alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.14

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  Inkai, 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 Inkai property; 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 Inkai property,
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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/ Dave Neuburger     
|Name:                   |  | Dave Neuburger, P. Eng.                                 
|Title:                  |  | Vice-President, International Mining, Cameco Corporation
|                       
|Date: February 24, 2012
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

# ACTION:

Announcement of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the 14th meeting of the American Health Information Community in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App.) The American Health Information Community will advise the Secretary and recommend specific actions to achieve a common interoperability framework for health information technology (IT).

# DATES:

June 12, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. (EDT).

# ADDRESSES:

Hubert H. Humphrey building (200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201), Conference Room 800.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        visit                         *http://www.hhs.gov/​healthit/​ahic.html*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting will include a presentation by the Chronic Care Workgroup on Recommendations; and update on the Standards Roadmap and the Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel; a report from the AHIC Standing Committee of the Whole on the AHIC Successor; and a report on the AHIC Recommendations Implementation Status.

                    A Web cast of the Community meeting will be available on the NIH Web site at:                     *http://www.videocast.nih.gov/​*.                

If you have special needs for the meeting, please contact (202) 690-7151.

Dated: May 10, 2007.

Judith Sparrow,

Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology.

[FR Doc. 07-2483 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4150-24-M
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: 9
Federal Reserve Bank of: Minneapolis

## Filings received during the week ending January 3, 2009

|Filer             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                    | End of Comment Period                                 
|----------------- | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------
|1ST BANK          | * 18C* Branch  | 1st Bank, Evanston, Wyoming, to merge with First National Bank of Morgan, Morgan, Utah, and incident thereto establish branches at 120 North State Street, Morgan, Utah, and 5015 West Old Hwy Road, Morgan, Utah. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | Not available 
|Federal Register: | Not applicable

## 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       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

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
#### The State ex rel. Donaldson, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Donaldson v. Indus. Comm.*(1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 359.]

(No. 98-893

Submitted November 10, 1998

Decided January 20, 1999.)

*Philip J. Fulton & Associates*and *William A. Thorman III,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Dennis H. Behm,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas, J.,

dissents and would order relief consistent with *State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm.*(1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245.

Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 95 (Thursday, May 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 27822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2429]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Human Genome Research Institute; 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 grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Human Genome Research Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel; MAP Review Panel.
    Date: June 29, 2007.
    Time: 2 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Rudy O. Pozzatti, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Human Genome 
Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 402-0838.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human 
Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 8, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-2429 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
§ 197.206 Substitutes for required equipment, materials, apparatus, arrangements, procedures, or tests. ( a ) The Coast Guard may accept substitutes for equipment, materials, apparatus, arrangements, procedures, or tests required in this subpart if the substitute provides an equivalent level of safety.
( b ) In any case where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commandant that the use of any particular equipment, material, apparatus, arrangement, procedure, or test is unreasonable or impracticable, the Commandant may permit the use of alternate equipment, material, apparatus, arrangement, procedure, or test to such an extent and upon such condition as will insure, to his satisfaction, a degree of safety consistent with the minimum standards set forth in this subpart.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                              <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          6-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                JUN-30-1995             JUN-30-1995
<PERIOD-START>                   JUL-01-1994             OCT-01-1994
<PERIOD-END>                     DEC-31-1994             DEC-31-1994
<CASH>                                     0                       0
<SECURITIES>                               0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                              0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                               0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           0                       0
<PP&E>                                     0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                             0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             0                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 33,698                  33,698
<BONDS>                                    0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                0                       0
<COMMON>                              16,278                  16,278
<OTHER-SE>                           (49,976)                (49,976)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               0                       0
<SALES>                                   00                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           0                       0
<CGS>                                      0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       3,493                   1,747
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                               0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0                       0
<CHANGES>                                  0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                          (3,493)                 (1,747)
<EPS-BASIC>                            (0.00)                  (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (0.00)                  (0.00)



</TABLE>
§ 42.15-15 Positions of hatchways, doorways and ventilators. ( a ) For the purpose of this part two positions of hatchways, doorways and ventilators are defined as follows: ( 1 ) Position 1: Upon exposed freeboard and raised quarter decks, and upon exposed superstructure decks situated forward of a point located a quarter of the vessel's length from the forward perpendicular.
( 2 ) Position 2: Upon exposed superstructure decks situated abaft a quarter of the vessel's length from the forward perpendicular.
[CGFR 68-60, 33 FR 10060, July 12, 1968, as amended by CGFR 68-126, 34 FR 9014, June 5, 1969]
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Stephanie Zoanni v. Lamuel David Hogan

Appellate case number: 01

- 17

- 00394

- CV

Trial court case number: 2010

- 34811

Trial court: 246th District Court of Harris Cou nty

This appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on May 1, 2018 for failure to file

appellant’s brief. On May 16, 2018, appellant’s counsel filed a motion for rehearing, asking the

court to grant rehearing and reinstate the appeal. Counsel claimed t hat he would be filing the

brief, but no brief was tendered with the motion.

If appellant’s brief is tendered, the court will consider granting rehearing. Accordingly,

we request a response from appellee to the motion for rehearing filed on May 16, 2018. The

response is due within 15 days of the date of this order

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jennifer Caughey

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 22, 2018
Plunger Well 

Vent Reduction Project

G.P.(Skip) DesaulniersBP2006 Natural Gas Star Workshop
Plunger Lift

• An inexpensive method to lift fluids 

wells using a vertical pig.

• Requires energy buildup in the casi

wellbore reservoir to lift the plunger 

• Inadequate energy or too much fluid 

to over load and die.

• Venting to atmosphere (zero pressu

instantaneously increases differentiallowing well to flow.
Pressure
Initial Vent Reduction Proje

• Automation project designed and fun

– Environmental project – funding justified 

GHG mitigation commitments and gas lo

– Upgraded existing RTUs & host system.– Developed new well control algorithms b

Factor and Turner rate.

• Pilot installations and testing in 2000.• System sweep in 2001.• Achieved roughly 50% reduction in ve

2000 to 2004.
Why is venting wells a bad thing?

• Vented gas is lost, never to be utilize

energy source.

• Potential energy needed to lift liquids • Potential safety hazard.

– Combustible mixture in the air.– High velocity plunger strikes on the wellh

• Global warming due to GreenHouse G

emissions.
Issues

• ~1000 of the 2300 wells are plunger • Lose a well – order a swabbing unit 

the liquids out of the well.

• Tight Gas consideration – inflow issu
Actions Taken

• Interviewed control room staff and w

closely with the field automation team 

• Developed two pilot studies in order 

changes with some scientific control.

• Established a new procedure based 

plunger lift expertise and pilot well an

• Incorporated new procedure into 2nd 
And the solution was...

• Smarter automation (settings and co• Minor maintenance changes at wells• New automation tools to help recogn

problem situations.

• Making believers out of the staff and 

management.
Vent Pilot List A – Start 6

Applied Vent Procedure S
Vent Pilot List B –

Applied Vent Procedure Set 
SVR LIST 70 Wells – Apply Vent 
Myths

• There is always “another unique or 

well”.

• After flow venting is required to clea

well.

• Increasing frequency of cycles cuts • Tubing pressure can drop during sh• Reservoir does not have enough en

plunger lift.
Lessons Learned

• Plunger velocities mean nothing if th

vents.

• A well can generally be run in “safe m

continue to produce.

• Load Factor is difficult to understand 

evaluate.

• Need to have the option to adjust the 

rate – critical velocity.
New Tools / Awareness

• Added vent volume to all production plo• Automated e-mail of vent volumes summ• Weekly review of vent volumes in produ

meeting 

• Added daily vent volume application to • Flow time greater than sales valve open • Increasing tubing – casing pressure diff

report

Southern San Juan Quarterly Vent Volu

Total Venting

Summary

• Great success thus far 4.0+ bcf/yr down 

0.8 bcf/yr

• Incremental reductions are increasing d• Technology is only a piece of the solutio

significant recent reductions are due to operational practices

• Requires constant focus – Teams delive

goals

• Operational beliefs have shifted from “W

to produce” to “Venting is one of our las
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
EXHIBIT 27 - FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December, 31, 1996 and the Consolidated
Statement of Operations for the twelve months ended December 31, 1996 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-96
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-96
<CASH>                                         308,138
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,338,704
<ALLOWANCES>                                    74,183
<INVENTORY>                                    567,420
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,360,001
<PP&E>                                         237,032
<DEPRECIATION>                                 102,432
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,453,864
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          847,901
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         5,892
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,382,631
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,453,864
<SALES>                                      5,752,718
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,059,474
<CGS>                                        2,633,655
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,947,944
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                516,642
<INCOME-TAX>                                   199,260 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            317,382
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   317,382
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        


</TABLE>
#### HENRY H. WEINBERGER ET AL., PROSECUTORS, v. PASSAIC COUNTY COURT OF QUARTER SESSIONS ET AL.

Decided October 25, 1929.

Eor the state, *D. Frederick Burnett.*

For the defendants, *John A. Matthews.*

Pee Cubiam.

Application is made herein for the allowance of writ of *certiorari*to review the action of the Passaic County Court of Quarter Sessions with regard to an alleged order of that court made on the fifth day of October, 1929, respecting six certain indictments then pending against the applicants.

The court has carefully examined the reasons urged for the allowance of the writ applied for and has reached the conclusion that the application should be denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

WILLIAM COWAN, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

TRENT MILLER, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 

Case No. 2:15-cv-12428 

District Judge Gershwin A. Drain 

Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

___________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR COURT ORDER TO 

CORRESPOND WITH PARALEGAL (DE 42) 

 Plaintiff, William Cowan, is a state inmate who is proceeding without the 

assistance of counsel. On June 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed a document titled “motion 

for court order to correspond with paralegal,” in which he explains that fellow 

inmate and paralegal Mark A. Boussom has been drafting his pleadings and 

motions in the instant action.1

 (DE 42.) Mr. Boussom, however, is being moved 

from Level IV security to Level II and apparently will no longer be able to 

correspond with Plaintiff about his case. Plaintiff asserts that he will be unable to 

proceed in this litigation without the assistance of Mr. Boussom. 

                                                            

1

 The Court’s own orders corroborate Plaintiff’s assertion. (See, e.g., DE 32 at n. 

2.) 

2:15-cv-12428-GAD-APP Doc # 47 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 283
2

 Plaintiff’s motion raises an interesting issue. On one hand, prison officials 

may not retaliate against one inmate for providing another with legal assistance 

where the inmate being helped would otherwise be unable to pursue legal redress. 

Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 395 (6th Cir. 1999). Here, however, there is 

no indication that either inmate is being retaliated against for his participation in 

this lawsuit. On the contrary, it appears that Mr. Boussom is being moved to a less 

restrictive security environment. 

 On the other hand, federal courts “ought to afford appropriate deference and 

flexibility to state officials trying to manage” the prison environment, especially 

“in the fine-tuning of the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 512 

U.S. 472, 482-83 (1995). The Sixth Circuit has found that a change in security 

classification is an ordinary incident of prison life. Harbin-Bey v. Rutter, 420 F.3d 

571, 577 (6th Cir. 2005). 

 Applying the foregoing authority, the Court may not order the prison to 

allow Plaintiff to meet with Mr. Bousson, regardless of their respective security 

levels, in order to help him proceed with this case. Such a decision would not 

provide the appropriate deference and flexibility to state officials managing day-today prison issues. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore DENIED. 

 

2:15-cv-12428-GAD-APP Doc # 47 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 284
3

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 16, 2016 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on August 

16, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 

s/Michael Williams 

 Case Manager to the 

Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

2:15-cv-12428-GAD-APP Doc # 47 Filed 08/16/16 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 285