alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 15.5



CONSENT



|To: | Critical Metals Corp. (the “Company”)
|--- | -------------------------------------



|Re: | Form 20-F of the Company (the “Company”)
|--- | ----------------------------------------



CSA Global South Africa
(Pty) Limited(“CSA”), an ERM group company, is the authoring firm of the report titled “S-K 1300 Technical Report
Summary” dated April 27, 2023, effective date December 5, 2022, regarding the mining property known as the Wolfsberg Lithium
Project (the “Project”) which was prepared in accordance the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
(“SEC”) S-K regulations (Title 17, Part 229, Items 601 and 1300 to 1305) for the Company (the “Expert
Report”).



CSAunderstands that the Company wishes to make reference to CSA’sname
and the Expert Report in its Report on Form 20-F (the “Form 20-F”) to be prepared and filed by the Company. CSAfurther understands that the Company wishes to incorporate by reference extracts and/or information
from, the Expert Report in the Form 20-F related to the Project. CSA has been provided
with a copy of the Form 20-F, and has reviewed the proposed disclosure identified above.



Accordingly, in respect of
the Registration Statement, CSAdoes hereby consent to:



| | ● | the use of, and references to, its name in the Form 20-F;
| | - | ---------------------------------------------------------



| | ● | the use of, and references to, the Expert Report in the Form 20-F; and
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------



| | ● | the use of, in the Registration Statement,
    extracts and information from the Expert Report, or portions thereof (collectively, the “Undersigned’s
    Information”).
| | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



CSAconfirms that where
its work involved a mineral resource or mineral reserve estimate, such estimates comply with the requirements for mineral resource and
mineral reserve estimation under Subpart 1300 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the SEC.



CSAalso confirms that its representatives have read the disclosure in the Registration Statement that relate to the
Undersigned’s Information and the Project, and CSAconfirms that the disclosure
included in the Registration Statement does not contain a misrepresentation.



Dated: March 4, 2024



|By:    | /s/ Graham Jeffress                                 | 
|------ | --------------------------------------------------- | 
|Name:  | Graham Jeffress                                     | 
|Title: | Partner, Service Lead – Sustainable Mining Services |
391 A.2d 687

#### Commonwealth v. Jones, Appellant.

Submitted March 20, 1978.

James A. Peruto, for appellant; Sally DeMartini, Assistant District Attorney, and Edward G. Rendell, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Order affirmed.

HOFFMAN, J., dissented.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 67 (Friday, April 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 20871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8326]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Praesidian Capital Opportunity Fund III, LP; License No. 02/02-
0647; Notice Seeking Exemption Under the Small Business Investment Act, 
Conflicts of Interest

    Notice is hereby given that Praesidian Capital Opportunity Fund 
III, LP, 419 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10016, a Federal Licensee 
under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (``the 
Act''), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought 
an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, 
Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest, of the Small 
Business Administration Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). 
Praesidian Capital Opportunity Fund III, LP proposes to provide debt 
and preferred equity financing to CB Restaurants, Inc. The financing is 
follow-on financing contemplated to fund working capital and capital 
expenditures.
    The financing is brought within the purview of Sec.  107.730(a)(1) 
of the Regulations because Praesidian Capital Opportunity Fund III-A, 
LP, Associate of Praesidian Capital Opportunity Fund III, LP, holds an 
ownership position in CB Restaurants, Inc. that exceeds 10%. Therefore 
the transaction is considered as providing financing to an Associate, 
requiring prior written exemption from the Small Business 
Administration.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on the transaction within 15 days of the date of this 
publication to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small 
Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.

    Dated: March 29, 2012.
Sean J. Greene,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 2012-8326 Filed 4-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
| 1.     | Such      Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the period ending September       30, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                         |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |
| 2.     | The      information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period      ended September  30, 2008, fairly represents in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Artcraft V,      Inc. |

| Date:      November 13, 2008                |
|---------------------------------------------|
|                                        |
| Artcraft      V, Inc.                       |
|                                        |
| By: /s/      Li Te Xiao                     |
| Li      Te XiaoChief      Executive Officer |
September 17, 2015

Mr. Spencer Morgan

Chief Pilot

Drone Teyk International Incorporated d/b/a RoboFlyers

3055 Gable Brook Drive

Chattanooga, TN 37421

Dear Mr. Morgan:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

Part 21 and §§ 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 

91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.205(b), 91.215, and 91.401-91.417 of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request and what you 

should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your exemption request, posted to the public docket on July 6, 2015 on behalf of 

Drone Teyk International Incorporated d/b/a RoboFlyers in Docket No. FAA−2015−2564, but 

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the 

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must 

send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed April 8, 2015.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D14-2146

Lower Tribunal No. 03-2072 B

________________

Ehren Witt,

Petitioner,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Respondent.

A Petition for a Belated Appeal—Original Jurisdiction.

Ehren Witt, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for respondent.

Before LAGOA, EMAS, and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The Petitioner, Ehren Witt (“Witt”), seeks a belated appeal pursuant to

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c). We deny the petition on the merits.
Witt asserts that his appellate counsel filed a Notice of Appeal from the

September 5, 2008 sentencing order, but that counsel did not include the judgment

of convictions in the Notice of Appeal. Witt, therefore, seeks a belated appeal

from the judgment of convictions. 

A review of the Notice of Appeal filed by Witt’s appellate counsel in

October 2008 refutes Witt’s assertion as the notice seeks review of both the

convictions and sentences. Additionally, a review of the initial brief filed by

Witt’s appellate counsel before this Court also conclusively refutes Witt’s

assertion. Specifically, Witt’s appellate counsel sought reversal of “Witt’s

judgment of conviction and sentence” and requested that this Court “remand [the]

cause to the trial court for a new trial.” Accordingly, we deny the petition on the

merits.

Petition denied.

2
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIALOFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of RiskMetrics Group, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Qfor the three months ended March 31, 2008, as filed wit the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersignedcertifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.             The Report, fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.             The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 
| Date: May 15, 2008         |
|---------------------------------|
|                            |
| /s/ David M. Obstler            |   |
| David M. Obstler                |
| *(Principal Financial Officer)* |

 

----
Opinion issued April 9, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00263-CR

———————————

IN RE PATRICK LEE CAMPBELL, JR., Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Patrick Lee Campbell, Jr., has filed a petition for writ of mandamus 

requesting that this Court compel the trial court to rule on relator’s motion for 

forensic DNA testing and appointment of counsel.* We deny the petition.

 * The underlying case is State of Texas v. Patrick Lee Campbell, Jr., cause number 

10CR3689, pending in the 122nd District Court of Galveston County, Texas, the 

Honorable John Ellisor presiding.
2

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Relationserve Media, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Mandee Heller Adler, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

     (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

/s/ Mandee Heller Adler
-----------------------------
Mandee Heller Adler
Principal Executive Officer
August 15, 2005
```
391 A.2d 709

#### Lankford, Appellant, v. City of Philadelphia.

Argued June 14,1977.

Albert C. Gekoski, with him Charles Jay Bogdanoff, for appellant; James M. Penny, Jr., Assistant City Solicitor, with him Sheldon L. Albert, City Solicitor, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

HOFFMAN, J., dissented and would grant a new trial.

WATKINS, former P. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT

          This CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") dated April 10,
2002, by and between INFINICOM AB (publ), a Swedish company ("InfiniCom"), and
24HOLDINGS INC., a Delaware corporation ("24Holdings").


                              W I T N E S S E T H:
                              - - - - - - - - - -


          WHEREAS,  InfiniCom  is the holder of a Loan Note dated  December  31,
2001 for 5,361,735 Swedish Krona (the "Note"); and

          WHEREAS, InfiniCom now wishes to contribute the unpaid portion of the
Note to 24Holdings as a capital contribution (the "Contribution");

          NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:

          1. InfiniCom hereby contributes the Note to 24Holdings as a capital
contribution. InfiniCom agrees that such contribution shall act as a complete
forgiveness of all amounts due under the Note, thereby terminating any and all
rights held therein by InfiniCom, including without limitation all rights to
receive payments of principal and interest.

          2.  The  parties  hereto  agree  that in full  consideration  for such
capital contribution, 24Holdings shall issue and deliver to InfiniCom 10,660,679
shares of common stock, par value $0.001 per share, of 24Holdings.

          3. Each of InfiniCom and 24Holdings hereby agrees to execute and
deliver such instruments and documents as may be reasonably required in order to
carry out the intent of this Agreement.

          4. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the internal laws of the State of Delaware, exclusive of conflicts of laws
principles.

                                      * * *



<PAGE>


          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to
be duly executed, as of the day and year first above written.



                                 INFINICOM AB (publ)



                                 By: /s/ Claes-Goran Fridh / Urban von Euler
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                     Name:  Claes-Goran Fridh / Urban von Euler
                                     Title: Chairman / Managing Director


                                 24HOLDINGS INC.



                                 By: /s/ Lennart Orkan
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                     Name:  Lennart Orkan
                                     Title: Chairman


                                      -2-
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

 OF FLORIDA 

 SECOND DISTRICT 

326-330 ST. ARMANDS CIRCLE, LLC, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D13-1974 

 ) 

GEE22, LLC, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

 ) 

Opinion filed April 8, 2015. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota 

County; Stephen L. Dakan, Senior Judge. 

Bard D. Rockenbach of Burlington & 

Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, for 

Appellant. 

Joseph F. Summonte, Jr. of Law Office of 

Joseph F. Summonte, Jr., P.A., Part of 

Betterton, Tyler & Summonte, PL, Venice, 

for Appellee. 

BLACK, Judge. 

In 326-330 St. Armands Circle, LLC v. GEE22, LLC, 139 So. 3d 353 (Fla. 

2d DCA 2014), involving a dispute over a commercial lease for restaurant space, this 

court reversed the amended final judgment entered in favor of GEE22, LLC, and 
- 2 - 

remanded the matter for further consideration. 326-330 St. Armands Circle, LLC (St. 

Armands), now challenges the final judgment awarding attorneys' fees and costs to 

GEE22 based on the prevailing party fees and costs provision of the subject lease, 

arguing that this court's decision in the underlying appeal mandates reversal. We agree 

and reverse. See Wagner v. Uthoff, 868 So. 2d 617, 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ("[T]he 

portion of the judgment awarding attorneys' fees pursuant to the offer of judgment must 

be reversed because the underlying judgment has been reversed."); S & I Invs. v. 

Payless Flea Mkt., Inc., 40 So. 3d 48, 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) ("Because we reversed 

the final judgment in favor of tenant, we must also reverse the award of attorney's fees 

and costs predicated thereon."). 

Reversed. 

VILLANTI, C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., Concur.
No. 13-0875 – Sheena H. for Russell H. v. Amfire, LLC 

FILED 

April 10, 2015
 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

Workman, Chief Justice, concurring, with Davis, Justice, joining: 

I fully agree with the decision reached by the majority in this case to reverse 

and remand the Workers’ Compensation Board of Review’s decision and allow the claimant 

to pursue dependent’s death benefits on behalf of her grandchild on remand. I write 

separately, however, because the new law enunciated by the majority in syllabus five is far 

too fact specific and needlessly restrictive regarding the tolling of the statute of limitations. 

The majority recognizes that despite the lack of any exceptions to West Virginia Code § 23­

4-15(a), “[t]he legislative intent behind setting time limitations for claims under the Workers’ 

Compensation Act is two-fold. On the one hand, it protects employers from frivolous or 

outdated claims, while on the other hand, it is intended to afford claimants sufficient 

opportunity to investigate a claim before it is filed.” The majority then determines that to 

find that the statute of limitations set forth in West Virginia Code § 23-4-15(a) “can never, 

under any circumstances, be tolled is contrary to both these goals[,]” as well as is inconsistent 

with other provisions of the Act. See W. Va. Code § 23-4-16(a)(3) (bars awards under the 

Workers’ Compensation Act from being made more than two years after an employee’s death 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

would be obsolete if the six-month statute of limitation in West Virginia Code § 23-4-15(a) 

could never be tolled). 

Given the sound reasoning relied upon by the majority to support the 

determination that the relevant statute of limitations can be tolled, it is unwise and 

unnecessary to overly-restrict this recognition by limiting the general legal conclusion that 

the statute of limitations can be tolled only when “the delay was due to the medical examiner 

performing an autopsy.” The principles upon which the majority relies should be available 

to other claims, not just to the unique facts of this case. 

2
SUSANA MARTINEZ 

Governor 

JOHN A. SANCHEZ 

Lieutenant Governor 

November 7, 2012 

Mr. Ron Curry 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA Region 6 

State of New Mexico 

ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT 

Office of the Secretary 

Harold Runnels Building 

1190 Saint Francis Drive, PO Box 5469 

Santa Fe, NM 87502-5469 

Telephone (505) 827-2855 Fax (505) 827-2836 

www.nmenv.state.nm.us 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 

RE: Public Notice for Minor Source New Source Review 

Dear Mr. Curry: 

DAVE MARTIN 

Secretary 

BUTCH TONGATE 

Deputy Secretary 

,.. ~ 

:;; N 

:z: '"tl 0 ,.,., <: .,.,x 

.... ;::; U1 o~ 

r<r. -o 

:::0 < .. n :X ,..., 

" _, f:" 

0 

:z: 0 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)- Region VI is currently reviewing New 

Mexico's public notice requirements under Section 206 of20.2.72 New Mexico Administrative 

Code (NMAC)- Construction Permits. In order to clarify compliance with 40 CFR 51.161 

regarding public notice for Minor Source New Source Review, the New Mexico Environment 

Department's Air Quality Bureau will provide notification on our website of all second thirty 

(30) day public comment periods provided for under Paragraph B of Section 206 of 20.2. 72 

NMAC. We also commit to update Section 206 the next time we propose revisions to 20.2.72 

NMAC. 

If you have any other questions regarding this issue, please contact Richard Goodyear, Air 

Quality Bureau Chief, at 505-476-4305 or via email at richard.goodyear@state.nm.us. 

Sincerely, 

&CC-trZ~~ Dave Martin 

Cabinet Secretary 

New Mexico Environment Department 

cc: Jeff Robinson, EPA Region 6 

Mary Rose, Acting Division Director, NMED - EPD 

Richard Goodyear, Air Quality Bureau Chief 

:::0 

rn 

(") 

m 

-

< 

m 

0
Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District 

JUNE 23, 2016 

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b). 

1. Case No. SD34061 

 Re: JOSEPH RAYMOND SHAW, 

 Movant-Appellant, 

 vs. 

 STATE OF MISSOURI, 

 Respondent-Respondent. 

2. Case No. SD34118 

 Re: JAMES W. PIETZ, 

 Appellant, 

 vs. 

 LINDA L. PIETZ, 

 Respondent. 

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b). 

1. Case No. SD33997 

 Re: STATE OF MISSOURI, 

 Plaintiff-Respondent, 

 vs. 

 CHARLES C. GOFORTH, 

 Defendant-Appellant.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000893

20-APR-2017

08:41 AM
IA 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 15 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to end 

the practice of including more than one subject in a single law by 

requiring that each law enacted by Congress be limited to only one 

subject and that the subject be clearly and descriptively expressed in 

the title of the law. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2019 

Mr. MARINO submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to end the practice of including more than one 

subject in a single law by requiring that each law enacted 

by Congress be limited to only one subject and that 

the subject be clearly and descriptively expressed in the 

title of the law. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 15 IH 

1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

2 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

3 for ratification: 

4 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

5 ‘‘Each bill, order, resolution, or vote which must be 

6 submitted to the President under section 7 of article I of 

7 this Constitution shall embrace no more than one subject 

8 and that subject shall be clearly and descriptively ex9 pressed in the title of the bill, order, resolution or vote.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS