alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT  10.3

  BRITISH                           Ministry  of Employment and Investment
  COLUMBIA                              Energy  and  Minerals  Division
                                            Mineral  Titles  Branch

                              Mineral Tenure Number
                                Section 57 and 58

                              BILL OF SALE ABSOLUTE

Indicate  Type  of  Title:   MINERAL
               (Mineral  or  Placer)

MINING  DIVISION:  ALBERNI  M.D.

SELLER                    PURCHASER

I,  PAUL  SAULNIER                    HENLEY  VENTURES  INC.
RR#2  Site  222  C4                   3rd  Floor  - 830 West Pender Street
Port  Alberni,  B.C.                  Vancouver,  British  Columbia
V9Y  7L6      (250)  724-1309         V6C  1J8

Client  Number:  123745

For  and  in  consideration  of  the  sum  of  ONE  dollars  ($1.00)

Paid  to  me,  do  hereby  sell the interest as specified below in the following
mineral  titles:

     CLAIM  NAME  OR  LEASE          TENURE          PERCENTAGE  OF
             TYPE                    NUMBER          TITLE  BEING  SOLD
             ----                    ------          ------------------

            HV  -  1-10                                  100%


I  declare that I have a good title to these tenures and every right to sell the
same,  in  witness  whereof  I  have  today  signed  my  legal  name.

          Jan.  25,  2001
          ---------------
                (Date)

          /s/  "P.  Shoemaker"               /s/  "P.  Saulnier"
          --------------------               -------------------
       (Signature  of  Witness)            (Signature  of  Seller)

If  a  corporation,  either the corporate seal or signature of a signing officer
with  position  in  corporation  stated.
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

TIMOTHY COMANS

VERSUS

NO. 2021 CW 0890

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

TIMBERLINE TRADING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2022

MISSOURI, LLC AND MICHAEL

GLOBE

In Re: Cincinnati Insurance Company, applying for supervisory

writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East

Baton Rouge, No. 653413. 

BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., PENZATO AND HESTER, JJ. 

WRIT DISMISSED. This writ application is dismissed

pursuant to relator' s voluntary motion to dismiss, which advised

that the parties settled all claims and controversies existing

between them in this matter and requested that this writ

application be dismissed. 

VGW

AHP

CHH

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

Rifi

D PUTY CLERV Of COURT

FOR THE COURT
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of

- )

)

Network Documentation & Implementation,

Inc. )

) ASBCA No. 61804

)

Under Contract No. 000000

- 00

- 0

- 0000 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT : Andrew Gillman, Esq.

Whitcomb, Selinksy, PC

Denver, Colorado

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: William E. Brazis, Jr., Esq.

DISA General Counsel

Maj Ryan P. Payne, USAF

Andriani Buck, Esq.

Trial Attorneys

Defense Information Systems Agency

Ft. Meade, MD

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: April 20, 2022

ELIZABETH WITWER

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals2 I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61804

, Appeal of Network

Documentation & Implementation, Inc. , rendered in conformance with the Board’s

Charter.

Dated: April 20, 2022

PAULLA K. GATES

- LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE JPM COMPANY

The JPM Company of Delaware, a Delaware corporation
JPM Technology, Inc., a Delaware corporation
Denron, Inc., a California corporation
JPM Cable Assembly PTE, LTD., a Singapore corporation
JPM Czech Republic Spol S.R.O., a Czech Republic corporation
JPM Deutschland GmbH, a Federal Republic of Germany corporation
The JPM Company of Mexico, S.A. de C.V., a Mexico corporation
Electronica Pantera S.A. de C.V., a Mexico corporation
The JPM Company of Canada, a Canada corporation
Antrum Interface 725 Ltd., a Canada corporation
Ulmin S.A., an Uruguay corporation
Datalink Participacoes S/C Ltda., a Brazil corporation
AF Datalink Equipamentos de Telecomunicacoes Ltda., a Brazil corporation
# C_2014292EN.01003002.xml

| 1.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 July 2014 — Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission

(Case T-401/11 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Non-contractual liability - Damage sustained by the close relatives of the deceased official - Damage sustained by the official before his death - Respective jurisdictions of the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal - Rule of correspondence between the claim for compensation and the complaint against the decision dismissing that claim))

2014/C 292/36

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Livio Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, acting on his own behalf and as the legal representative of the heirs of Alessandro Missir Mamachi di Lusignano, his son, former official of the European Commission (Kerkhove Avelgem, Belgium) (represented by: initially F. Di Gianni, R. Antonini, G. Coppo and A. Scalini, and subsequently by F. Di Gianni, G. Coppo and A. Scalini, lawyers)

Appellant:

Respondent: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin, B. Eggers and L. Pignataro-Nolin, Agents)

Respondent:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 12 May 2011 in Case F-50/09 Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

Missir Mamachi di Lusignano

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 May 2011 in Case F-50/09 Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 May 2011 in Case F-50/09 Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission;

| 2. | Refers Case F-50/09 to the General Court, acting in exercise of its jurisdiction as a court of first instance, under Articles 268 TFEU and 340 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers Case F-50/09 to the General Court, acting in exercise of its jurisdiction as a court of first instance, under Articles 268 TFEU and 340 TFEU;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.

1

---
1Identifier assigned to well in Tucson Airport Remediation Project area.

2Agency identifier assigned to well.3Agency reporting well identification number. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey assigns a USGS Site No., a unique 15-digit site

 number permanently designated by the USGS and recorded in National Water Information System, a national computer datab USGS at http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/gw. ADWR, Arizona Department of Water Resources assignes a Wells 55 Reg begins with "55-" (for example, 55-569349) or a 15-digit Groundwater Site Inventory Site Identification Number (for exampl 320815110585201); well data may be available at https://gisweb.azwater.gov/waterresourcedata/.

4Former Supply, large-diameter well formerly used in the City of Tucson municipal supply system; Monitoring, small-diamete

 quality sampling; Private, private well used for drinking water or irrigation purposes; Supply, large capacity well used in City  supply system.

5ADEQ, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality; ADWR, Arizona Department of Water Resources; PDEQ, Pima Coun

 Environmental Quality (Pima County Department of Environmental Quality, 2009); Tucson Water, City of Tucson Water Dep U.S. Geological Survey information from National Water Information System database (http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/

6Data reported as nondetect are plotted at one-half the reporting limit.7ADEQ, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality; PDEQ, Pima County Department of Environmental Quality; TIAA, T

 Airport Authority; Tucson Water, City of Tucson Water Department; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey Arizona Water Science 

8Published source for 1,4-dioxane data:

Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, 2007, Groundwater monitoring results for 1,4-dioxane sampling, TIAA Superfund Site— Tucson, Arizona: Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, Reference No. 013711-89, 130 p.Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, 2009, Groundwater monitoring results for 1,4-dioxane sampling, TIAA Superfund Site—  Tucson, Arizona: Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, Reference No. 013711-281, 12 p.Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 2007, Tucson International Airport area Groundwater Remediation Project, semi-annual status report through February 2007: Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., no. 1830-086, 193 p.Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 2009, Tucson International Airport area Groundwater Remediation Project, semi-annual status repor through August 2009: Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., no. 1830-086, 202 p.Pima County Department of Environmental Quality, 2009, South-side private well monitoring program, Tucson Internation superfund site, Tucson, Arizon: Pima County Department of Environmental Quality, Annual Report, April 2009, 52 p.Tillman, F.D, 2009, Results of the analyses for 1,4-dioxane of groundwater samples collected in the Tucson Airport Remed area: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1196, 14 p.
EXHIBIT 99.19

CONSENT OF EXPERT

Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F
(the Form 40-F) of Cameco Corporation (the Corporation) to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

I hereby consent to reference to my name and my involvement in the preparation of, or supervision of the preparation of, scientific and
technical information in the following instances:



| | (a) | under the headings Operations and Development Projects  Uranium Operating Properties  McArthur River/Key Lake, Mineral Reserves and
Resources and Governance  Interest of Experts in the Corporations Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2012 dated February 22, 2013 for the McArthur River/Key Lake properties; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | under the headings Our Operations and Development Projects  Uranium Operating Properties  McArthur River/Key Lake and Mineral Reserves and
Resources in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation for the year ended December 31, 2012 dated February 11, 2013 for the McArthur River/Key Lake properties,
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(collectively the Technical Information) in the Form 40-F, and to the inclusion and incorporation by reference of information derived from
the Technical Information in the Form 40-F.

I also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of such Technical
Information in the registration statements (Nos. 333-11736, 333-6180 and 333-139165) on Form S-8 for the Cameco Corporation Stock Option Plan, registration statement (No. 333-139324) on Form S-8 for the Cameco Corporation Employee Share Ownership
Plan and registration statement (No.333-181577) on Form F-10.

Sincerely,



|                       |  |                                                             
|---------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Gregory M. Murdock
|Name:                  |  | Gregory M. Murdock, P. Eng.                                 
|Title:                 |  | Technical Superintendent, McArthur River, Cameco Corporation
|                       | 
|Date:                  |  | February 22, 2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           9,377
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,367
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            122,338
<PP&E>                                           3,871
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 149,035
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<PAYABLES>                                       9,466
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           723
<OTHER-SE>                                     138,340
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   149,035
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                    0
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                             3,176
<COMMISSIONS>                                    4,146
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                   19,770
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<COMPENSATION>                                  25,009
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,790)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,790)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.40)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

VICTORIA GARZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 2:15-cv-11507

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

(document no. 16), DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT (document no. 15), AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING 

IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT (document no. 13)

Plaintiff Victoria Garza seeks reversal of the Social Security Administration’s

determination against awarding her disability benefits. Compl., ECF No. 1. The parties filed

cross-motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 13, 15. The Magistrate Judge issued a

Report and Recommendation, and found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not

properly consider the evidence under the relevant determination framework. Report 7–14,

ECF No. 16. Garza asks the Court for an award of benefits or remand to the ALJ for further

proceedings. The Report recommended remand rather than an immediate award of

benefits. Id. at 14. 

Under Civil Rule 72(b), each party had fourteen days from the date of service to file

any written objections to the recommended disposition. Neither party has filed any

objections. De novo review of the magistrate judge’s findings is therefore not required. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)–(3) (mandating de novo review only if the parties “serve and file

specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations”). The Court has

carefully reviewed the entire file and the Report, and finds that the magistrate judge’s

2:15-cv-11507-SJM-DRG Doc # 17 Filed 02/19/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 673
analysis is proper. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report’s findings and conclusions, and

agrees with the Report that remand is proper. The Court will enter an appropriate judgment.

ORDER

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation

(document no. 16) is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

(document no. 15) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (document

no. 13) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case be REMANDED to the Administrative Law

Judge for further proceedings consistent with the Report and Recommendation.

SO ORDERED.

s/Stephen J. Murphy, III 

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

United States District Judge

Dated: February 19, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or

counsel of record on February 19, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol Cohron 

Case Manager

2

2:15-cv-11507-SJM-DRG Doc # 17 Filed 02/19/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 674
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial inofrmation extracted from the financial
statements  for the three  months  ended March 31, 2000 and is  qualified in its
entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                    MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               11,065
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        74,942
<ALLOWANCES>                                          3,000
<INVENTORY>                                         121,578
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    242,015
<PP&E>                                               19,749
<DEPRECIATION>                                        8,933
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      252,831
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               170,667
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                              6,600
<OTHER-SE>                                           75,564
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        252,831
<SALES>                                             126,503
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    126,503
<CGS>                                               100,258
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       100,258
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     47,045
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      1,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    1,079
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (22,879)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            170
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (23,049)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (23,049)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.00



</TABLE>
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DERRICK SMITH, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-11172 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT (ECF #30) AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF #25) 

In this action, Plaintiff Derrick Smith (“Plaintiff”) challenges the cessation 

of his disability benefits. (See Compl., ECF #1.) Plaintiff and the Commissioner of 

Social Security (“Defendant”) have now filed cross-motions for summary 

judgment. (See ECF ## 25, 30.) 

On July 15, 2016, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s motion and 

deny Plaintiff’s motion (the “R&R”). (See ECF #38.) At the conclusion of the 

R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that if they wanted to seek review 

of his recommendation, they needed to file specific objections with the Court 

within fourteen days. (See id. at 24-25, Pg. ID 1036-37.) 

2:15-cv-11172-MFL-RSW Doc # 39 Filed 08/10/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1038
2 

Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the R&R. The failure to file 

objections to an R&R waives any further right to appeal. See Howard v. Sec'y of 

Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of 

Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Likewise, the failure to 

object to an R&R releases the Court from its duty to independently review the 

matter. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

Accordingly, because Plaintiff has failed to file any objections to the R&R, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to grant 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is ADOPTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) Defendant's Motion for Summary 

Judgment (ECF #30) is GRANTED and (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Summary 

Judgment (ECF #25) is DENIED. 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: August 10, 2016 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on August 10, 2016, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113 

2:15-cv-11172-MFL-RSW Doc # 39 Filed 08/10/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1039
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

MWANGI SEKOU, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 35 EM 2015 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 29th day of May, 2015, the Application for Leave to File Original 

Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.