alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S95A1688.

#### JOHNSON v. THE STATE.

(463 SE2d 123)

Carley, Justice.

The state is seeking imposition of the death penalty against Charlie Edward Johnson for the murder of Lillian Hodges. Johnson was also indicted for burglary and theft by taking in connection with the murder. We granted Johnson’s application for interim appeal pursuant to OCGA § 17-10-35.1 to consider whether an order of the trial court regarding discovery by the prosecution comports with *Rower v. State,*264 Ga. 323 (5) (443 SE2d 839) (1994). We hold that it does not.

The trial court, relying upon *Sabel v. State,*248 Ga. 10, 18 (282 SE2d 61) (1981), issued an order requiring Johnson to disclose the names and addresses of all experts whom he intends to call at trial and to have the opinions of all testifying experts reduced to writing *834and supplied to the state no later than 45 days prior to trial, whether or not the reports will be offered into evidence. This order is over-broad and in clear violation of the rule articulated in *Rower,*264 Ga. at 324-325, which overruled *Sabel*in part. See also *Perry v. State,*255 Ga. 490 (3) (339 SE2d 922) (1986); *Law v. State,*251 Ga. 525, 528 (307 SE2d 904) (1983). Under *Rower,*because the state is not required to have the opinions of its experts reduced to writing nor to produce any reports except those it will introduce at trial, the state is entitled only to those existing, written scientific reports which the defense intends to introduce.

Decided November 6, 1995.

*John J. Ossick, Jr., Virginia J. Bryson,*for appellant.

*Glenn Thomas, Jr., District Attorney, John B. Johnson III, Stephen D. Kelley, Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellee.

The state complains that the rule in *Rower*permits both defendants and the state to evade discovery of the opinions of their experts by instructing their experts to report all findings verbally. The state argues that requiring both parties to have the opinions of their experts reduced to writing will further the search for truth and avoid “trial by ambush.” See *Sabel v. State,*248 Ga. at 18. While it may be true that the rules of discovery presently permit or encourage undesirable tactics, it is for the General Assembly, not this Court, to evaluate and address this issue.

Because the trial court’s order is erroneous to the extent that it requires the defense to reduce unwritten opinions to writing and to produce written reports which it does not intend to introduce at trial, we remand the case to the trial court with direction to modify the order to comport with *Rower.*

*Judgment reversed and case remanded.*

*All the Justices concur.*
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 02700**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** 

### 02700\02700_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist x 

### 02700\02700_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook x 

### 02700\02700_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02700\02700_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02700\02700_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02700\02700_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02700\02700_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02700\02700_Part F.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02700\02700_Part G.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02700\02700_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02700\Plant Contact\Joliet 9 Effluent Guidelines ICR Follow Up.doc Email communications regarding questions on the survey response x 

### 02700\Plant Contact\Joliet 9 Follow Up.xlsx Email communications regarding questions on the survey response x 

### 02700\Plant Contact\Joliet 9 revised POND-1 diagram[1].pdf Email communications regarding questions on the survey response x 

### 02700\Plant Contact\Part A(1).xls Email communications regarding questions on the survey response x 

### 02700\Plant Contact\Part C(1).xls Email communications regarding questions on the survey response x 

### 02700\Plant Contact\Part D(1).xls Email communications regarding questions on the survey response x 

### 02700\Plant Contact\Part E(1).xls Email communications regarding questions on the survey response x 

### 02700\Suppporting Documents\02700_MWG - Joliet 9 - Aerial Plan - 100810.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 02700\Suppporting Documents\02700_MWG - Joliet No. 9 - Water Balance Diagram - 101210.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 02700\Suppporting Documents\02700_MWG-Joliet No. 9-Block Diagram #1 - POND-1-101210.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 02700\Suppporting Documents\02700_MWG-Joliet No. 9-Block Diagram #2 - WWT-1-101210.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 02700\Suppporting Documents\02700_Well Map Aerial.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 02700\Suppporting Documents\Midwest Generation ICR Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 3No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 2176]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-963]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management


Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project

AGENCIES: Forest Service, USDA; Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Revised notice of intent to prepare environmental impact 
statements.

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

SUMMARY: Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP). 
The purpose for this revised notice of intent is to provide public 
notice of the changed completion schedule for the ICBEMP's 
environmental impact statements (EIS). This Federal Register notice 
revises the schedule published in the September 11, 1996 Federal 
Register (61 FR 47859) for the completion of the EISs. The Executive 
Steering Committee (ESC), at its meeting from December 2-4, 1996, took 
the important step of approving the alternatives for inclusion in the 
draft EISs. The ESC also directed changes to the draft EISs to improve 
them and address specific concerns raised in its earlier internal 
review of the draft documents. The directed changes focus on 
clarification of the objectives and standards for the alternatives. 
Based on the amount of time to implement these changes and then to 
prepare and print the document, the draft EISs are now planned to go to 
the printer in April, with a scheduled release for public comment in 
June 1997. Release of the final EISs and Records of Decision is 
anticipated approximately one year later.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Linda S. Colville, Project Management Team, Interior Columbia Basin 
Ecosystem Management Project; 304 North 8th Street, Room 246, Boise, 
Idaho 83702, phone 208-334-1770.

    Dated: January 6, 1997.
Robert W. Williams,
Regional Forester.

    Dated: January 6, 1997.
Elaine Y. Zielinski,
State Director.
[FR Doc. 97-963 Filed 1-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M; 4310-84-M
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 1604

KRISTY FRYE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Anthony John Trenga , Senior District Judge. ( 1:19

- cv - 00080

- AJT

- IDD )

Submitted : January 24, 2022 Decided: February 1, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Kristy Frye, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Brian Hardie, Thomas Patrick Murphy, Jason Alexander Ross, JACKSON LEWIS PC, Reston, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kristy Frye appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor
of her former employer, the American College of Radiology , on Frye’s claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 to 2654 , and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213 , and denying Frye leave to file an amended complaint . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order

. Frye v. Am. Col l. of Radiology , No. 1:19

-

cv - 00080

- AJT

- IDD (E.D. Va. Mar. 11, 2020 ; April 27, 2020 ). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
befor e this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
October 26, 2012

No. 11-1327.

#### Evans *v.*Michigan.

Sup. Ct. Mich. [Certio-rari granted, 567 U. S. 905.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae*and for divided argument granted.
---

Exhibit 23.6

Consent of Jay Collins

Reference is made to the:

Panantza & San Carlos Project Preliminary Assessment Report, dated October 30, 2007 and titled PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT REPORT, PANANTZA & SAN CARLOS COPPER PROJECT, Morona  Santiago, Ecuador; and

Mirador Project Feasibility Study Report, dated April 23, 2008 and titled MIRADOR COPPER-GOLD PROJECT, 30,000 TPD FEASIBILITY STUDY, Zamora-Chinchipe Province Ecuador

(collectively, the Technical Reports).

The undersigned hereby consents to references to its name and references to and excerpts from the Technical Reports in the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Corriente Resources Inc. to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
for the companys 2009 Fiscal Year.

Dated this 15th day of March 2010.

/s/
Jay Collins, P.Eng
Jay Collins, P.Eng

---
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 60200 Summary Calendar

BURIM HALITI

,

Petitioner

,

v ersus

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. A ttorney G eneral

,
Respondent

.

Petition for Review of an Order of th e Board of Immigration Appeals No. A 075 376 816

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Burim Haliti petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 6, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-60200 Document: 00512490359 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2014N o. 13

- 60200

of Immigration Appeals ( “ BIA ” ) denying his motion to reconsider its dismissal
of his appeal of the denial of his motion to reopen. He contends that the immi

gration judge ( “ IJ ” ) erred in denying h is motion to reopen and that the BIA

erred in affirming th at denial. He contends that his removal proceedings
should have been reopened because he never received notice o f his hearing.

On October 16, 2012 , the BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of Haliti’s motion

to reopen and dismissed Haliti’s appeal. Haliti did not file with this court a
peti tion for review of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal but i nstead filed with

the BIA a motion f or re consideration of the dismissal. Because Haliti did not
file a timely petition for review of the BIA’s order dated October 16, 2012 , this
court lacks jurisdiction over that order

. Stone v. INS , 514 U.S. 386, 405

− 06
(1995) ; Guevara v. Gonzales , 450 F.3d 173, 176 (5th Cir. 2006). This court’s
jur is diction therefore extends only to the BIA’s February 27, 2013

, order deny

ing Haliti’s motion for reconsideration.
Although Haliti filed a timely petition for review o f the BIA’s denial of
his motion for reconsideration, he fails to analyze the BIA’s reasons for denying

the motion, which the BIA provided in a clearly worded, succinct opinion.

Haliti has therefore abandoned the onl y issue that is before this court, which

is w hether the BIA abused its discretion by denying his motion for reconsid er

a tion. See United States v. Scroggins , 599 F.3d 433, 447 (5th Cir. 2010)

. Accordingly, the petition for review is DISMISSED in part for lack of
jur isdiction and DENIED in part

.

2 Case: 13-60200 Document: 00512490359 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2014
# C_2019096EN.01000201.xml

| 13.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9145 — Kongsberg Gruppen/Rolls-Royce Commercial Marine)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 96/03)

On 1 March 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9145. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9145. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 73 (Wednesday, April 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 18597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9764]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP96-53-005]


N E Hub Partners, L. P.; Notice of Amendment

April 10, 1997.
    Take notice that on April 4, 1997, NE Hub Partners, L.P. (NE Hub) 
filed in Docket No. CP96-53-005, an amendment to its pending 
application filed in Docket No. CP96-53-000, requesting to omit the 
original request for authorization to construct and operate facilities 
necessary to dispose of brine by underground injection produced from 
the leaching of two gas storage caverns which NE Hub would construct 
and operate pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA, all as more fully set 
forth in the amendment which is on file with the Commission and open to 
public inspection.
    Specifically, NE Hub seeks authorization to deliver the brine 
produced from leaching the two proposed caverns to a third-party salt 
company that would use the brine as feedstock for various commercial 
salt products rather than inject the brine underground as originally 
proposed.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with 
reference to said petition to amend should, on or before May 1, 1997, 
file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, 
N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, a motion to intervene or protest in 
accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the 
Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). All protests filed with the Commission 
will be considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be 
taken but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party to a proceeding or to 
participate as a party in any hearing therein must file a motion to 
intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules. All persons who 
have heretofore filed need not file again.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-9764 Filed 4-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### State v. Rossing

107,073

08/23/13

Denied.

Unpublished
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 1999 AND THE STATEMENT OF EARNINGS FOR THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      18,889,961
<SECURITIES>                                    50,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               22,242,920
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,182,731
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            49,457,853
<PP&E>                                      37,379,703
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,676,724
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             100,527,702
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,940,373
<BONDS>                                     11,130,583
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,910,058
<OTHER-SE>                                  55,546,688
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               100,527,702
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            36,274,332
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,236,801
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,628,870
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             276,908
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,411,547
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,401,915
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,009,632
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,009,632
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22
        

</TABLE>
| | Furniture (25)All (20-39)Food (20)Textiles (22)Apparel (23)Lumber (24)Paper (26)Printing (27)Chemicals (28)Refineries (29)Rubber (30)Stone, Clay & Glass(32)Primary Metals (33)Fabricated Metals (34)Machinery (35)Electronic Equipment (36)Instruments (38)Miscellaneous Manufacturing (39)
    This major group includes establishments engaged in manufacturing household, office, public
    building, and restaurant furniture; and office and store fixtures.If you found this information useful,
    please try...Energy
        Consumption
      Use of
        Energy
      Electricity
      Manufacturing
        Floorspace
      Prices
      Energy
        Storage
      Energy and
        Operating Ratios
      Energy-Management
        Activities
      Technology
      Fuel-Switching
        Capability
      Motors | Figure on  ratio of energy consumed per 1992 constant dollar for SIC 25***Source: Table 12 of this
    report.***Figure on energy consumed by quadrillion Btu for SIC 25***Sources: Energy Information Administration, 1985, 1988, 1991,
    and 1994 MECS.***
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

arrow to top of pageTop of Pagearrow to  previous pageEnergy Intensity Page

File Last Modified: 8/25/98

Contact:
  robert.adler@eia.doe.gov
  Robert Adler
  MECS Survey Manager
  Phone: (202) 586-1134
  Fax: (202) 586-0018

mark.schipper@eia.doe.gov
  Mark Schipper
  Phone: (202) 586-1136
  Fax: (202) 586-0018


http://www.eia.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs94/ei/**ei_25.html**
Separater LineIf you are having any technical problems with this site, please contact the EIA Webmaster at wmaster@eia.doe.gov 
Separater Line
#### STAHL, S. v. STAHL, C.

1304 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

9/14/2017

Reargument Denied 07/14/2017

2012-006263 (Delaware)

Affirmed
post-conviction habeas relief See id. For this reason, we affirm the 

decision of the district court to deny the petition. 1Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

&nth 

Pickering 

c--c J. 

Parraguirre 

CoS J. 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge 

Turco & Draskovich 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney • 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

'Although the district court incorrectly addressed the procedural 

bars and merits of the claims, we nevertheless affirm because the district 

court reached the correct result in denying the petition. See Wyatt v. 

State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970) (holding that a correct 

result will not be reversed simply because it is based on the wrong reason). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A e
#### State v. Smith

107,266

12/27/13

Denied.

Unpublished
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**
 
 
 In
        connection with the Annual Report of Guangzhou Global Telecom,, Inc. (the
        "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the twelve months ending December 31, 2006
        as
        filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Li Yankuan,
        Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
        adopted
        pursuant to Section 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 of the Company as of the dates presented and the
        results
        of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/
        Li
        Yankuan
 Li
        Yankuan
 Chief
        Executive Officer
  
 
 
 Dated:
        April 16, 2007