alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 24


                             POWER OF ATTORNEY


                  KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned
hereby constitutes and appoints each of Barry F. Schwartz and Todd J.
Slotkin or either of them each acting alone, his true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution, for him and in
his name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, in connection with
the M & F WORLDWIDE CORP. (the "Corporation") Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2001 under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, including, without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, to sign the Form 10-K in the name and on behalf of the
Corporation or on behalf of the undersigned as a director or officer of the
Corporation, and any amendments to the Form 10-K and any instrument,
contract, document or other writing, of or in connection with the Form 10-K
or amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and
other documents in connection therewith, including this power of attorney,
with the Securities and Exchange Commission and any applicable securities
exchange or securities self-regulatory body, granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, full power and authority
to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to
be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as
he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that
said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, or his substitute or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

                 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed these
presents this 28th day of March, 2002.



                                             /s/ Ronald O. Perelman
                                             -----------------------------


                                             /s/ Jaymie A. Durnan
                                             -----------------------------


                                             /s/ Theo W. Folz
                                             -----------------------------


                                             /s/ Howard Gittis
                                             -----------------------------


                                             /s/ J. Eric Hanson
                                             -----------------------------


                                             /s/ E. Gregory Hookstratten
                                             -----------------------------


                                             /s/ Lance Liebman
                                             ------------------------------


                                             /s/ Paul M. Meister
                                             ------------------------------


                                             /s/ Bruce Slovin
                                             ------------------------------


                                             /s/ Stephen G. Taub
                                             ------------------------------
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeals of

-- ) ) TiguaEnterprises, Inc. ) ) Under ContractNo. W912DY-14-C-0026 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA Nos. 60152, 60816

Francisco J. Ortega, Esq.

ScottHulse PC El Paso, TX Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

Engineer ChiefTrial Attorney Garry L. Brewer, Esq. Steven W. Feldman, Esq.

Engineer Trial Attorneys U.S. Army Engineer District,·Huntsville ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute has been settled. The appeals are dismissed with prejudice. Dated: September 10, 2019
HEIDI L.p Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCANos. 60152, 60816, Appeals ofTigua Enterprises, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
Editorial Note on Part 172
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 172 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005; 70 FR 72074, Dec. 1, 2005; and 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 172.870 Hydroxypropyl cellulose. The food additive hydroxypropyl cellulose may be safely used in food, except standardized foods that do not provide for such use, in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) The additive consists of one of the following: ( 1 ) A cellulose ether containing propylene glycol groups attached by an ether linkage that contains, on an anhydrous basis, not more than 4.6 hydroxypropyl groups per anhydroglucose unit. The additive has a minimum viscosity of 10 centipoises for a 10 percent by weight aqueous solution at 25 degrees C.
( 2 ) A cellulose ether containing propylene glycol groups attached by an ether linkage having a hydroxypropoxy (OC3H6OH) content of 5 to 16 percent weight in weight (w/w) on an anhydrous basis, i.e., 0.1 to 0.4 hydroxypropyl groups per anhydroglucose unit. The common name for this form of the additive is low substituted hydroxypropyl cellulose.
( b ) The additive is used or intended for use as follows: ( 1 ) The additive identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section is used or intended for use as an emulsifier, film former, protective colloid, stabilizer, suspending agent, or thickener in food, in accordance with good manufacturing practice. The additive also may be used as a binder in dietary supplements, in accordance with good manufacturing practice.
( 2 ) The additive identified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section is used or intended for use as a binder and disintegrator in tablets or wafers containing dietary supplements of vitamins and/or minerals. The additive is used in accordance with good manufacturing practice.
[46 FR 50065, Oct. 9, 1981, as amended at 76 FR 41689, July 15, 2011]
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-13-0573 SAT Date: 7/23/2013 Print Date: 5/5/2014

Related cases : Health related cases: Ecotox related cases :

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 2 1

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 3 31

Exposure Based Review : Health: N o Ecotox: N o Routes of exposure : Health: Dermal Drinking Water Inhalation Ecotox: N o releases to water Fate: ; Keywords : Keywords: LUNG, UNCERT-IMMUNO/MUTA/ONCO Summary of Assessment :
Fate : Fate Summary: P-13-0573 FATE:
S = Dispersible (E) VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E) BP > 400 C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) POTW removal (%) = 0-90 via possible sorption Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg > mo Sorption to soils/sediments = low - v.strong PBT Potential: P3B3*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl - rapid

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is poor all routes based on analogs. There is concern for lung effects if inhaled and uncertain concern for immunotoxicity, mutagenicity, and oncogenicity based on information for other carbon nanotubes. Moderate concern.

Ecotox : Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 >100 or * daphnid 48-h LC50 >100 or * green algal 96-h EC50 >100 or * fish

_ chronic value >10 or * daphnid

_ chronic value >10 or *
algal

_ chronic value >10 or *
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for polynonionic polymers; SAR chemical class = p olyme r -nonionic with unknown mp (P); S < 0.001 mg/L at 20 C (P); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and nominal concentrations; DW hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and DW TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) 1000 or *

SARs nonionic polymer SAR Class p olyme r -nonionic Ecotox Category N onionic Polymers
Ecotox Factors Comments:
SAT Chair: Becky Jones
§ 200.400 Policy guide. The application of these cost principles is based on the fundamental premises that: ( a ) The non-Federal entity is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the Federal award through the application of sound management practices.
( b ) The non-Federal entity assumes responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.
( c ) The non-Federal entity, in recognition of its own unique combination of staff, facilities, and experience, has the primary responsibility for employing whatever form of sound organization and management techniques may be necessary in order to assure proper and efficient administration of the Federal award.
( d ) The application of these cost principles should require no significant changes in the internal accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity. However, the accounting practices of the non-Federal entity must be consistent with these cost principles and support the accumulation of costs as required by the principles, and must provide for adequate documentation to support costs charged to the Federal award.
( e ) In reviewing, negotiating and approving cost allocation plans or indirect cost proposals, the cognizant agency for indirect costs should generally assure that the non-Federal entity is applying these cost accounting principles on a consistent basis during their review and negotiation of indirect cost proposals. Where wide variations exist in the treatment of a given cost item by the non-Federal entity, the reasonableness and equity of such treatments should be fully considered. See the definition of *indirect (facilities & administrative (F&A)) costs* in § 200.1 of this part.
( f ) For non-Federal entities that educate and engage students in research, the dual role of students as both trainees and employees (including pre- and post-doctoral staff) contributing to the completion of Federal awards for research must be recognized in the application of these principles.
( g ) The non-Federal entity may not earn or keep any profit resulting from Federal financial assistance, unless explicitly authorized by the terms and conditions of the Federal award. See also § 200.307.
[78 FR 78608, Dec. 26, 2013, as amended at 79 FR 75885, Dec. 19, 2014; 85 FR 49561, Aug. 13, 2020]
<PAGE>   1


                                  EXHIBIT 23.1


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
EPL Technologies, Inc. on Forms S-3 (Nos. 333-42185 and 333-09719) and on Forms
S-8 (Nos. 333-4306, 333-9795 and 333-4207) of our report March 30, 1999
appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of EPL Technologies, Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 1998.


Deloitte & Touche LLP
Philadelphia, PA
March 31, 1999
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 3(ii).6

                                  MINIMED INC.
                               AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS
                            ADOPTED OCTOBER 13, 1999

The Bylaws of the Company hereby are amended as follows:

1.  Section 2.02 of Article II hereby is restated in its entirety as follows:

        "Section 2.02. Special Meetings. A special meeting of the stockholders
for the transaction of any proper business may be called at any time by the
Board."

2. The first clause of the fourth sentence of Section 2.09 is hereby amended and
restated as follows:

        "To be timely, a stockholder's notice must be delivered to or mailed and
received at the principal executive offices of the Corporation, not less than 90
days nor more than 120 days prior to the meeting; provided, however, that in the
event that less than 100 days' notice or prior public disclosure of the date of
the meeting is given or made to stockholders, notice by the stockholder to be
timely must be so received not later than the close of business on the 10th day
following the day on which such notice of the date of the annual meeting was
mailed or such public disclosure was made."

3. The first clause of the fourth sentence of Section 2.10 regarding notice of
stockholder nominees for Director hereby is amended and restated to read as
follows:

        "To be timely, a stockholder's notice shall be delivered to or mailed
and received at the principal executive offices of the Corporation not less than
90 days nor more than 120 day prior to the meeting; provided, however, that in
the event that less than 100 days' notice or prior public disclosure of the date
of the meeting is given or made to stockholders, notice by the stockholder to be
timely must be so received not later than the close of business on the 10th day
following the day on which such notice of the date of the meeting was mailed or
such public disclosure was made."


                                                    /s/ Eric S. Kentor
                                                    ------------------
                                                    Eric S. Kentor
                                                    Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,848,065
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       96,778
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                        673,965
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,618,808
<PP&E>                                              76,254
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (65,775)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,221,468
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,726,252
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                            252
<COMMON>                                            36,705
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,394,410
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,221,468
<SALES>                                            161,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   161,000
<CGS>                                               92,484
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       92,484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   679,766
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  13,030
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (412,025)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (412,025)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (412,025)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
#### Jorge Valencia BRAVO; Consuelo Crisostomo Zarate, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-72497.

Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Sept. 13, 2005.

Decided Oct. 3, 2005.

*517Jorge Valencia Bravo, Palmdale, CA, pro se.

Consuelo Crisostomo Zarate, Palmdale, CA, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Immigration & Naturalization Service, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer Lightbody, U.S. Department of Justice, Margaret Perry, Aviva Poczter, Office of Immigration and Litigation, Anthony Wray Norwood, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before B. FLETCHER, GIBSON,* and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable John R. Gibson, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM**

Jorge Valencia Bravo and Consuelo Cri-sostomo Zarate, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their motion to reconsider. We deny the petition for review.

Unlike the order reviewed by *Ma v. Ashcroft,*361 F.3d 553 (9th Cir.2004), the BIA’s order in this case did not “adopt[ ] the underlying reasoning and holding of its prior opinion.” *Id.*at 557. We cannot, therefore, review any order prior to the BIA’s denial of the motion to reconsider. *IcL*at 557 & n. 6.

The petitioners’ motion to reconsider did not specify the errors now alleged to have been made by the Immigration Judge (“U”). It made no mention of their children’s language skills, or the IJ’s alleged failure to act as a neutral factfinder and failure to elicit testimony. Instead, the motion focused on Valencia Bravo’s ability to support his family. The BIA therefore did not abuse its discretion, or commit a due process violation, by denying reconsideration on the basis that the petitioners in their motion raised no previously-overlooked issue. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); *Cano-Merida v. INS,*311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>   1

                                    EXHIBIT 4

                     INSTRUMENTS DEFINING RIGHTS OF HOLDERS

There have been no changes in instruments defining the rights of holders of any
class of securities.



                                       39
Editorial Note on Part 14
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 14 appear at 88 FR 45065, July 14, 2023.

§ 14.25 Portions of advisory committee meetings. An advisory committee meeting has the following portions: ( a ) *The open public hearing.* Every committee meeting includes an open portion, which constitutes a public hearing during which interested persons may present relevant information or views orally or in writing. The hearing is conducted in accordance with § 14.29.
( b ) *The open committee discussion.* A committee discusses any matter pending before it in an open portion of its meeting unless the meeting has been closed for that matter under § 14.27. To the maximum extent feasible, consistent with the policy expressed in § 14.27, a committee conducts its discussion of pending matters in an open portion. No public participation is permissible during this portion of the meeting except with the consent of the committee Chairperson.
( c ) *The closed presentation of data.* Information prohibited from public disclosure under part 20 and the regulations referenced therein is presented to the committee in a closed portion of its meeting. However, if information is in the form of a summary that is not prohibited from public disclosure, the presentation is to be made in an open portion of a meeting.
( d ) *The closed committee deliberations.* Deliberations about matters before an advisory committee may be held in a closed portion of a meeting only upon an appropriate determination by the Commissioner under § 14.27.
Exhibit 31.2



FORM 10-KSB CERTIFICATION



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) 
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANE-OXLEY ACT.





|I, James R. Arabia, certify that:
|---------------------------------
|                                 
|1.                               
|                                 
|2.                               
|                                 
|3.                               
|                                 
|4.                               
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|5.                               
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|                                 
|Date: October 12, 2005           
|
[No. 21088-6-II.

Division Two.

October 31, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Curtis Lee Rudd, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cowlitz County, No. 96-1-00121-7, Milton R. Cox, J., entered August 20, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Seinfeld, J., concurred in by Morgan and Armstrong, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-04-1999
<CASH>                                           1,867
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,954
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (816)
<INVENTORY>                                      5,970
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,189
<PP&E>                                          60,820
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (28,485)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,098
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,351
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,227
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,098
<SALES>                                         13,319
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,527
<CGS>                                            9,410
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,673
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (308)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    547
<INCOME-TAX>                                        13
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                534
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       534
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07



</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                              [KPMG LETTERHEAD]


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
VaxGen, Inc. :


We consent to the use of our reports included herein and to the reference to
our firm under the  heading "Experts" in the prospectus.


/s/ KPMG LLP

Seattle, Washington
June 9, 1999
[No. 39034-1-I.

Division One.

December 1, 1997.]

#### Evelyn L. Ramso, et al., *Appellants,*v. Carroll Dennis, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 95-2-04365-8, Jeanette R. Burrage, J., entered June 28, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.