alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Toggle navigationUtility (Top) navigationAbout Us ForwardBackAbout UsMission & VisionLeadershipOur OrganizationOur FacilitiesRegionsLaws & Regulations ForwardBackLaws & RegulationsLaws, Agreements & TreatiesHunting RegulationsLibrary ForwardBackLibraryCategoriesCollectionsHomeServices ForwardBackServicesDuck Stamps ForwardBackDuck StampsBuy a Duck Stamp or E-StampBuy a Junior Duck StampFish StockingImporting & ExportingConsultation & Technical Assistance ForwardBackConsultation & Technical AssistanceESA Section 7 ConsultationHabitat Conservation Planning (HCPs)Candidate Conservation Agreements (CCA & CCAA)Safe Harbour Agreements (SHA)Conservation BankingCoastal Barrier Resources Act Project ConsultationCoastal Barrier Resources System Property DocumentationFinancial AssistanceSpecies ManagementInvestigational New Animal Drugs (INADS)PermitsSearch All ServicesDuck Stamps One of the easiest ways that anyone can support bird habitat conservation is by buying duck stamps.Species ForwardBackSpeciesExplore Taxonomic TreeFind a SpeciesInterest story Bats: “The Coolest Mammals on Earth”Visit Us ForwardBackVisit UsEventsRecreation PassesOutdoor RecreationWhere to HuntWhere to FishOur LocationsScenic Drives Tour routes of great scenic drives on National Wildlife Refuges.Get Involved ForwardBackGet InvolvedCareers and InternshipsVolunteeringFriends PartnershipsLearning OpportunitiesEducation ProgramsEventsPartnerships ForwardBackPartnershipsPartnership CategoriesPartner ListVolunteer Search for volunteer opportunities around the countryNewsroom ForwardBackNewsroomPress ReleasesCongressional TestimonyMedia ContactsWild Things News about wonderful wild things and placesInitiatives ForwardBackInitiativesCombating Wildlife TraffickingDirector's PrioritiesClimate ChangeHuntingFishingInvasive SpeciesPollinatorsProtecting WildlifeClimate Action FWS is taking steps to mitigate climate impactsI want to ForwardBackI Want ToReport Wildlife CrimeDo Business with FWSVolunteerFind a Job or InternshipVisit a RefugeBuy a Duck StampApply for a PermitFind FundingFind TrainingWild work Search employment opportunities with USFWSSearchSearchSearchEnter the terms you wish to search for. ×  Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge
 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service LogoWorking with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.Footer Menu - EmploymentCareers & InternshipsContractingFooter Menu - Site LinksLeadershipFrequently Asked QuestionsContact FWSFooter Menu - LegalAccessibilityFreedom of Information ActNoticesPrivacy PolicyDisclaimersInformation QualityVulnerability Disclosure PolicyFooter Menu - External LinksDOIUSA.GOV




You are exiting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website You are being directed to We do not guarantee that the websites we link to comply with Section 508 (Accessibility Requirements) of the Rehabilitation Act. Links also do not constitute endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I Understand. Take me there. Cancel
**EXHIBIT 99.18**

** **

**CONSENT OF PAUL J. DAIGLE**

** **

March 27, 2013

 

Brigus Gold Corp.

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

 

**Re: Brigus Gold Corp.**

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

I hereby consent to (i) the use of my name in connection withthe following documents and reports, which are either referenced in or filed as exhibits with the Annual Report on Form 40-F forthe year ended December 31, 2012 (the “Form 40-F”) of Brigus Gold Corp. (the “Company”) to which this consentrelates: (A) the technical reports entitled “NI 43-101 Technical Report, Pre-feasibility Study, Brigus Gold Corp., GoldfieldsProject, Saskatchewan, Canada” dated effective October 6, 2011 and “Technical Report on the 147 and Contact Zones ofthe Black Fox Complex, Ontario, Canada” dated October 26, 2012 (the “Reports”), (B) the Company’s AnnualInformation Form for the year ended December 31, 2012 and (C) the Company’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis forthe year ended December 31, 2012, (ii) the inclusion or incorporation by reference of information derived from the Reports in theRegistration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-113889, 333-162558 and 333-167757), as amended, and Form F-10 (File No. 333-174604),as amended, or any related abbreviated registration statement filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commissionpursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or in any amendment to any of the foregoing, or to any prospectusesor amendments or supplements thereto and (iii) all other references to the undersigned included or incorporated by reference inthe above-referenced Registration Statements and in any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto.
#### Trout et ux. *v.*Mendon Grange Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.

*404Submitted April 18, 1934.

Before Trexler, P. J., Keller, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Parker and James, JJ.

*Lewis C. Walkinshaw,*for appellant.

*Albert 3. Bell,*and with him *J. Clarke Bell*and *Adam B. Shaffer,*for appellee.

July 13, 1934:

Per Curiam,

The plaintiff was insured in the defendant company and, his barn having been destroyed by fire, brought this suit to recoup his loss. The trial narrowed down to the defense whether the plaintiff at the time of the fire was keeping an automobile in his barn. Some witnesses testified they saw an automobile in the building and others, more in number, flatly contradicted them. The jury could readily conclude that the defendant failed to establish its defense.

The defendant asks for a new trial and has submitted some affidavits setting out to what certain witnesses, if called, ¡would testify. There is no proof however that these witnesses were not obtainable be*405fore the trial and an examination of their depositions shows that they would merely afford additional proof in the nature of a corroboration of the witnesses who had been called by the defendant. Nothing would he gained by granting a new trial in order to afford the defendant a chance to which it is not entitled in his efforts to defeat plaintiff’s action. There is nothing whatsoever that would appeal to the conscience of the court to have the matter again passed upon by another jury.

The judgment is affirmed.
# Official Journal L 310/2015

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 310 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5826 November 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 310

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5826 November 2015

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 laying down measures concerning open internet access and amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services and Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union  (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 laying down measures concerning open internet access and amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services and Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union  (
  1
  )

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
No. 00-902.

#### Paprzycki et al. *v.*County of Somerset et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SHAWALI KHAN, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 08-1101 (JDB) BARACK OBAMA, et al., Respondents.
ORDER Pursuant to today's status conference held in this case, it is hereby ORDERED that respondents shall file a status report -- in writing and by not later than September 25, 2009 -- informing the Court whether they intend to seek leave to amend the factual return in this case. The Court has taken notice of petitioner's motion for discovery and of respondents' agreement to produce the requested information to the extent possible within thirty days. It is further ORDERED that a status conference will be held in this case on October 7, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8. SO ORDERED

. /s/ JOHN D. BATES United States District Judge Date: August 26, 2009
#### Jimmy Lee ROGERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-96.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 8, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### WINN DIXIE STORES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Clare SMITH and Edward Smith, Appellees.

No. 72-298.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 7, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 744

To provide for a water purchase contract by Kirby Ditch Irrigation District

and by Bluff Irrigation District in the State of Wyoming.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 2, 1993

Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL

To provide for a water purchase contract by Kirby Ditch

Irrigation District and by Bluff Irrigation District in

the State of Wyoming.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. WATER PURCHASE BY KIRBY DITCH IRRIGA4 TION DISTRICT AND BLUFF IRRIGATION DIS5 TRICT, WYOMING.

6 (a) OPTION TO PURCHASE WATER.—

7 (1) KIRBY DITCH IRRIGATION DISTRICT.—The

8 Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized and

9 directed to offer annually to the Kirby Ditch Irriga10 tion District, Wyoming, an option to purchase up to
2

•HR 744 IH

1 3,500 acre-feet of storage in the Boysen Dam and

2 Reservoir, Boysen Unit Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin

3 Program, Wyoming, which shall be a firm water

4 supply.

5 (2) BLUFF IRRIGATION DISTRICT.—The Sec6 retary of the Interior is hereby authorized and di7 rected to offer annually to the Bluff Irrigation Dis8 trict, Wyoming, an option to purchase up to 5,000

9 acre-feet of storage in the Boysen Dam and Res10 ervoir, Boysen Unit Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Pro11 gram, Wyoming, which shall be a firm water supply.

12 (b) WAIVER OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS.—The Sec13 retary of the Interior is authorized and directed to waive

14 land classification, toxicity studies, soils analysis, and any

15 requirements relating to the National Environmental Pol16 icy Act of 1969 in carrying out this section.

17 (c) STATE LAW.—Any allocation or reallocation from

18 existing uses of water stored in the Boysen Dam and Res19 ervoir resulting from this section shall be pursuant to the

20 laws of the State of Wyoming and under Federal reclama21 tion laws (Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), and Acts

22 supplementary thereto and amendatory thereof) applicable

23 to the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program.

Æ
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 110

Electing Representatives Browder and Woolsey to the Committee on the

Budget.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 3, 1993

Mr. HOYER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Electing Representatives Browder and Woolsey to the

Committee on the Budget.

1 Resolved, That the following named Members be, and

2 they are hereby, elected to the following standing commit3 tee of the House of Representatives:

4 COMMITTEE ON BUDGET: Glen Browder, Alabama;

5 Lynn C. Woolsey, California.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7442
LEROY RICHARDSON-BEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BONNIE BOYETTE; DENNIS ROWLAND; C. ALSTON; LIEUTENANT LANGSTON, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-01-317-5-H) Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 20, 2001 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leroy Richardson-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Leroy Richardson-Bey appeals the district court’s order and order on reconsideration denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Richardson-Bey v. Boyette , No. CA-01-317-5-H (E.D.N.C. June 30 & Aug. 21, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 171 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 171

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 20, 1993.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 873) entitled the ``Gallatin Range Consolidation and Protection Act 
of 1993''. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate 
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Natural Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural 
Resources now printed in the bill. Each section of the committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. Points of order against 
the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with 
clause 7 of rule XVI are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill 
for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Wherever U.S citizens go, 

FVAP ensures their voice is heard.

The Federal Voting Assistance Program 

(FVAP) works to ensure Service 

members, their eligible family members 

and overseas citizens are aware of their 

right to vote in and have the tools and 

resources to successfully do so — from 

anywhere in the world. 

FACT SHEET

Voting in Primaries 

What Are They?

What Are Primaries?

Primaries are elections that political 

parties use to select candidates for a 

general election. Then each party’s 

candidates run against each other in 

the general election. 

Open Primaries: 

In an open primary, a voter of any 

political affiliation may vote in the 

primary of any party. For example, a 

voter registered as a Democrat can 

choose to vote in the Republican 

primary. A voter may only vote in one 

party’s primary and, in many States, 

voters are not required to choose 

a political affiliation when they 

register to vote. States vary in how 

they administer open primaries for 

absentee voters. 

Closed Primaries: 

In a closed primary, voters may only 

vote in the primary of the party they 

are registered with. For example, a 

voter registered as a Republican can 

only vote in a Republican primary. 

Absentee voters in States that conduct closed primaries are often required to choose a party affiliation on 

their voter registration form in order 

to participate in the State’s primary 

elections. 

Semi-closed Primaries: 

In a semi-closed primary, 

Independent voters, or those without a party affiliation, may choose 

which party’s primary they want to 

vote in; however, those registered 

with a party may only vote in that 

party’s primary. For example, a voter 

registered as a Democrat may only 

vote in a Democratic primary, and a 

voter registered as an Independent 

may choose to vote in a Democratic 

or Republican primary.

Types of Primaries

GO TO FVAP.GOV FOR MORE INFORMATION

Monday–Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET Phone: 1-800-438-VOTE (8683) I DSN: 425-1584 I Email: vote@fvap.gov

Facebook.com/DoDFVAP and Twitter @FVAP
Petition for Writ of Manda m us Denied and Opinion filed A u gust 18 , 2020
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 20

- 00466

- CV

IN RE RICHARD JIMENEZ , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 61st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 20 19

- 04715


### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On Tuesday, June 30, 2020 , relator , Richard Jimenez , filed a petition for writ of m andamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 ; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In his petition, relator ask s thi s c ourt to compel the Ho norable Fredericka M. Phillips , presiding judge of the 61st District Court of Harris County , to va cate her order pr otecting a n apex employee from deposition. Becaus e we hold th ere is an adequate remed y by appeal, we deny re la tor ’ s pet ition for writ of

m an damus.2

Mandamus Standard of Review Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co. , 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)

. With certain exceptions, to obtain mandamus relief a relator must show both that the tria l court clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The realtor bears the b urden of provin g both requirements. In re H.E.B. Gro cer

y C o. , 492 S.W.3d at 302; Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig . proceeding).

Adequate Remedy by Appeal? In his petition, relator fail s to a d dress whether there is an adequate remedy by appeal. The c ase law is cl ear that mandamus is the a pp r opriate remedy when trial court allow s an apex deposition to go forward in violati on of the standard governing such discovery. See In re C ont inen tal Airlines, Inc. , 305 S.W.3d 849, 852 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2010 , o rig. proceeding). We have not f ound
any cases allowing for mandamus revie w of the granting of a protecti ve o rder. Ther e are , however, cases where the granting of a protective order is reviewed on appeal. See Bullock v . American Heart Ass ’ n . 360 S.W.3d 661, 666 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2012, pe t. denied) ; Ener cor , Inc. v. Pennzoil Gas Marketing Co. , No s. 01

- 98

- 01026

- CV, 01

- 98

- 01332

- CV, 2001 WL 7 54773 at *7 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Jul . 5, 2001 , pe t. denied)

. Accordingly, we hold that relator failed in meeting his b urden to show he does n ot have an adequa te remedy by a ppeal.
Rela tor ’ s petition f

or writ of mandamus is denied.

PER CURIAM
Panel c onsists of Justices Wise , Bourliot, and Spain.
# Official Journal C 128/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 128 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5726 April 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 128

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5726 April 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Preparatory acts |
| | COUNCIL |
| 2014/C 128/01 | Position (EU) No 8/2014 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Union airports within a Balanced Approach and repealing Directive 2002/30/EC Adopted by the Council on 24 March 2014 | 1 |
| Statement by the Commission on the revision of Directive 2002/49/EC | 17 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Preparatory acts

COUNCIL

2014/C 128/01

Position (EU) No 8/2014 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Union airports within a Balanced Approach and repealing Directive 2002/30/EC Adopted by the Council on 24 March 2014

1

Statement by the Commission on the revision of Directive 2002/49/EC

17

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit 10.7**AMENDMENT TO THE RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT**     This Amendment, dated as of July 26, 2007 (this “Amendment”), to the Restricted StockUnit Agreement, dated July 22, 2004, between Avatar Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation (the“Company”), and Charles McNairy (the “Participant”).WITNESSETH:     WHEREAS, the Company and the Participant entered into a Restricted Stock Unit Agreement, datedJuly 22, 2004 (the “Agreement”); and     WHEREAS, on the date hereof the Participant informed the Company of his intention to terminatehis employment with the Company on the close of business on August 3, 2007, for health reasons; and     WHEREAS, the Company and the Participant desire to amend the Agreement as set forth in thisAmendment to reflect the Participant’s long-term service and contribution to the Company.     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and obligationshereinafter set forth, the Company and the Participant, intending to be legally bound, hereby agreeas follows:     1. Notwithstanding any other provision contained in the Agreement, on August 3, 2007, the12,500 Units granted to the Participant pursuant to Section 2(a) thereof, shall vest in full andsuch vested Units shall be converted into an equivalent number of shares of Common Stock that willbe immediately distributed to the Participant.     2. Except as expressly set forth herein, the Agreement remains unmodified and in full forceand effect.     3. This Amendment shall be subject to, and governed by, the laws of the State of Floridaapplicable to contracts made and to be performed in the State of Florida, regardless of where theParticipant is in fact required to work.     4. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemedto be an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.[Signature Page Follows]
 

 
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment as of the date firstabove written.      AVATAR HOLDINGS INC.