alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID K. LONN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

CORIZON HEALTH, INC.; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 35646

D.C. No. 1:14

- cv

- 00031

- EJL

- CWD

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 19, 2019 **

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

David K. Lonn , a former Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Togu chi v. Chung , 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 21 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 35646

Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Lonn failed

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants Dawson and

Agler were deliberately indifferent in t reating Lonn’s hip pain

. See id. at 1057

,

10 60 (a pris on official acts with deliberate indifference only if he or she knows of

and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; a difference in op inion is

ins ufficient to establish deliberate indif ference).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). In his

opening brief, Lonn fails to address how the district court erred in di smissing as

barred by the statute of limitations his claims concerning events occurring prior to

February 2, 2012, and thus this issue is waived. See Smith v. Marsh , 194 F.3d

1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its

opening brief are deemed waived.”); see also Greenwood v. FAA , 28 F.3d 971, 977

(9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare

assertion does not preserve a claim . . . .”).

Lonn’s request for appointment of counsel, set forth in his opening brief, is3 17

- 35646

denied.

AFFIRMED.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

SALVADOR VASQUEZ, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 1:12-cv-5029

) 

v. )

) Magistrate Judge Finnegan

PROFESSIONAL BUREAU OF )

COLLECTIONS, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

STIPULATION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO SETTLEMENT

By agreement, the parties to the above-captioned action, by and through their respective 

attorneys, state as follows:

1. Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties 

hereby stipulate and agree that the above-captioned action shall be dismissed without 

costs to either party in anticipation that all costs shall be paid and all matters in 

controversy for which said action was brought shall be fully settled, compromised 

and adjourned.

2. The parties have reached a settlement accord and are in the process of resolving all 

remaining issues, such as the terms of the settlement agreement and the conditions 

for payment of the settlement proceeds.

3. In order to ensure that this Court retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement 

agreement between the parties, should the need arise, the parties stipulate that the 

dismissal of the above captioned matter shall be without prejudice, without costs to 

Case: 1:12-cv-05029 Document #: 19 Filed: 10/18/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:34
2

either party, and with leave for any party to seek reinstatement within forty-five (45) 

days from the date of entry of this Stipulation to Dismiss. 

4. The parties further stipulate that if this case has not been reinstated within forty-five 

(45) days from the date of entry of this Stipulation, or a motion for reinstatement has 

not been filed by said date, then the dismissal of this case shall automatically convert 

from a dismissal without prejudice to a dismissal with prejudice.

5. The parties stipulate the status on October 29, 2012 be stricken.

Date: October 18, 2012

For Plaintiff, 

Salvador Vasquez

 /s David M. Marco

SMITHMARCO, P.C.

205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2940

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Telephone: (312) 546-6539

Facsimile: (888) 418-1277

E-mail: dmarco@smithmarco.com

For 

Defendant, Professional Bureau of Collections, 

Inc. 

 /s Scott G. Thomas 

Thomas & Associates

300 S. Riverside Plaza, Ste. 2330

Chicago, IL 60606

Telephone: 312-756-4140

Facsimile: 866-794-4702

E-mail: scott.thomas@chartisinsurance.com

Case: 1:12-cv-05029 Document #: 19 Filed: 10/18/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:35
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/Publications

Table 2.Aromatic hydrocarbons (AHs) and chlorinated hydrocarbons (CHs) determined in tissues of juvenile chinook salmon. 

* Compounds not analyzed in 1989

Table of Contents
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                           <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,991,000               3,423,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  249,000                 102,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,094,000               3,587,000
<PP&E>                                      29,204,000              19,935,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,000                   3,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              35,294,000              23,519,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,523,000                 231,000
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                  4,575,000               4,500,000
<COMMON>                                     5,829,000               4,971,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,157,000              13,607,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                35,294,000              23,519,000
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               805,000                 271,000
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,213,000               1,044,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,223,000                 520,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             189,000                 189,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,820,000               1,482,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,820,000               1,482,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                236,000                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,056,000               1,482,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.058)                  (.037)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.058)                  (.037)
        










</TABLE>
#### 237.102-78 Market research report guide for improving the tradecraft in services acquisition.

See PGI 210.070 for guidance on use of the market research report guide to conduct and document market research for service acquisitions.

[77 FR 52254, Aug. 29, 2012]
#### 2452.237-73 Conduct of work and technical guidance.

As prescribed in 2437.110(e)(2), insert the following clause in all contracts for services:

### CONDUCT OF WORK AND TECHNICAL GUIDANCE (APR 2019)

(a) The Contracting Officer will provide the Contractor with the name and contact information of the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) assigned to this contract. The COR will serve as the Contractor's liaison with the Contracting Officer with regard to the conduct of work. The Contracting Officer will notify the Contractor in writing of any change to the current COR's status or the designation of a successor COR.

(b) The COR for liaison with the Contractor as to the conduct of work is [to be inserted at time of award] or a successor designated by the Contracting Officer.

(c) The COR will provide guidance to the Contractor on the technical performance of the contract. Such guidance shall not be of a nature which:

(1) Causes the Contractor to perform work outside the statement of work or specifications of the contract;

(2) Constitutes a change as defined in FAR 52.243-1;

(3) Causes an increase or decrease in the cost of the contract;

(4) Alters the period of performance or delivery dates; or

(5) Changes any of the other express terms or conditions of the contract.

(d) The COR will issue technical guidance in writing or, if issued orally, he/she will confirm such direction in writing within five (5) calendar days after oral issuance. The COR may issue such guidance via telephone, facsimile (fax), or electronic mail.

(e) Other specific limitations [to be inserted by Contracting Officer]:

(f) The Contractor shall promptly notify the Contracting Officer whenever the Contractor believes that guidance provided by any government personnel, whether or not specifically provided pursuant to this clause, is of a nature described in paragraph (b) of this clause.

(End of clause)

[84 FR 15132, Apr. 15, 2019]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
COMPAQ COMPUTER CORPORATION'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS QUAILIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                             745
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,241
<ALLOWANCES>                                       100
<INVENTORY>                                      2,156
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,527
<PP&E>                                           1,981
<DEPRECIATION>                                     871
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,818
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,680
<BONDS>                                            300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           890
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,724
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,818
<SALES>                                         14,755
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,755
<CGS>                                           11,367
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,367
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   511<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    43
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  99
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,188
<INCOME-TAX>                                       399
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                789
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       789
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.87
<FN>
<F1>Includes research and development costs and purchased in-process technology.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Sanchez, Appellant.

[833 NYS2d 421]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Straus, J.), rendered on or about July 7, 2006, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.
appa8k101909ex104.htm


Exhibit 10.4



 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT

 

 

This Second Amendment dated as of October 20, 2009 (this “Second Amendment”),
to the Preferred Shares Rights Agreement, dated as of December 18, 2006, and amended on October 1, 2008 (as amended, the “Agreement”) is between A.P. Pharma, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Computershare Trust Company N.A. (the “Rights
Agent”).

 

Pursuant to Section 27 of the Agreement, this Amendment is being executed by the Company and the Rights Agent for the purpose of amending the Agreement as set forth below:

 

The Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

 

1.           The last sentence of Section 1(a) shall be amended and restated in its entirety by the following:

 

“Notwithstanding the foregoing or any provision to the contrary in this Agreement, (i) none of Tang Capital Partners LP, or its Affiliates or Associates (the “Tang Entities”) is an Acquiring Person pursuant to this Agreement, unless such Person acquires Beneficial Ownership of 34% or more of the then outstanding shares of
Common Stock and (ii) none of Baker Brothers Advisors LLC, or its Affiliates or Associates (the “Baker Entities”) is an Acquiring Person pursuant to this Agreement, unless such Person acquires Beneficial Ownership of 30% or more of the then outstanding shares of Common Stock.”

 

2.           The last sentence of Section 1(h) shall be amended and restated in its entirety by the following:

 

“Notwithstanding the foregoing or any provision to the contrary in this Agreement, a Distribution Date shall not occur solely by reason of (i) the Tang Entities acquiring Beneficial Ownership of more than 20% but less than 34% of the then outstanding shares of Common Stock or (ii) the Baker Entities acquiring Beneficial Ownership of
more than 20% but less than 30% of the then outstanding shares of Common Stock.”

 

3.           This Second Amendment shall be deemed to be entered into under the laws of the State of Delaware and for all purposes shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of such State applicable to contracts to be made and performed entirely within such State.

 

4.           This Second Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original, and all such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same instrument.

 

5.           As amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

 

 

 

 

 






[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]





 

 

 




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Second Amendment to Rights Agreement as of the date and year first above written.

 

A.P. PHARMA, INC.

 

By: /s/ Ronald J. Prentki

Name: Ronald J. Prentki

Title: President & CEO

 

 

COMPUTERSHARE TRUST COMPANY N.A.

AS RIGHTS AGENT

 

By: /s/ Kelli Gwinn

Name: Kelli Gwinn

Title: Vice President
#### Rose Santore, Respondent, v. American Export Lines, Inc., Appellant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury sustained by plaintiff while she was a passenger on a vessel operated and controlled by the defendant, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 1, 1962, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint upon the ground that plaintiff failed to commence her action within the one-year limitation specified in the contract of carriage by which the plaintiff’s voyage was purportedly undertaken. The defendant in its brief also requests this court, in the exercise of the power conferred upon it (Civ. Prae. Act, § 562-a), to review the order, dated January 15, 1963, which granted the defendant’s motion for reargument but adhered to the original determination. The court has reviewed such order made upon reargument. Orders of October 1, 1962 and January 15, 1963 affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, the record presents issues of fact which may not be resolved upon a motion for summary judgment. We have neither passed upon nor considered any of the questions of law discussed in the memorandum opinions at Special Term. Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM
COMPAQ  COMPUTER  CORPORATION'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN  ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO  SUCH  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           6,418
<SECURITIES>                                       344
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,891
<ALLOWANCES>                                       243
<INVENTORY>                                      1,570
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,017
<PP&E>                                           4,026
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,041
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,631
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,202
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         2,096
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,333
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,631
<SALES>                                         24,584
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,584
<CGS>                                           17,833
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,833
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,069<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    19
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 164
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,758
<INCOME-TAX>                                       903
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,855
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,855
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.19
<FN>
<F1> Includes research and development costs, purchased in-process technology and merger-related costs.
</FN>
        



</TABLE>
#### 2805.404-1 Release procedures.

The SPE is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 5.404-1(a) and (b).
Appeal No. 73-264.

#### Burns Electronics Supply Company *v.*Robert Westmoreland *et al.*

*Tobin, Decof, LeRoy & Silverstein, Max Wistow,*for plaintiffappellee. *J. Ronald Fishbein, Richard Bruce Feinstein,*for defendant-appellant Robert Westmoreland.

Motion of defendant Robert Westmoreland to reinstate appeal is granted, and his brief to be filed on or before January 17, 1975. Matter is consolidated with the case of *Burns Electronic Supply Co.*v. *Westmoreland*114 R. I. 911, 329 A.2d 406 (1974), for hearing on the merits.
#### In the Matter of Noxon Operating Corporation, Appellant, v. Robert E. Herman, as State Rent Administrator, Respondent.

Order, entered on December 19, 1961, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Eager, JJ.
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting; change.

# SUMMARY:

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         notice that was originally published on January 22, 2021, (Volume 86, Number 13, Page 6740) the time for this meeting has changed from 1:30 p.m. Eastern Time to 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time. All other meeting details remain the unchanged.                    

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Wednesday, February 10, 2021.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4110.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Special Projects Committee will be held Wednesday, February 10, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Antoinette Ross. For more information please contact Antoinette Ross at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4110, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at the website:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*                     The agenda will include various IRS issues.                

Dated: January 26, 2021.

Kevin Brown,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2021-02007 Filed 1-29-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Exhibit 10.2

                                AVRO ENERGY, INC.
                                213 East Arkansas
                                Vivian, LA, 71082
                                 (316) 734-4737
                              avroenergy@gmail.com


October 16, 2009

Fredco LLC
Vivian, Louisiana
Attn: Fred Sarkozi

Dear Sir:

This letter of agreement confirms an extension of an agreement signed September
9, 2009, for the purchase of 3 leases of the Muslow A, B, and C comprising 8
wells and equipment, and the Caddo Levee Board Lease comprising of 13 wells and
equipment. Under the terms of the extension Avro will pay the Operator $35,000
on November 20, 2009 and an additional $35,000 on December 20, 2009.

AVRO ENERGY INC.

Per:

"Donny Fitzgerald"
Donny Fitzgerald


FREDCO LLC

Per:

"Fred Sarkozi"
Fred Sarkozi