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

Exhibit 99.8

CONSENT OF EXPERT

I, Jeffrey Volk, do hereby consent to the filing of the
resources information related to the El Chante, the Young Davidson  Open Pit,
the Young Davidson  Underground, the Kemess Underground and the Orion
Underground in the Annual Information Form (the AIF) of AuRico Gold Inc. (the
Company) for the year ended December 31, 2013 and the use of my name in the
Annual Information Form and Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the
year ended December 31, 2013, filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission, and any amendments thereto, and the incorporation by
reference into the Form F-3 (File No. 333-189227) of the Company and any
Registration Statement on Form S-8 of the Company filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission, of the Companys AIF and Annual Report on
Form 40-F.

|Dated March 3, 2014 | By: /s/ Jeffrey
      Volk           
|------------------- | -------------------------------------
|                    | Jeffrey Volk                         
|                    | AuRico Gold Inc.                     
|                    | Director Reserves
      and Resources

---
# L_2006176EN.01011001.xml

| 30.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 176/110 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 176/110

---

Information of the entry into force of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Republic of Chile concerning amendments to the Agreement on Trade in Wines annexed to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part

The Republic of Chile has notified its approval of the adoption of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Community and the Republic of Chile concerning amendments to the Agreement on Trade in Wines annexed to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Chile, of the other part.

This Agreement therefore enters into force on 24 April 2006
   (1).

1

---

(1)  
  OJ L 54, 24.2.2006, p. 24.

1

---
Created with Sketch.Menu Transparency
	Contact Us Search
Search
 Main navigation

      
      About the CFTC
                          The Commission
                        Chairman & Commissioners
                        CFTC Organization
                        Advisory Committees
                        Budget & Performance
                        Privacy at the CFTC
                        Careers
                        Diversity and Inclusion at the CFTC
                        Industry Oversight
                          Industry Filings
                        Trading Organizations
                        Clearing Organizations
                        Data Repositories
                        Intermediaries
                        Market Surveillance
                        Contracts & Products
                        Rules & Rule Amendments
                        Anti-Money Laundering
                        Law & Regulation
                          Commodity Exchange Act & Regulations
                        How Rules Are Made
                        Holding Wrongdoers Accountable
                        Federal Register
                        Public Comments
                        CFTC Staff Letters
                        Office of Technology Innovation
                        Market Data & Economic Analysis
                          Data at CFTC
                        Commitments of Traders
                        Bank Participation Reports
                        Cotton On-Call
                        Financial Data for FCMS
                        Net Position Changes Data
                        Staff Reports
                        Weekly Swaps Report
                        Cleared Margin Reports
                        Office of the Chief Economist
                        Forms & Submissions
                        Learn & Protect
                          Check Registration & Disciplinary History
                        Submit a Tip
                        Reparations Program
                        RED List
                        Advisories & Articles
                        Videos
                        Publications
                        News & Events
                          Press Releases
                        Public Statements & Remarks
                        Events Carousel Rotation On
              On


External Meetings: Meeting with Eris Exchange
  
    



  Topic of discussion: SEFs Rule
      
  When
              02/01/2013

  Rulemaking(s)
              XIII. SEF Registration

  CFTC Staff
              Ryne Miller

  Visitor(s)
              Neal Brady, Eris ExchangeStephen Humenik, Eris Exchange

  Organization(s)
              Eris Exchange


Resources

CFTC Regulations
	Commodity Exchange Act
	Privacy Policy
	Web Policy
	FOIA
	EEO Statement
	No Fear Act
	Accessibility Statement
	Procurement
	USA.gov
	Glossary

Actions

Search Public Comments
	Submit Tips & Complaints
	Search Industry FilingsWhistleblower.gov
	Office of Technology InnovationInspector GeneralSitemap

HomeCFTC Headquarters
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20581
202.418.5000
Release:4009-97 (CFTC Docket No. SD 97-4)

For Release:April 9, 1997

CFTC FILES STATUTORY DISQUALIFICATION ACTION AGAINST KEVIN MICHAEL
    HANLEY AND SIMULTANEOUSLY ACCEPTS HIS SETTLEMENT OFFER, WHICH INCLUDES A
    TWO-YEAR PERIOD OF CONDITIONED REGISTRATION

WASHINGTON -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced
    today that it has filed a Notice of Intent to Deny or Condition Floor
    Broker Registration against Kevin Michael Hanley of Glen Ellyn,
    Illinois, an applicant for registration as a floor broker. At the same time
    the Notice was filed, the CFTC accepted Hanley's offer of
    settlement, which conditions Hanley's floor broker registration for a
    two-year period.

Under the terms of the settlement, filed on April 8, 1997, during the
    two-year period of conditioned registration, Hanley will be prohibited from
    acting as a registrant unless he obtains a sponsor who will closely
    supervise his activities. In addition, Hanley may not:

--1) act as a principal, partner, officer, or branch office manager of
    any entity required to be registered with the Commission;

--2) act as a supervisor over anyone required to be registered;

--3) exercise discretionary authority over orders (with limited
    exceptions); or

--4) serve on certain self-regulatory committees, including disciplinary
    committees, arbitration panels, and governing boards.

The CFTC's Notice alleged that Hanley was statutorily
    disqualified from registration as a result of a May 1995 plea of guilty to
    misdemeanor theft.
Rafael Antonio MARIN-PINA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-9593.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
FAST FELT CORPORATION, petitioner, v. OWENS CORNING.

No. 17-1473.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 11, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-50281 c/w No. 10-50282 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JOSE RAMOS-OCHOA, Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:10-CR-139-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Ramos-Ochoa (Ramos) appeals the 12-month sentence he received following the revocation of his supervised release. Ramos argues that the revocation sentence was unreasonable because the district court ordered it to
run consecutively to sentences imposed for convictions of attempted ill egal reentry and making a false claim of citizenship. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D February 15, 2011 Lyle W. Cayce ClerkNo. 10-50281 c/w No. 10-50282

2 We have yet to determine whether sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised release are to be reviewed under the “unreasonableness” standard of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Prior to Booker, we applied a “plainly unreasonable” standard. See United States v. Hinson, 429 F.3d 114, 119-20 (5th Cir. 2005). However, we need not decide the correct standard today because Ramos’s revocation sentence is appropriate under either standard. See id. at 120. “The district court has the discretion to order that a sentence imposed upon the revocation ofsupervised release run concurrently with or consecutively to other sentences.” U nited States v. Whitelaw , 580 F.3d 256, 260 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court’s decision to run the revocation sentence consecutive to the sentences on the underlying charges was authorized by statute and is preferred under the sentencing guidelines policy statements. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584; U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.3(f) & comment. (n.4). Additionally, the sentencing transcript reflects that the di strict court at least implicitly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors when imposing Ramos’s revocation sentence. See United States v. Gonzales, 250 F.3d 923, 930 (5th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
John T. PENTECOST, petitioner, v. SOUTH DAKOTA.

No. 16-8131.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 17, 2017.

Petition for rehearing denied.
S.S., et al., petitioners, v. COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES, et al.

No. 17-95.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 30, 2017.

Motion of Pacific Legal Foundation for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One denied.
Richard G. RENZI, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-298.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Gregory SELDEN, petitioner, v. AIRBNB INC.

No. 17-79.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
# L_2010218EN.01000101.xml

| 19.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 218/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 218/1

---

Information concerning the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Community and Antigua and Barbuda on the short-stay visa waiver

The Agreement between the European Community and Antigua and Barbuda on the short-stay visa waiver entered into force on 1 May 2010, the procedure provided for in Article 8 of the Agreement having been completed on 22 March 2010.

---
Katherine B. ROBINSON, et al., petitioners, v. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, et al.

No. 16-9272.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 10.24**

 

November 1, 2002 

 

 

H. Claire Hough

3170 Waverly Street 

Palo Alto, CA 94306 

 

RE:    Employment Terms 

 

Dear Claire: 

 

Blue Martini Software, Inc. (“Blue Martini”) is pleased to add the following term to your terms of employment, asset out in the offer letter dated October 31, 2002 (the “Offer Letter”). In addition to the terms set forth in the Offer Letter, your employment includes the following term: 

 

If your employment with Blue Martini is terminated without cause, you will be eligible to receive a severance payment equalto six (6) months of your base salary at the time of termination, and, provided that you elect COBRA coverage, Blue Martini will pay for health benefits for you and your dependents for six (6) months on the same terms as then provided to BlueMartini employees. If you resign from Blue Martini at any point, you will not receive these severance payments or extended health care coverage. 

 

“Cause” means the occurrence of one or one or more of the following: (i) conviction of a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude, fraud, oran act of dishonesty against Blue Martini; (ii) gross misconduct or gross negligence in the performance of your responsibilities which, based upon good faith and reasonable factual investigation, demonstrates unfitness to serve; or (iii) materialviolation or breach of any Blue Martini policy or any statutory, fiduciary, or contractual duty of yours to Blue Martini. 

 

All other terms and conditions of your Offer Letter continue in full force and effect. 

 

Very truly yours, 

 

Blue Martini Software, Inc. 

 

 

Mary Hamershock

Vice President, Human Resources 

 

 

IACCEPTTHEADDEDEMPLOYMENTTERMSTATEDINTHISLETTER:
Armando GARCIA, petitioner, v. Randy BLADES, Warden.

No. 16-9636.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, John A. Miley, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of American Media Operations, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): 

 

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

 

Date: August 12, 2004
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

PETER J. ROSATO, JR., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-4367 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed May 11, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, Judge. Peter J. Rosato, Jr., pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
CASANUEVA, CRENSHAW, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Klaus Ernst BUEHLER, et al., petitioners, v. ROLLS-ROYCE CORPORATION.

No. 17-207.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, Second District denied.
Carston Carrell WOODSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8263.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 21, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
# C_2011282EN.01005001.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/50

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 July 2011 — V v Parliament

(Case F-46/09) (1)

1

(Staff case - Contract staff - Conditions of engagement - Whether physically fit - Pre-recruitment medical examination. - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data - Medical confidentiality - Transfer of medical data between institutions - Right to respect for private life)

2011/C 282/92

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: V (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot and S. Woog, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: K. Zejdová and S. Seyr, agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: European Data Protection Supervisor (represented by M. V. Pérez Asinari and H. Kranenborg, agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant

Re:

Re:

First, annulment of the medical opinion of physical unfitness of 18 December 2008 and, second, annulment of the decision to withdraw the offer of employment previously made to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | annuls the decision of 19 December 2008 whereby the European Parliament withdrew the offer of employment made to V; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls the decision of 19 December 2008 whereby the European Parliament withdrew the offer of employment made to V;

| 2. | orders the European Parliament to pay V the sum of EUR 25 000; |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the European Parliament to pay V the sum of EUR 25 000;

| 3. | dismisses the action for the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

3.

dismisses the action for the remainder;

| 4. | orders the European Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs and to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

4.

orders the European Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs and to bear its own costs;

| 5. | orders the European Data Protection Supervisor, as intervener, to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

orders the European Data Protection Supervisor, as intervener, to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 11 of 16.01.10, p. 40.

1

---
# C_2009153EN.01002401.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/24

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 17 April 2009 — Fallimento Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA — Curatore dott. Alberto Fontana v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-140/09)

2009/C 153/44

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale di Genova

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fallimento Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA — Curatore dott. Alberto Fontana

Applicant:

Defendant: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is national legislation on State aid of the kind laid down in Law No 684/1974, in particular in Article 19 thereof, which provides for the possibility of the payment of State aid — albeit only on account — in the absence of agreements and without the prior establishment of precise and stringent criteria capable of ensuring that payment of the aid cannot give rise to distortion of competition, compatible with the principles of Community law and, in particular, with the provisions laid down in Articles 86 EC, 87 EC and 88 EC and in Title V (formerly Title IV) of the Treaty and, in that regard, may importance be attached to the fact that the beneficiary is required to apply tariffs imposed by the administrative authority?

---
In Re Troy JACKSON, petitioner.

No. 17-8826.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 4, 2018.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4202 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify the officers of 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection are authorized to conduct asylum 

interviews, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 23, 2019 

Mr. ARRINGTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify 

the officers of U.S. Customs and Border Protection are 

authorized to conduct asylum interviews, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Securing Comprehen5 sive Review in Entry Enforcement Now Act of 2019’’ or 

6 the ‘‘SCREEN Act of 2019’’. 


jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4202 IH

1 SEC. 2. OFFICERS OF U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTEC2 TION AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT ASYLUM 

3 INTERVIEWS. 

4 Section 235(b)(1)(E) of the Immigration and Nation5 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(E)) is amended in the mat6 ter preceding clause (i), by inserting ‘‘, including an officer 

7 of U.S. Customs and Border Protection,’’ after ‘‘immigra8 tion officer’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
NO. 07-05-0032-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL E

	MARCH 7, 2005

	______________________________

	GREGG McCAIN, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

	NO. A15819-0412; HONORABLE ROBERT W. KINKAID, JR., JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before REAVIS AND CAMPBELL, JJ. and BOYD, S.J.1

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Pending before this Court is appellant Gregg McCain’s request to withdraw his notice of appeal as premature and dismiss the appeal pending a ruling on his motion for new trial.  As required by Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, appellant has personally signed the withdrawal.  Counsel for appellant has also signed the document. 

	Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.  

						Don H. Reavis

						    Justice
UNITED STATES, petitioner, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY.

No. 17-1002.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 28, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Marlon SYMS, petitioner, v. William MURPHY, Warden.

No. 17-5584.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Duane BARTELS, petitioner, v. SOUTHERN MOTORS OF SAVANNAH, INC., aka Southern Motors Acura.

No. 17-208.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 16, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Jesus Adam LIZARRAGA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5630.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.