alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit23**

**REPORTAND CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board ofDirectors and Stockholdersof Ibis Technology Corporation:

The auditsreferred to in our report dated March 26, 2007, included the related financialschedule for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,2006, included in the annual report on Form 10-K.  The financial statement schedule is theresponsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial statementschedule based on our audits.  Based onour opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation tothe basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in allmaterial respects the information set forth therein.

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.333-108438) onForm S-3, (No. 333-09237) on Form S-3, (No. 333-82497) on Form S-3,(No.333-09239) on Form S-8, (No.333-45247) on Form S-8, (No.333-36706) on FormS-8, (No.333-61184) on Form S-8, and (No.333-116568) on Form S-8 of IbisTechnology Corporation of our reports dated March 26, 2007, with respect to thebalance sheets of Ibis Technology Corporation as of December 31, 2005 and 2006,and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows,and the related financial statement schedule, for each of the years in thethree-year period ended December 31, 2006, which reports appear in the December31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of Ibis Technology Corporation, and to thereference to our firm under the heading “Selected Financial Data.”

As described innote 2(k) to the financial statements, the Company adopted Statement ofFinancial Accounting Standards No. 123 (revised 2004), *Share-basedPayment*, effective January 1, 2006.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Boston,MassachusettsMarch 26, 2007

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner 

v.

JOHN WILLIAM EDDY,

Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 2638 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

File No. C4-19-370

Attorney Registration No. 209046

(Fayette County)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6

th day of September, 2019, following consideration of the 

responses to this Court’s Rule to Show Cause why Respondent should not be placed on 

temporary suspension, the Rule is made absolute. It is provided that:

1. Respondent is placed on temporary suspension until further definitive action by 

this Court;

2. Respondent shall comply with the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217; 

3. The President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County shall 

enter such orders as may be necessary to protect the rights of Respondent’s clients or 

fiduciary entities with which he is involved, see Pa.R.D.E. 217(g); and

4. All financial institutions in which Respondent holds fiduciary funds shall freeze 

such accounts pending further action.

Respondent’s rights to petition for dissolution or amendment of this order and to 

request accelerated disposition of charges underlying this order pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 

208(f)(6) are specifically preserved.
This Order constitutes an imposition of public discipline pertaining to 

confidentiality. See Pa.R.D.E. 402.
#### Bailey et al. *v.*Young Women’s Christian Assn. et al., Appellants.

*Equity*— Preliminary *injunction*— Maintaining *status quo*— Ap*peal.*

Where there is apparently sufficient ground for the action of the court below in awarding a preliminary injunction it will not be disturbed on appeal; the status quo will be preserved until final hearing.

Argued March 25, 1919.

Appeal, No. 288, Jan. T., 1919, by defendants, from decree of C. P. No. 5, Philadelphia Co., Sept. T., 1918, No. 1563, awarding preliminary injunction in case of Elsie Bailey et al. v. Young Women’s Christian Association of Philadelphia et al.

Before Brown, C. J., Moschzisker, Frazer, Walking and Kephart, JJ.

Affirmed.

Bill in equity for an injunction to restrain defendants from preventing the plaintiffs from voting at a corporate election, and for the appointment of a master to supervise such election. Before Staake and Monaghan, JJ.

The court awarded a preliminary injunction and appointed a master. Defendants appealed.

*Error assigned*was the decree of the court.

*Theodore F. Jenkins,*with him *WilKam H. Peace,*for appellants.

*Benjamin O. Frick,*for appellees.

April 28, 1919:

Per Curiam,

Where there is apparently sufficient ground for the action of the court below in awarding a preliminary in*516junction it will not be disturbed on appeal; the status quo will be preserved until final hearing: Gemmell et al. v. Fox et al., 241 Pa. 146. It not appearing that the present appeal ought to be made an exception to this rule, it is dismissed at the costs of the appellants.
EXHIBIT
        32.1
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
 18
        U.S.C.
        SECTION 1350
 AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF
        THE
        SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I,
        Glenn
        Welstad, President, and Chief Executive Officer of Command Center, Inc. (the
        "Company") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
        pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
        knowledge:
 
 This
        Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A1 of the Company for the fiscal quarter
        ended
        September 29, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
        (the
        "report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
        of the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 The
        information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 Date:  November
        9, 2007
 
 /s/
        Glenn Welstad
 Glenn
        Welstad
 President
        and Chief Executive Officer
  10-QSB/A1
            Page 22
### StormKlear EPA Case Study

Project: Ty Cobb Hospital, Lavonia, GA

Owner: Ty Cobb Healthcare Systems, Royston, GA

Site Contractor: Simpson’s Grading, Gainesville, GA

E&S Contractor: Clean Water Consultants, Winder, GA

Product: StormKlear DPS

‐ MB Kits

Dose rate: 5 mg/L

Description: The new Ty Cobb Regional Medical Center is located off Clear Creek Road at Interstate 85 in

Lavonia, GA and will consolidate the existing Cobb Memorial and Hart County hospitals, providing

services in medical specialties not readily available to many people in northeast Georgia. The challenge

was controlling turbidity in the runoff leaving the site with the amount of exposed clay soils. StormKlear

MB Kits were installed directly on top of 4’ single net excelsior matting in a channel and 12” x 10’

excelsior logs were used as check structures. The DBP

‐ 2100 was installed just before the 1 st check, and

the GelFloc before the 2 nd check; the 3 rd section was for settling and additional filtration.

Results – Influent: 4000+ NTU; After 3 rd Check w/ settling: 32.8 NTU

Residual Biopolymer Test: Negative
# C_2019093EN.01005802.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/58

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Yado v EUIPO — Dvectis CZ (Support pillow)

(Case T-30/18) (1)

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Community design No 2371591-0001 (Support pillow) - Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Sending of a document to EUIPO by means of a contact form - Sending of a document to EUIPO by electronic means and by fax))

(2019/C 93/75)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Applicant: Yado s.r.o. (Handlová, Slovakia) (represented by: D. Futej, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Cottrell and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Dvectis CZ s.r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Litváková, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 November 2017 (Case R 1017/2017-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Dvectis CZ and Yado.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 November 2017 (Case R 1017/2017-3); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 November 2017 (Case R 1017/2017-3);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Yado s.r.o.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Yado s.r.o.;

| 3. | Orders Dvectis CZ s.r.o. to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Dvectis CZ s.r.o. to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5709]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Ms. EDWARDS:
       H.R. 6311.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article. I, Section 1.
       All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a 
     Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a 
     Senate and House of Representatives.
```
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4402 

To amend section 479(c) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to clarify 

when the Secretary shall consider an independent student without dependents to have an expected family contribution equal to zero. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2017 

Ms. JUDY CHU of California introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend section 479(c) of the Higher Education Act of 

1965 to clarify when the Secretary shall consider an 

independent student without dependents to have an expected family contribution equal to zero. 

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 ‘‘Streamlining FAFSA 

5 Act of 2017’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4402 IH

1 SEC. 2. ZERO EXPECTED FAMILY CONTRIBUTION FOR SIM2 PLIFIED NEEDS TESTS. 

3 Section 479(c) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

4 (20 U.S.C. 1087ss(c)) is amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

6 end; 

7 (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at 

8 the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

9 (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol10 lowing: 

11 ‘‘(3) in the case of an independent student 

12 without dependents— 

13 ‘‘(A) the student (and the student’s 

14 spouse, if any)— 

15 ‘‘(i) files, or is eligible to file, a form 

16 described in subsection (b)(3); 

17 ‘‘(ii) certifies that the student (and 

18 the student’s spouse, if any) is not re19 quired to file a Federal income tax return; 

20 ‘‘(iii) is a dislocated worker or has a 

21 spouse who is a dislocated worker; or 

22 ‘‘(iv) received benefits at some time 

23 during the previous 24-month period under 

24 a means-tested Federal benefit program as 

25 defined under subsection (d); and 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4402 IH

1 ‘‘(B) the sum of the adjusted gross income 

2 of the student and spouse (if appropriate) is 

3 less than or equal to $23,000.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
December 2022

There were 8 surveillance inspections conducted at 8 different sites for a total of 69

fish sampled this month. Samples are targeted to moribund and fresh mortalities. The 

water temperatures continued to decrease due to colder air temperatures. Routine 

harvest continued. One site was identified as Category 2 and will conduct biweekly 

sampling, along with the other active site in the same bay. All other sites with fish in 

the water remained Category 1 and were scheduled for monthly sampling.

Date Number of 

Samples

Confirmed Positive Cages Cumulative 

Program Samples

January 2022 80 0 24521

February 2022 90 0 24611

March 2022 98 0 24709

April 2022 69 0 24778

May 2022 55 0 24833

June 2022 104 0 24937

July 2022 120 1 25057

August 2022 81 0 25138

September 2022 74 0 25212

October 2022 66 0 25278

November 2022 55 0 25333

December 2022 69 0 25402
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4298 

To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to allow grazing as a mid-contract 

management practice in the conservation reserve program, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 8, 2017 

Mrs. HARTZLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to allow grazing 

as a mid-contract management practice in the conservation reserve program, 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 ‘‘CRP Grazing Flexi5 bility Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GRAZING AS MID-CONTRACT MANAGEMENT. 

7 (a) SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES PERMITTED.—Section 

8 1233(b) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 

9 3833(b)) is amended— 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4298 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘; and’’ and 

2 inserting a semicolon; 

3 (2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at 

4 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(6) grazing pursuant to section 1232(a)(5) 

7 without any reduction in the rental rate, if the graz8 ing is consistent with the conservation of soil, water 

9 quality, and wildlife habitat.’’. 

10 (b) COST SHARING PAYMENTS.—Section 1234(b) of 

11 the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3834(b)) is 

12 amended by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(6) MID-CONTRACT MANAGEMENT GRAZING.— 

14 The Secretary may not make any cost sharing pay15 ment to an owner or operator under this subchapter 

16 for any grazing undertaken pursuant to section 

17 1232(a)(5).’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 4.1


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


January 11, 2017


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 289


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the series of Smart Trust set forth above (the “Trust”). We enclosed a list
of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such
Securities as of close of business on January 10, 2017, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in the Standard Terms
and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing
the evaluations of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-214672) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
with respect to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO                        


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
#### Robert D. Sterling, Landlord, *v.*Paul Steinweg et al., Tenants, and Alfred Tanz et al., Undertenants.

Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan,

June 1, 1959.

*156
      *Rosston, Hort & Brussel*for landlord.

*Richard L. Weingarten*for tenants.

Guy Gilbert Ribaudo, J.

The tenants should prevail and this proceeding dismissed.

The sense of the statute with respect to 20% of business space is to be construed in a practical and reasonable light. Where professional occupancy of premises, such as lawyers and doctors, carries with it the use of common rooms, it could hardly be said that there was a subletting of those common rooms as such, in the sense that subletting is used under the statute.

Basically, the tenants here occupied an office comprising 261 square feet; the waiting room, the hallway and bathroom, secretary space and the like were not sublet to them. They constituted merely incidents of the primary subletting of the office space. The application of a rule of reasonableness indicates that the actual office as to which there was possession was the office containing 261 square feet. As this is less than 20% of the entire space it is apparent that the standards set down by the statute do not apply.

It could hardly be contended in any sense that hallways, bathrooms and toilets are sublet, and as to them a tenancy created. If landlord’s contention were upheld it would not be the amount of space actually sublet and used as such which would be controlling but, rather, other space such as hallways, bathrooms, etc., as to which the use is permissive and merely incident to the subletting of the office space.

*157More conclusive, however, is the fact that unlike *11 West 42nd St.*v. *Tower Leasing Co.*(117 N. Y. S. 2d 17), this is a summary-proceeding seeking possession based upon the alleged falsity of the statement furnished by the tenants, landlord thereby claiming the statement to be tantamount to no statement and, hence, a willful disregard of the statute. These contentions are not borne out by the record. The landlord, if aggrieved by tenants’ statement, can test its accuracy by proceeding as in *Tower Leasing Co. (supra)*to have the rent fixed in accordance with the statutory formula. (Business Rent Law, § 4, subd. 4, par. [a]; L. 1945, ch. 314, as amd.) Upon such proceeding all of the landlord’s rights under the statute would be fully protected.

The court finds that the statement furnished by tenants was not willfully false, or even “grossly” inaccurate as claimed by the landlord. Hence, no ground to recover possession under section 8 (subd. [b], par. [3]) of the Business Bent Law has been established.

Proceeding is dismissed.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 3 - 0332 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 3 -NM - 009 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR - M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Advanced Cell Technology, Inc.(the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned, William M. Caldwell, IV, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

| Dated: May 15, 2007 |   | /s/ WILLIAM M.  CALDWELL, IV |
|--------------------------|--------|------------------------------|
|                     |   | William M. Caldwell, IV      |
|                     |   | Chief Executive Officer      |

 

----
CONSENT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-02195,
333-04017, 333-36102) and Form S-3 (No. 333-126349) of Gehl Company of our report dated
March 3, 2006 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule,
managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which
appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPMilwaukee, WisconsinMarch 3, 2006
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002****(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Ibis TechnologyCorporation (the *“Company”*) onForm  10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 (the *“Report”*), I, Debra L. Nelson, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany

 

Dated: March 2, 2004

 

 
| /s/  ***Debra L. Nelson*** |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|
| Debra L.  Nelson                     |
| Chief  Financial Officer             |

 

1

----
#### Rettig v. Parish

17916

3/20/97

Vacated and Remanded
All data has been removed from this file as a result of CBI sanitization. All data provided as a part of the

treated FGD discharge pump proposal is considered CBI or CBI deducible.