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

|                                 |                                          | 
|-------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------- | 
|KPMG LLP                         | Telephone    (604) 691-3000             
|Chartered Accountants            | Fax                
      (604) 691-3031
|PO Box 10426 777 Dunsmuir Street | Internet         www.kpmg.ca            
|Vancouver BC V7Y 1K3             |                                         
|Canada                           |                                         

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting
  Firm

The Board of Directors Yukon-Nevada Gold Corp.

We consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form
40-F of our Report of Independent Registered Public Accountig Firm dated March
26, 2010 on the consolidated balance sheet of Yukon-Nevada Gold Corp. as of
December 31, 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
comprehensive income (loss), shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the
years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2009.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference of such
report in the registration statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-171775) of
Yukon-Nevada Gold Corp.

//s// KPMG LLP

Chartered Accountants

Vancouver, Canada April 12, 2011





| | KPMG LLP is a Canadian
      limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMGnetwork of independent
      member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative(KPMG International), a
      Swiss entity. | 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| | KPMG Canada provides
      services to KPMG LLP.                                                                                                                                                                              | 

---
Case 2:16-mj-01061-JFM Document 3 Filed 02/01/16 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:16-mj-01061-JFM Document 3 Filed 02/01/16 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:16-mj-01061-JFM Document 3 Filed 02/01/16 Page 3 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ronnie Eugene Stewart, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Terry L. Stewart, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-98-368-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Before the court are Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial (doc. #396) filed September 7,

2005, two days before plaintiff filed his Notice of Appeal (doc. #397), the remaining

Defendants' Response (doc. # 402), and Plaintiff's Reply. (Doc. # 403). This court retains

jurisdiction to dispose of the Motion for New Trial, notwithstanding plaintiff's later filing of

a Notice of Appeal. Rules 4(a)(4)(A) and (B)(i), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The

Motion for New Trial does not meet the force of the Order granting summary judgment (doc.

#394) and therefore will be denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial (doc. #396) is

denied.

DATED this 11th day of October 2005.

Case 2:98-cv-00368-NVW-LOA Document 404 Filed 10/11/05 Page 1 of 1
#### McNeese *v.*Raines.

Opinion delivered January 12, 1931.

*1092
      *Richardson Richardson,*for appellant.

*W. P. Smith*and *O. G. Blackford,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellee, who was the defendant in the court below files a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the judgment rendered was not a final one. Appellee had filed a demurrer to the complaint of appellant in the court below on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against him. The court sustained the demurrer, and the judgment of the court from which the appeal comes is as follows:

> “Now on this day comes the defendant T. G-. Raines, by his attorney, W. P. Smith, and files its [his] separate demurrer to the complaint of the plaintiff, which demurrer is by the court sustained, to which rulings of the court the plaintiff at the time objected and excepted and asked that his exceptions be noted of record, which is accordingly done. And plaintiff stands on his complaint and prays an appeal to the Supreme Court of Arkansas, which is hereby granted. ’ ’

It is well settled in this State that a judgment sustaining a demurrer is equally conclusive by way of estoppel of the facts admitted in the demurrer as a verdict finding the same facts would have been. The reason is that the judgment is upon the merits of the action as presented by the complaint and admitted by the demurrer and is as effectual as if there had been a verdict upon the same facts, for they are established by way of record in either case. When the facts are established, the litigation as between the same parties and their privies is at an end. Therefore, when the party declines to plead *1093further and judgment is rendered against him, it is a final one. *Luttrell*v. *Reynolds,*63 Ark. 254, 37 S. W. 1051, and *Barrentine v*. *Henry Wrape Co.,*113 Ark. 196, 167 S. W. 1115. Numerous other cases to the same effect might be cited, but the rule is so well settled as to render , this unnecessary.

No special formality is necessary in a judgment, and it is tested by its substance rather than by its form. We are of the opinion that the judgment in the present case shows that the plaintiff stood on his complaint after the demurrer had been sustained to it. The judgment recites that the plaintiff stood on his complaint and prayed an appeal to the Supreme Court which was granted. This, in effect, amounted to a dismissal of the complaint after the plaintiff had elected to stand upon it, and the judgment rendered thus became a decision upon the merits of the case and was final and appealable. *Melton*v. *St. Louis Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co.,*99 Ark. 433, 139 S. W. 289 ; *Durben*v. *Montgomery,*144 Ark. 153, 223 S. W. 17 ; and *Hall*v. *Waters,*118 Ark. 427, 176 S. W. 699.

Therefore, the motion to dismiss the appeal will be denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5
       
<S>                                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                 DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                      SEP-27-1998
<CASH>                                                                 18,320
<SECURITIES>                                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                         132,132
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                                            66,712
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                      245,719
<PP&E>                                                                243,260
<DEPRECIATION>                                                          8,847
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                      2,404,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                 460,606
<BONDS>                                                                     0
<COMMON>                                                               11,259
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                                            657,735
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                        2,404,600
<SALES>                                                               290,346
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                      290,346
<CGS>                                                                 193,614
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                         193,614
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                    1,698,217
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                      2,371
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                    
(1,597,959)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                
(1,597,959)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                             0 
<CHANGES>                                                                   0 
<NET-INCOME>                                                       
(1,597,959)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                           (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                           (.18)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 15.6



CONSENT OF EXPERT



I, Michele White, do hereby consent to (i) the filing of the
written disclosure regarding the technical report entitled “NI 43-101 Technical Report Veris Gold Corp. Jerritt Canyon Property,
Elko County, Nevada” dated July 11, 2013 in the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013, and any
amendments thereto (the “Form 20-F”), of Veris Gold Corp. (the “Company”), filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission and (ii) the incorporation by reference of such disclosure in the Company’s Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-171775) (the “Form S-8”) filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.



I also consent to the use of my name in the Form 20-F, and any
amendments thereto, and to the incorporation by reference of the Form 20-F and any amendments thereto, into the Company’s
Form S-8.



|September 11, 2014 | By: | /s/ Michele White              
|------------------ | --- | -------------------------------
|                   |     | Name: Michele White            
|                   |     | Title: President, All One River
Case 4:15-cr-02058-RM-LAB Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 4:15-cr-02058-RM-LAB Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 4:15-cr-02058-RM-LAB Document 1 Filed 11/18/15 Page 3 of 3
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lauren E. Low","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lelow\/","title":"NASA Awards Promote Science, Technology, Engineering, Math Nationwide","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ecKNp4FtSc\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-awards-promote-science-technology-engineering-math-nationwide\/\">NASA Awards Promote Science, Technology, Engineering, Math Nationwide<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-awards-promote-science-technology-engineering-math-nationwide\/embed\/#?secret=ecKNp4FtSc\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Awards Promote Science, Technology, Engineering, Math Nationwide” — NASA\" data-secret=\"ecKNp4FtSc\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/teamii.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
Case 2:15-mj-01882-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/02/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01882-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/02/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01882-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/02/15 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Jordan Davis,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03412-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: October 26, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8481 Filed 11/01/17 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We hereby consent to the use of our report dated February 7, 1998 on the
consolidated financial statements of Benedek Communications Corporation and
Subsidiaries and Benedek Broadcasting Corporation and Subsidiary, and Benedek
License Corporation and the consolidated supplemental schedule II included in
or made a part of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 1997 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. We also consent to
the reference to our firm under the caption 'Selected Consolidated Financial
Data' in such Annual Report.

                                          /s/ MCGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP

Rockford, Illinois
March 27, 1998
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ruthell Williams,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-03403-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: October 26, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8563 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Abbey A. Donaldson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/aadonald\/","title":"NASA Awards Safety, Mission Assurance Engineering Contract","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"hMD0RErmkV\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-awards-safety-mission-assurance-engineering-contract-2\/\">NASA Awards Safety, Mission Assurance Engineering Contract<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-awards-safety-mission-assurance-engineering-contract-2\/embed\/#?secret=hMD0RErmkV\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Awards Safety, Mission Assurance Engineering Contract” — NASA\" data-secret=\"hMD0RErmkV\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/09\/nasa-meaball-logo.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
Case 2:15-mj-01807-JFM Document 10 Filed 11/02/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01807-JFM Document 10 Filed 11/02/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01807-JFM Document 10 Filed 11/02/15 Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 834 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 834

      To permit the current refunding of certain tax-exempt bonds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 1997

 Mr. Taylor of North Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To permit the current refunding of certain tax-exempt bonds.

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

SECTION 1. CURRENT REFUNDINGS OF CERTAIN TAX-EXEMPT BONDS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 10632 of the Revenue Act 
of 1987 (relating to bonds issued by Indian tribal governments) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The 
amendments made by this section shall not apply to any obligation 
issued after such date if--
            ``(1) such obligation is issued (or is part of a series of 
        obligations issued) to refund an obligation issued on or before 
        such date,
            ``(2) the average maturity date of the issue of which the 
        refunding obligation is a part is not later than the average 
        maturity date of the obligations to be refunded by such issue,
            ``(3) the amount of the refunding obligation does not 
        exceed the outstanding amount of the refunded obligation, and
            ``(4) the net proceeds of the refunding obligation are used 
        to redeem the refunded obligation not later than 90 days after 
        the date of the issuance of the refunding obligation.
For purposes of paragraph (2), average maturity shall be determined in 
accordance with section 147(b)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to refunding obligations issued after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Southern Bank of Kentucky *v.*A. Johnson et al.

Bills and Notes — Accomodation Endorser — Indemnity—Exoneration.

The last accommodation endorser on a bill may look for indemnity to the one endorsing next before him and a lien resulting, on the levy of an execution on the former endorsers property inures to the last endorsers benefit, and if the payee interferes and suspends the execution the last endorser is exonerated.

APPEAL FROM CALLOWAY CIRCUIT COURT.

February 27, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

Wadkins, Gardner and Johnson, in the order named, were all accommodation endorsers of the bill finally endorsed to the appellant as holder, and, therefore, Johnson had a right to look for indemnity to Gardner, against whom the first judgment was obtained, after protest. The lien resulting from the levy of an execution on Gardner’s property, inured to' Johnson’s security. The appellant by its interference with, and suspension of that execution for more than three years after the levy, increased Johnson’s risk, and lost the full benefit of the lien; and thereby entitled Johnson to equitable exoneration.

Moreover, after the levy, the appellant dismissed its action against Johnson and the personal representative of Wadkins; and, according to the pleadings, that dismission must be considered absolute and, without proof to the contrary, must be deemed a voluntary abandonment of the action, in consequence of the ' *374security afforded by the levy and the supposed inutility of further expense and litigation, prosecuting the action against the appellees. That dismission is, therefore, adjudged by this court to be a bar to this action as against each of the appellees. The verdict in their favor was therefore right. The circuit court does not give any peremptory instruction to find such a verdict. And we see no error in giving or refusing instructions, which should set aside the verdict, apparently authroized by the evidence and the law.

Dawson, Gilbert, *for appellant.*

*Palmer, D.*Holland, *for appellees.*

It seems that, after the levy on Gardner’s property, apparently sufficient for satisfying the judgment, the personal representative of Wadkins offered to file an answer denying notice of protest and charging that, had the action been brought and prosecuted with due diligence the debt might have been made out of the drawer and acceptor; and that, thereupon, on the appellant’s motion, the action as to Johnson *&*Wadkins’ representative was *"stricken from the docket “*which, as she alleges, was extended to, and should, operate as a retraxit — and under the circumstances we so adjudge. '

But, *independently of*this, the jury impanneled to try the issue found for Wadkins’ representative on all the facts, and we cannot adjudge that the evidence did not authorize the verdict.

Wherefore, the judgment is *affirmed.*