alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-7485) pertaining to the Incentive Stock Option Plan of WFS
Financial Inc and in the related prospectus of our report dated February 9,
1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of WFS Financial Inc
and Subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 1997.
 
                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
Los Angeles, California
March 12, 1998
 









                                        1
#### Nolan v. Smythe.

No. 1

*A. Grant Walker,*for plaintiff.

*Hosbach & Good,*for defendant.

June 20, 1950.

Evans, P. J.,

— This matter is before us on a motion to strike off an appeal from a judgment entered for plaintiff by Alderman George J. Brabender *363in the amount of $113.60. The appeal was filed with the prothonotary on May 3, 1949, and notice by registered mail was served on plaintiff May 13,1949. The appeal is claimed to be defective for the reason that the bond purports to be bail absolute, but is for the sum of $50 only. Although the record so shows, nevertheless the full costs in the amount of $12.65 were paid, and $50 is the proper amount to cover costs to accrue.

In Dougherty v. Greggs, 159 Pa. Superior Ct. 166, cited by plaintiff as authority for his contention that the bond is inadequate, defendant gave bond for costs to accrue only, and did not pay the costs already incurred. Here appellant did what was within his power to take an appeal under the Act of March 20, 1845, P. L. 188, 42 PS §921. The error in preparing a correct transcript was that of the alderman, but appellant’s appeal procedure was proper.

The second reason given is that the Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, which executed the bail bond as surety, is not approved and properly qualified to act in that capacity. Downing v. Erie City School District et al., 360 Pa. 29, holds, in effect, that an insurance company may enter into a binding contract irrespective of the law of this State relative to supervision by the Insurance Commissioner. However, we do not believe that our acts of assembly, passed for the purpose of protecting our citizens through the office of the Insurance Commissioner, can be ignored. The Ohio insurance company may be a company organized and authorized for the purpose of becoming surety on bonds, but it is not qualified to do business in this State, which requires a certificate of qualification to be filed in the prothonotary’s office. This defect in the record, however, we feel can be corrected nunc pro tunc. In view of the steps necessary to effect a proper appeal, we of our own motion will strike off the entry of a non pros, for want of an appearance and complaint, filed May 25, 1949.

*364And now, to wit, June 20, 1950, the rule to show cause, granted June 6, 1949, on the motion to strike off defendant’s appeal, is discharged on condition that the appeal be perfected by properly qualifying the Ohio Casualty Insurance Company to act as surety within 30 days; on failure of the Ohio insurance company to so qualify to act as surety in Erie County within 30 days, the appeal shall be stricken from the record and the costs placed upon defendant. The non pros for want of appearance and complaint, entered May 25, 1949, is stricken from the record; plaintiff is ordered to enter an appearance and file his complaint in accordance with the laws of Pennsylvania, dating from receipt of notice from defendant that the appeal has been perfected in accordance with this order.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.01



                        LIST OF REGISTRANT'S SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     PERCENTAGE OWNED
       NAME                         JURISDICTION OF ORGANIZATION       BY REGISTRANT
       ----                         ----------------------------       -------------
<S>                                        <C>                             <C>
HNC Software Inc., U.K.                    United Kingdom                   100%
HNC Software Inc., Japan                   Japan                            100%
Neil Thall Associates, Inc. *              Georgia                          100%
Retek Information Systems, Inc. *          Nevada                           100%
Retek Distribution Corporation             Delaware                         100%
Retek Development, Inc. *                  Nevada                           100%
Retek Information Systems Inc.             Canada                           100%
Retek Information Systems Ltd.             United Kingdom                   100%
Retek Information Systems Pty. Ltd.        Australia                        100%
Risk Data Corporation                      California                       100%
Aptex Software Inc.                        California                      87.5%
</TABLE>


* The Company plans to merge the operations of Neil Thall Associates, Inc.,
Retek Information Systems, Inc. (Nevada), and Retek Development, Inc. into Retek
Distribution Corporation in fiscal 1997.


                                       32
H. Res. 669 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 20, 2017. 

Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is 

hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY: Mrs. Demings. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Exhibit 32.2



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  NatureWell, Incorporated (the "Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report")  the undersigned  hereby  certifies  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



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



|Dated: October 13, 2004 | /s/ ROBERT T. MALASEK                    
|----------------------- | -----------------------------------------
|                        |                                          
|                        | Robert T. Malasek
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN FORM 10-Q FOR MEDIALINK WORLDWIDE INCORPORATED FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1
        
<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           12,156,322
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     6,779,386
<ALLOWANCES>                                        294,401
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 20,056,341
<PP&E>                                            2,178,694
<DEPRECIATION>                                      884,702
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   27,014,387
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             5,199,906
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                             51,704
<OTHER-SE>                                       21,229,553
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     27,014,387
<SALES>                                           7,186,306
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  7,186,306
<CGS>                                             2,781,763
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2,781,763
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  3,719,074
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   13,240
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     785,714
<INCOME-TAX>                                        306,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 479,714
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                        479,714
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0
        


</TABLE>
§ 522.1083 Gonadotropin releasing factor analog-diphtheria toxoid conjugate. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter (mL) of solution contains 0.2 milligrams (mg) gonadotropin releasing factor analog-diphtheria toxoid conjugate.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in swine* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Each intact male pig or gilt should receive two 2-mL (0.4 mg) doses by subcutaneous injection. Administer the first dose no earlier than 9 weeks of age. Administer the second dose at least 4 weeks after the first dose.
( 2 ) *Indications for use* — ( i ) *Intact male pigs intended for slaughter:* For the temporary immunological castration (suppression of testicular function) and reduction of boar taint.
( ii ) *Gilts intended for slaughter:* For the temporary suppression of estrus.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian. For reduction of boar taint, intact male pigs should be slaughtered no earlier than 3 weeks and no later than 10 weeks after the second dose.
[76 FR 27889, May 13, 2011, as amended at 77 FR 4227, Jan. 27, 2012; 79 FR 16189, Mar. 25, 2014; 85 FR 45308, July 28, 2020]
Editorial Note on Part 177
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 177 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 72074, Dec. 1, 2005; and 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 177.1620 Polyethylene, oxidized. Oxidized polyethylene identified in paragraph (a) of this section may be safely used as a component of food-contact articles, in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) Oxidized polyethylene is the basic resin produced by the mild air oxidation of polyethylene conforming to the density, maximum *n-*hexane extractable fraction, and maximum xylene soluble fraction specifications prescribed under item 2.3 of the table in § 177.1520(c). Such oxidized polyethylene has a minimum number average molecular weight of 1,200, as determined by high temperature vapor pressure osmometry, contains a maximum of 5 percent by weight of total oxygen, and has an acid value of 9 to 19.
( b ) The finished food-contact article, when extracted with the solvent or solvents characterizing the type of food and under the conditions of time and temperature characterizing the conditions of its intended use as determined from tables 1 and 2 of § 176.170(c) of this chapter, yields net acidified chloroform-soluble extractives not to exceed 0.5 milligram per square inch of food-contact surface when tested by the methods described in § 177.1330(c), except that net acidified chloroform-soluble extractives from paper and paperboard complying with § 176.170 of this chapter may be corrected for wax, petrolatum, and mineral oil as provided in § 176.170(d)(5)(iii)( b ) of this chapter. If the finished food-contact article is itself the subject of a regulation in parts 174, 175, 176, 177, 178 and § 179.45 of this chapter, it shall also comply with any specifications and limitations prescribed for it by such regulations. (Note: In testing the finished food-contact article, use a separate test sample for each extracting solvent.)
( c ) The provisions of this section are not applicable to oxidized polyethylene used as provided in §§ 175.105 and 176.210 of this chapter, and § 177.2800. The provisions of paragraph (b) of this section are not applicable to oxidized polyethylene used as provided in §§ 175.125 and 176.170(a)(5) of this chapter and § 177.1200.
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT      TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| Dated:  August 14,                2007  |         |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------------|
|                                         |    |
| /s/ Alan Kiraly                              |    |
|                                         |    |
| Alan Kiraly                                  |    |
| Chief Executive                Officer       |    |

| Dated:  August 14,                2007  |    |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------------|
|                                         |    |
| /s/ John W. Low                              |    |
|                                         |    |
| John W. Low                                  |    |
| Chief Financial                Officer       |    |
38660.

#### ALLEN v. HARVEY MOTOR COMPANY.

*278Decided March 7, 1961.

*William D. Knight,*for plaintiff in error.

*Fred T. Allen,*contra.

Nichols, Judge.

The plaintiff’s original petition was in the statutory or “Jack Jones” form and was not subject to general demurrer (See *Breen v. Blarfield,*80 Ga. App. 615, 56 S. E. 2d 791; *Abney v. Thomas Auto Sales Co.,*93 Ga. App. 224, 91 S. E. 2d 189; *General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Jones,*98 Ga. App. 391, 392, 106 S. E. 2d 67), and after the amendment to the petition by the plaintiff, a material amendment, the demurrer was not renewed. The original demurrer did not cover the petition as amended (See *Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Brackin,*215 Ga. 225, 109 S. E. 2d 782), and the judgment overruling such original demurrer after material amendment was filed was not error. See *Moon v. Atlas Auto Finance Co.,*101 Ga. App. 260 (113 S. E. 2d 462).

The sole remaining question for decision is whether the judgment overruling the motion for judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict for the plaintiff was error.

*Code Ann.*§ 110-113 provides in part: “Whenever a motion for a directed verdict, made at the close of all the evidence is denied, or for any reason is not granted, a party who has moved for a directed verdict, within 30 days after the reception of ver*279diet, may move to have the verdict and any judgment entered thereon set aside and to have judgment entered in accordance with his motion for directed verdict; or, if a verdict was- not returned, such party, within 30 days after the jury before which the case was tried has been discharged may move for judgment in accordance with his motion for a directed verdict.” It must be noted that such act provides that the movant may move to have the verdict and any judgment thereon set aside. It does not expressly state the form of such motion or the necessary parties thereto, but since it also, in some cases at least, provides for setting aside judgments it necessarily follows that those parties necessary to a motion to set aside a judgment are necessary parties to a motion to have a verdict and judgment set aside and a final judgment contrary thereto entered. In the case of *Sewell v. Anderson,*197 Ga. 623 (3b) (30 S. E. 2d 102), dealing with an action to set aside a judgment, it was said: “Parties to the judgment under attack are necessary parties to a suit to set it aside.” See also *Bullard v. Wynn,*134 Ga. 636 (3) (68 S. E. 439). Therefore, an ex parte petition or motion to set aside a verdict and judgment and to have a contrary judgment entered is a nullity. The defendant’s motion in the present case contained no rule nisi or prayer therefor nor was service acknowledged or waived by the plaintiff. While better practice may have required that the trial judge refuse to pass upon such motion, or to dismiss it, yet the judgment overruling such motion, which had the same effect, will not be reversed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Bell, J., concur.*
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-22-00273-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 432nd District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1666649D

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

OSCAR ORTIZ RIVERA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

By indictment, the State charged Appellant Oscar Ortiz Rivera1 with one count

of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal 

Code Ann. § 22.02(a)(2). Upon his plea of not guilty, Ortiz Rivera’s case was tried to

a jury, who found Ortiz Rivera guilty as charged in the indictment and assessed his

punishment at three years’ imprisonment. See id. § 12.33 (punishment range for

second-degree felony). The trial court sentenced Ortiz Rivera accordingly.

After determining that Ortiz Rivera’s appeal was frivolous, Ortiz Rivera’s

court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and, in 

support of that motion, a brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct.

1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s motion and brief meet the requirements of Anders v. 

California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why 

there are no arguable grounds for relief. See id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. Additionally, 

in compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel provided Ortiz Rivera with copies of the

brief and motion to withdraw; he informed Ortiz Rivera of his right to file a pro se 

response, to review the record, and to seek discretionary review pro se should this 

court declare his appeal frivolous; and he sent Ortiz Rivera a form motion for pro se 

1The appellant’s name is spelled multiple different ways throughout the record. 

The indictment and judgment identify him as “OSCAR ORTIZRIVERA.”

Throughout the reporter’s record, his surname is transcribed as “Ortiz Rivera.” In 

filings with this court, his appellate counsel identifies him as “Oscar Ortiz-Rivera.”

Based on our comprehensive review of the record, we believe “Ortiz Rivera” to be 

the correct spelling.
3

access to the appellate record. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Ortiz 

Rivera had the opportunity to file a pro se response to the Anders brief but did not do 

so. The State has not filed a response.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and have determined 

that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record 

that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2006). We therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial 

court’s judgment.

/s/ Brian Walker

Brian Walker

Justice

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: October 12, 2023
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Glenn/Colusa County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC)                               ( print page 8917)                            will meet in Willows, California. Agenda items covered include: (1) Introductions, (2) Approve Minutes, (3) RAC Admin Updates, (4) Public Comment, (5) FY08 and FY09 New Project Presentations and Voting if Time Allows, (6) FY10 New Project Presentations and Voting if Time Allows, (7) General Discussion, (8) Meeting Schedule, (9) Adjourn.                    

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on April 26, 2010, from 1:30 p.m. and end at approximately 4:30 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Mendocino National Forest Supervisor's Office, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988. Individuals who wish to speak or propose agenda items send their names and proposals to Eduardo Olmedo, DFO, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows, CA 95988.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Laurie Trombley, Glenn/Colusa RAC Coordinator, USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Grindstone Ranger District, P.O. Box 160, Stonyford, CA 95979 (530) 963-3128                         *e-mail: ltrombley@fs.fed.us.*                         Eduardo Olmedo, District Ranger, USDA, Mendocino National Forest, Grindstone Ranger District, 825 N. Humboldt St., Willows, CA 95988 (530) 934-3316                         *e-mail: eolmedo@fs.fed.us.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting will be open to the public. Committee discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. However, persons who wish to bring matters to the attention of the Committee will file written statements with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Public input sessions are provided and individuals who made written requests by April 12, 2010 have the opportunity to address the committee at those sessions.

Dated: February 9, 2010.

Eduardo Olmedo,

Designated Federal Official.

[FR Doc. 2010-3649 Filed 2-25-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M