alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.5

|     |  |                                                                              |  |                        |  |                                          
|---- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | KPMG
LLP Chartered Accountants 10125  102
Street Edmonton AB T5J 3V8 Canada |  | Telephone Fax
Internet |  | (780) 429-7300 (780) 429-7379
www.kpmg.ca

CONSENT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors of North American Energy Partners Inc.

We consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of:



| |  |  | our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated June 9, 2010 on the consolidated balance sheets of North American Energy Partners Inc.
(the Company) as at March 31, 2010 and 2009 and the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss), shareholders equity and cash flows for each of the years in three-year period ended March 31,
2010;
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | our Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm dated June 9, 2010 on the Companys internal control over financial reporting as of
March 31, 2010
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

each of which is incorporated by reference in this annual report on Form 40-F of the Company for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2010.

LOGO

Chartered Accountants

Edmonton,
Canada

June 9, 2010



| |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | KPMG LLP, is a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG
network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.
KPMG Canada provides services to KPMG LLP.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

══════════

No. 17-0514

══════════

RODERIC HORTON, PETITIONER,

v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, RESPONDENT

══════════════════════════════════════════

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

══════════════════════════════════════════

PER CURIAM

We recently held that, under the Administrative Procedures Act, a party seeking judicial 

review of an administrative order must first move for rehearing before the administrative law

judge, unless another governing statute provides otherwise. Mosley v. Tex. Health & Hum. Servs. 

Comm’n, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___ (Tex. 2019). An agency’s affirmative misrepresentation of the 

proper procedure for judicial review, however, may violate a party’s right to due process. Id. at 

___. 

This appeal presents the issues decided in Mosley. The court of appeals concluded in this 

case that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because Horton did not move for rehearing before the 

administrative law judge, and it rejected Horton’s due-process challenge based on the agency’s 

misrepresentation of the proper procedure for judicial review. ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi 2017). We agree that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because Horton did not seek 
2

rehearing of the order he challenges before the administrative law judge. But because, as in 

Mosley, the agency misrepresented the proper procedure for judicial review in a letter to Horton, 

we hold that Horton was denied due process.

For the reasons expressed in Mosley, we grant Horton’s petition for review and, without 

oral argument, reverse in part. See TEX. R. APP. P. 59.1. We hold that the government violated 

Horton’s due-course-of-law rights under the Texas Constitution. See TEX. CONST. art. I, § 19.1

 

Because “the remedy for a denial of due process is due process,” Univ. of Tex. Med. Sch. v. Than, 

901 S.W.2d 926, 933 (Tex. 1995), we direct the Department of Family and Protective Services, or 

its designee, see TEX. HUM. RES. CODE § 48.405(a), to reinstate Horton’s administrative case and 

afford him an opportunity to seek rehearing of the order he challenges before the administrative

law judge. 

OPINION DELIVERED: October 25, 2019

1 “While the Texas Constitution is textually different in that it refers to ‘due course’ rather than ‘due process,’ 

we regard these terms as without meaningful distinction” and thus “have traditionally followed contemporary federal 

due process interpretations of procedural due process issues.” Univ. of Tex. Med. Sch. v. Than, 901 S.W.2d 926, 929 

(Tex. 1995).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                            4,234
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    20,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      0
<PP&E>                                           98,649
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  122,883
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           216,609
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                            399
<OTHER-SE>                                      (93,726)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    122,883
<SALES>                                           5,013
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  5,013
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                177,181
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (177,168)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (172,168)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.04)



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 64285]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8985]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel, Neuro AIDS Imaging II.
    Date: November 3, 2006.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Phillip F. Wiethorn, Scientific Review 
Administrator, DHHS/NIH/NINDS/DER/SRB, 6001 Executive Boulevard; MSC 
9529, Neuroscience Center; Room 3203, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, (301) 
496-5388, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ceb9a7abbaa6a1bcbe8ea0a7a0aabde0a0a7a6e0a9a1b8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dea9b7bbaab6b1acae9eb0b7b0baadf0b0b7b6f0b9b1a8">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 25, 2006.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 06-8985 Filed 10-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Tasker Capital Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Robert D. Jenkins, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 result of operations of the
Company as of and for the periods presented in the Report.

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


August 15, 2005                         /s/ Robert D. Jenkins
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Robert D. Jenkins
                                        Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                        0
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      6,836,951
<PP&E>                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        6,988,304
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 2,654,400
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                 10,900
<OTHER-SE>                            4,323,004
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          6,988,304
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              0
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      1,068,188
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (1,068,188)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                         (1,068,188)
<EPS-BASIC>                               (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (0.17)



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 5357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-939]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency


Open Meeting/Conference Call, Board of Visitors for the National 
Fire Academy

AGENCY: U.S. Fire Administration (USFA), Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting via conference call.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
announces the following committee meeting:
    Name: Board of Visitors (BOV) for the National Fire Academy.
    Dates of Meeting: February 14, 2006.
    Place: Building R, Room 108, National Emergency Training Center, 
Emmitsburg, Maryland.
    Time: February 14, 2-4 p.m.
    Proposed Agenda: Review National Fire Academy Program Activities.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public in 
the Emmitsburg commuting area with seating available on a first-come, 
first-served basis. The meeting is open to the public; however, 
teleconference lines are limited. Members of the general public who 
plan to participate in the meeting should contact the Office of the 
Superintendent, National Fire Academy, U.S. Fire Administration, 16825 
South Seton Avenue, Emmitsburg, MD 21727, (301) 447-1117, on or before 
February 7. Dial-in information will be provided to those wishing to 
participate via telephone.
    Minutes of the meeting will be prepared and will be available for 
public viewing in the Office of the U.S. Fire Administrator, U.S. Fire 
Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emmitsburg, 
Maryland 21727. Copies of the minutes will be available upon request 
within 60 days after the meeting.
    The National Fire Academy Board of Visitors is administered by the 
United States Fire Administration, which is currently being transferred 
to the newly created Preparedness Directorate of the Department of 
Homeland Security. During this transition FEMA, also part of the 
Department of Homeland Security, will continue to support this program 
as the new Directorate stands up. Ultimately this function will be 
transferred to the Preparedness Directorate.

    Dated: January 20, 2006.
R. David Paulison,
U.S. Fire Administrator.
[FR Doc. 06-939 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-17-P
ATTACHEMENT E 

HEARING CERTIFICATION 

This certifies in accordance with the provisions of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 

51 .102 that the following actions were taken regarding the adoption of R.C .S .A. section 22a-174-

36b : 

1) The public hearing was held on May 7, 2004 as announced in the notice of hearing (copy 

attached); 

2) In accordance with the notice, materials were available for review in each Air Quality 

Control Region (AQCR) in Connecticut; 

3) Copies of the notice were mailed to the directors of the air pollution control agencies in 

New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Massachusetts along with a copy to the 

Director of the Air Management Division of Region I of the U.S . Environmental 

Protection Agency; and 

4) The notice of hearing was published in newspapers as follows: 

Newspaper 

Connecticut Law Journal 

Connecticut Post (Bridgeport) 

Hartford Courant 

New London Day 

The Register Citizen (Torrington) 

.r~ aY.e- ,N-.~ ( ~ , 2~~d q 

Date 

AQCR Date 

March 30, 2004 

43 March 30, 2004 

42 March 30, 2004 

41 March 30, 2004 

44 March 30, 2004 

Paul Farrell 

Bureau of Air Management
Editorial Note on Part 1303
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1303 appear at 89 FR 67816, Aug. 21, 2024.

§ 1303.70 Purpose. ( a ) *Applicability.* This rule applies to all agencies, including those that provide transportation services, with the exceptions and exclusions provided in this section, regardless of whether such transportation is provided directly on agency owned or leased vehicles or through arrangement with a private or public transportation provider.
( b ) *Providing transportation services.* ( 1 ) If a program does not provide transportation services, either for all or a portion of the children, it must provide reasonable assistance, such as information about public transit availability, to the families of such children to arrange transportation to and from its activities, and provide information about these transportation options in recruitment announcements.
( 2 ) A program that provides transportation services must make reasonable efforts to coordinate transportation resources with other human services agencies in its community in order to control costs and to improve the quality and the availability of transportation services.
( 3 ) A program that provides transportation services must ensure all accidents involving vehicles that transport children are reported in accordance with applicable state requirements.
( c ) *Waiver.* ( 1 ) A program that provides transportation services must comply with all provisions in this subpart. A Head Start Preschool program may request to waive a specific requirement in this part, in writing, to the responsible HHS official, as part of an agency's annual application for financial assistance or amendment and must submit any required documentation the responsible HHS official deems necessary to support the waiver. The responsible HHS official is not authorized to waive any requirements with regard to children enrolled in an Early Head Start program. A program may request a waiver when: ( i ) Adherence to a requirement in this part would create a safety hazard in the circumstances faced by the agency; and,
( ii ) For preschool children, compliance with requirements related to child restraint systems at §§ 1303.71(d) and 1303.72(a)(1) or bus monitors at § 1303.72(a)(4) will result in a significant disruption to the program and the agency demonstrates that waiving such requirements is in the best interest of the children involved.
( 2 ) The responsible HHS official is not authorized to waive any requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) made applicable to any class of vehicle under 49 CFR part 571.
[81 FR 61412, Sept. 6, 2016, as amended at 89 FR 67816, Aug. 21, 2024]
§ 1630.16 Applicability to non-LSC funds. ( a ) No cost may be charged to non-LSC funds in violation of 45 CFR 1610.3 or 1610.4.
( b ) LSC may recover from a recipient's LSC funds an amount not to exceed the amount improperly charged to non-LSC funds. The review and appeal procedures of §§ 1630.11 and 1630.12 govern any decision by LSC to recover funds under this paragraph.
[85 FR 63216, Oct. 7, 2020]
#### Norman VAN COURT, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION, NEW ORLEANS LOCAL # 83; American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 03-30900.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 4, 2004.

*563Kimberly G. Anderson, Law Office of Kimberly G Anderson, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

George L. Gibbs, Metairie, LA, Brenda Catherine Zwack, O’Donnell, Schwartz & Anderson, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Norman Van Court, Jr., appeals the district court’s grant of the defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss his suit for failure to state a claim. Van Court argues that the district court erred in determining that his state-law claims were preempted and that his suit was not timely filed. We conduct a de novo review of a district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. *Brown v. Nationsbank Corp.,*188 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir.1999).

The district court did not err in determining that Van Court’s state-law claims were preempted by federal law. Because Van Court’s claims arise from his allegation that the defendants failed to diligently prosecute his grievance, these claims are best construed as asserting that the defendants breached the duty of fair representation (DFR) that they owed to Van Court. *See Landry v. The Cooper/T. Smith Stevedoring Co.,*880 F.2d 846, 852 (5th Cir. 1989); *see also McNair v. U.S. Postal Service,*768 F.2d 730, 735 (5th Cir.1985). A DFR claim arises under federal law and preempts state-law claims. *See Richardson v. United Steelworkers of America,*864 F.2d 1162, 1166-67 (5th Cir.1989).

Further, the resolution of Van Court’s claims necessarily involves an analysis of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). A state-law claim is preempted by federal law when, as here, resolution of the claim is “inextricably intertwined with” consideration of the terms of a CBA. *See Thomas v. LTV Corp.,*39 F.3d 611, 616-17 (5th Cir.1994). Thus, Van Court’s state-law claims are preempted both because they arise from an alleged breach of the DFR and because resolution of these claims involves analysis of the CBA.

The district court also did not err in determining that Van Court’s suit was untimely. *See Smith v. Int'l Org. of Masters, Mates, and Pilots,*296 F.3d 380, 382 (5th Cir.2002). The fact that Van Court chose not to sue his employer does not preclude application of the six-month statute of limitations announced in *DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters,*462 U.S. 151, 172, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476, (1983), to his suit. *See Smith,*296 F.3d at 382.

Van Court has shown no error in the district court’s judgment. Accordingly, that judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.