alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 15.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos.33-84904, 33-98132, 33-99134, 33-99140, 33-99150, 33-99154, 333-109200, 333-118678, 333-127976 and 333-138316) of our report dated June 28, 2007 relating to the financial statements, financial statementschedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting which appear in this Annual Report on Form 20-F. 

/s/ MISUZU PricewaterhouseCoopers 

Osaka, Japan 

July 4, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Gregory T. Lucier, Chief Executive Officer of Invitrogen Corporation (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and



(2) the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                       |  |                                          
|---------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------
|                       |  |  | 
|Dated: August 17, 2005 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Gregory T. Lucier
|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                       |  | Gregory T. Lucier Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to
Invitrogen and will be retained by Invitrogen and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 1603.103 Referral of complaints. ( a ) The Commission will notify an FEP agency, as defined in 29 CFR 1601.3(a), when a complaint is filed by a state or local government employee or applicant under this part concerning an employment practice within the jurisdiction of the FEP agency. The FEP agency will be entitled to process the complaint exclusively for a period of not less than 60 days if the FEP agency makes a written request to the Commission within 10 days of receiving notice that the complaint has been filed, unless the complaint names the FEP agency as the respondent.
( b ) The Commission may enter into an agreement with an FEP agency that authorizes the FEP agency to receive complaints under this part on behalf of the Commission or waives the FEP agency's right to exclusive processing of complaints.
[62 FR 17543, Apr. 10, 1997, as amended at 89 FR 47852, June 4, 2024]
#### §§ 1420.2-1420.4 [Reserved]
#### § 1471.815 How may I contest a proposed debarment?

If you as a respondent wish to contest a proposed debarment, you or your representative must provide the debarring official with information in opposition to the proposed debarment. You may do this orally or in writing, but any information provided orally that you consider important must also be submitted in writing for the official record.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4719 

To provide, temporarily, authority for the Secretary of Commerce to waive 

cost sharing requirements for the Hollings Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2020 

Mr. PETERS (for himself, Mr. GARDNER, Mr. COONS, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. 

BOOKER, Mr. KAINE, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. MENENDEZ, and Mr. BENNET) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To provide, temporarily, authority for the Secretary of Commerce to waive cost sharing requirements for the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership, 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 ‘‘Helping Manufacturers 

5 Respond to COVID–19 Act of 2020’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4719 IS

1 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY WAIVER OF HOLLINGS MANUFAC2 TURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP COST 

3 SHARING REQUIREMENT. 

4 The Secretary of Commerce may waive all or a por5 tion of the requirements of subsection (e)(2) of section 25 

6 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act 

7 (15 U.S.C. 278k) with respect to the provision under such 

8 section by the Secretary of capital and annual operating 

9 and maintenance funds required to establish and support 

10 a Center (as defined in subsection (a) of such section) to 

11 the degree that such funds are derived from amounts spe12 cifically appropriated for the Hollings Manufacturing Ex13 tension Partnership for fiscal year 2021. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-93,354-02

IN RE STATE OF TEXAS EX REL. BRENT SMITH, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

IN THE 345 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY TH

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator filed a motion for leave to file and a petition for writ of prohibition invoking our

constitutional authority to issue writs of prohibition in criminal law matters. TEX. CONST. art. V, §

5. The petition requests that this Court prohibit the Respondent from issuing and ruling on pre-trial

habeas applications filed by defendants confined in Kinney County pursuant to Kinney County

misdemeanor charges. 

We order that this petition be filed and set for submission to determine: (1) whether, under

Ex parte Valdez, or other authority, the district court has a ministerial duty to abstain from issuing 1

writs that arise from actions occurring in a distant county; (2) whether, under Ex parte Valdez, or

 489 S.W.3d 462 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). 1
2

other authority, the district court has a ministerial duty to abstain from deciding the merits of writ

applications that arise from actions occurring in a distant county; and (3) whether it would be a clear

abuse of discretion to hold that Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.06 applies to

misdemeanor cases, given that indictments are not required in misdemeanor cases. The Relator and

the Real Parties in Interest shall brief these issues. We also invite the Travis County District

Attorney’s Office, the Office of the State Prosecuting Attorney, and the Respondent to brief these

issues. All briefs shall be filed with this Court within thirty days from the date of this order.

Filed: May 4, 2022

Do not publish
§ 17.8 How does the Secretary provide states an opportunity to comment on proposal Federal financial assistance? ( a ) Except in unusual circumstances, the Secretary gives state processes or directly affected state, areawide, regional and local officials and entities: ( 1 ) At least 30 days from the date established by the Secretary to comment on proposed Federal financial assistance in the form of noncompeting continuation awards; and
( 2 ) At least 60 days from the date established by the Secretary to comment on proposed Federal financial assistance other than noncompeting continuation awards.
( b ) This section also applies to comments in cases in which the review, coordination, and communication with the Department have been delegated.
[No. 28186-4-II.

Division Two.

November 1, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Billy Joseph Donley, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Cowlitz County, No. 95-1-00087-5, Stephen M. Warning, J., entered November 13, 2001. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Houghton and Armstrong, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: The City of Houston v. Frank Nicolai and Debora Nicolai as parents of 

Caroline Nicolai, deceased

Appellate case number: 01-20-00327-CV

Trial court case number: 2013-75121

Trial court: 164th District Court of Harris County

Appellant, the City of Houston, has filed a “Motion to Transfer Record from Prior 

Related Appeal.” The motion is granted.

Accordingly, we order the Clerk of this Court to transfer the clerk’s record in appeal 

number 01-16-00184-CV, styled City of Houston v. Frank Nicolai and Debora Nicolai as 

parents of Caroline Nicolai, deceased, to the present appeal, appellate number 01-20-00327-CV, 

styled City of Houston v. Frank Nicolai and Debora Nicolai as parents of Caroline Nicolai, 

deceased. The transferred record will be designated as volume 1 of the clerk’s record in the 

present appeal.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___________/s/ Julie Countiss_____________________

Acting individually 

Date: April 28, 2020
§ 1471.845 What does the debarring official consider in deciding whether to debar me? ( a ) The debarring official may debar you for any of the causes in § 1471.800. However, the official need not debar you even if a cause for debarment exists. The official may consider the seriousness of your acts or omissions and the mitigating or aggravating factors set forth at § 1471.860.
( b ) The debarring official bases the decision on all information contained in the official record. The record includes— ( 1 ) All information in support of the debarring official's proposed debarment;
( 2 ) Any further information and argument presented in support of, or in opposition to, the proposed debarment; and
( 3 ) Any transcribed record of fact-finding proceedings.
( c ) The debarring official may refer disputed material facts to another official for findings of fact. The debarring official may reject any resultant findings, in whole or in part, only after specifically determining them to be arbitrary, capricious, or clearly erroneous.
§ 1918.97 First aid and lifesaving facilities. (See appendix V of this part). ( a ) *Injury reporting.* The employer shall require each employee to report every work-related injury, regardless of severity, to the employer.
( b ) *First aid.* A first aid kit shall be available at or near each vessel being worked. At least one person holding a valid first aid certificate, such as is issued by the Red Cross or other equivalent organization, shall be available to render first aid when work is in progress.
( c ) *First aid kits.* First aid kits shall be weatherproof and shall contain individual sealed packages for each item that must be kept sterile. The contents of each kit shall be determined by a person certified in first aid and cognizant of the hazards found in marine cargo handling operations. The contents shall be checked at intervals that allow prompt replacement of expended items.
( d ) *Stretchers.* ( 1 ) For each vessel being worked, at least one Stokes basket stretcher, or its equivalent, shall be available to be permanently equipped with bridles for attachment to the hoisting gear.
( 2 ) Stretchers shall be kept close to vessels and shall be positioned to avoid damage to the stretcher.
( 3 ) A blanket or other suitable covering shall be available.
( 4 ) Stretchers shall have at least four sets of effective patient restraints in operable condition.
( 5 ) Lifting bridles shall be of adequate strength, capable of lifting 1,000 pounds (454 kg) with a safety factor of five (lifting capability of 5,000 pounds), and shall be maintained in operable condition. Lifting bridles shall be provided for making vertical patient lifts at container berths. Stretchers for vertical lifts shall have foot plates.
( 6 ) Stretchers shall be maintained in operable condition. Struts and braces shall be inspected for damage. Wire mesh shall be secured and have no burrs. Damaged stretchers shall not be used until repaired.
( 7 ) Stretchers in permanent locations shall be mounted to prevent damage and be protected from the elements if located out-of-doors. If concealed from view, enclosures shall be marked to indicate the location of the lifesaving equipment.
( e ) *Life-rings.* ( 1 ) The employer shall ensure that there is in the vicinity of each vessel being worked at least one U.S. Coast Guard approved 30-inch (76.2 cm) life-ring with no less than 90 feet (27.43 m) of line attached, and at least one portable or permanent ladder that will reach from the top of the apron to the surface of the water.
( 2 ) In addition, when working a barge, scow, raft, lighter, log boom, or carfloat alongside a ship, a U.S. Coast Guard approved 30-inch (76.2 cm) life-ring, with no less than 90 feet (27.43 m) of line shall be provided either on the floating unit itself or aboard the ship in the immediate vicinity of each floating unit being worked.
( f ) *Communication.* Telephone or equivalent means of communication shall be readily available at the worksite.
[62 FR 40202, July 25, 1997, as amended at 65 FR 40946, June 30, 2000; ]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 94 (Monday, May 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12279]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice #: 3309]


U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy; Notice of Meeting

    The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, reauthorized 
pursuant to Public Law 106-113 (H.R. 3194, consolidated Appropriations 
Act, 2000), will meet on Thursday, May 18, 2000, in Room 600, 301 4th 
St., SW, Washington, DC from 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm.
    The Commission will discuss its plans for assessing the 
consolidation of USIA into the State Department and the effectiveness 
of U.S. public diplomacy in the former Soviet Union.
    Members of the general public may attend the meeting, though 
attendance of public members will be limited to the seating available. 
Access to the building is controlled, and individual building passes 
are required for all attendees. Persons who plan to attend should 
contact David J. Kramer, Executive Director, at (202) 619-4463.

    Dated: May 10, 2000.
David J. Kramer,
Executive Director, U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 00-12279 Filed 5-11-00; 3:10 pm]
BILLING CODE 4710-11-P
CONSENT OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
of  DCH  Technology,  Inc.  on Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-95929 and 33-39262) of our
report,  dated  February  6,  2001  on  our  audit of the consolidated financial
statements of DCH Technology, Inc. as of December 31, 2000 and for the year then
ended,  included  in  this  Annual  Report  on  Form  10-KSB.


/s/ Moss Adams LLP

March 30, 2001
Los Angeles, California


<PAGE>
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406-0045 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406-0045 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406-0045 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406-0045 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406-0045 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406-0045 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406-0045 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406-0045 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406-0045 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406-0045 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406-0045 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406-0045 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406-0045 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406-0045 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406-0045 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406-0045 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406-0045 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406-0045 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406-0045 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406-0045 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406-0045 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406-0045 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406-0045 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406-0045
#### Cornelius Flint *et al.,*Resp’ts, *v.*Orris Franzman, App’lt.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,*

*Filed May 27, 1889.)*

Tenants in common—When tenant mat maintain action against co-tenants.

Where one tenant in common of personal property makes an exclusive appropriation of it to himself, in hostility to the right of his co-tenants to its possession and enjoyment, the co-tenants may maintain an action against him.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment and decision of special term of this court, affirming a judgment of jus tice’s court in favor of plaintiffs.

Action commenced in justice’s court, April 27, 1887, by plaintiffs against the defendant, to recover the value of a musical instrument, commonly called an E flat Tuba,alleged to have been wrongfully converted by the defendant to his own use.

The plaintiffs and the defendant were the owners of the instrument as tenants in common.

*G. E. Phillips,*for app’lt; *Z. S. Westbrook,*for resp’ts.

*90Landon, J.

Upon the evidence, the justice’s court was authorized to find, and we presume did find, that the defendant, who was one of the members of the musical organization, and co-owner with the plaintiffs of the musical instrument, took and carried away the instrument without any intention of returning it to the band association. He did not return it upon proper demand, and. made representations which the court could properly hold to be evasive. The case was thus presented where one tenant in common of personal property makes an exclusive appropriation of it to himself in hostility to the right of his co-tenants to its possession and enjoyment. In such case his co-tenants can maintain an action against him. *Osborn*v. *Schenck*(83 N. Y., 201), and cases there cited.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Learned, P. J., and Ingalls, J., concur.
#### § 1630.11 Administration of tests.

It is unlawful for a covered entity to fail to select and administer tests concerning employment in the most effective manner to ensure that, when a test is administered to a job applicant or employee who has a disability that impairs sensory, manual or speaking skills, the test results accurately reflect the skills, aptitude, or whatever other factor of the applicant or employee that the test purports to measure, rather than reflecting the impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills of such employee or applicant (except where such skills are the factors that the test purports to measure).
R18 - 2 - 215. Ambient air quality monitoring methods and procedures

A. Only those methods which have been either designated by the Administrator as reference or equivalent methods or approved by the Director shall b e used to monitor ambient air. B. Quality assurance, monitor siting, and sample probe installation procedures shall be in accordance with procedures described in the Appendices to 40 CFR 58. C. The Director may approve other procedures upon a finding that the proposed procedures are substantially equivalent or superior to procedures in the Appendices to 40 CFR 58. Historical Note Adopted effective September 22, 1983 (Supp. 83 - 5). Former Section R9 - 3 - 215 renumbered without change as Section R18 - 2 - 215 (Supp . 87 - 3). Amended effective September 26, 1990 (Supp. 90 - 3).
# EUR-Lex - 31998D0222 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31998D0222

**98/222/EC: Commission Decision of 18 March 1998 amending Decision 92/486/EEC as regards the form of collaboration between the ANIMO host centre and the Member States (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 082 , 19/03/1998 P. 0050 - 0050 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 18 March 1998 amending Decision 92/486/EEC as regards the form of collaboration between the ANIMO host centre and the Member States (Text with EEA relevance) (98/222/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), as last amended by Decision 92/118/EEC (2), and in particular Article 20(3) thereof,

Whereas, as a result of the work carried out at Community level in the course of studies and seminars, the structure of the ANIMO network should be revised so that a veterinary system integrating the various computer applications can be introduced;

Whereas Commission Decision 92/486/EEC of 25 September 1992 establishing the form of collaboration between the ANIMO host centre and the Member States (3), as last amended by Decision 97/395/EC (4), should be amended to introduce a transition period; whereas certain deadlines should also be set for the review of the current system;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Decision 92/486/EEC is amended as follows:

1. In Article 2a, a new paragraph 3 is added:

'3. For the period 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999, the coordination authorities provided for in Article 1 shall ensure that the contracts referred to in that Article are extended for one year.

The following charges shall apply in respect of this paragraph:

ECU 386 per unit (central unit, local unit, border inspection post) for all the ANIMO units listed in Decision 96/295/EC, as last amended by Decision 98/167/EC (*).

(*) OJ L 62 of 3. 3. 1998, p. 33.`

2. The following Article 5a is added:

'Article 5a

This Decision will be reviewed before:

- 1 October 1998 to consider the issue of direct connections between national servers,

- 31 January 1999 to consider how the structure of the ANIMO network has developed.`

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on 1 April 1998.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 18 March 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 224, 18. 8. 1990, p. 29.

(2) OJ L 62, 15. 3. 1993, p. 49.

(3) OJ L 291, 7. 10. 1992, p. 20.

(4) OJ L 164, 21. 6. 1997, p. 25.