alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon

Tribal Attorney’s Office

Phone (503) 879-2172

1-800 422-0232 9615 Grand Ronde Rd
Fax (503) 879-2333 Grand Ronde, OR 97347

May 31, 2011
Ms. Kathy Zebell via electronic submission to
National Indian Gaming Commission consultation. policy@nige.gov

1441 L Street, NW, Suite 9100
Washington, DC 20005

Re: Draft NIGC Government-to-Government Tribal Consultation Policy
Dear Ms. Zebell:

The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon (“Grand Ronde”) respectfully
submits the following comments regarding the Draft NIGC Government-to-Government Tribal
Consultation Policy (“Draft Consultation Policy”) in response to NIGC’s letter of March 8, 2011. Grand
Ronde appreciates this opportunity to comment and commends NIGC’s efforts to improve its policies on
consultation and coordination with Indian tribes pursuant to Executive Order 13175 and the President’s
November 5, 2009 Executive Memorandum on Tribal Consultation with Indian Tribes.

As one of two tribes that have earned a Certificate of Self-Regulation, Grand Ronde has consistently
urged NIGC to consult directly with self-regulated tribes on proposed regulations and guidelines, but to
no avail. As such, Grand Ronde strongly recommends that the Draft Consultation Policy include a
specific provision for consultation with self-regulated tribes. Such a provision would help ensure that
NIGC gives full effect to IGRA’s self-regulation provisions. The provision should require NIGC to
consult with self-regulated tribes to determine whether a proposal for regulations or other action would
impact one of the powers described in 25 U.S.C. § 2706(b)(1)-(4) from which Congress exempted self-
regulated tribes, and if so, how the regulations or other action could be modified to address self-regulated
tribes. The inclusion of a provision for self-regulated tribes in the Draft Consultation Policy would also
be beneficial in demonstrating to other tribes the benefits of self-regulation.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on NIGC’s Draft Consultation Policy. Meaningful
consultation geared towards cooperative decision-making that acknowledges the interests of both NIGC
and Grand Ronde is extremely important to Grand Ronde and we appreciate your efforts in this regard.
Please contact me at (503) 879-2270 if you have any questions.

Very truly yours,

Tribal Attorney

ce: Tribal Council
Grand Ronde Gaming Commission

Umpqua Molalla Rogue River Kalapuya Chasta
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                              25
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,321
<ALLOWANCES>                                       620
<INVENTORY>                                     53,446
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,654
<PP&E>                                          33,657
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,715
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 126,321
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,033
<BONDS>                                         18,694
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            77
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,460
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   126,321
<SALES>                                        397,065
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               398,892
<CGS>                                          339,549
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  339,549
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                44,291
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    29
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,296
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,756
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,365
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,391
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,391
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.08
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Roosevelt, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 452]

Judgement, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered April 13, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of seven years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant made a valid and enforceable waiver of his right to appeal *(see People v Ramos,*7 NY3d 737 [2006]), which forecloses his suppression and excessive sentence arguments. Were we to find that defendant did not make a valid waiver, we would reject these arguments. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.
***NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION***

***MICS AUDIT CHECKLIST***

***COMPLIMENTARY SERVICES AND ITEMS (CS)***

Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF UTILX CORPORATION FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,129
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,943
<ALLOWANCES>                                       285
<INVENTORY>                                      6,046
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,232
<PP&E>                                          30,540
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,037
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,579
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,842
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            72
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,665
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,579
<SALES>                                         30,673
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,673
<CGS>                                           25,273
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,476
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    16
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  13
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,181
<INCOME-TAX>                                        12
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,169
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,169
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 14 (Friday, January 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1375]



[[Page 4259]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the 
Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal will hold a meeting 
on February 4, 2009, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
    Wednesday, February 4, 2009--1:30 p.m. until 5 p.m.
    The Subcommittee will discuss the Beaver Valley Power Station 
(BVPS) license renewal application and the associated Safety Evaluation 
Report (SER) with Open Items prepared by the staff. The Subcommittee 
will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of 
the NRC staff, BVPS, First Energy Nuclear Operating Company, and other 
interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather 
information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed 
positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full 
Committee.
    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. 
Christopher Brown (telephone 301-415-7111) five days prior to the 
meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. 
Electronic recordings will be permitted. Detailed procedures for the 
conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the 
Federal Register on October 6, 2008 (73 FR 58268-58269).
    Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 6:45 a.m. and 3:30 
p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact 
the above named individual at least two working days prior to the 
meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda.

    Dated: January 12, 2009.
Cayetano Santos,
Chief, Reactor Safety Branch A, Advisory Committee on Reactor 
Safeguards.
 [FR Doc. E9-1375 Filed 1-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nicholas GRIGG, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-2484.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

June 27, 2006.

Michelle L. Jacobs, Office of the United States Attorney, Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gerald P. Boyle, Boyle, Boyle & Smith, Milwaukee, WI, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge, Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Nicholas Grigg appealed his sentence of 37 months’ imprisonment for possessing computer video and image files that depicted minors engaging in sexually explicit activity, 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). He contended that the district court misapprehended its authority, *post-United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), to depart from the sentencing range recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines. We ordered a limited remand under *United States v. Paladino,*401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005), to inquire whether the district court understood that it was not bound by the Guidelines. *United States v. Grigg,*442 F.3d 560, 565-66 (7th Cir.2006). The district court replied that it was not mistaken about the advisory nature of the Guidelines under the *post-Booker*advisory regime.

Mr. Grigg now contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court did not consider adequately that his bipolar disorder had influenced significantly his behavior and that he had made significant progress with his medication plan for the treatment of the disorder.

Mr. Grigg’s sentence is presumptively reasonable because it falls within the properly calculated guideline range (indeed it is at the lowest end of the of 37 to 46 months’ imprisonment range). *See United States v. Lange,*445 F.3d 983, 987 (7th Cir.2006) (citing *United States v. Mykytiuk,*415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir.2005)). Moreover, Mr. Grigg has not shown that the sentence is unreasonable under the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The record shows that the district court did take into account Mr. Grigg’s mental health; the court simply did not give this factor as much weight as Mr. Grigg desired. *See United States v. Baker,*445 F.3d 987, 991-92 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing *United States v. Ortiz,*431 F.3d 1035,1042-43 (7th Cir.2005)).

Accordingly, we must conclude that the sentence imposed by the district court is reasonable. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Keith A. Adams, Appellant.

Submitted May 21, 2012;

decided May 31, 2012

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Timothy P. Donaher, Esq., Monroe County Public Defender, 10 N. Fitzhugh Street, Rochester, New York 14614 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1186

RACHEL JEAN LAURENCE MBODO,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A95-886-666)

Submitted: March 27, 2006 Decided: April 10, 2006

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Kreiss, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,

Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant

Director, Larry P. Cote, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Rachel Jean Laurence Mbodo, a native and citizen of

Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reconsider its

prior order, which adopted and affirmed the immigration judge’s

denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have reviewed

the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not

abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. See 8

C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2005); Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481 (4th

Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the

reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Mbodo, No. A95-886-666

(B.I.A. Jan. 24, 2005). 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### Ronny Kurniawan JOSO; Liliawati Antaredjo, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-74770.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 13, 2009.*

Filed April 27, 2009.

Kathleen Siok-Sien Koh, Esquire, Law Office of Kathleen S. Koh, Whittier, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Matt Crapo, John R. Cunningham, Esquire, Cindy S. Ferrier, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jennifer J. Kenney, Esquire, Michelle Gorden Latour, Esquire, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: GRABER, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*516MEMORANDUM **

Ronny Kurniawan Joso and his wife, natives and citizens of Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *Kaur v. Ashcroft,*379 F.3d 876, 884 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that changed or extraordinary circumstances excused the untimely filing of Joso’s asylum application. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4), (5); *Ramadan v. Gonzales,*479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). Accordingly, Joso’s asylum claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination because the inconsistency between Joso’s testimony and the medical report concerning the injuries he suffered in May of 1998 and the inconsistency between Joso’s testimony and the police report concerning the date of the attack on his shop go to the heart of his claim. *See Goel v. Gonzales,*490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (inconsistencies between testimony and documentary evidence support an adverse credibility finding where inconsistencies go to the heart of the claim). Accordingly, Joso’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Joso does not raise any substantive arguments in his opening brief regarding the agency’s denial of CAT relief. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Exhibit 32(h)



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





|(1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004 (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 as of the dates and for the periods presented in the Report.





/s/ Gary J. Taylor                                 		Gary J. Taylor
Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of
System Energy Resources, Inc.


Date:  	March 9, 2005
15

Number of Gaming Number of Gaming Number of Gaming Revenue

Submissions Revenues Submissions Revenues Submissions Revenues Percentage

Portland 57 $3,811,461 55 $3,662,891 2 $148,569 4.1%

Sacramento 76 $9,680,300 73 $9,279,366 3 $400,934 4.3%

Phoenix 57 $3,275,522 59 $3,141,434 (2) $134,088 4.3%

St. Paul 100 $4,922,394 95 $4,795,897 5 $126,497 2.6%

Rapid City 42 $376,487 36 $368,601 6 $7,886 2.1%

Tulsa 75 $2,468,144 73 $2,466,359 2 $1,785 0.1%

OK City 73 $2,669,839 72 $2,479,814 1 $190,025 7.7%

Washington DC 42 $7,374,396 38 $7,525,208 4 ($150,812) (2.0%)

Totals 522 $34,578,542 501 $33,719,569 21 $858,973 2.5%

Portland Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.

Sacramento California, and Northern Nevada.

Phoenix Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Southern Nevada.

St. Paul Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska and Wisconsin.

Rapid City North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

Tulsa Kansas, and Eastern Oklahoma.

OK City Western Oklahoma and Texas.

Washington DC Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and New York.

Source: Compiled from gaming operation audited financial statements received by the NIGC through November 19, 2020.

National Indian Gaming Commission

Tribal Gaming Revenues (in thousands) by Region

Fiscal Year 2019 and 2018

Fiscal Year 2019 Fiscal Year 2018 Increase (decrease)

FY18-FY19 Gaming Revenues by Region
avino_ex101.htm

EXHIBIT 10.1
  
 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF AUDITOR 
 Pursuant to National Instrument 51-102 
   
 	 TO: 
	 MANNING ELLIOTT LLP, Chartered Professional Accountants 
  

	 TO: 
	 DELOITTE LLP, Chartered Professional Accountants 
  

	 TO: 
	 Toronto Stock Exchange 
 British Columbia Securities Commission 

		 Alberta Securities Commission 

		 Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority of Saskatchewan 
 Manitoba Securities Commission 
 Ontario Securities Commission 
 New Brunswick Financial and Consumer Services Commission 
 Nova Scotia Securities Commission Office of Superintendent of Securities of Prince 
 Edward Island Office of the Superintendent of Securities of Newfoundland and Labrador 


  
 Notice is hereby given, pursuant to section 4.11 of National Instrument 51-102 – Continuous Disclosure Obligations (“NI 51-102”), of a change of auditor of Avino Silver & Gold Mines Ltd. (the “Company”).
  
 (1) At the request of the Company, Manning Elliott LLP, Chartered Professional Accountants (the “Former Auditor”) has resigned as auditor of the Company effective August 8, 2022.
  
 (2) The audit committee of the board of directors of the Company (the “Audit Committee”) has considered the Former Auditor’s resignation and has recommended that Deloitte LLP, Chartered Professional Accountants (the “New Auditor”) be appointed to fill the vacancy in the office of auditor created by the resignation of the Former Auditor until the next annual meeting of shareholders of the Company.
  
 (3) The Board of Directors of the Company has considered and acknowledged the Former Auditor’s resignation and on recommendation of the Audit Committee, has appointed the New Auditor as auditor of the Company to hold office until the next annual meeting of shareholders of the Company.
  
 (4) The Former Auditor has not expressed any modified opinions in the Former Auditor’s reports on the financial statements of the Company for the two most recently completed financial years and ending on the date of the resignation of the Former Auditor.
  
 (5) In the opinion of the Audit Committee and the Board of Directors of the Company, there are no reportable events, as such term is defined in subparagraph 4.11(1) of NI 51-102. 
  
 DATED August 10, 2022
  
 	 	 AVINO SILVER & GOLD MINES LTD.
	
	 	 	 	 
			 “David Wolfin” 
	
	  
	  
	David Wolfin 	 
	 	 	 President