alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

         The  undersigned  constitutes  and  appoints  Jon Ehlinger his true and
lawful   attorney-in-fact   and  agent  with  full  power  of  substitution  and
resubstitution,  for him  and in his  name,  place,  and  stead,  in any and all
capacities,  to sign the Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the  fiscal  year ended
December 31, 1999,  for filing with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission by
Ugly Duckling  Corporation,  a Delaware  corporation,  together with any and all
amendments  to such Form 10-K,  and to file the same with all exhibits  thereto,
and all  documents in connection  therewith,  with the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission,  granting to such  attorneys-in-fact  and agents,  and each of them,
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 and to
all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming  all that such  attorneys-in-fact  and agents,  or each of them,  may
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

         DATED:   February 15, 2000


          /S/ FRANK P. WILLEY
          -----------------------
          Frank P. Willey
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                          RENAISSANCE WORLDWIDE, INC.

                             LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                State/Country of
   Company                                                        Organization
   -------                                                      ----------------
   <S>                                                          <C>
   ARI National Company........................................  Massachusetts
   CANAM, L.L.C................................................  Delaware
   GovConnect.com, Inc.........................................  Delaware
   Hunter Consulting Associates Pty. Limited...................  Australia
   The Hunter Group, Inc.......................................  Maryland
   The Hunter Group International, Inc.........................  Delaware
   Neoglyphics Media Corporation...............................  Illinois
   The Management Decisions Group, Inc.........................  Illinois
   Renaissance II, Inc.........................................  Delaware
   Renaissance III, Inc........................................  Delaware
   Renaissance Government Solutions, Inc.......................  Delaware
   Renaissance Worldwide B.V...................................  Netherlands
   Renaissance Worldwide Consulting Pvt. Ltd...................  India
   Renaissance Worldwide Gmbh & Co. KG.........................  Germany
   Renaissance Worldwide Holding Limited.......................  U.K.
   Renaissance Worldwide International Holdings, Inc...........  Delaware
   Renaissance Worldwide IT Consulting Services, Inc...........  Delaware
   Renaissance Worldwide K.K...................................  Japan
   Renaissance Worldwide Limited...............................  Hong Kong
   Renaissance Worldwide Limited...............................  U.K.
   Renaissance Worldwide Professionals Limited.................  U.K.
   Renaissance Worldwide Singapore Pte. Ltd....................  Singapore
   Renaissance Worldwide S.A...................................  France
   Sterling Information Group, Inc.............................  Delaware
   The Registry.com, Inc.......................................  Delaware
   THG Consulting, Inc.........................................  Canada
   TRI Securities Corp.........................................  Massachusetts
</TABLE>
#### Ex parte Tommy A. GOODWIN.

No. 37485.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 16, 1964.

*875Samuel L. Egger, San Antonio, for appellant.

James E. Barlow, Dist. Atty., John G. Benavides and Earl C. Hill, Asst. Dist. Attys., San Antonio, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court of Bexar County remanding relator to the custody of the Sheriff of said, county for delivery to an agent for the State of Colorado.

The State, introduced in evidence the Executive Warrant of the Governor of this State, regular on its face, authorizing the' arrest and return of the relator to the State of Colorado upon the demand of the Gov--ernor of that State to answer to charges of burglary and conspiracy to commit burg--lary. The Executive Warrant shows that: the extradition sought of the relator is based: upon an information, affidavit and warrant.

The relator offered in evidence the supporting papers which accompanied the warrant of the Governor of Texas and challenged their sufficiency in order to show that the Governor’s warrant was not legally issued, as this Court has recognized that he may in Ex parte Tucker, 168 Tex.Cr. 286, 324 S.W.2d 853. We find an information executed by the District Attorney which is sworn to before a notary public and which is therefore not an affidavit made before a magistrate as is required by Section 3 of Article 1008a, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

There is no evidence in the record showing that a felony offense in Colorado may be prosecuted upon an information. In the absence of such proof, it is assumed that prosecutions for the felony offenses herein involved are not authorized by Colorado law upon an information. Ex parte Gardner, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 365, 264 S.W.2d 125; Ex parte Cooper, 163 Tex.Cr.R. 642, 295 S.W.2d 906; on second appeal, Tex.Cr.App., 308 S.W.2d 22; Ex parte Doyal, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 83, 318 S.W.2d 642. For that reason, extradition cannot be authorized by the information and affidavit before a notary public on file herein, as was done in Ex parte Peairs, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 243, 283 S.W.2d 755, appeal dismissed 350 U.S. 585, 76 S.Ct. 104, 100 L.Ed. 762.

In Ex parte Peairs, supra, we held the affidavit sufficient to support the information because there was an affirmative showing in the record that the laws of the demanding state authorized prosecution for all offenses upon an information.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; PAR-23-065, NIAID Resource Related Research Projects (R24 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).                    

*Date:*                         February 29, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G56, Rockville, MD 20892 (Video Assisted Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Maryam Rohani, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities,  National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G56, Rockville, MD 20852,  (301) 761-6656,                         *maryam.rohani@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 30, 2024.

Lauren A. Fleck,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-02152 Filed 2-2-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### Julius Ceasar GRAVES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27862.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 30, 1955.

*352No appearance for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is the unlawful transportation of whiskey, gin and wine in a dry area; the punishment, 30 days in jail and a fine of $400.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           549,024
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      33,464
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 655,391
<CASH>                                           6,858
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              45,057
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 813,192
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                449,864
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             25,296
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     294,700<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   813,192
<PREMIUMS>                                     153,192
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             37,697
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               (295)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     693
<BENEFITS>                                     122,780
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     29,310
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 39,197
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,295
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    29,902
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.62
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 477,631
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            204,067
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                             (61,179)
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                              13,742
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               156,913
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                449,864
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                       (61,179)
<FN>
<F1>
Treasury stock of $93,796 is included as a reduction of other stockholders'
equity. Accumulated other comprehensive income of $(14,764) is included as a
component of stockholders' equity.
</FN>


</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AP RIL 10, 2013

NO. 03

- 12

- 0077 7

- CR

Shawn Thomas King, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JU STICES GOODWIN AND F IELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error requiring reversal in the

trial court’s judgment of conviction : IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the

Court that trial court ’s judgment of conviction is in all things affirmed; and it appearing that the

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, that no adjudication as t o costs is made; and that

this decision be certified below for observance.
#### STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. Elmer SHAW, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 8, 1956.

Charles H. Reynolds, Bell & Orr, Bowling Green, for appellants.

Cecil Wilson, Glasgow, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

A judgment, pursuant to a jury’s verdict, was entered in favor of Elmer Shaw for $315.65 against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, William .B. Ely and A. E. Ely. There was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict.

The motion for an appeal is overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.
>

00 sNr$ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

to ift 4r

e REGION I

z 6 POST OFFICE SQUARE SUITE 100

t tWil te4

BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS 021093912

tIllhaliglawe

44 PRol

November 5 2014

The Honorable Kirk Francis

Chiefof the Penobscot Nation

Tribal Administration

12 Wabanaki Way

Indian Island ME 04468

Re Acknowledgement of Receipt of the Penobscot Nations Application for EPA Approval

to Administer a Water Quality Standards Program under the Clean Water Act

Dear Chief Francis

Thank you for your letter of October 8 2014 transmitting the Penobscot Nations application for

EPA approval of its proposed water quality standards program under the Clean Water Act

CWA

EPA Region I will review the application in order to make a determination whether the Nation is

eligible under section 518e of the CWA for purposes of implementing the Nations proposed

water quality standards program and if so whether the proposed standards meet the CWAs

criteria for approval As you are aware EPAs regulations provide EPA with discretion to

request further documentation necessary to support a Tribes eligibility application We will

inform you if we believe such additional information is needed and we also will be in touch with

you or your representatives should we have questions

We look forward to continuing to work cooperatively with the Penobscot Nation on the

protection of human health and the environment in the Tribes territories Should you have

questions for us please contact Michael Stover of my staff at 6179181123

Sincerely 2

H Curtis Spalding

Regional Administrator

cc Hon Hilary Thompkins Solicitor Department of Interior via email to

marigracecarninitiPsoldoigov

Hon Kevin Washburn Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Department of the Interior via

email to ratanawaritobiagov

EPA000530
#### Earl TUNGET, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 6, 1959.

Irving I. Friedman, Leo E. Thieman,. Louisville, for appellant.

Jo M. Ferguson, Atty. Gen., Earle V. Powell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

MONTGOMERY, Chief Justice.

Earl Tunget, sixteen years of age, was-proceeded against in the Juvenile Session of the Jefferson County Court. After hearing the evidence, that court adjudged “that the said child is within the purview of Chapter 208, Ky.Revised Statutes and orders-the child committed to the State Department of Welfare until he reaches the age of 21, unless sooner discharged by law.”'

The transcript of record recites that the' matter was heard on a petition sworn to-by Sgt. C. H. Jones, wherein it was alleged that Earl Tunget came within the purview of Chapter 208, Kentucky Revised Statutes.. It further was charged that Tunget admitted having sexual relations with a thirteen-year-old girl, who was named therein. Tun-get appealed to the Jefferson Circuit Court,. Criminal Division. A jury; was impaneled, heard evidence and instructions of the court, and returned the following verdict t

> “We, the jury, find the defendant, Earl Tunget, has committed a Public Offense.”

*797On this verdict, the circuit court remanded Tunget to the custody of the juvenile court. Tunget’s motion for a new trial was overruled.

While the judgment of the circuit court is inartfully drawn, it is treated as an affirmance of the judgment of the county court in juvenile session. Tunget, by counsel, seeks to appeal from the circuit court judgment.

Appeals are provided for in KRS 208.380 of the chapter on juvenile courts as follows :

> “An appeal may be taken from the juvenile session of the county court as provided in section 362 of the Criminal Code of Practice; provided, however, that nothing contained herein shall be construed to deprive the child of the right to have any judgment or order affecting it reviewed by the circuit court.”

The Criminal Code section referred to deals only with appeals to the circuit court.

The rule is that a juvenile defendant has no right of appeal from the circuit court to this Court under the provisions of Chapter 208, Kentucky Revised Statutes, except where the circuit court has erroneously dismissed an appeal from the juvenile session of the county court on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. In such case, this Court will entertain an appeal because of the violation of Amendment XIV, United States Constitution. Brewer v. Commonwealth, Ky., 283 S.W.2d 702. See also Wade v. Commonwealth, Ky., 303 S.W.2d 905, wherein the judgment of the circuit court denying its jurisdiction on 'appeal was affirmed. The circuit court entertained the appeal of the juvenile defendant in this case; hence, the basis for appeal stated in the Brewer case is not available. The right of appeal from the circuit court to this Court in a case where the jurisdiction over a juvenile has been transferred to the circuit court under KRS 208.170' is not involved here. See Heustis v. Sanders, Ky., 320 S.W.2d 602.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Tom COLBERT, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 29949.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 25, 1958.

*603Richard D. Bird, Childress, for appellant.

Roy Jones, County Atty., Paducah, Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DICE, Commissioner.

The conviction is for the possession of whiskey in a dry area for the purpose of sale; the punishment, 60 days in jail and a fine of $500.

In view of our disposition of the case a recitation of the facts is unnecessary.

Appellant moved to quash the information on the ground that is was not supported by a valid complaint and did not meet the requirements of Art. 414 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The motion was by the Court overruled.

Bill of Exception No. 3 certifies that upon the hearing of the motion to quash, Sheriff Elmer Clark, whose name appears as complainant upon the complaint, testified that he signed the complaint but that he was not sworn either prior to, at the time of or after signing the same.

It therefore appears that information is based upon a complaint which was not sworn to by the complainant.

Art. 415, V.A.C.C.P., provides that no information shall be presented until affidavit has been made by some credible person charging the defendant with an offense.

A complaint which is not sworn to by the complainant is of no effect and will not support a prosecution by information. 12 Tex.Jur. par. 257, page 583; Abbey v. State, 55 Tex.Cr.R. 232, 115 S.W. 1191; Sprowles v. State, 65 Tex.Cr.R. 96, 143 S.W. 622; Thomas v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 593, 298 S.W. 590; Murphy v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 202, 103 S.W.2d 765 and Hernandez v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 196, 172 S.W.2d 696.

The judgment is reversed and the prosecution is ordered dismissed.

Opinion approved by the court.
**EXHIBIT
        23.1**
 
 
 CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 The
        Board
        of Directors
 Cytogen
        Corporation:
 
 We
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
        (Nos.
        33-63321, 333-00431, 333-04679, 333-04677, 333-27673, 333-48454, 333-58384,
        333-59718, 333-75304, 333-109986 and 333-121320) on Form S-8 and the
        registration statements (Nos. 333-139264, 033-58277, 333-02015, 333-43809,
        333-83215, 333-34550, 333-33436, 333-72226, 333-100315, 333-106797, 333-109344,
        333-110040 and 333-120262) on Form S-3 of Cytogen Corporation of our report
        dated March 15, 2007, which report is based in part on a report of other
        auditors (which report of the other auditors on the financial statements
        of PSMA
        Development Company LLC contains an explanatory paragraph that states that
        PSMA
        Development Company LLC has suffered recurring losses from operations and
        does
        not have a work plan or budget for 2006, all of which raise substantial doubt
        about its ability to continue as a going concern, and that its financial
        statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome
        of
        that uncertainty), with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Cytogen
        Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related
        consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and comprehensive
        loss, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
        December 31, 2006, and of our report dated March 15, 2007 with respect to
        management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial
        reporting as of December 31, 2006 and the effectiveness of internal control
        over
        financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, which reports appear in the
        December 31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of Cytogen
        Corporation.  Our report on the consolidated financial statements
        refers to the Company's adoption of the provisions of Statement of Financial
        Accounting Standards No. 123(R), "Share-Based Payment" effective January
        1,
        2006.
 
 
 /s/
                  KPMG LLP
 
 
 Princeton,
        New Jersey
 March
        15,
        2007