alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 15.11




[LETTERHEAD OF GAFFNEY, CLINE & ASSOCIATES (CONSULTANTS)PTE LTD.]
  
   YDH/dh/PS-13-2127&PS-13-2128/2014/L0090a
  27th March, 2014
  CNOOC Limited
 No. 25, Chaoyangmenbei Dajie
 Dongcheng District
 Beijing 100010, P.R. China
 
 Dear Sir,
 
 
 Consent of Independent Consultant
 
 
 We consent to the reference to our firm in the form and context in which they appear in this Annual Report on Form 20-F, the inclusion of our reports herein, and to the incorporation by the reference in any Registration Statement on Form F-3 and related Prospectus Supplements of CNOOC Limited for the registration of debt securities and guarantees previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
 
 
 
 Yours sincerely,Gaffney, Cline & Associates (Consultants) Pte Ltd./s/ Stephen A. SakowskiStephen A. SakowskiTechnical Director
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.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Food and Nutrition Service 

          - 7 CFR Part 226 
          - RIN 0584-AD69 

# AGENCY:

Food and Nutrition Service, USDA. 

# ACTION:

Final rule; confirmation of effective date.

# SUMMARY:

The provisions of the final rule entitled Permanent Agreements for Day Care Home Providers published on June 15, 2005 at 70 FR 34630 could not become effective until approval of the associated information collection requirements by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Those requirements were cleared by OMB on August 18, 2005 under OMB Control Number 0584-0055. This document announces the effective date of the provisions contained in the originally-published rule. 

# DATES:

                        The amendments to 226.6(p) and 226.18(b), published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on June 15, 2005, at 70 FR 34630, are effective as of August 18, 2005.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Keith Churchill, Section Chief, Policy and Program Development Branch, Child Nutrition Division, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, phone (703) 305-2590. 

Dated: November 17, 2005. 

Roberto Salazar, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 05-23578 Filed 12-2-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                                                  1

       

<S>                                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                                JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                                  DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                                        560,988
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 1,463,006
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                                   1,269,179
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              14,974
<PP&E>                                                        2,889,146
<DEPRECIATION>                                                2,704,213
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                4,033,127
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         597,146
<BONDS>                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                      242,756
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                                    3,193,225
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  4,033,127
<SALES>                                                       4,285,479
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              4,285,479
<CGS>                                                         4,382,924
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 4,382,924
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (65,500)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (65,500)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0.00
        


</TABLE>
#### PRICE v. PATTERSON

No. 80 PC.

Case below: 37 N.C. App. 742.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 November 1978.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1557

NATHAN STEVENS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL H. HOLLAND, Chairman; MARTY D. HUDSON,

Trustee; ELLIOT A. SEGAL, Trustee; JOSEPH H.

STAHL, II, Trustee; UNITED MINE WORKERS OF

AMERICA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge.

(CA-99-54-1)

Submitted: January 31, 2001 Decided: February 13, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lawrence L. Moise, III, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. Glenda

S. Finch, Deputy General Counsel, Christopher F. Clarke, Assistant

General Counsel, UMWA HEALTH & RETIREMENT FUNDS, Washington, D.C.,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Nathan Stevens appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment in favor of the Trustees of the United Mine

Workers of America 1974 Pension Trust. We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Stevens v. Holland, No. CA-99-54-1 (W.D. Va. Apr. 4, 2000). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Michael J. Frevola (MJF 8359)

Christopher G. Kelly (CGK 3865)

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

195 Broadway

New York, NY 10007-3189

(212)513-3200

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JUDGE RAKOFF

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.,

Plaintiff,

-againstNATIONAL BIOFUELS, L.P.,

Defendant.

3353

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE

STATEMENT IN

ACCORDANCE WITH

RULE 7.1 OF THE FEDERAL

RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

I, Michael J. Frevola, attorney for Plaintiff Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., having filed an

initial pleading in the above captioned matter, make the following disclosure to the Court

pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.'s shares are publicly traded on the New York and Oslo

Stock Exchanges.

Dated: New York, New York

April 26, 2007

HOLLAND & KNIG:

By:

Michael J. Frevola (MJF 8359)

Christopher G. Kelly (CGK 3865)

195 Broadway

New York, NY 10007-3189

Tel: (212)513-3200

Fax: (212) 385-9010

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.

Case 1:07-cv-03353-JSR Document 2 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
Consolidated Balance Sheet at September 30, 1996, and the Consolidated Statement
of Income for the period ending September 30, 1996, and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              Sep-30-1996
<CASH>                                         159900
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  360500
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                    216500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               827100
<PP&E>                                        5549300
<DEPRECIATION>                                3372300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                3187000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          569800
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        53700
<OTHER-SE>                                    1297500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  3187000
<SALES>                                       1412600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              1412600
<CGS>                                          773000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 1289600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (110300)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              38500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                233300
<INCOME-TAX>                                    72400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            160900
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   160900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    3.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
        


</TABLE>
# The Attorney General of Texas August 30, 1978 JOHN L. HILL Attorney General
HonorableGene Knize Ellis County Attorney Ellis County Courthouse Waxahachie,Texas 75165 OpinionNo. H- 1234 Re: Authority of county to exchange real estate for like property. Dear Mr. Knize: YOU ask whether the commissioners court has the authority to dispose of real estate owned by the county through the method of exchange for similar or like property. The commissioners court may diiposa of land only pursuant to some statute. Fer

a 47 Tex. 42lf1877); Attorney General OpinionM799 (1971). The statute governing the dii of land by the commissioners court is article 1577,V.T.C.S. Wilsonv. County of Calhoun, 489 S.W.2d393, 397 (Tex. Civ. App. - Corpus Christi 1972,writ ref ’d n.r.e.); Attorney General OpinionsM-799 (197U; M-524 (1969). Article 1577 permits the commissioners court to “appoint a Commis; sioner to sell or lease any real estate of the county at public auction.

. . .v Terms such as “sell” or “sale” have been construed to encompassan exchange. Bowling v. City of Bl Paso, 525 S.W.Bd539 (Tex. Civ. App. - Bl Paso) writ ref ’d n.r.e. per curiam, 529S.W.2d509 (Tex. 1974). It is our opinion, howe= that a statute that requires land to be sold at a public auction evidences the intent that the land be sold for money and not exchanged for other property, as auctions are not generally considered methods for effectuating exchanges. See Clark v. Stanhope, 59 S.W. 856, 858 (Ky. 1900)(auctions are a “means of converting things into money, ” quoting Bishop on Contracts, S 528 (lst ed. 1887)). “Auction” means “the sale of any property by competitive bid. ” V.T.C.S. art. 8700, S l(1). If a bid of property were made at an auction, the property’s value would have to be validated by some procedure in order to determine the bid’s competitiveness. The fact that such procedures are not contemplated by the statute indicates that exchanges were not intendedto be authorized. There are exceptions to the auction requirements of article 1577 relating to highwayrights-f-way or seawalls, but they are inapplicable here, and we need not consider them.

p. 4927HonorableGene Knize - Page 2 (~-1234)

We note that, outside the scope of article 1577,political subdivisionswith the oower of eminent domain and condemnation mav exchange Landbetween themklves. City of Tyler v. Smith County, 246 S.W.22601(Tek 1952);El Paso Count e v. City of El Paso, 357 S.W.2d 783 (Tex. Civ. App. - El Paso 1962,no wrtt
. such agreements might be considered to be “sales” of land, they are “most reasonably characterized as an agreement reached between two political subdivisions

. . . respecting the paramountpublic use of land owned by one of them. ” Attorney General OpinionH-93 (1973). SUMMARY Land sold or leased at a public auction pursuantto article 1577, V.T.C.S., may not be exchanged for other property.- Land may also be exchanged between political subdivisions with the power of eminent domain.

APPROVED: ey General of Texas

DAVIDM:KENDALL, First Assistant pJ&4$r C. ROBERTHEATH,Chairman Opinion Committee

p. 4928
#### STATE v. MOORE

No. 35.

Case below: 21 N.C. App. 557.

Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 13 August 1974.
Case 7:07-cv-03332-CLB-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 7:07-cv-03332-CLB-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 7:07-cv-03332-CLB-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 7:07-cv-03332-CLB-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 7:07-cv-03332-CLB-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 7:07-cv-03332-CLB-MDF Document 1 Filed 04/26/2007 Page 6 of 6
#### BRANTLEY v. NEAL

No. 59 PC.

Case below: 39 N.C. App. 734.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 May 1979.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WARREN GERBER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 793 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of August, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### STATE v. WILLIAMS

No. 99 PC.

Case below: 34 N.C. App. 408.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 15 December 1977. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 15 December 1977.
McGladrey
      & Pullen


**Certified
      Public Accountants**





**Exhibit
      23.2**





**Consent
      of Independent Registered Certified Public Accounting Firm**





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (No.
      333-139403, 333-109187, 333-122145 and 333-122420) on Form S-3, Registration
      Statement (No. 333-51468) on Form S-3 and Registration Statement (No.
      333-101502) on Form F-3 of Workstream Inc. of our report dated August 17, 2007
      relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements, which appear
      in
      this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Workstream Inc. for the year ended May
      31,
      2007.






/s/ McGladrey &
              Pullen







Orlando,
      FL


August
      24, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000055373
<NAME> KENTUCKY POWER COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      740,150
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     41,305
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         174,487
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         7,419
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 100,204
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,063,565
<COMMON>                                        50,450
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      158,750
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             61,602
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 270,802
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           200,991
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              23,863
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  140,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     11,332
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                 3,151
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 413,426
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,063,565
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      301,661
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            10,561
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     252,297
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     262,858
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         38,803
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 868
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  39,671
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        22,409
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,262
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   17,262
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        22,770
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        7,127
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          87,675
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1> All common stock owned by parent company; no EPS required.
</FN>


</TABLE>
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



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), Brian M. NeSmith, Chief Executive Officer of Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (the Company), and Kevin Royal, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2005, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: July 12, 2005



|                                                       |  |                                    
|------------------------------------------------------ |  | -----------------------------------
|/s/ BRIAN M. NESMITH                                   |  | /s/ KEVIN ROYAL                    
|Brian M. NeSmith President and Chief Executive
Officer |  | Kevin Royal Chief Financial
Officer



This certification is not deemed to be
filed for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification is not deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of
1933 or Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
#### Peters *v.*Dalton, Appellant

January 17, 1905:

(No. 2).

Argued Dec. 13, 1904.

Appeal, No. 149, Oct. T., 1904, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., March T., 1904, No. 3587, striking off appeal from justice of the peace in case of Jacob M. Peters v. Thomas Dalton.

Before Rice, P. J., Beaver, Orlady, Smith, Porter, Morrison and Henderson, JJ.

Reversed.

Opinion by

Beaver, J.,

Two rules were granted in this case:

1. To show cause why the appeal should not be stricken off on the ground of the suit before the magistrate having been based upon a lease which waived the right of appeal. The same question arises here as we had in No. 149 of October term, 1904, between the same parties, in which an opinion has this day been filed. The question upon the rule to strike off the appeal is precisely the same as in that case and we have reached the same conclusion, under an examination of the case.

2. The other rule, .however, was taken by the appellant to show cause why the proceedings should not be quashed on the ground that the suit before the magistrate- was based not only upon the lease for rent, but for consequential damages arising from the defendant’s quitting the premises without proper notice and leaving them unprotected, by reason of which third parties. *288strangers to the lease, entered and stole lead pipe and did other damage to the property. The transcript of the judgment before the magistrate does not clearly indicate that the claim for damages was of the character indicated by the appellant in his affidavit. So far as the transcript itself is concerned, the judgment may be for damages for something done or omitted to be done under the lease, and might be entirely consistent with such a claim. No testimony was taken, and we cannot reach a definite conclusion in regard to the matter from the record as it now stands. Inasmuch as the case goes back for trial, however, the whole question can be tried upon the appeal without prejudice to the rights of either party.

For the reasons set forth, however, in No. 149 of October term, 1904, the order of the court striking off the appeal should be, and now is, reversed and the appeal reinstated.
Exhibit (4)(b)(xxiii)


 

Classification: Confidential


 





31 October 2019


 


Private & Confidential


Ms Sarah Legg


 


Dear Sarah,


 


Non-executive Director appointment –
Lloyds Banking Group plc


 


Further to my letter of 21 October, I can
now confirm that your appointment on the terms set out in that letter will commence on 1st December, 2019. I look forward
very much to having you with us.


 


Best regards,


 


/s/ Norman Blackwell
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-129406, Form S-8
No. 333-135101 and Form S-8 No. 333-94075) pertaining to the 1999 Equity Incentive Plan, Miscellaneous Stock Option Agreements, 2005 Equity
Incentive Plan, 2005 Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan, and 2005 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Website Pros, Inc. of our reports dated March 4, 2008, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of Website Pros, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Website Pros, Inc. included in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.



Jacksonville,
Florida
March 4, 2008

---



QuickLinks