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





Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the 40-F) of Platinum Group Metals Ltd. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2010 to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Annual Information Form (the AIF) and Managements Discussion and Analysis(MD&A) of the Company for the year then ended, which are incorporated by reference therein.



The undersigned hereby consents to the references to, and the information derived from, the report titled Revised Technical Report (Feasibility Study) Western Bushveld Joint Venture Project 1 (Elandsfontein and Frischgewaagd) dated June 10, 2009 and Technical Report (Feasibility Study) Western Bushveld Joint Venture Project 1 (Elandsfontein and Frischgewaagd) dated July 7, 2008 and to the references, if any, to the undersigneds name in the 40-F, the AIF and the MD&A.





|                                                                                                    |                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|Wardrop Engineering Inc.

By:
Wardrop
Name:
Byron Stewart
Title:
Consultant
Date: November 26, 2010 | /s/Byron Stewart
Byron Stewart

Date: November 26, 2010





















---
#### TRUST CO. v. LARSON

No. 93 PC.

Case below: 22 N.C. App. 371.

Petition by defendants Larson and Powell for writ of certi-orari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 8 November 1974.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**181 CA 10-01720**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND GORSKI, JJ.

MARLENE WHITMORE AND JOHN R. WHITMORE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,

V ORDER

FEDERATED RETAIL HOLDING, INC., THE MAY DEPARTMENT STORES COMPANY, DOING BUSINESS AS KAUFMANS, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

TREVETT CRISTO SALZER & ANDOLINA P.C., ROCHESTER (ERIC M. DOLAN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS.
BOUVIER PARTNERSHIP, LLP, BUFFALO (KENNETH A. PATRICIA OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Evelyn Frazee, J.), entered October 21, 2009. The order granted the motion of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court.

Entered: February 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
#### STATE v. RAINES

No. 29 PC.

Case below: 30 N.C. App. 176.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 October 1976.,
# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio, Texas**

February 12, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00061

- CV

Ravi BOTLA , M.D., Appellant

v.

Salvador DEL TORO , Jr., Appellee

From the 131st Judicial Dist rict Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 19135

Peter Sakai, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On February 6, 2015, Dr. Ravi Botla filed a motion to stay proceedings in the underlying
case and petitioned this court for permission to appeal an interlocutory order that is not otherwise appealable. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.3(a). Any other party may file a response not later than February 17, 2015. See id. R. 28.3(f); id. R. 4.1(a).

On February 11, 2015, respondent Salvador Del Toro J r. moved this court for a five

- day extension of time to file a response to Dr. Botla’s petition. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.3(f).

Respondent’s motion is GRANTED; his response must be filed with this court by February 23, 2015. See id.

_________________________________ Patricia O . Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 12th day of February, 2015

.

___________________________________ Kei th E. Hottle Clerk of Court
Case 1:06-cv-15105-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-14863-AKH Document 4 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1718 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1718

To amend title 38, United States Code, to reinstate criminal penalties 
    for persons charging veterans unauthorized fees, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 5, 2019

   Mr. Rubio (for himself, Mr. Blunt, and Mr. Young) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to reinstate criminal penalties 
    for persons charging veterans unauthorized fees, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protect Our Disabled Heroes Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT OF PENALTIES FOR CHARGING VETERANS UNAUTHORIZED 
              FEES.

    (a) In General.--Section 5905 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 5905. Penalty for certain acts
    ``Except as provided in section 5904 or 1984 of this title, 
whoever--
            ``(1) in connection with a proceeding before the 
        Department, knowingly solicits, contracts for, charges, or 
        receives any fee or compensation in connection for--
                    ``(A) the provision of advice on how to file a 
                claim for benefits under the laws administered by the 
                Secretary; or
                    ``(B) the preparation, presentation, or prosecution 
                of such a claim before the date on which a notice of 
                disagreement is filed in a proceeding on the claim;
            ``(2) attempts to solicit, contract, charge, or receive as 
        described in paragraph (1);
            ``(3) unlawfully withholds from any claimant or beneficiary 
        any part of a benefit or claim under the laws administered by 
        the Secretary that is allowed and due to the claimant or 
        beneficiary, or attempts to do so;
            ``(4) commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or 
        aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures the commission of 
        such an act; or
            ``(5) causes an act to be done, which if directly performed 
        would be punishable by this chapter,
shall be fined as provided in title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 
one year, or both.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to acts committed after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### HILL v. MEMORIAL PARK

No. 33PC

No. 10 (Fall Term)

Case below: 50 NC App 231

Petition by plaintiffs for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 7 April 1981.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1580 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1580

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to improve consultation by the 
Military Aviation and Installation Assurance Siting Clearinghouse with 
  installations affected by windfarm projects, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 21, 2019

Mr. Cornyn (for himself and Mr. Tillis) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to improve consultation by the 
Military Aviation and Installation Assurance Siting Clearinghouse with 
  installations affected by windfarm projects, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Service Pilot Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. CONSULTATION BY MILITARY AVIATION AND INSTALLATION ASSURANCE 
              SITING CLEARINGHOUSE WITH INSTALLATIONS AFFECTED BY 
              WINDFARM PROJECTS.

    Section 183a(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(4) With respect to an application described in paragraph (1) for 
a windfarm project, in ensuring that affected local military 
installations are consulted under such paragraph, the Clearinghouse 
shall--
            ``(A) verify whether the commander of the appropriate major 
        command or forces command, in consultation with each such 
        installation, approved or objected to the application;
            ``(B) publish on an publicly available internet website of 
        the Department of Defense the procedures for notifying each 
        such installation of the application; and
            ``(C) not less frequently than annually, submit to the 
        Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Commerce, 
        Science, and Transportation, and the Committee on Energy and 
        Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Armed 
        Services and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House 
        of Representatives--
                    ``(i) a list of approvals and objections under 
                subparagraph (A) during the year covered by the report; 
                and
                    ``(ii) an assessment of whether approved windfarm 
                projects, either individually or collectively, impacted 
                the training capabilities, operations, or readiness of 
                the military department concerned during such year.''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

ORDER AMENDING RULE 191 

OF THE PENNSYLVANIA

RULES OF JUVENILE COURT

PROCEDURE

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 804

SUPREME COURT RULES

DOCKET 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1

st day of October, 2019, upon the recommendation of the 

Juvenile Court Procedural Rules Committee, the proposal having been published for 

public comment at 49 Pa.B. 1897 (April 20, 2019): 

It is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania 

that Pennsylvania Rule of Juvenile Court Procedure 191 is amended in the attached 

form.

This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall 

be effective on January 1, 2020.

Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underlined.

Deletions from the rule are shown in bold and brackets.
YANGMING’S REPLY EXHIBIT 7 

Case 1:06-cv-00694-PKC Document 19-8 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00694-PKC Document 19-8 Filed 06/19/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### ORANGE COUNTY v. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

No. 264 PC

Case below: 46 NC App 350

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 15 August 1980.
#### STATE v. NORMAN

No. 213 PC.

Case below: 29 N.C. App. 606.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 September 1976.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maria Isabel GARRIGA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-50788.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 20, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Maria Isabel Garriga raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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 1:06-cv-15039-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. BOBBY JOE JOHNSON.

(Filed 27 September, 1967.)

Appeal by defendant from *Bryson, J.,*March 1967 Regular Criminal Session of BuNCOmbe.

Defendant and his codefendant, Barry Rocky Hilton, were jointly indicted in and were tried under nine indictments. The decisive facts and the law applicable on appeal in the instant case and in *State v. Barry Rocky Hilton*are identical. The defendant in each case entered pleas of guilty to the same charges contained in the same bills of indictment, and the defendant in each case was represented by the same court-appointed attorney. Identical sentences were imposed on Barry Rocky Hilton and Bobby Joe Johnson.

*Attorney General Bruton and Staff Attorney Andrew A. Vañore, Jr., for the State.*

*Joseph Schenck for defendant.*

*459Per Curiam.

Upon authority of *State v. Barry Rocky Hilton, ante,*456, and the cases therein cited, we hold that in the trial of the case below there was

No error.
Case 1:06-cv-15056-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

**IN THE MATTER OF**

**ERNEST PAUL FRANCIS :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: No. 2284 Disciplinary Docket No. 3** 

**Board File No. C1-16-466 (**  **District of Columbia Court of Appeals, No. 15-BG-293)**  **Attorney Registration No. 41031 (Out of State)** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 13 th**  **day of October, 2016, upon consideration of the respon ses**  **to a Notice and Order directing Respondent to provide reasons against the imposition of**  **reciprocal discipline, Ernest Paul Francis is suspended from the practice of law for a**  **period of thirty days, the suspension is stayed in favo r of a six-month probation,** 

**consistent with the Order of the District of Columbia da ted April 28, 2016.**
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 1-9 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 1 of 8
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 1-9 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 2 of 8
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 1-9 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 3 of 8
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 1-9 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 4 of 8
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 1-9 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 5 of 8
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 1-9 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 6 of 8
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 1-9 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 7 of 8
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 1-9 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 8 of 8
#### Ovid Pinney *vs.*William S. King & another.

May 4, 1875.

Complaint on Promissory Note. — A complaint upon a promissory note need not allege that it was given for a consideration.

Appeal by defendants from a judgment of the . court of *515common pleas for Hennepin county, *Young,*J., presiding, ■rendered on a demurrer to the complaint.

*Merrick & Morrison,*for appellants.

*J. Guilford,*for respondent.

Gileillan, C. J.

The only point raised here, to support the demurrer to the complaint, is, that the complaint does not allege a consideration for the promissory note sued on. A consideration is presumed. Judgment below affirmed.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PAUL BENNETT.

(Filed 11 October, 1967.)

Appeal by defendant from *Bailey, J.,*May 15, 1967 Schedule “B” Session, MecKlenbueg Superior Court.

The defendant, Paul Bennett, was indicted, tried and convicted of common law robbery in that he unlawfully, wilfully and felon-iously made an assault on one J. C. Truesdale, and by putting him in fear, did feloniously take from his person the sum of $25. The offense occurred late at night. The victim complained immediately to the police, who arrested the defendant after the victim identified him. The investigating officer corroborated Truesdale with respect to the victim’s immediate complaint, and gave substantive evidence with respect to the victim’s bloody face.

The defendant testified as a witness in his own defense. He admitted he and Truesdale had been out drinking together. He admitted that he assaulted the prosecuting witness, but claimed he did so because of improper remarks made to defendant’s girlfriend. The girlfriend corroborated the defendant’s story. From a verdict of guilty, and judgment thereon, the defendant appealed.

*T. W. Bruton, Attorney General; Harry W. McGalliard, Deputy Attorney General, for the State.*

*Charles B. Merry man, Jr., for defendant appellant.-*

*599Per Curiam.

The State’s evidence made out a case of common law robbery. The victim and the defendant had been drinking together. The evidence disclosed the witness had paid all the bills and the defendant knew the witness had money. The jury evidently believed the story of the victim because of his immediate complaint and his bloody face. The evidence was in sharp conflict and was resolved against the defendant by the jury. We find

No error.
#### PAPER CO. v. BOUCHELLE

No. 117 PC.

Case below: 19 N.C. App. 697.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 9 January 1974.
Case 1:06-cv-15149-AKH Document 8 Filed 11/02/2007 Page 1 of 3Case 1:06-cv-15149-AKH Document 8 Filed 11/02/2007 Page 2 of 3Case 1:06-cv-15149-AKH Document 8 Filed 11/02/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03347-DC Document 17 Filed 04/21/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03347-DC Document 17 Filed 04/21/2008 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-15077-AKH Document 2 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. MILLSAPS

No. 152 PC.

Case below: 26 N.C. App. 41.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 26 June 1975.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Allen COX, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-1378.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

April 21, 2005.

Ohn W. Suthers, U.S. Attorney, Jerry N. Jones, John M. Hutching, Joshua Stein, Office of the United States Attorney, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Clifford J. Barnard, Boulder, CO, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SEYMOUR, HARTZ, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

McCONNELL, Circuit Judge.

Defendant-Appellant William Allen Cox pled guilty to the charges in a three-count federal indictment. Between the indictment and the plea in the federal case, he pled guilty to second-degree murder in state court in Colorado. In the federal case, he was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 168 months, to run consecutively to his sentence on the state charge, which had not yet been imposed. Mr. Cox preserved an objection to the consecutive nature of the sentence. In *United States v. Williams,*46 F.3d 57 (10th Cir.1995), this Court held that it is permissible for a district court to order a sentence to run consecutively to a possible future state sentence. There is a split among the circuits on this issue, with the Second, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits holding such sentences permissible, and the Ninth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits taking the opposite view. *Compare Salley v. United States,*786 F.2d 546, 547 (2d Cir.1986); *United States v. Brown,*920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Cir.1991); *United States v. Mayotte,*249 F.3d 797, 799 (8th Cir.2001); and *United States v. Ballard,*6 F.3d 1502, *9741510 (11th Cir.1993), *with United States v. Quintero,*157 F.3d 1038, 1039-41 (6th Cir. 1998); *Romandine v. United States,*206 F.3d 731, 737-39 (7th Cir.2000); and *United States v. Clayton,*927 F.2d 491, 492-93 (9th Cir.1991).

In his brief in this Court, Mr. Cox acknowledges that, because of the panel ruling in *Williams,*“he cannot prevail on this issue at the Tenth Circuit panel level, but will ask for a hearing *en banc*in which he will ask the full Tenth Circuit to review this issue.” He is correct about that. The panel can do nothing for him, and will await with interest his petition for rehearing *en banc.*

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is therefore AFFIRMED.

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
#### KIDD v. EARLY

No. 113.

Case below: 23 N.C. App. 129.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 3 December 1974.
Argued and submitted March 11,

affirmed April 14,

petition for review denied August 17, 1999 (329 Or 319)

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of David L. Allison, Claimant. SAIF CORPORATION and McClone Construction Company, *Petitioners, v.*David L. ALLISON, *Respondent.*

(WCB No. 97-03991; CA A102443)

978 P2d 454

David L. Runner argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioners.

John M. Hoadley argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.

Before De Muniz, Presiding Judge, and Haselton and Wollheim, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. *The New Portland Meadows v. Dieringer,*157 Or App 619, 973 P2d 352 (1998), *rev den*328 Or 365 (1999).
#### BANK v. CONSTRUCTION CO.

No. 247 PC.

Case below: 30 N.C. App. 220.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 1 September 1976.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, ASADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Iteris, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2008 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, James S. Miele, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Date: June 11, 2008 |   |                    |
|--------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                     |   |                    |
|                     |   | /s/ JAMES S. MIELE      |
|                     |   | James S. Miele,         |
|                     |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,or any other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 1 of 3Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 2 of 3Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 43 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 3 of 3