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

 

**[LETTERHEAD OF WATTS, GRIFFIS AND MCOUAT LIMITED]**

**EXHIBIT 23.****3**

March 30, 2007

**LETTER OF CONSENT**

 

Lundin Mining Corporation

 

Dear Sirs:

 

**Watts, Griffis and McOuat Limited**("WGM") refers to the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Lundin Mining Corporation dated April 2, 2007 (including all exhibits, the "Annual Report").

We hereby consent to the use of the WGM report titled *“A Technical Review of the Galmoy Mine and Prospecting Licences Held by Arcon in the Irish Midlands-Republic of Ireland for Lundin Mining Corporation,”* dated April 22, 2005, and the report title *“A Technical Review of the Zinkgruvan mine in South-Central Sweden for South Atlantic Ventures”* dated March 13, 2004, and the appearance of our name in the Annual Report.

**Yours very truly,**

 

WATTS, GRIFFIS AND McOUAT LIMITED

 

/s/  Michael W. Kociumbas
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MA RCH 27, 2014

NO. 03

- 13

- 00805

- CV

Andrea Chambers, Appellant

v.

Bank of America, N. A., Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, G OODWIN AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on April 24, 2013. Hav ing

reviewed the record , the Court holds that Andrea Chambers has not prosecuted her appeal and

did not comply with a notice from the clerk of this court. T he appeal is thus subject to dismissal.

Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of prose cution. The appellant shall pay all

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
#### Philip HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BACA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16552

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017 *

Filed June 30, 2017

Philip Hughes, Pro Se

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Philip Hughes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his safety and serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. *Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP,*534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Hughes’s claim alleging deliberate indifference to his safety was proper because Hughes failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to Hughes’s safety by allegedly failing to protect him from an attack by another inmate. *See Farmer v. Brennan,*511 U.S. 825, 834-44, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (stating that prison officials have a duty to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners, but officials may be liable under the Eighth Amendment only if they act or fail to act “with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm to a prisoner”); *see also Jones v. Williams,*297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (“In order for a person acting under color of state law to be liable under section 1983 there must be a showing of personal participation in the alleged rights deprivation.... ”).

The district court properly dismissed Hughes’s claim alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs because Hughes failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. *See Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (“A prison official acts with deliberate indifference ... only if the [prison official] knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health”; neither a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment nor mere negligence in treating a medical condition amounts to deliberate indifference (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not err in failing to recuse itself sua sponte because Hughes failed to establish extrajudicial bias or prejudice. *See*28 U.S.C. § 455; *Noli v. Comm’r.,*860 F.2d 1521, 1527 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[I]f no motion is made to the judge ... a party will bear a greater burden on appeal in demonstrating that the judge ... [erred] in failing to grant recusal under *916section 455.” (alteration in original, citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 82 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 82

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to revise certain provisions 
relating to the appointment of clinical and counseling psychologists in 
      the Veterans Health Administration, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 1995

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to revise certain provisions 
relating to the appointment of clinical and counseling psychologists in 
      the Veterans Health Administration, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REVISION OF AUTHORITY RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF 
              CLINICAL AND COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGISTS IN THE VETERANS 
              HEALTH ADMINISTRATION.

    (a) In General.--Section 7401(3) of title 38, United States Code, 
is amended by striking out ``who hold diplomas as diplomates in 
psychology from an accrediting authority approved by the Secretary''.
    (b) Certain Other Appointments.--Section 7405(a) of such title is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking out ``Certified or'' 
        and inserting in lieu thereof ``Clinical or counseling 
        psychologists, certified or''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking out ``Certified or'' 
        and inserting in lieu thereof ``Clinical or counseling 
        psychologists, certified or''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) 
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (d) Appointment Requirement.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
of law, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall begin to make 
appointments of clinical and counseling psychologists in the Veterans 
Health Administration under section 7401(3) of title 38, United States 
Code (as amended by subsection (a)), not later than 1 year after the 
date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jorge PEREZ-DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50229

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 24, 2017

Jennifer L, Gmitro, Esquire, Attorney, Ajay Krishnamurthy, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, US Department of Justice, Southern District of California, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Bridget Lynn Kennedy, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jorge Perez-Diaz appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month custodial sentence and ten-month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Perez-Diaz contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider his mitigating argument that his underlying deportation order may have been erroneous. We review for plain error, *see United States v. Valencia-Barragan,*608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court properly considered Perez-Diaz’s arguments and explained sufficiently its determination that an above-Guidelines sentence was warranted in light of his significant criminal and immigration history. *See Rita v. United States,*551 U.S. 338, 357-58, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

Perez-Diaz next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the mitigating factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Perez-Diaz’s sentence. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the need for deterrence. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; *United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez,*587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
SPAR Group, Inc.

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

              Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the quarterly  report on Form 10-Q for the three month period
ended   September  30,  2004  (this   "report"),   of  SPAR  Group,   Inc.  (the
"registrant"), the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

1. The report fully complies with the  requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

2. The  information  contained in the report  fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.



                                 /s/ Robert G. Brown
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Robert G. Brown
                                 Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer

                                 November 15, 2004

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to SPAR Group,  Inc.  and will be  retained  by SPAR Group,  Inc.,  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                      Ex-3
#### MOVE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-56650

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

01/05/2017

Before: D.W. NELSON and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and BUCKLO,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

ORDER

The members of the panel that decided this case voted unanimously to deny the petition for rehearing. Judge Paez voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Nelson and Judge Bucklo recommended denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. (Fed.R. App. P. 35.)

The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied.
Exhibit 11

                         CATSKILL FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
                 (In thousands, except share and per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        Three Months Ended March 31,               Six Months Ended March 31,
                                                      --------------------------------           ---------------------------------
                                                         1999                 1998                  1999                 1998
                                                      -----------           ----------           -----------            ----------
<S>                                                  <C>                   <C>                  <C>                   <C>         
Net income per common share - basic
   Net income applicable to common shares            $      1,041          $       972          $      2,022          $      1,930
   Weighted average common shares outstanding           3,850,029            4,165,075             3,844,594             4,208,213
   Net income per common share - basic               $        .27          $       .23          $        .53          $        .46
                                                      ===========          ===========           ===========          ============
Net income per common share - diluted
   Net income applicable to common shares            $      1,041          $       972          $      2,022          $      1,930
   Weighted average common shares outstanding           3,850,029            4,165,075             3,844,594             4,208,213
   Dilutive common stock options (1)                       66,727              129,025                53,526               128,124
                                                      -----------           ----------           -----------            ----------
   Weighted average common shares including
        potential dilution                              3,916,756            4,294,100             3,898,120             4,336,337
                                                      ===========          ===========           ===========          ============
   Net income per common share - diluted              $       .27          $       .23           $       .52          $        .45
                                                      ===========          ===========           ===========          ============
</TABLE>
(1) Dilutive common stock options  (includes  granted,  but unvested  restricted
stock under the Company's MRP plan and options granted,  but unexercised,  under
its stock  option plan) are based on the  treasury  stock  method using  average
market price.  The treasury stock method  recognizes the use of assumed proceeds
upon the exercise of options, and the amount of unearned compensation attributed
to future services under the Company's  restricted stock plan, including any tax
benefits,  to purchase the  Company's  common stock at the average  market price
during the period.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
the company's Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
        
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                              25
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,260
<ALLOWANCES>                                        29
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0      
<PP&E>                                               3     
<DEPRECIATION>                                       1   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,383     
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0   
<BONDS>                                            279 
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                         240      
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,383        
<SALES>                                              0         
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   186         
<CGS>                                                0         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       29         
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0      
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   (1)     
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  53      
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    105      
<INCOME-TAX>                                        37     
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 68     
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      3     
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                        65
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1> THE BALANCE SHEET PRESENTED BY CASE CREDIT CORPORATION IS UNCLASSIFIED.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
 the Company's 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           30
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3149
<ALLOWANCES>                                     50
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  0
<PP&E>                                            6
<DEPRECIATION>                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             0
<BONDS>                                         624
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      674
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4200
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                340
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    73
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 20
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 53
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              172
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  22
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              14
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                     14
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0



</TABLE>
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.17(d)

                    FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT (this "Amendment") is made as of this 28/th/ day of
May, 2002 to that certain EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, dated as of November 30, 1999
(as heretofore amended, the "Employment Agreement"), by and between ROBERT
HENSLEY ("Employee") and JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC. ("Employer").

     FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and adequacy of which are
hereby acknowledged, Employer and Employee, being the sole parties to the
Employment Agreement, hereby amend the Employment Agreement and agree that the
Bonus to which Executive may be entitled upon satisfaction of the Performance
Goals is hereby increased to 50% of Base Salary.

     Except as specifically amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect according to its terms. To the extent of any
conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the terms of the remainder of
the Employment Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall control and prevail.
Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have those respective
meanings attributed to them in the Employment Agreement. This Amendment shall
hereafter be deemed a part of the Employment Agreement for all purposes.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of
the date first above written.

JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC.

By:  /s/: Robert N. Wildrick                  /s/: Robert Hensley
   -------------------------------------     -----------------------------------
      Robert N. Wildrick,                         ROBERT HENSLEY
      Chief Executive Officer
# Federal Aviation
Administration



# Memorandum

Date: September 19 , 2013

To: Docket No. FAA

- 2008

- 0677

Subject: Summary of Families of Continental Flight 3407 Meeting with OIRA Regarding the FAA SNPRM on Qualification , Service and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers Pursuant to Executive Order 12866

On September 18 , 2013, representatives from the Families of Continental Flight 3407 (Families Flight 3407) met with the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in accordance with Executive Order 12866 to discuss the FAA Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) on Qualification, Service and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers

. Representatives from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s General

Counsel’s Office and the Federal Aviation Administration’s Chief Counsel’s Office participated in the meeting in a listening capacity only.

Families Flight 3407 explained that the SNPRM respond ed to 28 NTSB recommend ations, nine

of which resulted from the National Transportation Safety Board ( NTSB ) investigation of the Colgan Air accident. They further explained that a number of the safety issues related to the Colgan Air accident had been previously identified by th e NTSB but left unresolved.

Additional issues discussed by Families Flight 3407 are summarized as follows:

• The proposed compliance should be shortened

.

• The final rule should include requirements for training stick shaker, stick pusher and stall

recove ry.

• The final rule should include the proposed continuous analysis process as well as remedial training provisions consistent with NTSB recommendation A

- 05

- 14 . Voluntary initiatives related to remedial training prior to the Administrator’s Call to Actio n were ineffective because few carriers participated

.

• Pilot training and evaluation records should include specific information regarding training and evaluation events so that a pilot’s training and qualification can be fully

assessed.

P roposed requ irements that received specific support from Families Flight 3407 include scenario based training (line oriented flight t raining), crew pairing during training, crew resource management training, mandatory simulator use in training programs , and training m ore adverse

scenarios.Families Flight 3407 concluded that this rulemaking will provide the most critical airline safety improvements related to Colgan Air Flight 3407

.