alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.11

CONSENT OF ENGINEER

Ladies and
Gentlemen:

The undersigned hereby consents to (1) the references to the undersigneds name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual
Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp. in connection with the report entitled Technical Report on the Uranium Exploration Properties in Mongolia dated February 27, 2007 and (2) all other references to the undersigned
included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Denison Mines Corp.

Dated: March 19, 2014



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Neil N. Gow                                  
|Neil N. Gow, P.Geo. Roscoe Postle Associates
Inc.
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 Hudson Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Kevin J. Zugibe, as Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board 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:



|(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/ Kevin J. Zugibe        
|---------------------------
|Kevin J. Zugibe            
|Chief Executive Officer and
|Chairman of the Board      
|                           
|August 1, 2007
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 01180

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name3

Description

01180\01180_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

01180\01180_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

x 01180\01180_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

01180\Certification Statement _01180.pdf Plant certification statement

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

3

 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
#### Knox v. Moser et al.

1. Decree: mistake: motion to correct. A motion to correct a decree by striking out a clause, on the ground that it was inserted by mistake, was improperly sustained, where it appeared that the decree had been prepared by the concurrent action of counsel for both parties, and that the mistake, if any, was not one of fact, but related to the legal effect of the clause in question. Mistakes of law are not contemplated by § 179 of the Code, providing for altering decrees to correct evident mistakes.

*Appeal from Dubuque Circuit Court.*

Thursday, June 23.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*S. P. Adams,*for appellants.

*Fouhe dk Lyon,*for appellee.

Seevers, J.

In December, 1885, a decree was entered in an action brought to foreclose a mortgage by the plaintiff against the defendant and others. The mortgage was on the real estate referred to in *Johnson v. Moser,*66 Iowa, 536. In August, 1886, the plaintiff filed a motion to correct, by striking out a clause in the decree, on the ground that it was made a part of the decree by mistake. The court so found, and the relief asked by the plaintiff was granted. In so ruling the appellant insists that the court erred, for the reason that no mistake was made, and, if there was, that the same cannot be corrected in this proceeding. Upon looking into the record, we think the mistake was one of law, as to the legal effect of the clause of the decree in question, and that such mistake is not contemplated by section 179 of the Code. The decree was prepared by counsel for thé plaintiff, and, upon being submitted to counsel for the appellant, he prepared an addition thereto, which was amended by counsel for the plaintiff, and the same became a part of the decree, and was so entered by the clerk; and it is this portion of the *155decree the court struck out. Clearly, in our opinion, counsel for the plaintiff had full and complete knowledge of the provision of the decree now objected to. There was no mistake of fact. It is not claimed that counsel did not read the provision in question, or that he was deceived in any respect inJ relation thereto, unless possibly as to the legal effect of such provision, and we think the mistake contemplated by statute, and which may be corrected, is a mistake of fact, for the reason that the general rule is that relief will not be granted for a mistake of law. Counsel for the appellee insist that, if it be so conceded, the decree, when read and constructed all together, in legal effect, is in accord with *Grant v. Parsons,*67 Iowa, 31, and therefore the ruling of the circuit court is not prejudicial. After much reflection, we do not think we can or ought to determine this question in this proceeding. The only relief asked is the correction of the decree. This should be granted or refused. Further than this we cannot go, for the reason, if no other, that under the decree the appellant paid certain money into court, which the plaintiff liad accepted, and it is possible that the equities or legal rights of the parties may be affected or changed by this circumstance.

The order made correcting this decree must be

Eeveesed.
II 

106TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 418 

For the relief of Nancy B. Wilson. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 11, 1999 

Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. COLLINS) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

For the relief of Nancy B. Wilson. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ENTITLEMENT TO WIDOW’S INSURANCE BENE4 FITS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of determining the 

6 eligibility of Nancy B. Wilson, the wife of Alphonse M. 

7 Wilson (social security number 000–00–9548), to widow’s 

8 insurance benefits under section 202(e) of the Social Secu9 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 402(e)), Nancy B. Wilson shall be 

10 deemed to have been married to Alphonse M. Wilson for 

11 a period of not less than 9 months immediately prior to 

12 the day on which Alphonse M. Wilson died. 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 418 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (a) shall take ef2 fect on March 21, 1991. 

3 (c) PAYMENT.—Any benefits to which Nancy B. Wil4 son is entitled for the period prior to the date of the enact5 ment of this Act shall be paid to her in a lump sum. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSKJLST7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Cornelius C. Whittington, plaintiff in error, *vs.*John G. Colbert, administrator, defendant in error.

Though a defendant has had set apart to him a homestead under the Act of 1868, which has failed as against debts contracted prior to July, 21st, 1868, on account of the unconstitntionality of said Act, he may, nevertheless, claim the homestead allowed under the Code.

Homestead. Before Judge Hill. Crawford Superior Court. September Term, 1873.

This case is reported in the decision.

Thomas F. Green, by B. H. Hill & Son, for plaintiff in error.

Poe & Hall, for defendant.

Warner, Chief Justice.

This case came before the Court below on an affidavit of illegality, and the only question made was, whether the defendant in execution, who had obtained a homestead exemp*585tion under the Act of 1868, as against debts created prior to the adoption of the Constitution of 1868, could claim an exemption of property from levy and sale as provided by the 2010th section of the Code. The Court below held that he could not, and the defendant excepted. This case comes within the ruling of this Court, in *Lawrence vs.*Evans, decided at the last term, and must be controlled by it.

Let the judgment of the Court below be reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,010
<SECURITIES>                                     2,922
<RECEIVABLES>                                      419
<ALLOWANCES>                                        40
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,425
<PP&E>                                             342
<DEPRECIATION>                                     135
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              468
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,229
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,700
<SALES>                                          2,475
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,475
<CGS>                                              610
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,829
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (42)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  12
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (396)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         4
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (400)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (400)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)
        

</TABLE>
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0002347 26-JUN-2017 07:57 AM
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-40205 

Summary Calendar

__________________

JOSEPH ALFRED ROME, JR.,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PHILLIP VICK, Judge,

158th District; TRACY

KUNKEL, Denton County

District Clerk,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:96-CV-009

- - - - - - - - - -

May 1, 1996

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joseph Alfred Rome, Jr., argues that the district court

erred in dismissing his civil rights complaint as frivolous. 

Rome also contests the district court's imposition of sanctions.

We have reviewed the record, the opinion of the district

court, and the brief, and find that the dismissal of the
No. 96-40205

-2-

complaint as frivolous is affirmed substantially for the reasons

adopted by the district court. See Rome v. Vick, No. 4:96-CV-009

(E.D. Tex. Feb. 29, 1996).

Rome's conclusional allegation that the district court's

imposition of sanctions was the result of bias does not establish

that he was denied an impartial tribunal. Litkey v. United

States, 114 S. Ct. 1147, 1157-58 (1994). The district court did

not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions against Rome. 

Because Rome has failed to raise an issue of arguable merit,

the appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707

F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. Rule 42.2. We caution

Rome that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will

invite the imposition of sanctions by this court. To avoid

sanctions, Rome is further cautioned to review any pending

appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are

frivolous because they have been previously deci ded by this

court.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

EXHIBIT 10.32    
  


April 30,
2001 


Hand
deliver 


Herbst
Family Limited Partnership

5195 Las Vegas Blvd. S.

Las Vegas, Nevada 89119

Attn: Jerry Herbst



    RE:  Lease
extension for Terrible's Town-Pahrump property 


Dear
Mr. Herbst: 


Please
allow this letter to serve as notice on behalf of ETT, Inc. of the exercise our option to extend the current lease pursuant to Paragraph 24, thereof. Should you have any questions
do not hesitate to contact me. 


Sincerely, 


E-T-T, INC. 


/s/
Timothy P. Herbst 


Timothy
P. Herbst

Vice President 









QuickLinks


EXHIBIT 10.32
April 11, 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

THERON OWENS , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00676

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-31157

Summary Calendar

 

CATRINA M. REED,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

R.C. JOHNSON, ET AL.,

 Defendants,

WESLEY C. JOHNSON, d/b/a

African Harvest,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 93-CV-1652 K

- - - - - - - - - -

January 14, 1997

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Following a bench trial, the district court found Wesley

Johnson and African Harvest, Inc., liable for violating the

minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards

Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 and 207. Johnson argues that the
No. 95-31157

-2-

district court erred in striking African Harvest’s brief. 

African Harvest has not filed a notice of appeal and thus the

question whether the district court erred in striking African

Harvest’s answer is not properly before us. See Fed. R. App. P.

3(b). Reed’s motion to strike the portions of the brief relating

to this issue is GRANTED. 

Johnson also argues that the district court erred in

excluding evidence concerning whether African Harvest was an

enterprise exempt from the FLSA provisions under 29 U.S.C.

§ 213(a)(2)(iv) (West 1965), thereby denying Johnson the

opportunity to present a defense. This exemption was repealed in

1989. 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(2) (West Supp. 1996). Johnson’s appeal

is without arguable merit and is frivolous. Howard v. King, 707

F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The appeal is DISMISSED as

frivolous. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We AWARD Reed appellate attorney’s

fees and REMAND to the district court for a determination of the

amount of the award.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          17,224
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,672
<ALLOWANCES>                                       449
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,001
<PP&E>                                           5,130                                       
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,522
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,523
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,105
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           148
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,428
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,523
<SALES>                                         21,609
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,609
<CGS>                                              991
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,712
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   120
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (739)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       713
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,452)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,452)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)
        


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. James Myron, Appellant, v James Kralik, Respondent.

[774 NYS2d 744]

—In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), entered November 6, 1998, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The remedy of habeas corpus is not available to the petitioner, as he would not be entitled to immediate release since he is currently serving an 81-year-to-life sentence in the State of California *(see People ex rel. Mendolia v Superintendent of Green Haven Correctional Facility,*47 NY2d 779 [1979]; *People ex rel. Bolling v Miller,*256 AD2d 699 [1998]). S. Miller, J.P., Luciano, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         October 24, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 11, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 479 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-83, K2025-81.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-24603 Filed 10-23-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
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 clickNsettle.com, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form
10-QSB"), I, Roy Israel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that;

      (1) The Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
      and

      (2) The information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.


Dated:  November 11, 2003


/s/ Roy Israel
-----------------------------------------------------
Roy Israel - Chairman of the Board, CEO and President


                                       22
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




[X.com LETTERHEAD]  


 Exhibit 10.8  


January 13,
2000 


Mr. Todd
Pearson 


Dear
Todd: 


    I
am pleased to offer you the position of Director of Credit Card Products with X.com Corporation. This position will report, in the interim, to the Chief Executive Officer. 



    This
letter outlines the proposed terms of your employment with X.com. Your gross salary will be $120,000, to be paid semi-monthly. You will also be paid a one-time sign on bonus of
$35,000 which will be repayable to X.com should you elect to terminate your employment within one year from your start date. You will also receive up to $6,000 per year of medical expenses for your
son not covered under the company's standard health care plan. Your start date is January 17, 2000 and is subject to your signing below and on the bottom of the Company's confidentiality
agreement. 


    Subject
to approval of the Board of Directors of X.com, you are eligible to receive a stock option grant for 160,000 shares (post-split) pursuant to an X.com equity incentive plan,
pursuant to the terms (e.g. number of shares, exercise price, vesting and exercisability) determined by X.com. The X.com Stock Plan vesting schedule is as follows: 25% after 1 year, and 1/48 each
month thereafter. X.com will also accelerate one year of additional vesting upon change of control of the company. 


    The
company will also provide to you, the health, holiday, vacation and other benefits that it affords all its employees. 


    Please
understand that your employment is not governed by any written or oral contract and is considered an "at-will" arrangement. This means that you are free, as is the Company, to
terminate the employment relationship at any time for any reason, so long as there is no violation of applicable state or federal law. 



    We
have enormous respect for your talent and dedication and are looking forward to your helping us to grow this company in a mutually rewarding relationship. 


Sincerely,



/s/ ELON MUSK   


Elon
Musk

Chairman 


I
accept your offer of employment pursuant to terms and conditions set forth in this letter. 



	Signed	 	/s/ TODD PEARSON   
 Todd Pearson	 	Date	 	January 24, 2000