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

Exhibit 99.14

Consent of Christopher Elliott

I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of AuRico Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of references to my name in connection with the following reports and documents,
included in the 2012 Annual Information Form of AuRico Gold Inc., dated April 1, 2013 (the “AIF”):

Sections 14, 15.6, 15.6.1, 20.1, 20.2, 20.4.1, 21.1 -22.4, and 22.6 of the NI 43-101 Technical Report for the Kemess Underground Project, British Columbia, Canada

I also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-177638, File No. 333-175079 and File No. 333-173458 ) and in the Registration Statement on Form F-10 (File No. 333-177404) of the references to
my name and the above-mentioned information in the AIF.

Dated this 1st day of  April, 2013.

/s/ Christopher ElliottBy: Christopher Elliott, FAusIMM. 
        Title: Principal Consultant (Mining) 
        Company: SRK Consulting (Canada) Inc.

---
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.3

                           APPLIEDTHEORY CORPORATION

CALCULATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED LOSS PER SHARE
AND WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES USED IN CALCULATION (1)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 YEAR ENDED
                                                              DECEMBER 31, 1999
                                                              -----------------
<S>                                                           <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding:
Common stock:
  Shares outstanding at beginning of period.................      15,094,336
  Weighted average shares issued during the year ended
     December 31, 1999
     (6,319,026 shares).....................................       4,397,375
                                                                ------------
                                                                  19,491,711
                                                                ============
Net loss available to common stockholders...................    $(14,067,000)
                                                                ============
Basic and diluted loss per common share.....................    $      (0.72)
                                                                ============
</TABLE>

---------------
(1) For a description of basic and diluted loss per share, See Note B of the
    Notes to the Financial Statements included in Part II, Item 8 of this Form
    10-K.
Charles MURPHY, petitioner, v. Robert SMITH, et al.

No. 16-1067.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Motion of petitioner to dispense with printing the joint appendix granted.
David Richard TRIMBLE, petitioner, v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden.

No. 17-6207.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 4, 2017.

Motion of petitioner to defer reconsideration of the petition for writ of certiorari denied. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4261 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for payments in support of campaigns 

for election for the offices of Senator or Representative in Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for payments in support 

of campaigns for election for the offices of Senator or 

Representative in Congress. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITING USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR 

4 PAYMENTS IN SUPPORT OF CONGRESSIONAL 

5 CAMPAIGNS. 

6 No Federal funds may be used to make any payment 

7 in support of a campaign for election for the office of Sen8 ator or Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Com9 missioner to, the Congress. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4366 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4366

 To require oversight of licenses involving financial services and the 
     Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 17, 2019

Mr. Riggleman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require oversight of licenses involving financial services and the 
     Democratic People's Republic of Korea, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``North Korea Banking Oversight Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. OVERSIGHT OF LICENSES INVOLVING FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE 
              DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, and every 180 days thereafter, the Secretary of 
the Treasury shall transmit to the Committee on Financial Services of 
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
Urban Affairs of the Senate a report containing a copy of any license 
issued by the Secretary in the preceding 180 days that authorizes a 
financial institution to provide financial services benefitting any 
person sanctioned pursuant to an applicable Executive Order or the 
North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016 (22 U.S.C. 
9201 et seq.).
    (b) Form of Report.--The report required under subsection (a) shall 
be submitted in unclassified form but may contain a classified annex.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    For purposes of this Act:
            (1) Applicable executive order.--The term ``applicable 
        Executive Order'' has the meaning given that term under section 
        3 of the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 
        2016 (22 U.S.C. 9202).
            (2) Financial institution.--The term ``financial 
        institution'' means a United States financial institution or a 
        foreign financial institution.
            (3) Foreign financial institution.--The term ``foreign 
        financial institution'' has the meaning given that term under 
        section 510.309 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations.
            (4) United states financial institution.--The term ``United 
        States financial institution'' has the meaning given the term 
        ``U.S. financial institution'' under section 510.328 of title 
        31, Code of Federal Regulations.

SEC. 4. SUNSET.

    The reporting requirement under this Act shall terminate on the 
date that is the end of the 7-year period beginning on the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# L_2013303EN.01000101.xml

| 14.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 303/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 303/1

---

Letter of notification by the European Union to the Swiss Confederation of a technical amendment, by reason of the accession of Croatia, to Annex I to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation providing for measures equivalent to those laid down in Council Directive 2003/48/EC of 3 June 2003 on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments

Sir,

I have the honour to refer to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation providing for measures equivalent to those laid down in Council Directive 2003/48/EC on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments.

Due to the accession of Croatia, Annex I to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation providing for measures equivalent to those laid down in Council Directive 2003/48/EC on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments requires a technical amendment in the form provided for by Article 21(2), first subparagraph of the Agreement.

Article 21(2), first subparagraph of the Agreement provides that the list of competent authorities in Annex I may be amended simply by notification of the other Contracting Party by Switzerland for the authority referred to in (a) therein and by the Community for the other authorities.

I hereby notify you on behalf of the Union that the competent authority for Croatia is:

| — | in Croatia: Ministar financija or an authorised representative, |
| --- | --- |

—

in Croatia: Ministar financija or an authorised representative,

and that this mention has to be added into Annex I to the Agreement under letter (ac) after the competent authorities mentioned under letter (ab).

The application of the technical amendment provided for by this Notification shall have effect as of 1 July 2013.

Please accept, Sir, the assurance of our highest consideration,

For the European Union,

Heinz ZOUREK

Director-General of the Directorate-General Taxation and Customs Union

---
1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United St ates District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-2729

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. James L. Glass, also known as * Youngster, also known as Bazz, * [UNPUBLISHED] also known as Jboy, also known as * Bazzy, also known as Bass, * also known as JB, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 16, 2009 Filed: December 11, 2009

___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. James Glass appeals the 130-month sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. Hi s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which she moves to withdraw and suggests that-2- the district court erred in ordering Glass’ s federal sentence to run consecutively to a state sentence he was serving on an unrelated offense.

We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a consecutive sentence. SeeUnited States v. Winston , 456 F.3d 861, 867 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court’s decision to impose consecutive or concurrent sentence reviewed for reasonableness); United States v. Haack , 403 F.3d 997, 1003 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review is whether distri ct court abused discretion by imposing unreasonable sentence). The court noted its obligation to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, recited the factors, and explained its decision to run the federal sentence consecutively to the state sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b) (directing district court to consider § 3553(a) factor s in determining whether sentence should run consecutively to or concurrently with another sentence); Winston , 456 F.3d at 868 (sentence affirmed where district court explained its decision to run sentence consecutively and cited § 3553(a) factors). Having reviewed the record i ndependently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issu es. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s request to withdraw subject to counsel info rming Glass of the procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for writ of certiorari, and we affirm the judgment.

______________________________
Amaury VILLA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5866.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 10, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Olufemi S. COLLINS, et ux., petitioners, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al.

No. 17-6414.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 26, 2018.

Petition for rehearing denied.
* District Judge for the Southern D istrict of Texas,

sitting by designation. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-50013

JOE BALANDRAN; DOLORES BALANDRAN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS

SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

July 24, 1998

Before DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL, District

Judge. *

PER CURIAM:

In October 1996, this case was tried to a jury in the United

States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The jury

found that the damage to the Balandran home was caused by a leaky

sewer line and awarded the Balandrans $66,500. Shortly thereafter,

Safeco moved for judgme nt as a matter of law asserting that the2 g:\opin\979-0013.op2 Balandrans’ claim was excluded from coverage under Subsection (h)

of the insurance policy in question. The district court granted

the motion and entered judgment in favor of Safeco. The Balandrans

appealed, claiming that Subsection (h) does not exclude from

coverage losses that fall within the accidental discharge peril.

On November 18, 1997, this Court certified the following

question to the Supreme Court of Texas.

Whether the exclusion in Subsection (h) of the

1991 Texas Standard Homeowner Policy--Form B excludes from coverage damage to a dwelling caused
by a movement of its foundation that was caused by
an underground plumbing leak?

The factual circumstances and procedural background involved in

this controversy are fully described in our published opinion

certifying this question. B alandran v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America

,

129 F.3d 747 (5th Cir. 1997).

On July 3, 1998, the Supreme Court of Texas issued its opinion

and judgment in response to our certified question, holding that:

1) Exclusion 1(h) of the 1991 Texas Standard

Homeowner Policy--Form B does not exclude from

coverage damage to a dwelling caused by a movement of its foundation that was caused by
an underground plumbing leak.

2) Joe Balandran and Delores Balandran shall

recover from Safeco Insurance Company of
America, which shall pay the costs in this

Court.

See Balandran v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America , No. 97-1093, 1998 WL

352968 (Tex. S. Ct. July 3, 1998).

In light of the decision of the Supreme Court of Texas, we now3 g:\opin\979-0013.op2 vacate the judgment entered by the district court in favor of

Safeco; and remand this case to the district court f or entry of

judgment on the jury verdict consistent with the decision of the

Supreme Court of Texas.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 12a0616n.06

No. 11-3701

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

RAYSHAID M. ROBINSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

HEALTH ALLIANCE OF CINCINNATI;

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR

THE HEALTH ALLIANCE OF

CINCINNATI; PAUL PHILLIPS, In his

official and individual capacities; KAREN

BOSLEY, In her official and individual

capacities; JOHN DOES,

Defendants-Appellees.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF

OHIO

Before: MARTIN and CLAY, Circuit Judges; HOOD, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM. Rayshaid M. Robinson, an Ohio resident proceeding pro se, appeals a

jury’s verdict rendered against him in his civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On April 16, 2008, two security officers employed by Health Alliance of Greater Cincinnati

observed Robinson walking through an area on theHealthAlliance campus marked “no trespassing.” 

The officers instructed Robinson to stop. Once stopped, Robinson became defiant and began cursing

at the officers. The officers ordered Robinson to the ground. He complied. As the officers

attempted to handcuff Robinson, he moved his arm in what the officers perceived to be a threatening

manner. Consequently, both officers deployed their tasers. After having been tased, Robinson

became compliant and was ultimatelycharged with resisting arrest, obstructing official business, and

disorderly conduct. In July 2008, Robinson was found not guilty on all charges.

The Honorable Joseph M. Hood, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of *

Kentucky, sitting by designation.
No. 11-3701

- 2 -

In March 2009, Robinson filed a complaint against the defendants pursuant to § 1983. After

a seven day trial, a jury entered a verdict in favor of all the defendants. On appeal, Robinson argues

that he was denied a fair trial because 1) the jury ignored the evidence, 2) the district court

incorrectly decided the facts, and 3) the district court erred in denying his challenge under Batson

v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).

As the appellant, Robinson must “order from the reporter a transcript of such parts of the

proceedings not already on file as [he] considers necessary.” Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(1)(A). Robinson

ordered only an excerpt of the transcript from the second day of trial, which contains the defendants’

counsel’s opening statement. This excerpt provides no support for any of Robinson’s claims. 

Consequently, we are left with no basis on which to conduct a meaningful review. Therefore,

Robinson’s claims raised on appeal are deemed waived. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); Hawley v.

City of Cleveland, 24 F.3d 814, 820–22 (6th Cir. 1994).

The district court’s judgment is affirmed.
# L_2011171EN.01001401.xml

| 30.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 171/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 171/14

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 16/2011

of 1 April 2011

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 5/2011 of 11 February 2011 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 5/2011 of 11 February 2011 (1).

| (2) | Commission Regulation (EU) No 581/2010 of 1 July 2010 on the maximum periods for the downloading of relevant data from vehicle units and from driver cards (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Commission Regulation (EU) No 581/2010 of 1 July 2010 on the maximum periods for the downloading of relevant data from vehicle units and from driver cards (2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following point shall be inserted after point 24ea (Commission Decision 2009/810/EC) of Annex XIII to the Agreement:

| ‘24eb. | 32010 R 0581: Commission Regulation (EU) No 581/2010 of 1 July 2010 on the maximum periods for the downloading of relevant data from vehicle units and from driver cards (OJ 168, 2.7.2010, p. 16).’. |
| --- | --- |

‘24eb.

32010 R 0581: Commission Regulation (EU) No 581/2010 of 1 July 2010 on the maximum periods for the downloading of relevant data from vehicle units and from driver cards (OJ 168, 2.7.2010, p. 16).’.

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EU) No 581/2010 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 2 April 2011, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 1 April 2011.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The Acting President

Gianluca GRIPPA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 7.4.2011, p. 33.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 168, 2.7.2010, p. 16.

2

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4246 

To amend the Commodity Exchange Act to clarify the venue for judicial 

review of Commission rules, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2019 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 

case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 

the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Commodity Exchange Act to clarify the venue 

for judicial review of Commission rules, 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. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF COMMISSION RULES. 

4 The Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) 

5 is amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 24. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF COMMISSION RULES. 

7 ‘‘(a) A person adversely affected by a rule of the 

8 Commission promulgated under this Act may obtain reVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:39 Sep 10, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4246.IH H4246

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4246 IH

1 view of the rule in the United States Court of Appeals 

2 for the District of Columbia Circuit or the United States 

3 Court of Appeals for the circuit where the party resides 

4 or has the principal place of business, by filing in the 

5 court, within 60 days after publication in the Federal Reg6 ister of the entry of the rule, a written petition requesting 

7 that the rule be set aside. 

8 ‘‘(b) A copy of the petition shall be transmitted forth9 with by the clerk of the court to an officer designated by 

10 the Commission for that purpose. Thereupon the Commis11 sion shall file in the court the record on which the rule 

12 complained of is entered, as provided in section 2112 of 

13 title 28, United States Code, and the Federal Rules of 

14 Appellate Procedure. 

15 ‘‘(c) On the filing of the petition, the court has juris16 diction, which becomes exclusive on the filing of the 

17 record, to affirm and enforce or to set aside the rule in 

18 whole or in part. 

19 ‘‘(d) The court shall affirm and enforce the rule un20 less the Commission’s action in promulgating the rule is 

21 found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, 

22 or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to con23 stitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess 

24 of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4246 IH

1 of statutory right; or without observance of procedure re2 quired by law.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Demetri BROWN, petitioner, v. Christopher BRIDGES, et al.

No. 17-6277.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 4, 2017.

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