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

Michele White, CPG 
  All One River, LLC 
  634 Pulver Rd. 
  Lake George, CO 80827 
  719-748-3270 
  Aubassoon@aol.com

Exhibit 99.17

CONSENT OF TECHNICAL REPORT AUTHOR

Reference is made to the technical report entitled NI 43-101
  Technical Report, Yukon-Nevada Gold Corp., Jerritt Canyon Property, Elko County,
  Nevada, USA, dated December 31, 2011, which the undersigned has prepared
  (the Technical Report). The undersigned hereby consents to
  the written disclosure of extracts therefrom or summaries thereof, either directly
  or as incorporated by reference, in the annual information form of Veris Gold
  Corp. (the Corporation) dated March 28, 2013 and the Annual
  Report on Form 40-F of the Corporation for the fiscal year ended December 31,
  2012. The undersigned further consents to the incorporation by reference in
  the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-171775) and the Registration
  Statement on Form F-10 (No. 333-184496), as amended or supplemented, of the
  Corporation of the extracts from, or summaries of, the Technical Report.





/s/ Michele White
  Michele White, CPG 
  March 28, 2013

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          18,942
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,419
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,361
<PP&E>                                       1,519,947
<DEPRECIATION>                                  72,607
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,616,487
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,937
<BONDS>                                        418,177
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    151,250
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,008,765
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,616,487
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,053
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,183
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,385
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,385
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,385
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.49
        

</TABLE>
#### Mollie Mills *v.*Commonwealth.

Indictment — Lascivious Indulgence.

It is unnecessary to allege in an indictment for lascivious indulgence that the defendant procured evil disposed persons to meet together if she keeps a house for such purpose and permits such practices.

APPEAL FROM McCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT.

January 9, 1872.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

Every material fact necessary to constitute the offense charged is alleged in the indictment. It would be wholly unnecessary to allege that appellant *procured*evil disposed persons to meet together for lascivious indulgences, if she kept a house for *145such purpose and permitted such practices therein she was guilty of the offense. Perceiving no valid objection to the indictment the demurrer to it was properly overruled, and the judgment must be *affirmed.*

*Bidwell, for appellant.*
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals3023605-MAY-201108:24 AM
#### Wm. Peay's Adm'r *v.*Jos. Winter's Heirs, etc.

Descent and Distribution — Suit Against Heirs or Devisees — Liability of Decedent — Demand.

Heirs or devisees may be sued by a creditor for any liability of tbe decedent, and the failure to make a demand is not an available ground for dismissing sucb an action.

APPEAL FROM MARSHALL CIRCUIT COURT.

November 14, 1871.

*Palmer, for appellants.*

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The court below erred in sustaining the demurrer of appellees to the amended petition of appellant. Section 10 of Chap. 40, 1st Vol. Revised Statutes provides that the heir or devisee may be sued in equity by a creditor for any liabilpty of the decedent. In *Johnson v. Belt,*4th Bush 406, this court also decides “that a failure to maleé a demand is not an available ground for dismissing such an action, and that the provisions of the civil code upon this subject is restricted in its application to suits against personal representatives. The judgment of the court below sustaining the demurrer to appellant’s amended petition is reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
#### Bagicha SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-72303.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.*

Decided Dec. 10, 2004.

Madan Ahluwalia, Esq., Ahluwalia Law Office, San Mateo, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Cindy S. Ferrier, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., John C. Cunningham, Esq., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Bagicha Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing in part, and sustaining in part the cross-appeals of the Immigra*568tion Judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by the former 8 U.S.C. § 1105a. *See Kalaw v. INS,*133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We review for substantial evidence, *Cruz-Navarro v. INS,*232 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition in part, and dismiss it in part.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Singh failed to establish either past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground by either the Sikh militants or the police. For example, the record demonstrates that Singh alleged only that he would be persecuted by Sikh militants based on his status as a former police officer. *See id.*(“persecution resulting from membership in the police or military is insufficient, *by itself,*to establish persecution on account of membership in a particular social group or political opinion.”) (emphasis in original). In addition, although Singh contends that he will be persecuted by the police because he opposed the tactics used against suspected militants, there is no evidence in the record that he ever expressed that political opinion to the police or that the police would impute that political opinion to him given that he never refused to perform his job duties and always followed orders to beat suspected militants. *See Al-Harbi v. INS,*242 F.3d 882, 889 (9th Cir.2001) (“Punishment on account of desertion generally does not support refugee status, unless it can be shown that such punishment is based on political opinion or another statutorily-protected ground.”). Accordingly, Singh necessarily failed to satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of deportation. *See Cruz-Navarro,*232 F.3d at 1031.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of Singh’s application for voluntary departure. *See Beltran-Tirado v. INS,*213 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, and DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Thomas Kane v. Elbridge G. Stowe.

*Special findings*— Legal *rulings.*

Error cannot be assigned upon the incorrectness of findings of fact in a case at law; the facts cannot be reviewed.

A party to a case tried by a judge without a jury is not damnified by the rulings of the judge upon separate questions of law if the findings of fact do not entitle the party to relief.

'Where the moderator and assessor of a school district are sued upon an order signed by them, a finding that it was signed on a false and fraudulent statement that the school director approved and would sign it, and on condition that it should be of no force unless he did' sign it, and the farther finding that there was no purpose to contract, except for the district, defeats an action thereon in the absence of’ any showing of subsequent action creating contract relations, or of any action by defendants, taken with a knowledge of the facts and! estopping them personally.

The Supreme Court cannpt change a finding of fact.

Case made after judgment from Kent. (Montgomery, J.).

April 10.

April 18.

AssuMPsrr. Defendant had judgment.

Affirmed.

*Horton H. Drury*and *E. A. Weber*for plaintiff.

*J.W. & O. C. Bansom*for defendant.

Campbell, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant as survivor of’ *318himself and one Alvin J. Shearer,, to recover the price of certain school furniture, which plaintiff claims they purchased of him. In the court below judgment was rendered for the defendant.

Many errors are assigned, several of which go to the incorrectness of. the judge’s findings, and the remainder to the judgment as not borne. out by the findings. The former are not sustainable, as the facts cannot be reviewed in this Court. The latter are material only in so far as it may be claimed they would warrant a judgment for plaintiff.

It can make no difference to a plaintiff whether the judge is correct or not on separate questions of law, if he does not find such facts as entitle the plaintiff to relief. Until such a finding is made the defendant cannot be charged, and the plaintiff has no damage from the legal rulings.

In the present case the judge found expressly that the supposed order signed by defendant and Shearer, who were assessor and moderator of a school-district, was signed on a fraudulent and false statement that the director approved and would sign it, and on the condition that it should be of no force unless he did sign it. Had it been so signed it would have bound the district, and the judge found there was never any purpose to contract, except for the district. There is no finding of any subsequent action as creating contract relations, or of any action of Shearer and defendant had with knowledge of the true state of facts and estopping them personally. Inasmuch as we cannot change the finding of facts, there is no foundation for any relief to plaintiff, and we need not consider the details further.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

WHAM-O HOLDING, LTD. and 

INTERSPORT CORP. d/b/a WHAM-O,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED 

ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”,

Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 1:20-cv-03761

Judge Manish S. Shah

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby files this Notice of Voluntary 

Dismissal, without prejudice, as to the following Defendant(s) identified on Schedule A of the 

Complaint:

NO. DEFENDANT

28 auzinn15

348 Pvnoocy

21 aeolianisland 

31 bestnbestonline 

32 beyondmall 

43 clio4u 

145 top.art.online 

154 whitesibirien 

42 charminggaga 

49 dadnmonsbasket 

59 equalityoutlet 

80 hualiisland 

94 libra.studio 

103 mallhighquality 

160 ymca200808 

62 foreverforyou2017

84 jewelry-panbeads

121 peachpink

30 beadsmarket

114 my-little-pet

Case: 1:20-cv-03761 Document #: 59 Filed: 10/12/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:7896
DATED: October 11, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Keith A. Vogt

Keith A. Vogt (Bar No. 6207971)

Keith Vogt, Ltd.

111 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1700

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Telephone: 312-675-6079

E-mail: keith@vogtip.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Case: 1:20-cv-03761 Document #: 59 Filed: 10/12/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:7897
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document was electronically filed on October 11, 2020 with the Clerk of the Court using the 

CM/ECF system, which will automatically send an email notification of such filing to all registered 

attorneys of record.

/s/ Keith A. Vogt

Keith A. Vogt

Case: 1:20-cv-03761 Document #: 59 Filed: 10/12/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:7898
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-40743

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAMES RUSTIN STEWART,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:09-CR-159-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:

*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent James Rustin Stewart

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th

Cir. 2011). Stewart has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief

and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 12, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-40743 Document: 00511475844 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2011
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−03852

Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo

Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, July 22, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: A notice of voluntary

dismissal has been filed. This case is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to FRCP

41(a)(1)(A)(i). All pending dates and motions are terminated as moot. Civil case

terminated. Mailed notice. (mgh, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-03852 Document #: 15 Filed: 07/22/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:112
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20709 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARGARITO PERALTA-MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-45-1

-------------------- January 23, 2002 Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Margarito Peralta-Morales on appeal has moved for leave to withdraw as counsel and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Peralta-Morales has filed a response to counsel's motion and brief, arguing that his attorney did not speak Spanish and that he entered the United States in search of medical care for injuries allegedly inflicted in a beating by a sheriff.No. 01-20709 -2- Our independent review of the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. DISMISSED. MOTION GRANTED.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

In connection with the Annual Report of Eagle Hospitality Properties Trust, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Raymond D. Martz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 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.



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/S/    RAYMOND D.
MARTZ
|Raymond D. Martz       
|Chief Financial Officer

March 6, 2006
2nd Amendment to the Licence Agreement



 Exhibit 10.25 
  
 2nd AMENDMENT 

  
 to the LICENCE AGREEMENT of May 1, 2003 
  
 by and between FUJISAWA Deutschland GmbH, a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of Germany and having its registered office at Berg-am-Laim-Strasse
129, 81673 München, Germany (hereinafter referred to as “F-DE”) and SALMEDIX, Inc., a corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of Delaware, having its principal office at 9380 Judicial Drive, San Diego, CA 92121, United
States of America (hereinafter referred to as “SALMEDIX”). 
  
 F-DE and
SALMEDIX mutually agree to amend the LICENCE AGREEMENT of May 1, 2003 between the parties hereto as follows: 
  
 1. AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE 2 
  
 The
following Paragraph 1a) shall be inserted into Article 2: 
  

	“1a)	F-DE further grants to SALMEDIX the right and license under its Scientific Information and Data to perform clinical trials related to the Product within The Americas (Central and
South America) and Australia.” 

  
 2. OTHER

  
 Except as specifically provided in this Amendment, the LICENCE AGREEMENT
of May 1, 2003, as amended of July 21, 2003, shall remain unchanged an continue in full force and effect as it is. 
  

									
	 Munich, April 19, 2004
  
 FUJISAWA DEUTSCHLAND GmbH
	 	 	 	 San Diego,
  
 SALMEDIX, INCORPORATED

			
	 /s/ W. Tinhof

	 	 	 	 /s/ David S. Kabakoff


	 Dr. W. Tinhof, President
	 	 	 	 David S. Kabakoff, Chairman and CEO

				
	 /s/ W. Schoch

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 W. Schoch, Executive Vice President
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

I,
Thomas P. Russo, Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial
Officer of MetaMorphix, Inc. (the Registrant), certify that to the best of my
knowledge, based upon a review of the annual report on Form 10-KSB for
the year ended December 31, 2005 of the Registrant (the Report):

| |                                                                                                                                                                  
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) The
  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                        
| |                                                                                                                                                                  
| | (2) The
  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
  Registrant.

| |     |                      
| | --- | ---------------------
| | By: | /s/
  Thomas P. Russo

| |                                                                     
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Thomas
  P. Russo                                                   
| | Executive
  Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of
| | MetaMorphix,
  Inc.                                                 

Date: October 3, 2006

---
#### Quinn, adm’r, &c. plaintiff *vs.*Lloyd, defendant.

An irregularity in the appointment of a referee will he waived by the appearance of a party before him and proceeding with the reference, for several days, without making any objection.

(Before Barbour, J. at special term,

November —, 1867.)

Motion for the removal of a referee.

This was a motion on the part of the defendant for the removal of the referee in this action, upon the ground that he was irregularly appointed.

After issue joined, the attorneys for the parties respectively entered into a stipulation, which provided that the action be referred to a referee, named in such stipulation, *158to hear and determine. Such stipulation was taken by the plaintiff’s attorney- and an application made by him, *ex parte,*thereupon, for an order, in accordance with its provisions; the court, on such *ex parte*application, and without the consent of the attorney of the defendant, granted an order referring the cause, not to the referee so agreed upon, but' to another person; the defendant’s attorney, haying notice of such order of reference, attended before the referee named • therein, and proceeded with such reference without any objection on his part, for several days. He now moved that the order of reference be set aside for irregularity.

Barbour, J.

The acquiescence of the attorney of the defendant in the order, as exhibited by the proceedings before the referee,for several days, without objection on the defendant’s part, must be held to constitute a waiver of the irregularity.

The motion is denied, with $10 costs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cr−00299

Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr.

Hardy Lee Browner

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, August 12, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr: On the Court's own

motion, the telephonic status hearing and motion hearing [23], [24], [25] are reset to

8/14/2020 at 9:45 a.m. Time change only. The call−in information for the 8/14/2020

hearing is as follows: Please use the Court's toll−free call−in number 877−336−1829,

conference access code is 6963747. Mailed notice (cdh, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cr-00299 Document #: 27 Filed: 08/12/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:101