alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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, 2011 dated February 24, 2012 for the McArthur River/Key Lake properties; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | under the heading Mineral Reserves and Resources in Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation for the year
ended December 31, 2011 dated February 9, 2012 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, and registration statement (No. 333-139324) on Form S-8 for the Cameco Corporation Employee Share Ownership Plan.

Sincerely,



|                       |  |                                                             
|---------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Gregory M. Murdock
|Name:                  |  | Gregory M. Murdock, P. Eng.                                 
|Title:                 |  | Technical Superintendent, McArthur River, Cameco Corporation
|                       | 
|Date:                  |  | February 24, 2012
# C_2014135EN.01002901.xml

| 5.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/29

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2014 — Cemex and Others v Commission

(Case T-292/11) (1)

1

((Competition - Administrative proceeding - Decision to request information - Necessity of the information requested - Duty to state reasons - Proportionality))

2014/C 135/34

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Cemex SAB. De CV (Monterrey, Mexico); New Sunward Holding BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands); Cemex España, SA (Madrid, Spain); Cemex Deutschland AG (Ratingen, Germany); Cemex UK (Egham, United Kingdom); Cemex Czech Operations s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic); Cemex France Gestion (Rungis, France); Cemex Austria AG (Langenzersdorf, Austria) (represented by: M. Folguera Crespo, P. Vidal Martínez, H. González Durántez and B. Martínez Corral, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, F. Castilla Contreras and C. Hödlmayer, acting as Agents, and J. Rivas Andrés, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 2360 final of 30 March 2011, in the context of a procedure pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — cement and related products).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Cemex SAB. De CV, New Sunward Holding BV, Cemex España, SA, Cemex Deutschland AG, Cemex UK, Cemex Czech Operations s.r.o., Cemex France Gestion and Cemex Austria AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Cemex SAB. De CV, New Sunward Holding BV, Cemex España, SA, Cemex Deutschland AG, Cemex UK, Cemex Czech Operations s.r.o., Cemex France Gestion and Cemex Austria AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.

1

---
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 12
Federal Reserve Bank of: San Francisco

## Filings received during the week ending July 15, 2006

|Filer                   | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    | End of Comment Period                              
|----------------------- | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------
|BANK OF UTAH            | * Branch       | Bank of Utah, Ogden, Utah, to establish a branch facility at 950 West 800 North, Orem, Utah.                                                                                                                                                                       | Newspaper:07/31/2006Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:              | 07/31/2006    
|Federal Register:       | Not applicable
|TEMECULA VALLEY BANK    | * Branch       | Temecula Valley Bank, Temecula, California, to establish a branch facility at 3595 Inland Empire Blvd, Ontario, California.                                                                                                                                        | Newspaper:07/11/2006Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:              | 07/11/2006    
|Federal Register:       | Not applicable
|VALLEY COMMERCE BANCORP | CIC            | The Banc Funds Company, L.L.C., Banc Fund V L.P., Banc Fund VI L.P., and Banc Fund VII L.P., all of Chicago, Illinois, to acquire up to 24.9 percent of Valley Commerce Bancorp, and thereby indirectly acquire Valley Business Bank, both of Visalia, California. | Newspaper:07/20/2006Federal Register:07/28/2006    
|Newspaper:              | 07/20/2006    
|Federal Register:       | 07/28/2006    

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            1448
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        6
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1454
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1454
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               68
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        1386
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1454
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    60
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       26
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   128
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (94)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (94)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (94)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.19)
        

</TABLE>
#### Robert N. Hand, *Respondent, v.*John Newton, *Appellant*.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Gilbert, J.;

Dye-man, J., dissenting.
§ 58.16-19 Tests. ( a ) *Installation.* ( 1 ) After installation, the distribution tubing must be tested prior to its connection to the regulator and appliance by an air pressure of not less than 5 psig.
( 2 ) After satisfactory completion of the tests prescribed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the distribution tubing must be connected to the regulator and appliance and the entire system subjected to a leak test as required by § 58.16-30(j).
( b ) *Periodic.* Leak tests as required by § 58.16-30(j) must be conducted at least once each month and at each regular annual or biennial inspection. The tests required at monthly intervals must be conducted by a credentialed officer of the vessel or qualified personnel acceptable to the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection. The owner, master, or person in charge of the vessel must keep records of such tests showing the dates when performed and the name(s) of the person(s) and/or company conducting the tests. Such records must be made available to the marine inspector upon request and must be kept for the period of validity of the vessel's current certificate of inspection. Where practicable, these records should be kept in or with the vessel's logbook.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No: 2:15-cr-20382 

-v- Honorable Victoria Roberts 

D-1 PAUL NICOLETTI, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Stafford 

 Defendant. 

Craig Weier 

United States Attorneys Office 

Assistant United States Attorney 

211 West Fort Street, Suite 2001 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

(313) 226-9678 

Craig.Weier@usdoj.gov 

Paul J. Stablein 

Paul Stablein, PLLC 

Attorney for Defendant 

380 North Old Woodward Ave, Ste 

320 

Birmingham, Michigan 48009 

(248) 540-1600 

PaulStablein@StableinLaw.com 

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME IN 

WHICH TO SUBMIT SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 

_____________________________ 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties 

that the due date for defendant’s sentencing memorandum be extended from 

Thursday, January 16, 2020, to Monday, January 20, 2020. 

/s/Craig Weier w/permission PJS 

Craig Weier 

United States Attorneys Office 

Assistant United States Attorney 

/s/Paul J. Stablein 

Paul Stablein 

Paul Stablein, PLLC 

Attorney for Defendant 

Case 2:15-cr-20382-VAR-MKM ECF No. 165 filed 01/17/20 PageID.2234 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No: 2:15-cr-20382 

-v- Honorable Victoria Roberts 

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Stafford 

D-1 PAUL NICOLETTI, 

 Defendant. 

Craig Weier 

United States Attorneys Office 

Assistant United States Attorney 

211 West Fort Street, Suite 2001 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

(313) 226-9678 

Craig.Weier@usdoj.gov 

Paul J. Stablein 

Paul Stablein, PLLC 

Attorney for Defendant 

380 North Old Woodward Ave, Ste 

320 

Birmingham, Michigan 48009 

(248) 540-1600 

PaulStablein@StableinLaw.com 

ORDER 

 Upon the filing and reading of the above Stipulation, and the Court being fully 

advised in the premises; 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant shall file his sentencing 

memorandum on or before January 20, 2020. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/ Victoria A. Roberts 

 The Honorable Victoria Roberts 

 United States District Court Judge 

Entered: 1/17/2020 

Case 2:15-cr-20382-VAR-MKM ECF No. 165 filed 01/17/20 PageID.2235 Page 2 of 2
**Letterof Transmittal**

****OklahomaAdvisory Committee tothe U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

**Membersof the Commission**MaryFrances Berry, *Chairperson*Cruz Reynoso, *Vice Chairperson*Carl A. AndersonChristopherF. Edley, Jr.Yvonne Y. LeeElsieM. MeeksRussellG. RedenbaughVictoriaWilsonRubyG. Moy, *Staff Director*

TheOklahoma Advisory Committee submits this summary report, *EqualEducational Opportunity for Hispanic Students in the Oklahoma City PublicSchools.* As part of its responsibility to advise the Commission on civilrights issues in Oklahoma, the Advisory Committee on September 29, 1998, held acommunity forum on educational equity in Oklahoma City. The Committee invitedknowledgeable persons and school district personnel to provide theirperspectives on the subject noted above.

TheAdvisory Committee found that there is a serious problem in the large number ofstudent suspensions at both the elementary and secondary schools in the schooldistrict. The Committee�s review also showed that there are different methodsand procedures for counting dropouts at the school district and State levels. 

TheAdvisory Committee also received information on the use of waivers to exemptHispanic students from taking the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. The school districtclaims that the exemption is for the benefit of limited-English-proficientstudents. However, community advocates claim that the waiver is a form ofdiscrimination that targets Hispanic students and does not allow the schooldistrict to properly assess their educational potential. Overall severalpresenters recommended that the number of bilingual teachers and bilingualschool personnel be increased, more improvement to the curriculum, more parentalinvolvement, and removing the language barriers that hamper communications.

TheAdvisory Committee believes that the school district, community agencies, andthe Hispanic Advisory Committee to the school district working together inOklahoma City are capable of improving education for the students of color inthe areas of school suspensions, dropouts, testing programs, and curriculuminnovations.

TheAdvisory Committee hopes that the community forum and the information receivedfrom the presenters will be beneficial to the residents of Oklahoma City.

Respectfully,Stephanie C. Hudson, *Chairperson*Oklahoma Advisory Committee
**                                                    EXHIBIT 99
 

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

 **
Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Independence Holdings Company, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2002 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: November 11, 2002                             By: /s/ Roy T.K. Thung
                                                                                        Roy T. K. Thung

                                                                                        President and Chief Executive Officer

                                                                                        (Principal Executive Officer)

 

Dated: November 11, 2002                             By: /s/ Teresa A. Herbert

                                                                                        Teresa A. Herbert

                                                                                        Chief Financial Officer

                                                                                        (Principal Financial Officer)

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of a separate disclosure document.
MAR 0 2 1999

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

FROM: Kathi Epping, EE-43

SUBJECT: Phone call with Tony Dell'arciprete Electrical Engineer for GSA regarding

distribution transformer definition

[Docket Numbers EE-TP-98-550]

On March 1 , 1999, I spoke with Tony Dell'arciprete, Project Engineer who works on Electrical

Design and Construction Projects for the General Services Administration (GSA), concerning his

interpretation of the definition of the term "distribution transformer" as it pertains to low voltage

(600 volts and below) transformers.

Tony Dell'arciprete, an Electrical Engineer, stated that he believes low voltage transformers are

distribution transformers. He sited ANSI/IEEE Standard 241, also referred to as "the Gray

Book", which defines low voltage transformers as "indoor distribution transformers." Mr.

Dell'arciprete also stated that he considered a 480 volt primary and a 120/208 volt secondary to

be a distribution level voltage. In addition, he indicated that excluding low voltage transformers

by calling them "general purpose transformers" or "specialty transformers" is a "play on words,"

and they are still distribution transformers.

^(-o El

EE-TP-98-550 COMMENT 25

MAR U 2 1999 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD 

FROM: Kathi Epping, EE-43 

SUBJECT: Phone call with Tony Dell'arciprete Electrical Engineer for GSA regarding 

distribution transformer definition 

[Docket Numbers EE-TP-98-550] 

On March 1, 1999, I spoke with Tony Dell'arciprete, Project Engineer who works on Electrical 

Design and Construction Projects for the General Services Administration (GSA), concerning his ;' 

interpretation of the definition of the term "distribution transformer" as it pertains to low voltage 

(600 volts and below) transformers. 

Tony Dell'arciprete, an Electrical Engineer, stated that he believes low voltage transformers are 

distribution transformers. He sited ANSI/IEEE Standard 241, also referred to as "the Gray 

Book", which defines low voltage transformers as "indoor distribution transformers." Mr. 

Dell'arciprete also stated that he considered a 480 volt primary and a 1201208 volt secondary to 

be a distribution level voltage. In addition, he indicated that excluding low voltage transformers 

by calling them "general purpose transformers" or "specialty transformers" is a "play on words," 

and they are still distribution transformers.
#### § 401.401 Surcharges.

To facilitate safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage, and for good cause, the Director may authorize surcharges on any rate or charge authorized by this subpart. Surcharges must be proposed for prior public comment and may not be authorized for more than 1 year. Once the approved amount has been received, the pilot association is not authorized to collect any additional funds under the surcharge authority and must cease such collections for the remainder of that shipping season.

[USCG-2016-0268, 82 FR 41495, Aug. 31, 2017]
§ 56.70-10 Preparation (modifies 127.3). ( a ) *Butt welds* — ( 1 ) *End preparation.* ( i ) Oxygen or arc cutting is acceptable only if the cut is reasonably smooth and true, and all slag is cleaned from the flame cut surfaces. Discoloration which may remain on the flame cut surface is not considered to be detrimental oxidation.
( ii ) Butt-welding end preparation dimensions contained in ASME B16.25 (incorporated by reference; see § 56.01-2) or any other end preparation that meets the procedure qualification requirements are acceptable.
( iii ) If piping component ends are bored, such boring must not result in the finished wall thickness after welding being less than the minimum design thickness. Where necessary, weld metal of the appropriate analysis may be deposited on the inside or outside of the piping component to provide sufficient material for machining to insure satisfactory fitting of rings.
( iv ) If the piping component ends are upset, they may be bored to allow for a completely recessed backing ring, provided the remaining net thickness of the finished ends is not less than the minimum design thickness.
( 2 ) *Cleaning.* Surfaces for welding must be clean and must be free from paint, oil, rust, scale, or other material which is detrimental to welding.
( 3 ) *Alignment.* The inside diameters of piping components to be joined must be aligned as accurately as practicable. Alignment must be preserved during welding. Where ends are to be joined and the internal misalignment exceeds 1 ⁄ 16-inch, it is preferred that the component with the wall extending internally be internally trimmed (see Fig. 127.3) so that adjoining internal surfaces are approximately flush. However, this trimming must not reduce a piping component wall thickness below the minimum design thickness and the change in the contour may not exceed 30°.
( 4 ) *Spacing.* The root opening of the joint must be as given in the procedure specification.
( b ) *Fillet welds.* Piping components that are to be joined utilizing fillet welds must be prepared in accordance with applicable provisions and requirements of this section. For typical details, see Figures 127.4.4A and 127.4.4C of ASME B31.1 (incorporated by reference; see § 56.01-2) and § 56.30-10(b). See § 56.30-5(d) for additional requirements.