2000 Decided: September 28, 2000

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Earl Marshall, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

William Earl Marshall appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for reconsideration of denial of his 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) petition. We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Marshall v. United States, No. CA-00-146-5-BO (E.D.N.C.

Apr. 20, 2000). We deny Marshall’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

AFFIRMED
#### Williams *v.*The Central Railroad & Banking Co.

Although, some errors were committed at the trial, yet, as the verdict was demanded by the evidence, there was no error in denying a new trial.

April 16, 1894.

Argued at the last term.

Action for damages. Before Judge Guerry. Clay superior court. March term, 1893.

W. A. Scott and R. E. Kennon, for plaintiff’.

J. H. Guerry, J. D. Rambo, JohnR. Cooper and Hood & Moye, for defendant.

*Judgment affirmed.*
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3690 

To authorize the Secretary of State to pay the costs of evacuating nationals 

of the United States from the Middle East in response to the hostilities 

between Israel and its neighbors that began in July 2006, and to require, 

except in limited circumstances, the reimbursement of such costs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 19, 2006 

Ms. STABENOW introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of State to pay the costs of 

evacuating nationals of the United States from the Middle East in response to the hostilities between Israel 

and its neighbors that began in July 2006, and to require, except in limited circumstances, the reimbursement 

of such costs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE 

4 EVACUATION OF UNITED STATES NATIONALS 

5 FROM LEBANON. 

6 (a) AUTHORITY.— 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 3690 IS

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of State is 

2 authorized to make expenditures under section 4 of 

3 the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 

4 (22 U.S.C. 2671) to cover the costs of evacuating 

5 nationals of the United States from the Middle East 

6 in response to the hostilities between Israel and 

7 Hezbollah that began in July 2006. 

8 (2) SCOPE.—The authority under paragraph 

9 (1) is not subject to the requirement under section 

10 4(a)(1) of the State Department Basic Authorities 

11 Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2671(a)(1)) that an emer12 gency arise in the diplomatic and consular service or 

13 the requirement under section 4(b)(1)(A) of such 

14 Act (22 U.S.C. 2671(a)(1)) that expenditures serve 

15 to further the realization of foreign policy objectives. 

16 (b) REIMBURSEMENT.—The Secretary shall, in ac17 cordance with section 4(b)(2)(A)(ii) of such Act (22 

18 U.S.C. 2671(b)(2)(A)(ii)), seek reimbursement for ex19 penditures under subsection (a)(1) of this section for the 

20 evacuation of private United States citizens or third-coun21 try nationals, except that the Secretary may waive such 

22 reimbursement requirement— 

23 (1) in the case of any evacuated person for 

24 whom the imposition of such requirement would re25 sult in undue financial hardship; and 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
3 

•S 3690 IS

1 (2) in the case of any person who is unable to 

2 obtain reimbursement or credit from an air carrier 

3 for the unused portion of a round-trip commercial 

4 air fare or to otherwise reuse such air fare. 

5 (c) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.—Amounts available 

6 pursuant to section 4(a)(1) of the State Department Basic 

7 Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2671(a)(1)) for 

8 unforseen emergencies arising in the diplomatic and con9 sular service shall be available for expenditures made 

10 under this section. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

431 

KA 09-00732 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BRYSON DAVIS-JOHNSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

CHARLES T. NOCE, CONFLICT DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY J. CZAPRANSKI

OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (AMANDA L. DREHER OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Richard A.

Keenan, J.), rendered March 20, 2008. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a jury verdict, of manslaughter in the second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon a jury verdict of manslaughter in the second degree (Penal Law §

125.15 [1]) after his first trial ended in a hung jury. Contrary to

defendant’s contention, the conviction is supported by legally

sufficient evidence (see generally People v Delamota, 18 NY3d 107,

113; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349). Although defendant’s

further challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence at the

first trial is properly before us because “[t]he Double Jeopardy

Clause precludes a second trial if the evidence from the first trial

is determined by the reviewing court to be legally insufficient”

(People v Scerbo, 74 AD3d 1730, 1731, lv denied 15 NY3d 757; see

People v Scott, 107 AD3d 1635, 1636-1637, lv denied 21 NY3d 1077), we

reject that challenge. The evidence at both trials, which included

the testimony of four eyewitnesses, was substantially similar, and

demonstrated that defendant was “aware of and consciously

disregard[ed] a substantial and unjustifiable risk” of death when

defendant and at least one other individual gained entry to a known

drug house operated by the victim, and the victim was fatally shot

through his apartment door when he returned (§ 15.05 [3]; see §§

20.00, 125.15 [1]; see also People v Flayhart, 72 NY2d 737, 742;

People v Davis, 278 AD2d 886, 886-887, lv denied 96 NY2d 757). Even

if defendant’s “assistance was not initially planned, the totality of

the evidence permits only the conclusion that he knowingly

participated and continued to participate even after his companion’s

intentions became clear” (People v Allah, 71 NY2d 830, 832; see People
-2- 431 

KA 09-00732 

v Scott, 107 AD3d 1592, 1593, lv denied 22 NY3d 958).

“Defendant was convicted ‘upon legally sufficient trial

evidence,’ and thus his contention with respect to the competency of

the evidence before the grand jury ‘is not reviewable upon an appeal

from the ensuing judgment of conviction’ ” (People v Haberer, 24 AD3d

1283, 1284, lv denied 7 NY3d 756, reconsideration denied 7 NY3d 848,

quoting CPL 210.30 [6]). Defendant’s sentence is not unduly harsh or

severe, and his remaining contention does not require modification or

reversal of the judgment.

Entered: May 9, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Form 10-QSB of Golf  Rounds.com,  Inc. for the three  months ended  November 30,
1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                                          0000319016
<NAME>                                         GOLF ROUNDS.COM, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000


<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                          1,981
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                1,988
<PP&E>                                              6
<DEPRECIATION>                                      1
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  2,076
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               8
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           21
<OTHER-SE>                                      2,047
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    2,076
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   23
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     126
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (103)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (103)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (103)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)



</TABLE>
#### Culver *v.*Mullally.

1. Where a sole plaintiff in the court below has a coplaintiff forced upon him by an illegal amendment made at the instance of the opposite party, such coplaintiff is not a necessary party to a writ of error brought by the original plaintiff to review the judgment, more especially if the coplaintiff disclaimed at the trial all ownership and interest in the subject-matter of the litigation and asserted no interest whatever relatively to either party. If he would be a proper party to the writ of error, he could by amendment be made a co-party plaintiff in error.

2. In a statutory proceeding by affidavit of illegality in resistance to an execution founded on the foreclosure of a mortgage upon personalty, the mortgagor has no right, pending the cause, to have a third person made a co-party plaintiff with the mortgagee upon the alleged ground that he was a joint owner of the mortgage and ' equally entitled to collect from the mortgagor and had collected certain specified partial payments on the mortgage debt. The pleading act of 1887, which provides for making additional parties, has no application to such a proceeding. *Judgment reversed,.*

July 23, 1894.

Affidavit of illegality. Before Judge Hunt. Hancock superior court. August term, 1898.

A mortgage on personal property in favor of Culver against Mullally was foreclosed, May 3, 1893, for $500 principal, with interest and attorney’s fees. Mullally interposed an affidavit of illegality, June 6, 1893, alleging that $378 had been paid T. R. Lamar on the mortgage, and tendering the balance to the sheriff’. On the same day the sheriff acknowledged receipt of $122 from Mullally upon the *fi. fa.*At the trial Mullally was al*645lowed to amend his affidavit of illegality by adding: “ Said T. R. Lamar being then and there joint owner of said mortgage with said E. B. Culver, the same being 'in his desk in his office, and he equally with the said E. B. Culver entitled to collect from this deponent, said ■mortgage having been written by and negotiated with said T. R. Lamar; and while the note was made payable to E. B. Culver, it was expressly understood that pay•ments were to be made direct to said Lamar; . . and deponent prays said T. R. Lamar may be made a party plaintiff to this cause, and stand to and abide the results.” The jury found in favor of the defendant, and a motion for a new trial was overruled, upon condition that defendant within ten days pay to the sheriff for the use of plaintiff $25.94, and $14.79 attorney’s fees, and all ■costs. To the refusal of a new trial and to the ruling •allowing defendant to amend his affidavit of illegality and in said amendment to make Lamar a party plaintiff' over objections, Culver excepted. In the Supreme -Court, a. motion to dismiss the writ of error was made, because Lamar was not a party to the bill of exceptions.

Jordan & Burwell and T. L. Reese, for plaintiff.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

,

Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

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

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

February 1 7 , 2017 

# Order

Clerk February 1 7 , 2017

15 5172 ( 5 9 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appell ant

, SC: 15 5172

v COA: 3 27905

Wayne CC: 15

- 001051

- AR

TREMEL ANDERSON

,

Defendant

- Appell ee

. _________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of defendant

- appellee to extend the time

for filing his answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The answer

will be accepted as timely filed if it is submitted on or before March 20, 2017.
Filed by Automated Filing Services Inc. (604) 609-0244 - Uranerz Energy Corporation - Exhibit 10.1






AMENDMENT AGREEMENT #1 

  

THIS AMENDMENT AGREEMENT is made as of the
1st day of January, 2007 

	BETWEEN: 	Uranerz Energy Corporation,
        a company having an office at Suite 1410, 800 West Pender Street, Vancouver,
        B.C., V6C 2V6 

	 	 
	  	(herein called the “Company”)
  
	  	OF THE FIRST PART 
	 	 
	AND: 	Ubex Capital Inc., of
      Suite 1410, 800 West Pender Street, Vancouver, B.C., V6C 2V6; 
	 	 
	  	(herein called the “Consultant”)
    
	 	 
	  	OF THE SECOND PART
  


WHEREAS: 

	A. 	
      The parties entered into a Consulting Agreement dated the
      1st day of July, 2005 (the “Agreement”) whereby the Consultant
      will continue to perform consulting services to the Company as defined in
      the Agreement; and

	 	 
	B. 	
      The parties now wish to amend the
  Agreement;



NOW THEREFORE THIS AMENDMENT AGREEMENT WITNESSES that the
Agreement is amended as follows: 

	1. 	
      By the deletion of Clause #3.1 of the Agreement in its
      entirety and the substitution therefor of the
following:



3.1          
The Company shall pay the Consultant a monthly consulting fee of Cdn $12,500.00
payable monthly. 

	2. 	
      The parties hereby ratify and confirm the Agreement in
      all other respects.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto have duly executed
this Agreement effective as of the 1st day of January, 2007. 


   

    Uranerz Energy Corporation 

  Per: /s/ Benjamin Leboe                                          

            Authorized Signatory
  

   

   

  Ubex Capital Inc. 

  Per: /s/ Dennis Higgs                                              

            Authorized Signatory
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Corey BROWN, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 09-6193.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 21, 2009.

Decided: May 29, 2009.

Corey Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Corey Brown appeals the district court’s order denying his 18' U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Brown’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Brown,*No. 4:00-cr-00005-H-1 (E.D.N.C. filed Jan. 22, 2009; entered Jan. 23, 2009). *See United States v. Dunphy,*551 F.3d 247 (4th Cir.2009). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001091601
<NAME> J.L. FRENCH AUTOMOTIVE CASTINGS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,900
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   85,073
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,624)
<INVENTORY>                                     36,979
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               143,661
<PP&E>                                         282,636
<DEPRECIATION>                                (61,469)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 695,234
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          128,295
<BONDS>                                        175,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (41,593)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   695,234
<SALES>                                        351,829
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               351,829
<CGS>                                          267,514
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  267,514
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                53,169
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,326
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,180)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (595)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,585)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (8,112)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,697)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>