alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
Corixa Corporation:


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this registration statement on 
Form S-8 of Corixa Corporation, of our report dated April 28, 1995, relating to 
the statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows of Corixa 
Corporation (a development stage company) for the period from September 8, 1994 
(date of inception) through December 31, 1994 which report appears in the 
December 31, 1997 annual report on Form 10K of Corixa Corporation.




KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Seattle, Washington
November 9, 1998
#### CORNELIUS PRALL *against*ANN WALDRON. [65]

OST CERTIORARI.

Action in case, and demand for detinue, sustained.

This was an action on the case. The state of demand as follows:



Kirkpatrick, C. J.

— Upon inspecting the proceedings in this cause, I do not perceive that any of the reasons assigned for reversal are grounded on the record. Nor do I perceive any radical error which could prevail under the general reason. I think, therefore, this judgment must be affirmed.

*84
      *Freeman,*for plaintiff".

Rossell, J. — Concurred.

Pennington, J.

— The two first reasons assigned for the reversal of this judgment are,

1st. Because the plaintiff below brought an action of trespass on the case, and judgment was rendered accordingly, when the plaintiff’s demand, as filed, was in detinue.

2d. Because the plaintiff’s state of demand as filed, contains neither time or place of the detinue having been committed.

The record shows that the action was in case, and the state of demand is in the following words: “ The plaintiff demands eighty dollars of the defendant, for detaining a roan mare and a heifer, the property of the plaintiff, wrongfully; and therefore she brings this suit.” It really appears to me that if this state of demand is to be supported at all, it must be as a demand in detinue. If it be considered as a special action on the case, it is certainly grossly defective, inasmuch as no special circumstances are stated. If it is to be viewed as a demand in trover, it is equally defective, for that no conversion [*] is stated. If in detinue, it is at variance with the style of the action; and after all, the cause of action very defectively set out — whichever way it is to be taken, it appears to me, it cannot be supported. In cases of tort, especially, a legal cause of action ought to be set out, not with technical nicety, but a substantial legal cause of action ought to be made to appear on the record. It cannot be said in this case, that the' plaintiff was without counsel; as I observe that the state of demand is signed by an attorney and counsellor of this court. My opinion is, that this judgment ought to be reversed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cited in *Scott*v. *Beatty, 3 Zab, 256; Pat. and Ram. R. R. Co.*v. *Ackerman, 4. Zab. 535; Davis*v. *Township of Delaware, 12 Vr. 58.*
Exhibit 23.1

Independent Auditors' Consent

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-98690 and 333-07191 of Oakley, Inc. on
Form S-8 of our report dated February 14, 2003, (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to a change in accounting for
goodwill and other intangible assets during 2002) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Oakley, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002.

/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Costa Mesa, California
March 28, 2003

---

QuickLinks
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7589 

To direct the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Assistant Secretary 

of Commerce for Communications and Information, to conduct a study 

of the national security risks posed by consumer routers, modems, and 

devices that combine a modem and router, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2024 

Mr. LATTA (for himself and Mrs. PELTOLA) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications 

and Information, to conduct a study of the national 

security risks posed by consumer routers, modems, and 

devices that combine a modem and router, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Removing Our Unse5 cure Technologies to Ensure Reliability and Security Act’’ 

6 or the ‘‘ROUTERS Act’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7589 IH

1 SEC. 2. STUDY OF NATIONAL SECURITY RISKS POSED BY 

2 CERTAIN ROUTERS AND MODEMS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct a 

4 study of the national security risks posed by consumer 

5 routers, modems, and devices that combine a modem and 

6 router that are designed, developed, manufactured, or sup7 plied by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the 

8 influence of a covered country. 

9 (b) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 1 year 

10 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 

11 shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

12 of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

13 Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a 

14 report on the results of the study conducted under sub15 section (a). 

16 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

17 (1) COVERED COUNTRY.—The term ‘‘covered 

18 country’’ means a country specified in section 

19 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code. 

20 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

21 the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the As22 sistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications 

23 and Information. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 3-3

                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                             PSEG FUNDING TRUST III

      THIS  CERTIFICATE OF TRUST of PSEG Funding Trust III (the "Trust"),  dated
as of July 31, 2002,  is being duly  executed and filed by the  undersigned,  as
trustees,  to form a business  trust under the Delaware  Business  Trust Act (12
Del. C.ss.3801, et seq.) (the "Act").

            (i) Name. The name of the business trust being formed hereby is PSEG
Funding Trust III.

            (ii) Delaware Trustee.  The name and business address of the trustee
of the Trust in the State of  Delaware  are  Wachovia  Trust  Company,  National
Association, One Rodney Square, 920 King Street, Suite 102, Wilmington DE 19801.

            (iii) Counterparts. This Certificate of Trust may be executed in one
or more  counterparts,  all of which together shall  constitute one and the same
instrument.

            (iv) Effective Date. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective as
of its filing with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the trustees of the Trust, have
executed  this  Certificate  of Trust  as of the date  first  above  written  in
accordance with Section 3811(a) of the Act.

                                         WACHOVIA TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL
                                         ASSOCIATION, as Trustee

                                         By: /s/ AMY L. MARTIN
                                             -----------------------------------
                                         Name:  Amy L. Martin
                                         Title: Assistant Vice President

                                         MORTON A. PLAWNER, as Trustee

                                         /s/ MORTON A. PLAWNER
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Morton A. Plawner
#### § 343.22 Permitted combinations of active ingredients for cardiovascular-rheumatologic use.

Combinations containing aspirin must meet the standards of an acceptable dissolution test, as set forth in § 343.90. The following combinations are permitted: Aspirin identified in §§ 343.12 and 343.13 may be combined with any antacid ingredient identified in § 331.11 of this chapter or any combination of antacids permitted in accordance with § 331.10(a) of this chapter provided that the finished product meets the requirements of § 331.10 of this chapter and is marketed in a form intended for ingestion as a solution.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1998
<CASH>                                           2,774
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,589
<ALLOWANCES>                                       340
<INVENTORY>                                      9,253
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,669
<PP&E>                                          22,548
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,815
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,583
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,600
<BONDS>                                          4,731
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,868
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,583
<SALES>                                         27,914
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,914
<CGS>                                           23,259
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,259
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,456
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    33
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 154
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,485)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       520
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (965)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (965)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.23)
        

</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 11076 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
ARMANDO MARTINEZ

- MARTINEZ, also known as Natanael Ramirez

- Rios , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:17

- CR

- 451

- 14

Before HIGGINSON, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Armando Martinez

- Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. Califor nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Martinez

- Martinez h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s asses sment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 4, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-11076 Document: 00514982988 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2019No. 18

- 11076

2 issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-11076 Document: 00514982988 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2019
#### Vitale-Div. of Sheff Realty, Inc., et al. *v.*John L. Sullivan, Tax Commissioner, et al.

*Richard A. Gitlin,*assistant attorney general, with whom was *Ralph G. Murphy,*assistant attorney general, for the appellees (defendants).

*Louis Vitale,*pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).

Argued May 6

decided May 6, 1969

The motion by the defendants to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is granted.

The appellant filed a motion for reargument which was denied.
§ 582.1057 Hydrochloric acid. ( a ) *Product.* Hydrochloric acid.
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Limitations, restrictions, or explanation.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used as a buffer and neutralizing agent in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
Editorial Note on Part 173
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 173 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; and 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 173.60 Dimethylamine-epichlorohydrin copolymer. Dimethylamine-epichlorohydrin copolymer (CAS Reg. No. 25988-97-0) may be safely used in food in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) The food additive is produced by copolymerization of dimethylamine and epichlorohydrin in which not more than 5 mole-percent of dimethylamine may be replaced by an equimolar amount of ethylenediamine, and in which the mole ratio of total amine to epichlorohydrin is approximately 1:1.
( b ) The additive meets the following specifications: ( 1 ) The nitrogen content of the copolymer is 9.4 to 10.8 weight percent on a dry basis.
( 2 ) A 50-percent-by-weight aqueous solution of the copolymer has a minimum viscosity of 175 centipoises at 25 °C as determined by LVT-series Brookfield viscometer using a No. 2 spindle at 60 RPM (or by another equivalent method).
( 3 ) The additive contains not more than 1,000 parts per million of 1,3-dichloro-2-propanol and not more than 10 parts per million epichlorohydrin. The epichlorohydrin and 1,3-dichloro-2-propanol content is determined by an analytical method entitled “The Determination of Epichlorohydrin and 1,3-Dichloro-2-Propanol in Dimethylamine-Epichlorohydrin Copolymer,” which is incorporated by reference. Copies are available from the Office of Food Additive Safety (HFS-200), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1200, or available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( 4 ) Heavy metals (as Pb), 2 parts per million maximum.
( 5 ) Arsenic (as As), 2 parts per million maximum.
( c ) The food additive is used as a decolorizing agent and/or flocculant in the clarification of refinery sugar liquors and juices. It is added only at the defecation/clarification stage of sugar liquor refining at a concentration not to exceed 150 parts per million of copolymer by weight of sugar solids.
( d ) To assure safe use of the additive, the label and labeling of the additive shall bear, in addition to other information required by the Act, adequate directions to assure use in compliance with paragraph (c) of this section.
[48 FR 37614, Aug. 19, 1983, as amended at 54 FR 24897, June 12, 1989; 88 FR 17722, Mar. 24, 2023]
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00097-CV

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF Javier J. TREVINO, an Incapacitated Person

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022PB6000079-L2

Honorable Victor Villarreal, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 28, 2023

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On January 31, 2023, counsel Armando Trevino filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal 

the trial court’s January 25, 2023 order granting the first amended motion to show authority. The 

order concludes he does not have authority to represent Javier J. Trevino, the ward in the 

proceedings, and strikes each pleading filed by him. He cites additional orders, but they do not 

appear in the clerk’s record. Absent an appealable interlocutory order or written final judgment, 

this court has no jurisdiction over this appeal. See Matter of Guardianship of Jones, 629 S.W.3d 

921, 925 (Tex. 2021) (explaining order in guardianship proceeding was final judgment if it 

disposed of all issues and all parties in particular phase of proceeding in which motion seeking 

order filed); Bosch v. Harris Cnty., No. 14-13-00739-CV, 2013 WL 5503744, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 1, 2013, no pet.) (concluding order on Rule 12 motion to show authority 
04-23-00097-CV

- 2 -

not appealable until merged into final judgment); see also Ogletree v. Matthews, 262 S.W.3d 316, 

319 n.1 (Tex. 2007); Lehmann v. Har Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). We therefore

ordered counsel Armando Trevino to show cause in writing by June 5, 2023, why this appeal 

should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Counsel Armando Trevino has not filed a response. 

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c).

PER CURIAM
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

The undersigned, Gary L. Cavey, Chief Executive Officer of Ballantyne Strong, Inc. (the "Company"), has executed this
certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2010
(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, to his knowledge
that:



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 23rd day of June, 2011.

/s/ GARY L. CAVEY Gary L. Cavey
Chief Executive Officer


A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Ballantyne Strong, Inc. and will be retained by Ballantyne Strong, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

UNPUBLISHED In re J. A. P ATTON , Minor. April 1, 2021

No. 354392 Montcalm Circuit Court Family Division LC No. 2018

- 000840

- NA

AFTER REMAND

Before: S WARTZLE , P .J., and M ARKEY and T UKEL , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. Respondent appeals as of right the trial court ’ s order terminating her parental rights to her child , JAP, under MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)( i ) and ( ii ), (g), and (j). On initial appeal to t his Court , we affirmed the trial court’s determination that statutory grounds existed to terminate respondent’s parental rights under MCL 712A.19b(3)(j)

. In re Patton , unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued February 18, 2021 (Docke t No. 354392), p 3.

Because the child was placed with relatives, but the record contained no evidence that the trial court considered that relative placement when considering the child’s best interests , we concluded that the factual record wa s inadequate for purposes of the best

- interests determination

. Id . at 3

- 4, citing In re Mays , 490 Mich 993 , 994 ; 807 NW2d 307 (2012). Therefore, this Court
vacate d the trial court’s order terminating respondent’s parental rights and remand ed for a new best

- interests determination , retaining jurisdiction

. In re Patton , unpub op at 4.

On remand, the trial court conducted the best

- interests determination, and concluded that the record showed, by a preponderance of the evidence, that termination of respondent’s parental rights was in the child’s best interests. The trial court therefore entered a new order terminating respondent’s parental rights to the child. The matter now returns to this Court after remand.

Whether termination of parental rights is in the best inter est of the child must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Moss , 301 Mich App 76, 90; 836 NW2d 182 (2013). This Court reviews for clear error the trial court’s ruling that termination is in the child’s best interests. In re Hudson , 294 Mich App 261, 264; 817 NW2d 115 (2011). When this appeal was originally before this Court, we took “no position on whether consideration of the bare fact of relative- 2

-

placement should have any material impact on the trial court’s ultimate conclusion on the best interests” of the minor child

. In re Patton , unpub op at 4. Having reviewed the transcript of the trial court’s best

- interest findings, and being familiar with the reasons why the trial court concluded that statutory grounds existed to terminate res pondent’s parental rights, we conclude that the trial court did not clearly err in determining that terminating respondent’s parental rights was in the child ’s best interests

. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order terminating respondent’s parental

r ights.

Affirmed.

/s/ Brock A. Swartzle /s/ Jane E. Markey /s/ Jonathan Tukel
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Steven P. Duffen

*Steven P. Duffen,*pro se, in support of the motion.

Submitted November 21

decided December 3, 1969

The motion by the defendant entitled “Motion to Dismiss State’s Attorney on Appeal” in the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County is denied.

The relief sought in the defendant’s request entitled “Notice of Brief on Appeal” in the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County is denied.

The petition by the defendant for a writ of error is dismissed.