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

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To CYTOGEN CORPORATION:


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed Form S-8
Registration Statement (File No. 33-30595), filed with the Securities and 
Exchange Commission on August 18, 1989, Form S-3 Registration Statement (File 
No. 33-35140), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 31, 
1990, Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 33-52574), filed with the 
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 1992, Form S-8 Registration 
Statement (File No. 33-57004), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on January 12, 1993, Form S-3 Registration Statement (File No. 33-77396) filed  
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 6, 1994, Form S-8 
Registration Statement (File No. 33-63321), filed with the Securities and 
Exchange Commission on October 10, 1995 and Form S-8 Registration Statement 
(File No. 333-00431), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on 
January 25, 1996.


                                                          ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Philadelphia, PA
March 25, 1996
#### S. S. WILLIS, Appellant, v. Elizabeth D. COOPER et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 25, 1955.

• Henry Meigs, II, Hobson & Meigs, Frankfort, for appellant.

Barney W. Baker, Hazard, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from a judgment of the Perry Circuit Court fixing an attorney’s fee for Honorable Simeon S. Willis for legal services rendered Mrs. Elizabeth D. Cooper.

The record reflects that Judge Willis sought, by motion, an allowance of an attorney’s fee of $7,500. He was granted $5,353.48. He now seeks to have this Court award him the sum of $2,146.52, which represents the difference in the amount he sought and the sum he recovered in the proceeding before the court.

The sole question is whether or not the circuit court abused its discretion in making its finding. We observe that the court allowed Judge Willis and his associate counsel, Honorable W. E. Faulkner, an attorney’s fee of $10,353.48, which was a sum equal to 25 per cent of the amount recovered in their client’s behalf.

In Martin v. Martin’s Ex’rs, 311 Ky. 164, 223 S.W.2d 345, the court enumerated several factors that are proper to consider in determining the amount of an attorney’s fee for services rendered. Also, see: Baxter v. Hubbard, 242 Ky. 751, 47 S.W.2d 743; Axton v. Vance, 207 Ky. 580, 269 S.W. 534.

After a careful consideration of the record . we, are unable to conclude that the trial court failed to weigh the various factors that should be considered in arriving at a reasonable attorney’s fee. Therefore, we find that the attorney’s fee allowed in this proceeding was fair and reasonable and the court did not abuse its discretion. Baxter v. Hubbard, 242 Ky. 751, 47 S.W.2d 743.

The motion for an appeal is overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000725813
<NAME> YVETTE DESMARAIS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         8055000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 17445000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    367000
<INVENTORY>                                   16373000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              45616000
<PP&E>                                        43937000
<DEPRECIATION>                                22465000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                21472000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         12390000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        852000
<OTHER-SE>                                    65533000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  80565000
<SALES>                                       90783000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              90783000
<CGS>                                         59839000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 59839000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              17904000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (260000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               13300000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   4194000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            9106000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   9106000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.10
        


</TABLE>
WASHOE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT 

AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DIVISION 

September 22, 2011 

Colleen Cripps, Ph.D. 

Administrator 

Division of Environmental Protection 

901 South Stewart Street, Suite 4001 

Carson City, Nevada 89701-5249 

Dear Ms. Cripps: 

PublicHealth 

Prevent. Promote. Protect. 

Enclosed is a revision to the Washoe County portion of Nevada's Lead Infrastructure 

State Implementation Plan. This revision was adopted at a public hearing of the 

Washoe County District Board of Health (DBOH) on August 25, 2011. The submittal 

includes: 

• Proof of publication for the public hearing; 

• DBOH agenda; 

• Staff report; 

• "The Washoe County Portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan to Meet 

the Lead Infrastructure SIP Requirements of Clean Air Act Section 11 0(a)(2)"; 

• Approved minutes from the public hearing; and 

• Certificate of Adoption. 

Two paper and two electronic copies of the submittal are enclosed. The electronic 

copies are exact duplicates of the paper copy submittal in searchable.pdf formal. 

Please review these documents and determine if this submittal is complete. If so, then 

please forward the one paper and one electronic copy to the U.S. EPA Region IX office. 

If you have any questions or comments regarding this submittal, feel free to contactMr. 

Daniel Inouye or me at (775) 784-7200. 

Sincerely, 

1'/ " j'(}) "£ ;;jji/ 4J/C/~!::/ , 

Kevin Dick 

Director 

cc: Daniel Inouye, Washoe County Health District - AQMD (w/o enclosures) 

P.O. BOX 11130 Reno, NV 89520-0027· (775) 784-7200 • FAX (775) 784-7225 

www.washoecounty.us/health WASHOE COUNTYISANEQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER HIRING EMPLOYMENT ELIGIDLEAPPLlCANTS 

Printed on Recycled Paper
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6247

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WARREN THOMAS, SR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-95-370, CA-99-3947-7-20)

Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 19, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Warren Thomas, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Harold Watson Gowdy, III,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Warren Thomas, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Thomas, Nos. CR-95-370;

CA-99-3947-7-20 (D.S.C. filed Jan. 2, 2001; entered Jan. 4, 2001).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Willis Clay HENRY, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 10, 1958.

Lewis A. White, Mt. Sterling, for appellant.

Jo Ferguson, Atty. Gen., William F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

BIRD, Judge.

Appellant was tried and convicted on a charge of possessing intoxicating liquors in violation of the Local Option Law, KRS 242.010 et seq. For reversal he states three grounds: (1) The affidavit upon which a search warrant issued was insufficient in form and substance; (2) The search was not conducted as directed by the warrant; and, (3) The court erred in permitting the affidavit and search warrant to be read to the jury.

The Court finds that the search was made in substantial compliance with the law of the Commonwealth. The Court further finds that the trial court erred in permitting the affidavit and search warrant to be read to the jury and it is a reversible error. For authority the Court cites Vanmeter v. Commonwealth, 232 Ky. 404, 23 S.W.2d 594, 595, in which it was said:

> “But it is insisted that the affidavit made for the purpose of procuring the search warrant stated that defendant possessed intoxicating liquor, and which affidavit was introduced at the trial over the objections and exceptions of defendant. It requires no argument to show that the affidavit made to procure the search warrant was and is wholly incompetent to prove the guilt of the defendant on his trial of an indictment procured upon the evidence found by the officers who executed the warrant. The affidavit in this case was relevant only for the purpose of establishing the validity of the search warrant, a preliminary question to the admission of the discoveries of the officers who executed it. On the issue of any fact to establish defendant’s guilt, it was and is the rankest hearsay, and violates defendant’s constitutional right to be confronted face to face with the witnesses against him, and the court erred in admitting the affidavit as evidence to prove defendant’s guilt on the trial of the indictment against him.”

*865See also Section 11, Ky. Constitution and Foley v. Commonwealth, 228 Ky. 691, 15 S.W.2d 444. The reasons set forth in the foregoing authorities are controlling here.

When, as here, a constitutional right has been violated the question of prejudice is immaterial. Preservation of the right is and should be the court’s paramount concern and not the actual effect of the violation on the outcome of the trial.

The motion for appeal is sustained and the judgment is reversed for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
----

----

|   | (1) | the      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 30,      2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,      and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the      information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                          |                      |                                                                 |
|-------------------------------|---------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                          | APPLETON      PAPERS INC. |
|                          |                      |                                                                 |
| Dated:      May 12, 2008 |                      |        /s/ Thomas J. Ferree                                     |
|                          | Name:                     | Thomas      J. Ferree                                                |
|                          | Title:                    | Vice      President, Finance, Chief Financial Officer and  Treasurer |
#### Harold KING, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28012.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 1, 1956.

E. G. Pharr, Lubbock, for appellant.

Harry Loftis, Dist. Atty., Tyler, Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

By Sec. 4, of Art. 93b, Vernon’s R.C.S., It is made unlawful for any person to sell any agricultural seed having a false labeling.

This is a conviction under that statute, with punishment fixed at a fine of $5. The prosecution arose and was commenced in the county court.

The information charges only that the appellant “did then and there unlawfully sell agricultural seed that were falsely labeled.” There is no allegation as to whom the sale was made.

Art. 406, C.C.P., provides that “To charge an unlawful sale, it is necessary to name the purchaser.”

In Keeton v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 431, 264 S.W.2d 737, we held it necessary that in order to charge the offense of unlawfully selling whisky in a dry area the information must allege the name of the purchaser, if known, and, if unknown, that fact should be alleged. See, also, Hoover v. State, 97 Tex.Cr.R. 91, 259 S.W. 1088.

The information in this case being fatally defective for failing to name the purchaser, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1345 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1345

To rescind any unobligated discretionary appropriations returned to the 
 Federal Government by a State or locality and require that such funds 
 be retained in the general fund of the Treasury for deficit reduction.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2011

  Mr. Chabot introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To rescind any unobligated discretionary appropriations returned to the 
 Federal Government by a State or locality and require that such funds 
 be retained in the general fund of the Treasury for deficit reduction.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Wasting American Tax Dollars 
Act'' or the ``SWAT Act''.

SEC. 2. RESCISSION OF FUNDS RETURNED BY A STATE OR LOCALITY TO THE 
              FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND USE FOR DEFICIT REDUCTION.

    (a) Rescission of Returned Federal Funds.--
            (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), there 
        are rescinded any unobligated discretionary appropriations 
        awarded to a State or locality by the Federal Government that 
        are voluntarily returned by the State or locality to the 
        Federal Government.
            (2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to funds 
        made available for an account, program, project, or activity 
        of--
                    (A) the Department of Defense; or
                    (B) the Department of Homeland Security.
    (b) Retention of Funds for Deficit Reduction.--Funds rescinded 
under subsection (a) shall be retained in the general fund of the 
Treasury for Federal budget deficit reduction.
    (c) No Redistribution of Returned Funds.--This section shall apply 
in lieu of any provision of law that provides for the redistribution of 
funds awarded to a State or locality that remain unobligated by such 
State or locality.
    (d) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) The term ``State or locality'' means a State, unit of 
        local government, or Indian tribe.
            (2) The term ``State'' means each of the several States, 
        the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or 
        possession of the United States.
    (e) Application.--This section shall apply to funds returned on or 
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**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 quarterly report of Waytronx, Inc. (the "Company"), on
      Form
      10-QSB of the quarter ended March 31, 2008, I hereby certify solely for the
      purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted to Section 906
      of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
      The
      quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Waytronx,
      Inc.





By:
            /s/Cynthia
                M. Wilson
            
            Dated
                this 13thday of May 2008Cynthia
                M. WilsonInterim
                Chief Financial Officer
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0624 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-NM-071-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. 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 same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. 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 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 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 with 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, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
#### Maurine BOLDON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27869.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 30, 1955.

*359No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted under two counts for the offense of selling beer in a dry area; the punishment assessed under the first count, $200, and the punishment assessed under the second count, $100.

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.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) and
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     In connection with the filing by Wincroft, Inc. (the "Company") of the
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 (the
"Report"), I, Danny Wettreich, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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)
               and 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
               operation of the Company.


                                                        /s/ Danny Wettreich
                                                        -----------------------
                                                        Danny Wettreich
                                                        Chief Executive Officer


Dated: June 27, 2006
DISMISS and Opinion Filed September 30, 2024

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 24

- 00088

- CV

EDWIN KIHORE , Appellant

V.
HILLCREST GROUP, LLC AND SENECA FALLS, L LC

, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court

Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 115861

- 86

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III

On January 26, 2024, appellant filed a noti ce of appeal stating he was

appealing the trial court’s December 28, 2023 order dissolving a temporary

restraining order. After questioning our jurisdiction, the trial court signed a final

summary judgment on May 9, 2024. We then directed appellant that, if he intended

to appeal from the May 9 judgment, he need ed to file, no later than September 13,

2024, an amended notice of appeal stating so. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.1(g). We

cautioned appellant that failure to comply may result in dismissal of the appe al

without further notice. As of today’s date, appellant has not filed an amended notice– 2

–

of appeal or otherwise communicated with the Court. Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal. See id . 42.3(c).

240088f.p05 /Bill Pedersen, III/ /
BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE– 3

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

EDWIN KIHORE, Appellant

No. 05

- 24

- 00088

- CV V.

HILLCREST GROUP, LLC AND SENECA FALLS, LLC, Appellees On Appeal from the 86th Judicial District Court, Kaufman County,

Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 115861

- 86. Opinion delivered by Justice Pedersen, III. Justices Smith and Garcia participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is

DISMISSED

.

It is ORDERED that appellees HILLCREST GROUP, LLC AND SENECA FALLS, LLC recover their costs of this appeal from appellant EDWIN KIHORE.

Judgment entered this 30 th day of September

, 2024

.