alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit (10)(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm" in Post-Effective Amendment No. 5 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-214112) and Amendment No. 361 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08441), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 2, 2018, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York and (b) April 12, 2018, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life & Annuity Variable Annuity Account H for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.


 


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP




  


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


November 13, 2018
**EXHIBIT 99.19** 

 

**CONSENT OF STEPHEN GODDEN**

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

Gentlemen:

In connection with Silver Wheaton Corporation’s (the “Company”) Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the “Annual Report”), I, Stephen J. Godden, F.I.M.M.M., C.Eng. Director (S. Godden & Associates Limited), hereby consent to the inclusion in, or incorporation by reference into, and the use of my name in connection with the preparation of the            following documents/reports:

 

| 1.     | Technical report dated March 17, 2008, entitled “Technical Report and Mineral Resource Estimate on the G-9 Deposit, Campo Morado Project, Guerrero State, Mexico”; |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                           |
| 2.     | The Annual Report.                                                                                                                                                             |

 

Date: March 30, 2009

|   | Yours truly,/s/ Stephen J. Godden                                                                                                                                                |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name: Stephen J. Godden, F.I.M.M.M., C.Eng. Title:   Director,             S. Godden & Associates Ltd. |
# C_2014067EN.01018101.xml

| 6.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 67/181 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/181

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council directive amending Directives 2006/112/EC and 2008/118/EC as regards the French outermost regions and Mayotte in particular’

COM(2013) 577 final — 2013/0280 (CNS)

2014/C 67/37

On 12 September the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Proposal for a Council directive amending Directives 2006/112/EC and 2008/118/EC as regards the French outermost regions and Mayotte in particular

Proposal for a Council directive amending Directives 2006/112/EC and 2008/118/EC as regards the French outermost regions and Mayotte in particular

COM(2013) 577 final — 2013/0280 (CNS).

Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 493rd plenary session, held on 16 and 17 October 2013 (meeting of 16 October 2013), by 149 votes to 3 with 6 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 16 October 2013.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Henri MALOSSE

---
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 3,040

 3,798

 3,845

 3,739

 3,444

 3,366

 2,558

 671

 206

 3,504

 3,975

 4,401

 3,660

 6,836

 4,969

 3,453

 6,287

 4,952

 3,228

 1,110

 410

 210

 168

 2,430

 2,739

 4,433

 4,782

 6,340

 3,487

 4,933

 3,613

 159

 161

 165

 166

 182

 188

 167

 162

 155

 149

 158

 165

 159

 176

 207

 169

 195

 214

 192

 174

 150

 143

 138

 137

 138

 146

 160

 154

 158

 146

 163

 398

 669

 696

 677

 760

 629

 583

 236

 176

 377

 724

 808

 795

 1,232

 1,307

 989

 1,323

 1,303

 754

 346

 216

 170

 153

 275

 455

 715

 954

 1,151

 768

 746

 677

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MAY 2011 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 12, 2011

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO TOP IN SUISUN BAY
### SUBCHAPTER XVII—UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, UnitedStates District Judge for the District

of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ Nos. 98-3965/4082

___________ V.C. Howard Hay Co., Inc. * * Appellant/Cross-Appellee, * * Appeals from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Caribou Farms, LLC, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee/Cross-Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 17, 2000 Filed: April 24, 2000

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Inthis diversity action, V.C. Howard Hay Co., Inc. (hereinafter Howard Hay) appeals the district court’s 1 denial of consequential damages following a bench trial. Caribou Farms, LLC (hereinafter Caribou) cross-appeals, arguing that there was not a meeting of the minds to create a binding contract. We affirm.-2-

This dispute arose out of Howard Hay’s purchase of second-cutting alfalfa hay from Caribou. Howard Hay alleged a breach of contract. We conclude the district court properly found that there was a binding contract concerning the second-cutting hay after weighing the conflicting testimony. See Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co. , 130 F.3d 1287, 1299 (8th Cir. 1997); Gibb v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. , 518 N.W.2d 910, 919 (Neb. 1994); Overman v. Brown , 372 N.W.2d 102, 105 (Neb. 1985). We also conclude the district court properly found that Howard Hay was not entitled to consequential damages based on lost profits. See American Rd. Equip. Co. v. Extrusions, Inc. , 29 F.3d 341, 344 n.2 (8th Cir. 1994); Laird v. Scribner Coop., Inc. , 466 N.W.2d 798, 805 (Neb. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
###### Editorial Note on Part 416

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

#### § 416.989a We may conduct a review to find out whether you continue to be blind.

After we find that you are blind, we must evaluate your impairment(s) from time to time to determine if you are still eligible for payments based on blindness. We call this evaluation a continuing disability review. We may begin a continuing disability review for any number of reasons including your failure to follow the provisions of the Social Security Act or these regulations. When we begin such a review, we will notify you that we are reviewing your eligibility for payments, why we are reviewing your eligibility, that our review could result in the termination of your payments, and that you have the right to submit medical and other evidence for our consideration during the continuing disability review. In doing a medical review, we will develop a complete medical history of at least the preceding 12 months in any case in which a determination is made that you are no longer blind. If this review shows that we should stop your payments, we will notify you in writing and give you an opportunity to appeal. In § 416.990 we describe those events that may prompt us to review whether you continue to be blind.

[51 FR 16826, May 7, 1986]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40315 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN CARLOS RAMIREZ-SANTANA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:03-CR-1545-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Juan Carlos Ramirez-Santana pleaded guilty of illegal reentry following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The district court sentenced him to 60 months of imprisonment. For the first time on appeal, Ramirez argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000), because they do not requireNo. 04-40315 -2- the fact of a prior felony or aggravated felony conviction to be charged in the indictment and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. As Ramirez concedes, his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). See United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). Ramirez also argues for the first time on appeal that if Almendarez-Torres is overruled, the Supreme Court’s holding in Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531, 2537 (2004), renders unconstitutional the district court’s calculation of his sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines based on facts relating to his prior convictions that were neither found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt nor admitted by him. Ramirez concedes that in addition to the obstacle posed by Almendarez-Torres , his argument regarding the effect of Blakely is foreclosed by United States v. Pineiro , 377 F.3d 464, 465-66 (5th Cir. 2004), petition for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004) (No. 04-5263), in which this court held that Blakely does not extend to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
but on his attorney as well. NRCP 5(b)(1); NRS 18.015(3). In addition,

the district court failed to consider Stinziano's February 3, 2014, opposition to Steinberg's motion or to otherwise state in its order that it refused to consider the opposition because it was late, 

### see EDCR 2.20(e); EDCR 5.11(d), and the district court failed to consider the 

### Brunzell factors and set forth its reasoning regarding those factors in its order. 

### See Argentena Consol. Mining Co. v. Jolley Urga Wirth Woodbury & Standish, 125 Nev. 527, 540 n.2, 216 P.3d 779, 788 n.2 (2009); 

### Brunzell, 85 Nev. at 349-50, 455 P.2d at 33-34. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in adjudicating the retaining lien, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court VACATED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for new proceedings on the motion to adjudicate the retaining lien consistent with this order.

, J Saitta



# eaA. J. Pickering

cc: Hon. William S. Potter, District Judge, Family Court Division Anthony Michael Stinziano Steinberg Law Group Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF 2
NEVADA

(0) 1947A
# C_2012374EN.01001201.xml

| 4.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/12

---

Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union

2012/C 374/05

Pursuant to the second indent of Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

1

2

Page 155

Page 155

After the last phrase of subheading 3301 90 90 the following paragraph is inserted:

3301 90 90

| ‘3304 | Beauty or make-up preparations and preparations for the care of the skin (other than medicaments), including sunscreen or suntan preparations; manicure or pedicure preparations: |
| --- | --- |
| 3304 99 00 | Other

  This subheading covers products put up for the care of the skin (other than medicaments) presented in waddings, felt and nonwovens, such as moisturisers, toners and cleansers. Nevertheless, if the waddings, felt and nonwovens are impregnated, coated or covered with products providing the essential character of perfume, cosmetics, soap or detergent, they are excluded from this heading (headings 3307 and 3401 respectively).’ |

‘3304

Beauty or make-up preparations and preparations for the care of the skin (other than medicaments), including sunscreen or suntan preparations; manicure or pedicure preparations:

3304 99 00

Other

This subheading covers products put up for the care of the skin (other than medicaments) presented in waddings, felt and nonwovens, such as moisturisers, toners and cleansers. Nevertheless, if the waddings, felt and nonwovens are impregnated, coated or covered with products providing the essential character of perfume, cosmetics, soap or detergent, they are excluded from this heading (headings 3307 and 3401 respectively).’

---

(1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ C 137, 6.5.2011, p. 1.

2

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4277 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4277

    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for 
   treatment of clinical psychologists as physicians for purposes of 
 furnishing clinical psychologist services under the Medicare program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 16, 2015

  Mrs. Noem (for herself and Ms. Schakowsky) introduced the following 
 bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 
  in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for 
   treatment of clinical psychologists as physicians for purposes of 
 furnishing clinical psychologist services under the Medicare program.

    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 ``Medicare Mental Health Access Act''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS AS PHYSICIANS FOR PURPOSES 
              OF FURNISHING CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST SERVICES.

    (a) In General.--The first sentence of section 1861(r) of the 
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(r)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' before ``(5)''; and
            (2) by inserting before the period the following: ``, or 
        (6) a clinical psychologist, but only with respect to the 
        furnishing of qualified psychologist services described in 
        subsection (ii) for which the psychologist is legally 
        authorized to perform by the State and who is acting within the 
        scope of the psychologist's license (or other authorization 
        under State law)''.
    (b) Application of Meaningful Use Payments to Clinical 
Psychologists.--For purposes of section 1848(a)(7) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(a)(7)), for 2017 and 2018, with respect 
to clinical psychologists, the term ``applicable percent'' means 100 
percent.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to items and services furnished on or after January 1, 2017.
                                 <all>
```
492 P.2d 1300

#### Frank N. DAVILA, Individually and as father and Next Friend of David R. Davila, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sabino RODRIGUEZ et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 725.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Dec. 22, 1971.

Certiorari Denied Jan. 21, 1972.

Avelino V. Gutierrez, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.

Juan G. Burciaga, Ussery, Burciaga & Parrish, Albuquerque, for appellees Rodriguez.

Edward E. Triviz, Las Cruces, for appellees Mott and Ebbs.

OPINION

HENDLEY, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment in an action arising out of an automobile collision.

We reverse.

In determining the propriety of granting a motion for summary judgment all reasonable inferences must be construed in favor of the party against whom,.the summary judgment is sought. Where the slightest doubt exists as to the material facts, summary judgment should not be granted. Binns v. Schoenbrun, 81 N.M. 489, 468 P.2d 890 (Ct.App.1970). Here the •facts are based on deposition testimony.

In granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment the trial court assumed there was negligence on the part of the defendants ; and found that David was contributprily negligent; and that. such contributory negligence was the proximate cause of his injury as a matter of law.

Defendants contend that David was not keeping a proper lookout; that he was under the influence of an intoxicating liquor; that he was speeding; that he was required to stop when he saw someone frantically ' waving a flashlight; that he did not slow down as soon' as it was apparent there was another vehicle in his path; that his actions were an exercise of poor judgment; and that by reason-of-the foregoing he .was. guilty o.f. contributory negligence as a matter of law. ' . ..'

*438Defendants, however, have only pointed to such testimony and inferences that flow therefrom in favor of themselves. They do not point to the testimony and reasonable inferences flowing therefrom in favor of David. That testimony and those inferences in favor of David are contrary to defendants’ contentions. In light of the summary judgment rule we only view that testimony and those inferences favoring David. Binns v.' Schoenbrun, supra. By so viewing, we conclude the summary judgment must be reversed. We cannot say as a matter of law that David was contributorily negligent.

Reversed.

It is so ordered.

SUTIN and COWAN, JJ., concur.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4205 

To permit producers of ‘‘Choose and Cut’’ Christmas trees to opt out of 

the Christmas tree promotion, research, and information order. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 9, 2015 

Mr. MCCAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To permit producers of ‘‘Choose and Cut’’ Christmas trees 

to opt out of the Christmas tree promotion, research, 

and information order. 

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 ‘‘Christmas Tree Tax 

5 Exemption Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4205 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF ‘‘CHOOSE AND CUT’’ CHRISTMAS 

2 TREE PRODUCERS TO OPT OUT OF THE 

3 CHRISTMAS TREE PROMOTION, RESEARCH, 

4 AND INFORMATION ORDER. 

5 (a) AUTHORITY OF PRODUCERS TO OPT OUT.—The 

6 Secretary of Agriculture shall permit a Choose and Cut 

7 Christmas tree producer to opt out of the Christmas tree 

8 promotion, research, and information order contained in 

9 part 1214 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, and 

10 issued by the Secretary pursuant to the Commodity Pro11 motion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 

12 7411 et seq.) with respect to Christmas trees produced 

13 by the producer and sold directly to final consumers. 

14 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

15 (1) CHOOSE AND CUT CHRISTMAS TREE PRO16 DUCER.—The term ‘‘Choose and Cut Christmas tree 

17 producer’’ means a producer who produces Christ18 mas trees in the United States, allows consumers to 

19 select a Christmas tree for purchase before the 

20 Christmas tree is severed or cut from its roots, and 

21 sells that Christmas tree directly to the final con22 sumer. 

23 (2) CHRISTMAS TREE.—The term ‘‘Christmas 

24 tree’’ means any tree of the coniferous species that 

25 is severed or cut from its roots and marketed as a 

26 Christmas tree for holiday use. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4205 IH

1 (3) PRODUCER.—The term ‘‘producer’’ means 

2 any person who is engaged in the production of 

3 Christmas trees in the United States, and who owns, 

4 or shares the ownership and risk of loss of the pro5 duction of Christmas trees or a person who is en6 gaged in the business of producing, or causing to be 

7 domestically produced, Christmas trees beyond per8 sonal use and having value at first point of sale. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 11,101

 11,374

 13,071

 13,575

 13,048

 13,606

 13,065

 14,298

 13,130

 10,448

 10,140

 10,304

 10,045

 10,784

 10,331

 9,725

 9,125

 8,161

 8,060

 8,078

 7,864

 7,020

 5,896

 5,247

 5,064

 5,732

 7,856

 4,541

 5,623

 5,785

 5,660

 3,621

 3,611

 3,676

 4,070

 4,657

 4,780

 4,454

 4,473

 5,602

 5,967

 3,802

 3,581

 3,925

 4,302

 3,800

 3,522

 2,094

 2,309

 1,972

 1,773

 1,931

 1,963

 1,980

 1,864

 1,702

 2,025

 3,413

 1,597

 1,667

 1,304

 1,284

 5,974

 6,862

 7,130

 7,806

 8,315

 8,363

 8,138

 8,744

 9,454

 8,451

 6,815

 6,744

 6,626

 6,614

 6,769

 6,422

 5,544

 4,629

 4,517

 4,181

 4,264

 3,964

 3,618

 3,322

 3,212

 3,787

 5,000

 2,821

 3,071

 2,996

 2,951

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

DECEMBER 2006 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 4, 2007

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER