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

EXHIBIT 99.1

Contact:
Glenn A. Etherington, Chief Financial Officer
(972) 403-8300
getherington@metasolv.com



METASOLV TO BROADCAST FOURTH QUARTER CONFERENCE CALL LIVE ON THE INTERNET

PLANO, Texas (Jan. 31, 2001) - MetaSolv, Inc. (Nasdaq/NM: MSLV) today announced
it will provide an online Web simulcast and rebroadcast of its 2000 fourth
quarter earnings release conference call.

     The live broadcast of MetaSolv, Inc.'s quarterly conference call will be
available online by going to www.metasolv.com and clicking on the link to
Investor Relations and at www.streetevents.com and www.vcall.com.  The call is
scheduled to begin at 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on February 7, 2001.  The online
replay will follow shortly after the call and continue through March 7, 2001.

About MetaSolv, Inc.
MetaSolv, Inc. (Nasdaq: MSLV) headquartered in Plano, Texas was founded in 1992.
MetaSolv, through its wholly owned subsidiary, MetaSolv Software, Inc., is a
leading provider of order management and service fulfillment solutions for next
generation communications providers. MetaSolv's Telecom Business Solution (TBS)
software product suite integrates a communications provider's business from
network planning and engineering to operations and customer care. With
MetaSolv's TBS software, communications providers can quickly and efficiently
respond to market demand, optimize their service fulfillment processes, and
build stronger relationships with their customers. MetaSolv is an active
participant in the Ordering & Billing Forum (OBF), TeleManagement Forum (TMF)
and the new Application Service Provider (ASP) Consortium. MetaSolv has regional
offices in Chicago, Denver, Atlanta, McLean, VA and London. MetaSolv's web site
is www.metasolv.com, or contact MetaSolv directly at (800) 747-0791.
   ----------------


MetaSolv is a registered trademark, the MetaSolv logo, Telecom Business Solution
and TBS are trademarks of MetaSolv Software, Inc. All other trademarks are
property of their respective owners.


                                     -END-
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:* National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Initial Review Group; Obstetrics and Maternal-Fetal Biology Subcommittee.

*Date:* October 27, 2010.

*Time:* 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

*Agenda:* To review and evaluate grant applications.

*Place:* Legacy Hotel and Meeting Center, 1775 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.

*Contact Person:* Peter Zelazowski, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, National Institutes of Health, NICHD, DSR, 6100 Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6902, *peter.zelazowski@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

      ( print page 54159)    
Dated: August 30, 2010.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-22097 Filed 9-2-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
News United States Air Force
 Bully BrothersPublished Nov. 25, 2016
                        
                        By Senior Airman Apryl Hall
                        
                        
                        Minot Air Force Base Public Affairs
                **MINOT AIR FORCE BASE, N.D. (AFNS) --**
                Ask any Airman what their dream base is and not many would respond with, “Minot Air Force Base!” But for one young Airman, that was his exact response.Airman 1st Class Jarret Nave, a 91st Missile Maintenance Squadron electro-mechanical technician, knew where he wished to be stationed when he booked the same job as his older brother. As fate would have it, he ended up with the same job as his brother Senior Airman Todd Nave, a 91st MMXS missile communications team chief.“I knew there were only a few bases I could go, so Minot was my number one choice,” Jarret said. “It was a lot easier going to a place where I already knew someone.”Todd was mutually excited for his younger brother to join him, not only at Minot AFB, but also in his squadron.“I was really happy,” Todd said. “I had his name tapes ready for him and thought I’d show him around when he arrived.”Military service isn’t a foreign idea in the Nave household. Their father served in the Navy and their two older brothers, one currently serving at Kirtland Air Force Base and the other recently separated from the Marine Corps, also enlisted. Todd said although their family doesn’t envy the cold weather, they are happy him and Jarret have each other to lean on.“My dad’s happy about it, because he knows if we ever have anything going on, we can talk to each other,” Todd said. “He knows that we’re hanging out together, so we’re not isolated.”For Jarret, having his brother close allows him to continue sharing normal, everyday conversations.“It’s really nice to have family here and be able to talk to someone about my dreams and stuff,” Jarrett said.Todd added it’s nice to have someone he can count on whenever he needs a wingman.“If I ever need someone to work out with me, watch a movie or go eat with me, I just call him up,” Todd said. “He’s really good with money too, so I always ask him for advice,”Although they both find it convenient to always have a friend nearby, it’s about more than just talking or grabbing dinner. They both know family bonds are stronger than most, and it isn’t something they take for granted.“The best part about being stationed with my brother is having someone I can trust here,” Todd said. “I can ask for an opinion or not be worried about what they think about me.”With their futures still uncertain, one thing the Nave brothers know is they both want to end up back in Wichita, Kansas where most of the family currently resides. Whether they make the Air Force a career or use their learned technical skills to help their dad run his electrical company, one thing is certain according to them; their time spent together here has only made them closer.Minot AFB 



AFGSC 



AF family 



brothers 



91st MMXS
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

KEVIN MICHAEL TOLIVER, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-2649

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed May 25, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Daniel L. Perry, 

Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Richard J. Sanders, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Donna S. Koch, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CRENSHAW and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., and GENTILE, GEOFFREY H., 

ASSOCIATE JUDGE, Concur.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 21 - Subsidiaries

     The following is a list of all subsidiaries of the Company:

                                              Jurisdiction          Ownership
Name of Subsidiary                          of Incorporation        Percentage
------------------                          ----------------        ----------
Beepers Plus of Nashville, Inc.                 Tennessee              100%

Beepers Plus of Memphis, Inc.                   Tennessee              100%

Teletouch Licenses, Inc.                        Delaware               100%

Russell's Communications, Inc.                  Louisiana              100%

AACS Communications, Inc.                         Texas                100%
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           5,666
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     66,670
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          16,660
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            16,977
<LOANS>                                        468,419
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,881
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 582,124
<DEPOSITS>                                     404,493
<SHORT-TERM>                                    37,335
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              8,219
<LONG-TERM>                                     28,805
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            82
<OTHER-SE>                                     103,190
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 582,124
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 19,647
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,005
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    12
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                22,664
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               9,180
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,115
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           11,549
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      688
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  7,322
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,608
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,608
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,053
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .39
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.28
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,218
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,686
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      604
<RECOVERIES>                                       111
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,881
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,881
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-27-2000
<CASH>                                     136,784,198
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               46,500,646
<ALLOWANCES>                                   994,034
<INVENTORY>                                 56,947,459
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           252,232,421
<PP&E>                                     135,257,497
<DEPRECIATION>                              59,743,397
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             384,577,044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       45,231,798
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       444,385
<OTHER-SE>                                 331,294,274
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               384,577,044
<SALES>                                    198,441,879
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           198,441,879
<CGS>                                      143,657,795
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              143,657,795
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            46,093,095
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,909,091
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             15,600,080
<INCOME-TAX>                                 6,032,939
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          9,567,141
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,567,141
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21


</TABLE>
#### Janice Marie HENDERSON v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 31, 1974.

Matthew B. Quinn, Jr., Louisville, for appellant.

Ed W. Hancock, Atty. Gen., Thomas R. Emerson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.

Memorandum Opinion

PER CURIAM,

Affirming.*
EXHIBIT
99.1





Consent of Independent Auditor





We
hereby consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report on Form 40-F
for the year ended December 31, 2016 of Pretium Resources Inc. of
our report dated March 9, 2017, relating to the consolidated
financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting, which appears in this Annual
Report.








We also
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form F-10 (File No. 333-211073) and Form S-8 (File
Nos. 333-203409 and 333-213450) of Pretium Resources
Inc.of our report
dated March 9, 2017 referred to above.








/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP





Chartered
Professional Accountants


Vancouver,
BC





March
30, 2017
----

#### EXHIBIT 23.1

#### GEORGE STEWART, CPA2301 SOUTH JACKSON STREET, SUITE 101-GSEATTLE, WASHINGTON     98144(206) 328-8554   FAX (206) 328-0383

 

To Whom It May Concern:

The firm of George Stewart, Certified Public Accountant consents to theinclusions of the Financial Statements of Coronation Acquisition, Corp. as ofDecember 31, 2003 and December 31, 2002, in any filings that are necessary nowor in the near future with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

| Very truly yours,                                                                      |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|  

/s/ George Stewart, CPA

George Stewart, CPA

  Date: April 12, 2004 |
1 This proceeding arises out of Ca use Nos. 2007-CR-10592 and 2007-CR-10463, styled The State of Texas v. Ronald M. Watts , pending in the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas. iii i i i



### MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-08-00657-CR IN RE Ronald WATTS Original Mandamus Proceeding 1 PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Delivered and filed: September 17, 2008 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On August 28, 2008, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus, complaining that the respondent has not ruled on his various petitions for writ of habeas corpus. Counsel has been appointed to represent relator in the trial court. We conclude that appointed counsel for relator is also his counsel for an original proceeding on the issues presented. Relator is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Patrick v. State , 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The absence of a right to hybrid representation means relator’s pro se petition for writ of mandamus will be treated as presenting nothing for this court’s consideration. See id. ; see also Gray v. Shipley , 877 S.W.2d 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. pr oceeding). Consequently, this court has04-08-00657-CR

-2- determined that relator is not entitled to the re lief sought. Therefore, the petition is DENIED. T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a). Relator is encouraged to refrain from filing further pro se petitions regarding his pending criminal proceeding. PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 169 (Wednesday, September 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53687-53688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21792]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2106-059]


Pacific Gas and Electric Company, California; Notice Correcting 
Times for Public Draft Environmental Impact Statement Meetings

August 25, 2010.
    As stated in the July 30, 2010 Notice of Availability for the 
McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric Project draft Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS), Commission staff will be conducting two public meetings to 
receive comments on the draft EIS. The July 30, 2010 notice, however, 
incorrectly listed the time for the morning meeting as 9 a.m.-11 p.m.. 
This notice corrects that error to indicate the meeting is from 9 a.m.-
11 a.m.
    The time and location of the meetings are as follows:
    Morning Meeting:
    Date: September 9, 2010.
    Time: 9 a.m.-11 a.m.
    Place: Holiday Inn Hotel,
    Address: 1900 Hilltop Dr., Redding, CA.
    Evening Meeting:
    Date: September 9, 2010.
    Time: 7 p.m.-9 p.m.
    Place: Holiday Inn Hotel,
    Address: 1900 Hilltop Dr., Redding, CA.
    At these meetings, resource agency personnel and other interested 
persons will have the opportunity to provide oral and written comments 
and recommendations regarding the draft EIS. The meetings will be 
recorded by a court reporter, and all statements (verbal and written) 
will become part of the Commission's public record for the project. 
This meeting is posted on the Commission's calendar located at http://
www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/

[[Page 53688]]

EventsList.aspx along with other related information.
    Whether or not you attend one of these meetings, you are invited to 
submit written comments on the draft EIS. Comments should be filed with 
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. All comments must be filed by 
September 28, 2010, and should reference Project No. 2106-059. Comments 
may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The 
Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and instructions on the Commission's Web site at 
http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Library'' link.
    The Commission staff will consider comments made on the draft EIS 
in preparing a final EIS for the project. Before the Commission makes a 
licensing decision, it will take into account all concerns relevant to 
the public interest. The final EIS will be part of the record from 
which the Commission will make its decision.
    For further information, please contact Emily Carter at (202) 502-
6512.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21792 Filed 8-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
EM ILIANO LOPEZ, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. JAM ES A. YATES, W arde n; e t a l ., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-17492 D.C . No. 1:11-c v-00107-LJO-DLB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Lawre nc e J. O’ Ne ill, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July 21, 2015 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, B EA, a nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s. C a lifornia sta te prisone r Em ilia

n o Lope z a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismi ssing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c t ion a lle g ing c onstitutiona l
c la im s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Hamilton v . Brow n , 630 F.3d 889, 892-93 (9th C ir. 2011) (dismissa l unde r 

# FIL ED AUG 04 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).28 U.S.C . § 1915A); B arre n v . Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th C ir. 1998)

(orde r) (dism i ssa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915(e )(2)). W e m a y a ffirm on a

ny ground supporte d by the re c ord. J ohnson v . Riv e rside He althc a re Sy s., LP , 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th C ir. 2008). W e a ffirm
. Dism issa l of Lope z ’ s a c c e ss-to-c ourts c la im wa s prope r be c a

use Lope z fa ile d to a lle g e fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t he suffe re d a

n a c tua l injury a s a re sult of any de fe nda

nts’ a l le ge d ina c tion. Se eLe w i s v . C ase y , 518 U.S. 343, 348 (1996) (re quiring fa c tua l a lle gations showing a c tua l injury

in orde r to sta

te an a c c e ss-toc ourts c la im ); se e also H

e bbev . Plile r , 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th C ir. 2010) (a lthough pro se ple a dings a re to be libe ra lly

c onstrue d, a

pla intiff m

ust pre se nt fa c t ua l a lle g ations suffic ie nt to sta te a pla u sible c la im

for re lie f). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Lope z ’ s c la i m re ga rding the de nia l of
m e aningful re vie w of his grie va nc e s be c a use the re is no c o nstitutiona l right to
re c e ive a pa

rtic ula r ty pe of prison grie va

nc e re vie w. Se eRamire

z v . Galaza , 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th C ir. 2003) (“ [I] nm ate s la c k a se pa rat e c onstitutiona

l e ntitle m e nt to a spe c ific prison grie va nc e proc e dure .” ); s e ealso Starr v
. Bac a , 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th C ir. 2011) (re quire m e nts for e sta blishing supe

rvisory lia bility). AFFIRM E D .

1 3
- 1 7 4 9 2 2