alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23.11
                                                                  -------------



                               CONSENT OF EXPERT

          Reference is made to the Annual  Report on Form 40-F (the "40-F") of
Ivanhoe  Mines  Ltd.  (the  "Company")  to be  filed  with the  United  States
Securities and Exchange  Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.

          I  hereby  consent  to the  use of and  reference  to my  name  as a
Qualified Person for the "Technical Report: Ovoot Tolgoi Property" dated March
27, 2008 (the  "Technical  Report") under the heading "Item 3:  Description of
the Business - Ovoot  Tolgoi Coal  Property,  Mongolia - Ovoot Tolgoi  Project
(Open  Pit)" in the  Company's  Annual  Information  Form  for the year  ended
December 31, 2007, dated March 28, 2008, and in the 40-F.

Sincerely,


/s/ Patrick P. Riley
------------------------------------------
Title:   Consulting Senior Geologist
Company: Norwest Corporation

Date:    March 28, 2008
The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued published opinions have been 

appealed to the Supreme Court: 

 

1. James Wesley Amonett, Jr. 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 1613-17-4 

 Opinion rendered by Judge Humphreys on 

 February 19, 2019 

2. Joaquin Shadow Rams, Sr., a/k/a, etc. 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 1453-17-4 

 Opinion rendered by Chief Judge Decker on 

 February 26, 2019 

3. Kathryn Johnson, s/k/a 

 Kathryn Eileen Johnson 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 1478-17-2 

 Opinion rendered by Judge Beales on 

 March 5, 2019 

4. Clinard Gary Lambert 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 1762-17-3 

 Opinion rendered by Judge O’Brien on 

 March 12, 2019 
 The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued published opinions have been 

disposed of by the Supreme Court: 

1. Roland Baldwin 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 0740-17-4 

 Opinion rendered by Judge Petty 

 on July 17, 2018 

 Refused (181065) 

2. Franklin Lee Thomason, Jr. 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 1290-17-3 

 Opinion rendered by Judge Humphreys 

 on July 17, 2018 

 Refused (181054) 

3. Eric Hamilton 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 0814-17-2 

 Opinion rendered by Judge Beales 

 on August 7, 2018 

 Refused (181157) 
 On May 2, 2019 the Supreme Court issued an opinion in the following case, which had been 

appealed from this Court 

1. Tamara Felicia Brown 

 v. Commonwealth of Virginia 

 Record No. 0269-17-1 

 Memorandum opinion rendered by Judge O’Brien on March 27, 2018 

 Judgment of Court of Appeals affirmed 

 (180537)
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6**  **1 23** 

MICHAEL S. GORBEY , P etitioner

- Appell ant ,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appell ee .

**No. 14**  **- 6**  **611**

MICHAEL S. GORBEY , Petitioner

- Appell ant ,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appell ee .

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. R aymond A. Jackson, District Judge. ( 2 : 12

- cv - 00667

- RAJ

- TEM )

Submitted : May 30, 2014 Decided: June 4, 2014

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN , and WYNN , Circuit Judges.2 N o. 14

- 6123 dismissed; No. 14

- 6611 affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Michael S. Gorbey , Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
I n Case No. 14

- 6123, Michael S. Gorbey seeks to a ppeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfie s this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitut ional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gorbey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gorbey’s pending motions, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal.4 In Case No. 14

- 6611, Gorbey seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing his § 2254 petition
. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argume nt because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. No. 14

- 6123 DISMISSED No. 14

- 6611 AFFIRMED
# EUR-Lex - 52010PC0050 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52010PC0050

**Proposal for a Council Decision Amending Decision 2009/459/EC of 6 May 2009 providing Community medium-term financial assistance for Romania /* COM/2010/0050 final - NLE 2010/0034 */ **

*

*

[pic] | EUROPEAN COMMISSION |

Brussels, 8.2.2010

COM(2010)50 final

2010/0034 (NLE)

Proposal for a

COUNCIL DECISION

Amending Decision 2009/459/EC of 6 May 2009 providing Community medium-term financial assistance for Romania

2010/0034 (NLE)

Proposal for a

COUNCIL DECISION

Amending Decision 2009/459/EC of 6 May 2009 providing Community medium-term financial assistance for Romania

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 of 18 February 2002 establishing a facility providing medium term financial assistance for Member States balance of payments ([1]) and in particular Article 5, second subparagraph, in conjunction with Article 8 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission made after consulting the Economic and Financial Committee (EFC),

Whereas:

(1) By Decision 2009/458/EC ([2]), the Council decided to grant mutual assistance to Romania. By Decision 2009/459/EC ([3]), the Council decided to provide medium-term financial assistance for Romania.

(2) The scope and intensity of the economic recession affecting Romania calls for a revision of the economic policy conditions foreseen for the disbursement of the instalments of the financial assistance with a view to taking into account the impact of the larger than expected contraction of real GDP.

(3) Council Decision 2009/459/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Council Decision 2009/459/ EC is hereby amended as follows:

1. In Article 3(5), point (a) shall be replaced by the following:

"Implementing a clearly-set medium-term fiscal program so as to bring the general government deficit below the Treaty reference value of 3% of GDP with a timeframe and consolidation path consistent with the Council recommendations to Romania adopted under the excessive deficit procedure".

2. In Article 3(5), point (b) shall be replaced by the following:

"Adopting and implementing annual budgets for 2010 and beyond, consistent with the consolidation path."

Article 2

This decision is addressed to Romania.

Article 3

This decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union .

Done at Brussels,

For the Council,

The President

([1]) OJ L 53, 23.2.2002, p. 1.

([2]) OJ L 150, 13.6.2009, p. 6

([3]) OJ L 150, 13.6.2009, p. 8
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1334

Crude Oil Basis Swap - NGX WCS Diff (USD)

DESCRIPTION 

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the settlement price published by ICE NGX for the 

location specified in Floating Price A. 

FLOATING PRICE 

The Floating Price for each contract month shall be equal to the volume-weighted average of 

the ICE WCS 1a Index for each trading day during the Calculation Period. The Calculation Period, 

beginning on the first Canadian business day of the calendar month prior to the contract month 

and ends on the Canadian business day prior to the NOS date (as published by Enbridge) in the 

same calendar month. 

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE 

The contract unit shall be in U. S. barrels. Each contract shall be valued as the contract quantity 

in U. S. barrels multiplied by the settlement price. 

LISTING CYCLE 

Up to 60 consecutive monthly contract periods 

PRICES AND FLUCTUATIONS 

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. Dollars and cents per barrel. The minimum price fluctuation shall 

be $0.01 per barrel. The minimum price increment will be $0.001. There shall be no maximum 

price fluctuation. 

TERMINATION OF TRADING 

Trading shall cease one Canadian business day prior to the Notice of Shipments (NOS) date on 

the Enbridge Pipeline. The NOS date occurs on or about the 20th calendar day of the month, 

subject to confirmation by Enbridge Pipeline. The official schedule for the NOS dates will be 

made publicly available by Enbridge Pipeline prior to the start of each year. 

FINAL SETTLEMENT 

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement in U.S. Dollars. Final settlement, 

following termination of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The 

final settlement price will be Floating Price A calculated for each contract month.
#### In the Matter of Port of Oswego Authority et al., Appellants, v Pete Grannis, as Commissioner of Environmental Conservation, et al., Respondents.

Submitted April 5, 2010;

decided June 15, 2010

Motion by the World Shipping Council for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the brief is accepted as filed, and for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein dismissed as academic.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 Quarterly Report of Meridian Acquisition Corporation on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nicholas Lahanas, Chief Executive Officer of Meridian Acquisition Corporation 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 requirement of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the Company's financial position and results of operations.  /s/Nicholas LahanasNicholas Lahanas, Chief Executive Officer February 14, 2008
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I, Andrew Godfrey,  Chief  Accounting  Officer  of First Quantum Ventures, Inc., (the "Company"),  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  that,  to my knowledge:





(1) The  Company's  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (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/ Andrew Godfrey


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


Andrew Godfrey


Chief Accounting Officer





Date: November 15, 2010











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


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement required by Section 906,  has been  provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Royal Porter McHENRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 08-55447.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*614Submitted April 5, 2010.*

Filed April 21, 2010.

Royal Porter McHenry, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Royal Porter McHenry, an inmate in Los Angeles County Jail, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing, without prejudice, his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to comply with a court order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, *Pagtalunan v. Galaza,*291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action because McHenry failed to comply with the district court’s order requiring him to file an amended complaint within a specified time period. *See id.*at 642-43 (discussing factors a court must weigh to determine whether to dismiss a claim for failure to comply with a court order). Further, McHenry asked the district court to dismiss this action. To the extent McHenry sought to stand on the original complaint, we agree with the magistrate judge’s order of December 4, 2007, that the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to put defendants on notice of a claim against them.

We do not consider issues not properly raised before the district court. *See Smith v. Marsh,*194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999).

McHenry’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 11.1

Computation of Earnings
Per Share

The
following summarizes the weighted average common shares issued and outstanding for
the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005:

|                                                                 |  |      |            |      |   |            |  
|---------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---- | ---------- | ---- | - | ---------- | -
|                                                                 |  | 2006 |            | 2005 |  
|                                                                 |  |      |            |      |  
|Common and common
  equivalent shares outstanding:               |  |      |            |      |   |            |  
|Historical common equivalent                                     |  |      | 12,378,657 |      |   | 9,860,800  |  
|Weighted average
  common shares issued during period            |  |      | 4,988,940  |      |   | 1,199,804  |  
|                                                                 |  |      |            |      |   |            |  
|                                                                 |  |      |            |      |   |            |  
|Weighted average
  common shares outstanding  basic and diluted |  |      | 17,367,597 |      |   | 11,060,604 |  
|                                                                 |  |      |            |      |   |            |  
|                                                                 |  |      |            |      |   |            |  
|Net Loss                                                         |  | $    | 1,829,202  |      | $ | 1,794,466  |  
|                                                                 |  |      |            |      |   |            |  
|                                                                 |  |      |            |      |   |            |  
|Net loss per basic
  and diluted share                           |  | $    | (0.11      | )    | $ | (0.16      | )
|                                                                 |  |      |            |      |   |            |  

Basic
loss per share is computed by dividing net loss by the weighted average number of
common shares outstanding. Diluted loss per share is computed by dividing net loss
by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding increased for potentially
dilutive common shares outstanding during the period. The dilutive effect of equity
instruments is calculated using the treasury stock method.

Warrants to
purchase 9,276,998 and 937,334 common shares as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, respectively,
were excluded from the treasury stock calculation because they were anti-dilutive
due to the Companys net losses.

---
# C_2010280EN.01002901.xml

| 16.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/29

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty)

2010/C 280/05

| Date of adoption of the decision | 12.8.2010 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | N 83/10 |
| Member State | Italy |
| Region | Sardegna |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Aiuto alla ristrutturazione a favore dell’Unione Pastori Società Cooperativa Agricola, registrata nella Z.I Taccu — Nurri Cagliari |
| Legal basis | Legge regionale 19 gennaio 1998«Interventi a favore delle aziende agricole in difficoltà»
  Articolo 21 della legge regionale 29 maggio 2007, n. 2
  Decreto regionale n. 343/DecA/7 del 4 febbraio 2010 |
| Type of measure | Individual aid |
| Objective | Restructuring of a medium-sized enterprise |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | EUR 1 million |
| Intensity | 33,3 % of the total restructuring costs (EUR 3 million) |
| Duration (period) | Ad hoc aid |
| Economic sectors | Agriculture |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Regione Autonoma Sardegna |
| Assessorato dell’Agricoltura |
| Via Pessagno 4 |
| 09125 Cagliari CA |
| ITALIA |

Date of adoption of the decision

12.8.2010

Reference number of State Aid

N 83/10

Member State

Italy

Region

Sardegna

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Aiuto alla ristrutturazione a favore dell’Unione Pastori Società Cooperativa Agricola, registrata nella Z.I Taccu — Nurri Cagliari

Legal basis

Legge regionale 19 gennaio 1998«Interventi a favore delle aziende agricole in difficoltà»

Articolo 21 della legge regionale 29 maggio 2007, n. 2

Decreto regionale n. 343/DecA/7 del 4 febbraio 2010

Type of measure

Individual aid

Objective

Restructuring of a medium-sized enterprise

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

EUR 1 million

Intensity

33,3 % of the total restructuring costs (EUR 3 million)

Duration (period)

Ad hoc aid

Economic sectors

Agriculture

Name and address of the granting authority

Regione Autonoma Sardegna

Assessorato dell’Agricoltura

Via Pessagno 4

09125 Cagliari CA

ITALIA

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm

---
ROCKIES
REGION 2007 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
 (A West Virginia
Limited Partnership)




Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of the Registrant on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certifies 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
      Registrant.




/s/
      Richard W. McCullough
              
              November  19,
      2008Richard
      W. McCulloughChief
      Executive Officer
                Petroleum
      Development Corporation,
                Managing
      General Partner of the Registrant




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided the Registrant and will be retained by the
Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

Chapter 1154

Natural Gas Index Swaps - EP San Juan - Platts Gas Daily Platts Inside FERC

DESCRIPTION

A monthly cash settled swap based upon the mathematical result of subtracting the price 

published by Platts Inside FERC EP San Juan, for Floating Price B, from the average of the daily 

prices published by Platts Gas Daily EP San Juan, for Floating Price A.

FLOATING PRICE A

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the arithmetic average of the Platts 

Gas Daily EP San Juan published price for each calendar day of the corresponding contract 

month.

FLOATING PRICE B

The Floating Price for each contract month will be equal to the Platts Inside FERC EP San Juan 

published price for the corresponding contract month.

CONTRACT UNIT AND VALUE

The contract unit shall be MMBtus (million British thermal units). Each shall be valued as the 

contract quantity multiplied by the settlement price.

LISTING CYCLE

Up to 120 consecutive monthly contract periods.

PRICES AND FLUCTUATIONS

Prices shall be quoted in U.S. dollars and cents per MMBtu. The minimum price fluctuation shall 

be $0.001 per MMBtu. The minimum price increment will be $0.0001. There shall be no 

maximum price fluctuation.

TERMINATION OF TRADING

Posting of transactions shall cease on the last business day of the contract month.

FINAL SETTLEMENT

Delivery under the contract shall be by cash settlement. Final settlement, following termination 

of posting for a contract month, will be based on the Floating Price. The final settlement price 

will be the Floating Price calculated for each contract month.