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



Exhibit 5.2 (DELOITTE LOGO)
    
    Deloitte & Touche LLP
2800  1055 Dunsmuir Street
4 Bentall CentreP.O. Box 49279
Vancouver BC V7X 1P4CanadaTel: (604) 669-4466Fax: (604) 685-0395www.deloitte.ca
   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of Goldcorp Inc. filed
on Form F-10 of our report addressed to the Shareholders of Wheaton River Minerals Ltd. dated
February 25, 2005 appearing in the Form 40-F of Wheaton River Minerals Ltd. for the year ended
December 31, 2004 and to the reference to us under the headings Experts and Documents Filed as
Part of the Registration Statement in the Prospectus, which is a part of the Registration
Statement. /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLPINDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
April 5, 2005      Member of
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
**
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or**

**Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Permian Basin Royalty Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2019, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge: 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

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

 
  SIMMONS BANK, TRUSTEE FOR PERMIAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUSTDate:   November 12, 2019  By: /s/ RON E. HOOPER   
Ron E. Hooper,

SVP Royalty Trust Management

Simmons Bank

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Permian Basin Royalty Trust andwill be retained by Permian Basin Royalty Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 
**
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-41036

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

COSME ARMANDO CARRILLO-MARTINEZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:08-CR-209-1

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Cosme Armando

Carrillo-Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Carrillo-Martinez

has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s

brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 16, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
##### 



NEWS RELEASE
 BROOKFIELD CONSORTIUM RECEIVES
SHAREHOLDER APPROVAL FOR REVISED
AGREEMENT TO ACQUIRE O&Y PROPERTIES
 TORONTO, October 7, 2005
     1




---



##### 



Brookfield Properties Corporation www.brookfieldproperties.com
 BPO Properties Ltd www.bpoproperties.com
 Contact Information
 mcoley@brookfieldproperties.com
  Note: This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section
27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended. The words believe, expect, anticipate, intend, estimate, and other
expressions which are predictions of or indicate future events and trends and which do not relate
to historical matters, identify forward looking statements. Reliance should not be placed on
forward-looking statements because they involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other
factors, which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the company to differ
materially from anticipated future results, performance or achievement expressed or implied by such
forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those
set forward in the forward-looking statements include general economic conditions, local real
estate conditions, timely re-leasing of occupied square footage upon expiration, interest rates,
availability of equity and debt financing and other risks detailed from time to time in the
companys 40-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company undertakes no
obligation to publicly update or revise any forward looking statements, whether as a result of new
information, future events or otherwise.
  2
#### Eddie Salas, Appellant, v New York City Police Department, Respondent.

Submitted August 10, 2009;

decided November 19, 2009

Reported below, 63 AD3d 468.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely *(see*CPLR 5513 [b]).
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
PETER VAN DERMARK,

Claimant

- Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2023

- 1044

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 20

- 7577

, Judge Joseph L. Toth.

______________________

O R D E R

The appellant having failed to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the rules, it is Case: 23-1044 Document: 3 Page: 1 Filed: 02/01/2023V AN D ERMARK V

. M C D ONOUGH 2

O RDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in
accordance with the rules.

FOR THE COURT

February 1, 2023

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: February 1, 2023 Case: 23-1044 Document: 3 Page: 2 Filed: 02/01/2023
#### Aida Irene Jiminez MUNOZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-72459.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 11, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 17, 2006.

Aida Irene Jiminez Munoz, Long Beach, CA, pro se.

*128Benjamin Jiminez Munoz, Long Beach, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Norah Ascoli Schwarz, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Saul E. Greenstein, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before: TASHIMA, W. FLETCHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

The Clerk shall file petitioners’ opposition to the motion to dismiss, received September 25, 2006.

We have reviewed the opposition to the motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction, and we conclude that petitioner Aida Irene Jimenez Muñoz has failed to raise a colorable legal or constitutional claim to invoke our jurisdiction over her petition for review. *See Torres-Aguilar v. INS,*246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). Respondent’s motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction is granted with respect to petitioner Aida Irene Jimenez Muñoz. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); *Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir. 2003).

We conclude that summary disposition is appropriate with respect to petitioner Benjamin Jimenez Muñoz because the questions raised by this petition for review with respect to him are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The agency granted petitioner Benjamin Jimenez Muñoz the only relief he requested, voluntary departure. Accordingly, this petition for review is denied with respect to petitioner Benjamin Jimenez Muñoz.

The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and *Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

All other pending motions are denied as moot.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 420 

To make the repeal of the estate tax permanent. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2005 

Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. 

BURNS, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. TALENT, and Mr. THUNE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To make the repeal of the estate tax permanent. 

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 ‘‘Death Tax Repeal Per5 manency Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ESTATE TAX REPEAL MADE PERMANENT. 

7 Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 

8 Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall not apply to title V of 

9 such Act. 

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 449 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 449

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To facilitate shareholder consideration of proposals to make Settlement 
Common Stock under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act available to 
  missed enrollees, eligible elders, and eligible persons born after 
               December 18, 1971, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT.

    Section 36(d)(3) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 
U.S.C. 1629b) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(d)(3)'' and inserting ``(3)'';
            (2) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
        ``of this section'' and inserting ``or an amendment to articles 
        of incorporation under section 7(g)(1)(B)'';
            (3) in subparagraph (A)--
                    (A) by striking ``, or'' and inserting ``; or''; 
                and
                    (B) by striking ``such resolution'' and inserting 
                ``the resolution or amendment to articles of 
                incorporation''; and
            (4) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``such resolution'' 
        and inserting ``the resolution or amendment to articles of 
        incorporation''.

            Passed the Senate December 14, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 449

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To facilitate shareholder consideration of proposals to make Settlement 
Common Stock under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act available to 
  missed enrollees, eligible elders, and eligible persons born after 
               December 18, 1971, and for other purposes.
```
| (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. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:       April 15, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Thomas      A. Rose                                     |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                             |   | Thomas      A. Rose                                              |   |
|                             |   | Principal      Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer |   |
|                             |   |                                                             |   |
EX-34.11
(logo) ERNST & YOUNG
Quality In Everything We Do

Ernst & Young LLP
901 E. Cary Street Suite 1000
Richmond, VA 23219

Phone (804) 344-6000
www.ey.com


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


Board of Directors
SunTrust Bank


We have examined management's assertion included in the accompanying report of
Certification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that
SunTrust Bank (the "Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in
Item 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(4)(i), and 1122(d)(4)(ii) of the Securities and
Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the residential mortgage loan servicing
platform of SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. as of and for the year ended December 31,
2007. Refer to management's assertion for the asset backed transactions
covered by this platform. Management is responsible for the Company's
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance
with the applicable servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as
adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination
included testing of less than all of the individual asset backed transactions
and securities that comprise the platform, testing of less than all of the
servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the
Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected
activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our
procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities
performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our
procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred
either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances
or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by
this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe
that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance
with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31,
2007 for the residential mortgage loan servicing platform is fairly stated, in
all material respects.


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


March 6, 2008
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 446 

To direct the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to 

designate New Jersey Task Force 1 as part of the National Urban 

Search and Rescue Response System. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 17, 2005 

Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. LAUTENBERG) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment 

and Public Works 

A BILL 

To direct the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to designate New Jersey Task Force 1 

as part of the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ADDITION OF TASK FORCE TO NATIONAL 

4 URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE RESPONSE SYS5 TEM. 

6 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that— 
2 

•S 446 IS

1 (1) the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, 

2 demonstrated the importance of enhancing national 

3 domestic terrorism preparedness; 

4 (2) 26 of the 28 urban search and rescue task 

5 forces included in the National Urban Search and 

6 Rescue Response System of the Federal Emergency 

7 Management Agency were called into action in the 

8 wake of the events of September 11; 

9 (3) highly qualified, urban search and rescue 

10 teams not included in the National Urban Search 

11 and Rescue Response System were the first teams in 

12 New York City on September 11; 

13 (4) the continuing threat of a possible domestic 

14 terrorist attack remains an important mission for 

15 which the United States must prepare to respond; 

16 and 

17 (5) part of that response should be to increase 

18 the number of urban search and rescue task forces 

19 included in the National Urban Search and Rescue 

20 Response System. 

21 (b) ADDITION OF NEW JERSEY TASK FORCE 1.— 

22 The Director of the Federal Emergency Management 

23 Agency shall designate New Jersey Task Force 1 as part 
3 

•S 446 IS

1 of the National Urban Search and Rescue Response Sys2 tem. 

Æ
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Omphil Care, Inc., as Assignee of Joseph, Johanne, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>Citiwide Auto Leasing, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant.Nightingale Law, P.C. (Michael S. Nightingale, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Robin Kelly Sheares, J.), entered January 24, 2014. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that defendant had timely and properly denied the claims based upon late notice of the accident and late submission of a claim form (<i>see</i> 11 NYCRR 65-2.4 [b], [c]). Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion.</p><p>Contrary to plaintiff's sole contention with respect to defendant's motion for summary judgment, defendant established that the denial of claim form at issue had been timely mailed (<i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123 [2008]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: August 11, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 443 Referred in House (RFH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 443

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 26, 2005

               Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
      To improve the investigation of criminal antitrust offenses.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Antitrust Criminal Investigative 
Improvements Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF PREDICATE CRIMES FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR 
              INTERCEPTION OF WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC 
              COMMUNICATIONS.

    Section 2516(1) of title 18, United State Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (q), by striking ``or'' after the 
        semicolon;
            (2) by redesignating subparagraph (r) as subparagraph (s); 
        and
            (3) by adding after subparagraph (q) the following:
            ``(r) any criminal violation of section 1 (relating to 
        illegal restraints of trade or commerce), 2 (relating to 
        illegal monopolizing of trade or commerce), or 3 (relating to 
        illegal restraints of trade or commerce in territories or the 
        District of Columbia) of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1, 2, 3); 
        or''.

            Passed the Senate October 25, 2005.

            Attest:

                                             EMILY J. REYNOLDS,

                                                             Secretary.
```