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

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 906 

Calling on the President to invoke the Defense Production Act to respond 

to COVID-19. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 23, 2020 

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan (for himself, Ms. SPANBERGER, Ms. PORTER, Mr. 

KILDEE, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. TED LIEU of California, Ms. SHERRILL, 

Mr. CHABOT, Mr. GONZALEZ of Ohio, Mr. BACON, Mr. UPTON, Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. TAYLOR, and Mr. HUIZENGA) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 

Services 

RESOLUTION 

Calling on the President to invoke the Defense Production 

Act to respond to COVID-19. 

Whereas the Defense Production Act of 1950 originated from 

World War II authorities and confers an ‘‘array of authorities to shape national defense preparedness programs’’; 

Whereas the United States currently faces severe shortages 

of medical supplies necessary to respond to the ongoing 

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, such 

as materials needed to test for COVID-19, ventilators 

and personal protective equipment; 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 906 IH 

Whereas the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

(CDC) is ‘‘encouraging healthcare systems to implement 

strategies to conserve supplies’’; 

Whereas, on February 29, 2020, the New York Times reported that a 2005 Federal study estimated that mechanical ventilators for 740,000 critically ill people would be 

necessary in the event of a severe flu pandemic, and 

‘‘today, as the country faces the possibility of a widespread outbreak of a new respiratory infection caused by 

the coronavirus, there are nowhere near that many ventilators, and most are already in use’’; and 

Whereas failure to massively upscale the supplies available to 

protect Americans, test for new cases of COVID-19, and 

treat people who test positive could result in even more 

severe shortages that force health care workers to make 

harrowing choices and endanger American lives: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) calls upon the President to make urgent use 

3 of all relevant authorities of the Defense Production 

4 Act of 1950 to direct the domestic production of 

5 supplies needed to address the COVID-19 pandemic; 

6 (2) calls upon the President to immediately 

7 share with Congress plans for the use of the Defense 

8 Production Act authorities, including targets and 

9 timelines for the production of supplies needed to 

10 address the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the re11 sults of the ongoing use of these authorities; and 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 906 IH 

1 (3) stands ready to make additional appropria2 tions available to meet the needs of Defense Produc3 tion Act invocation. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
1 In The


### Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09

- 22

- 00247

- CV

__________________ HA PENNY NGUYEN , Appellant

V.

JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 172nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. D

- 208,390

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a final order, t he trial court granted a plea to the jurisdiction filed by
Jefferson County, Texas

. Ha Penny Nguyen , Appellant, filed a notice of appeal. On
August 2, 2022, we sent Appellant a certified bill of costs for the filing fee for the
appeal . On Sep tember 2, 2022, through a notice issued by the Clerk of the Court
, we
warned the parties that Appellant had not remitted the filing fee and that unless she
paid the fee, the Court would dismiss the appeal without further notice on any date

after October 3, 2022. Appellant neither paid the filing fee nor asserted that she was2 unable to afford paym e nt of costs

. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 20.1. None of the parties
responded to the Clerk ’ s notices.
In the absence of a satisfactory explanation justifying the appel lant ’ s failure
to pay the filing fee for the appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3, 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on Octob er 19, 2022 Opinion Delivered Octob er 20, 2022
Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.
12:00 pm Commissioner’s Welcome and Remarks

12:30 pm Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) Wage Dynamics

Presenter: Kevin Cooksey

Discussant: Daniel Hamermesh, Nick Bunker

1:15 pm Labor Market Data on Managers and Supervisors

Presenter: Laurie Salmon and Renee Marshall

Discussant: Katie Scott

2:00 pm Break

2:15 pm Reaching new users: BLS Language Access Work

Presenter: Emily Liddel 

Discussant: TBD

3:00 pm Touchpoints: BLS.gov Customer Satisfaction Survey

Presenter: Anna Grace Newton

 Discussant: John Robertson

3:45 pm Discussion of Future Topics and Concluding Remarks

4:00 pm Conclusion

All times Eastern Time.

BLS Data Users Advisory Committee 

May 16, 2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     FINACIAL DATA SCHEDULE RESTATED FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED JANUARY 31, 1997
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                              10,873
<SECURITIES>                             0     
<RECEIVABLES>                        6,420     
<ALLOWANCES>                          (505)    
<INVENTORY>                         27,365     
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    52,361     
<PP&E>                              56,529     
<DEPRECIATION>                     (33,517)    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      78,804     
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               42,932     
<BONDS>                                  0     
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0     
<PREFERRED>                              0     
<COMMON>                                83     
<OTHER-SE>                          28,366     
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        78,804     
<SALES>                            236,844     
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   210,245     
<CGS>                              108,799     
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      209,173     
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       (78)    
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     8,000     
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     391     
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (7,241)    
<INCOME-TAX>                        (2,896)    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (4,345)     
<DISCONTINUED>                           0    
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0     
<CHANGES>                                0     
<NET-INCOME>                        (4,345)    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (0.53)    
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (0.53)    
                                               

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6674
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MICHAEL A. HARRIS, a/k/a Blackie, a/k/a Black Mike, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CR-93-1, CA-96-8) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 10, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying Appellant’s Motion for Appropriate Relief. We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Harris , Nos. CR-93-1; CA-96-8 (E.D. Va. Apr. 8, 1998). 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.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.2

 

 

WHOLEHEALTH PRODUCTS, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Reportof Wholehealth Products, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q  for the period  ended May 31, 2017as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard A. Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Richard A. Johnson and will be retained by Wholehealth Products, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

 

Dated: August 14, 2017

 

/s/ Richard A. Johnson 

Richard A. Johnson

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
**Exhibit32.0**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Fox Chase Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I hereby certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.                        The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended; and

2.                        The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial conditionand results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered bythe Report.
|        |   | By:    |   | /s/ THOMAS M. PETRO                   |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |   | Thomas M. Petro                       |
|   |   |   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |   |   | August 13, 2007                       |
|   |   |   |   |                                  |
|   |   |   |   |                                  |
|   |   | By:    |   | /s/ JERRY D. HOLBROOK                 |
|   |   |   |   | Jerry D. Holbrook                     |
|   |   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |
|   |   |   |   | August 13, 2007                       |

 

----
NO. 07-02-0019-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

FEBRUARY 13, 2002

______________________________

VICKIE DIANNE GRAY, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY;

NO. 57941; HONORABLE CHARLES D. CARVER, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

Appellant Vickie Dianne Gray challenges her conviction for the offense of securing

execution of a document by deception and the resulting sentence of two years confinement

in the Institutional Division of the Department of Criminal Justice. Sentence was imposed

on November 13, 2001, and the record was therefore due to be filed no later than January
2

14, 2002. We have received the clerk’s record, but have not received the reporter’s

record. By letter dated January 15, 2002, we notified the court reporters that the record

had not been filed and, in the event it could not be immediately filed, the reporters should

request an extension of time by filing a reporter’s request form within ten days. No

response has been received to that letter. Therefore, we abate this appeal and remand

it to the Criminal District Court of Jefferson County for a hearing. See Tex. R. App. P.

37.3(a)(2). 

Upon remand, the judge of the trial court shall immediately cause notice to be given

and conduct a hearing to determine whether appellant has abandoned her appeal or if she

still desires to pursue her appeal. In the event appellant still desires to prosecute her

appeal, the court shall determine why the reporter’s record has not been filed and whether

any further steps need to be taken to facilitate the provision of an appellate record and the

completion of the record for appellate review.

In support of its determination, the trial court shall prepare and file its findings and

orders and cause them to be included in a supplemental clerk’s record. The hearing

proceedings shall be transcribed and included in a supplemental reporter’s record. Those

supplemental records shall be submitted to the clerk of this court no later than March 18,

2002. 

It is so ordered. 
3

Per Curiam
JAjLulHiasas&^k

esv»tK3«.«*-iWS«3«lw&T-f.-^a-W***Jwj'«

^£I£igs_,. - —QRI-etN rfR««fl.4i.ttisft.:=fflii. £•*£££•-*3f„£ftr?s£^W na&aessr>**W*i*««w!*.i««fi9SiTf«.*«j^fcitvs^^-WAsSRM «K'tVB«JSK" '^T?'^-"—

US „ __

THE STATE qF TgXftS. %>« lie

AffeLtoT's Petitiom R3R.ias£c&ixayMl.B6^Lvg7

BtSaSESWjSSaii/Sift:

•afeSllWWWffl^W^i'isWWKjV*

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS .fesy^j..."!?*^

<* 1 t-^iO

».-^^vs-^-^^sWe-*1'- ,."ifi:-f'.

Abel Acosta, Cierk

.\

of

s^f^SsEj^^rt^w^jsa^^

i-^Tiy3^4i1pjl£jH^inp:ai>

RECEIVED IN

JUL 16 2015

AbelMcosfa,Cferi<

D&i IS&fok _

^
:jr"a.-Mi3?ssCS!Siawtie>^^J-^SSJ=^ffl^%sa^^5W*S^-i^^ "'

,,r@jgfeL*•,- *,,..., .-...„_. ,„„......_.._„„,„«_,_^^,.^^^-.• „.,—_^.-

_ RECEIVED IN ••-•• ^ouutehXOott^i(.l£te^ COURTOFCRMNALAPPEALS Tfcec&KC. fWo*if Actt^3&°

1

Cl8* _ &*<;. IHOUm
>> I " _ . \i .. C . . e

UdX

JheJti iMJ^VAS USZ& bu 4hg, %ouA,&ejrp o% 4tojj'6reflfr Coi^o-b^ ?<

A*3ttSeaL; in- Abridge, ^ejimsrsj^ -Verm W ^.The -term

9"

-—- • • ••-) v»ni

Aa

Q£d-S9u.

J^u^.*^
coccg*,*^.Vv.»n,tpfft>a8aaM>&estSp be. sea-<vtw.4w

^QOfeCjufttKj^^haH J^JhJ^fjaliO mQUenoLI,

Gwmwww^ jf^iijuijaii^uig^^ou O0 such PrtricJfpleJ <W>

& A

^iiiiiii^eyQD

>m

W 6CCHQ Q%,JOOS^orrw^t^

&terQc,€.

- , A, ^S^MlIs:]SD^L^<-f aV Appgau' <ifW twi>A Vy

^^^^^^^p(<#4^e Common /Y)Qiu fticftvte *5 A(O^Wice For AU,
jifiJEdasasiEShs^.

OECftlMXNM- A9P-6ALS

..£.:Jfm„.^ __

&i-.*<faig£,-w&z&^,&w&?!i!l&t**^^

,*rJ2rfiii*i5aiA»>iJi

i-V.K-*t""'*"TM38t" - -

^ISSsirtfjfflis^-asiii»*J«;?«sist,i»S«.T'ss«ffirlW.-a.-=v--j«*:rf*srt;i,VtWfts« ss'ffiKtt'Ssssas;i,a

___\£ _ _

B£.5TATF OF TmS,ApprlWe//ieSpiaAe>rt

te£iMLl5.,PPIiJjQE^£^,em3^&ffl.B|:l:|^

^sisaaai^saassaw ttri*M&A(£»-<»».»* KiWEaS^is^''^^^-"'!!*" £sj«S>'£IH»&mw««t'w»t-

~Q T^- COU^T .0^ CfiX^XH^L,i\

!M0iokk^.CfiMtt..

COlldQ IKS

"3T ~t~

J^UaS^3!C©£&3rju

;-£-.ii^av^Ti^ryM-'Si'

b&S&U2&

it»-.%*Sfe.Q^ cJ§fe%-ifit igsweSf.

15 M. ,.^ „„_TM -„, . ,^,

l3^&3a(L0bs,;^^^ .__„ __
_c|uij^^ £RoS ISAj ft-Id £03^ Art march &1AMV

(t^>-S--*<i.Z#aXkji.-t&IS:VK*rti.ija-.BKff'Kft'SSiSBf* .'^-ifl|s«S^f&*i»''»i'?f

J^iH&M&Uk^^

___,_,__ _ __„^

Xcz
5iMBJI?mJ^

.,.^,iQp%0:W sees MO tPlAR^fl^T^
##### 

10K


Exhibit 10.26

Amendment to the

UST Inc. 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan

The UST Inc. 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the
Plan) is amended effective December 7, 2006, by
deleting section 10 of the Plan in its entirety and
inserting the following in lieu thereof:



10.
    Dilution and Other Adjustments.

If any change in corporate capitalization, such as a stock
    split, reverse stock split, or stock dividend; or any corporate
    transaction such as a reorganization, reclassification, merger
    or consolidation or separation, including a spin-off, of the
    Company or sale or other disposition by the Company of all or a
    portion of its assets, any other change in the Companys
    corporate structure, or any distribution to shareholders (other
    than a cash dividend that is not an extraordinary cash dividend)
    results in the outstanding shares of Common Stock, or any
    securities exchanged therefor or received in their place, being
    exchanged for a different number or class of shares or other
    securities of the Company, or for shares of stock or other
    securities of any other corporation (or new, different or
    additional shares or other securities of the Company or of any
    other corporation being received by the holders of outstanding
    shares of Common Stock), or a material change in the value of
    the outstanding shares of Common Stock as a result of the
    change, transaction or distribution, then the Committee shall
    make equitable adjustments, as it determines are necessary and
    appropriate, in:

(i)
    the number and type of securities (or other property) with
    respect to which Awards may be granted;(ii)
    the limitations on the aggregate number of shares of Common
    Stock that may be awarded to any one single Participant under
    various Awards;(iii)
    the number and type of securities (or other property) subject to
    outstanding Awards (provided the number of shares of any class
    subject to any Award shall always be a whole number); and(iv)
    the terms, conditions or restrictions of outstanding Awards
    and/or Award Agreements, including but not limited to the grant,
    exercise or purchase prices with respect to outstanding Awards;

provided, however, that all such adjustments made in respect of
    each ISO shall be accomplished so that such Option shall
    continue to be an incentive stock option within the meaning of
    Section 422 of the Code. Any and all such adjustments shall
    be conclusive and binding for all purposes of the Plan.



99
[887 NYS2d 824]

#### Kelly Andreacchi, Petitioner, v Venice Marina et al., Respondents.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County,

August 27, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Kelly Andreacchi,*petitioner pro se. *Robert A. Spiegelman,*New York City, for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Cheryl J. Gonzales, J.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to be restored to possession of her home based on allegations that respondent illegally locked her out, and removed her dwelling from its loca*465tion. Respondent, appearing by counsel, opposed the petition on the ground that this court lacks jurisdiction.

On the return date, petitioner stated that she had lived on the houseboat for five years, and had mail addressed to her at the marina address to support her contention. Respondent claimed that petitioner was a squatter and had no right to possession.

Respondent claims that the petition involves a houseboat that was repossessed. Pictures annexed to respondent’s papers appear to show a houseboat sitting on blocks on dry land. Respondent also argues that a houseboat is a chattel and it is not real property. Consequently, respondent contends that petitioner may not maintain a summary proceeding pursuant to RPAPL article 7.

Under Civil Court Act § 110 (a) the housing court is granted jurisdiction over “actions and proceedings involving the enforcement of state and local laws for the establishment ... of housing standards.” In *Miami Riv. Boat Yard, Inc. v 60’ Houseboat Serial No. SC-40-2860-3-62*(390 F2d 597, 597 [5th Cir 1968]) the court described a houseboat as follows:

> “A houseboat is nonetheless a boat because, as its name implies, it affords a water-borne place to live with the added advantage of at least some maritime mobility. That she has no motive power and must, as would the most lowly of dumb barges, be towed does not deprive her of her the status of a vessel.”

Further, in *Hudson Harbor 79th St. Boat Basin, Inc. v Sea Casa*(469 F Supp 987 [SD NY 1979]), which involved the seizure and relocation of a houseboat, used as a residence, pursuant to a maritime lien for wharfage or dockage, the court also classified it as a vessel, and added that as a vessel it is not a house or apartment.

Although the court in *Albanese v Cow Bay Mar. Serv.*(155 Misc 2d 232 [1993]) determined that there was a landlord-tenant relationship between the owner of a houseboat and the slip owner in a dispute involving a lien placed by the slip owner for delinquent rent, the court stated that federal court was the proper jurisdiction for the dispute.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to RPAPL 713 (10). However, as stated in RPAPL 701 (1), special proceedings under article 7 may be brought to recover possession of real property. A houseboat is not real property which is defined *466in RPAPL 111 (2) as “lands, tenements and hereditaments and chattels real,” and consequently petitioner cannot maintain this special proceeding.
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Notices 30543 

Dated: June 18, 2009. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. E9–15115 Filed 6–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 09–15] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 09–15 

with attached transmittal, policy 

justification, and Sensitivity of 

Technology. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 

30544 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Notices 


EN26JN09.222</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Notices 30545 


EN26JN09.223</GPH>
30546 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Notices 


EN26JN09.224</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Notices 30547 


EN26JN09.225</GPH>
30548 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 122 / Friday, June 26, 2009 / Notices 

Dated: May 29, 2009. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. E9–15114 Filed 6–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 09–21] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 09–21 

with attached transmittal, and policy 

justification. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 


EN26JN09.226</GPH>
ImmuCell Corporation

EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF BAKER NEWMAN & NOYES, LLC

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors

ImmuCell Corporation

We consent to
the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-2631 and No. 333-65514 of ImmuCell Corporation on Form S-8 of our report, dated March 28, 2011, relating to our audit of the financial statements which appears in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of ImmuCell Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2010.



|                |  |  |  |                          
|--------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------
|Portland, Maine |  |  |  | /s/ Baker Newman & Noyes 
|March 28, 2011  |  |  |  | Limited Liability Company