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

_________________ 1 Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2024) Opinion in Chambers NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the Unit ed States, Washingt on, D. C. 20543, pio@supremecourt.gov , of any typographical or other formal errors. 

## SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 23A843 PETER K. NAVARRO v. UNITED STATES ON APPLICATION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL [March 18, 2024] C HIEF J USTICE R OBERTS , Circuit Justice. The application for release pending appeal under 18 U. S. C. §3143(b) is denied. This application concerns only the question whether the applicant, Peter Navarro, has met his burden to establish his entitlement to relief under the Bail Reform Act. The Court of Appeals disposed of the pro

ceeding on the ground that Navarro “forfeited” any argu

ment in this release proceeding challenging the District Court’s conclusion that “executive privilege was not in

voked,” “forfeited any challenge” to the conclusion that re

lief would not be required in any event because of the qual

ified nature of executive pr ivilege, and “forfeited any challenge” to the conclusion t hat apart from executive priv

ilege, he was still obligated to appear before Congress and answer questions seeking information outside the scope of the asserted privilege. Order in No. 24–3006 (DC, Mar. 14, 2024). I see no basis to disagree with the determination that Navarro forfeited those arguments in the release pro

ceeding, which is distinct from his pending appeal on the merits.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

EDDIE MARCELLE WHEELER,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:03-cv-00140-MP-AK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court sua sponte. Previously, in the order at Doc. 86, the Court

granted summary judgment on behalf of defendant on some claims, but denied summary

judgment for the defendant on the remaining claims. The case should have been remanded to the

Magistrate Judge for further action on the remaining claims. However, the Clerk mistakenly

entered a final judgment for the Defendant at Doc. 87 and closed the case. In a recent review by

the Court, however, this error was discovered. It has now been over two years since this error,

and Plaintiff, who proceeded pro se, has not complained of this error. However, in an abundance

of caution, the Court will allow the Plaintiff an opportunity to pursue this case. Accordingly, it

is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The Judgment at Doc. 87 is vacated.

The Plaintiff shall file, by Monday, May 31, 2010, a written notice to the Court

indicating whether he intends to pursue this case. If the Plaintiff declines to file this

notice, the Court may dismiss the case for that reason.

DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of May, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
§ 225.4 Program management and administration plan. ( a ) Not later than February 15 of each year, each State agency shall submit to FNSRO a Program management and administration plan for that fiscal year.
( b ) Each plan shall be acted on or approved by March 15 or, if it is submitted late, within 30 calendar days of receipt of the plan. If the plan initially submitted is not approved, the State agency and FNS shall work together to ensure that changes to the plan, in the form of amendments, are submitted so that the plan can be approved within 60 calendar days following the initial submission of the plan. Upon approval of the plan, the State agency shall be notified of the level of State administrative funding which it is assured of receiving under § 225.5(a)(3).
( c ) Approval of the Plan by FNS shall be a prerequisite to the withdrawal of Program funds by the State from the Letter of Credit and to the donation by the Department of any commodities for use in the State's Program.
( d ) The Plan must include, at a minimum, the following information: ( 1 ) The State's administrative budget for the fiscal year, and the State's plan to comply with any standards prescribed by the Secretary for the use of these funds;
( 2 ) The State's plan for use of Program funds and funds from within the State to the maximum extent practicable to reach needy children;
( 3 ) The State's plans for providing technical assistance and training to eligible sponsors;
( 4 ) The State's plans for monitoring and inspecting sponsors, feeding sites, and food service management companies and for ensuring that such companies do not enter into contracts for more meals than they can provide effectively and efficiently;
( 5 ) The State's plan for timely and effective action against Program violators;
( 6 ) The State's plan for ensuring the fiscal integrity of sponsors not subject to auditing requirements prescribed by the Secretary;
( 7 ) The State's plan for ensuring compliance with the food service management company procurement monitoring requirements set forth at § 225.6(l);
( 8 ) An estimate of the State's need, if any, for monies available to pay for the cost of conducting health inspections and meal quality tests;
( 9 ) The State's plan to provide a reasonable opportunity for children to access meals across all areas of the State; and
( 10 ) The State's plan for Program delivery in areas that could benefit the most from the provision of non-congregate meals, including the State's plan to identify areas with no congregate meal service, and target priority areas for non-congregate meal service.
[54 FR 18208, Apr. 27, 1989, as amended at 55 FR 13466, Apr. 10, 1990; 64 FR 72483, Dec. 28, 1999; 87 FR 57356, Sept. 19, 2022; 88 FR 90349, Dec. 29, 2023]
###### Editorial Note on Part 1924

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1924 appear at 80 FR 9870, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1924.109-1924.114 [Reserved]
§ 1901.260 Coordination with other agencies. ( a ) When other Agencies are directly involved in any undertaking that requires a historical and archeological assessment, the State Director will contact the Agencies concerned to determine if a joint assessment will be prepared and whether a single lead Agency will assume primary responsibility for preparing the assessment.
( b ) When a lead Agency is agreed upon other than FmHA or its successor agency under Public Law 103-354, FmHA or its successor agency under Public Law 103-354 will provide that Agency with information about its respective areas of responsibility. Assessments will indicate Agency participation and concurrence.
( c ) When FmHA or its successor agency under Public Law 103-354 program activities are planned that primarily supplement those of the SCS, USDA, such as watershed projects, resource conservation and development measures, and irrigation and drainage projects, the SCS will be designated as the lead Agency.
exv10w14w1



 





Exhibit 10.14.1




AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made the 15th
day of November, 2003, by and between ENCORE MEDICAL CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, with its principal office located at 9800 Metric Boulevard,
Austin, Texas 78758 (the “Company”) and JACK CAHILL, an individual residing at
4428 South Ferncroft Avenue, Tampa, FL 33609 (the “Employee”).



     WHEREAS, the Employee and the Company entered into an Employment Agreement
dated June 12, 2001 (the “Agreement”);



     WHEREAS, the Employee and the Company desire that there be certain changes
made with respect to the Agreement; and



     WHEREAS, the Employee and the Company want to memorialize in this
Amendment their agreements regarding such changes to the Agreement.



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other mutual promises
and covenants contained in this Amendment and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the
parties, intending legally to be bound, agree as follows:




	1.	 	The term of the Agreement is hereby extended to December 31,
2006.
	 
	2.	 	Except as specifically changed by this Amendment, all other
terms and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed
by its duly authorized officer and the Employee has hereto set his/her hand as
of the date and year first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	COMPANY:
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	ENCORE MEDICAL CORPORATION
	 
	 	 	 	 
	

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Kenneth W. Davidson
	

	 	 	 	

	

	 	 	 	Kenneth W. Davidson, Chief Executive Officer
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	EMPLOYEE:
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ Jack Cahill
	 	 	

	 	 	JACK CAHILL
#### § 29.2606 Standard sizes.1

| Inches | Size |
| --- | --- |
| 12-20 | 1 |
| 20-28 | 2 |
| Over 28 | 3 |
| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1 The application of sizes is governed by the major portion of the lot or package. | |

[[51 FR 40406](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/51-FR-40406), Nov. 7, 1986]
#### §§ 205.106-205.199 [Reserved]
#### The State ex rel. Humphrey, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Humphrey v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 360.]

(No. 97-1531

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided October 14, 1998.)

*Law Offices of Larry Hotchkiss*and *Scott A. Bravi,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Michael A. Vanderhorst,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas and Resnick, JJ., dissent.

Alice Robie Resnick, J.,

dissenting. I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and return the cause to the Industrial Commission to consider the report of bureau vocational specialist Rod Metcalf. The commission’s order lists reports reviewed and evaluated, but omits mention of the Metcalf report. I *361disagree with the court of appeals’ finding that the commission satisfied the requirement that it indicate consideration of the Metcalf report because another vocational report makes several references to it. It is the commission’s duty to evaluate all the evidence, and it may not delegate that responsibility. See *State ex rel. Hayes v. Indus. Comm.*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 572, 577, 679 N.E.2d 295, 299; *State ex rel. Fultz v. Indus. Comm.*(1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 327, 631 N.E.2d 1057.

Moyer, C.J., and Douglas, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
§ 301.38-4 Interstate movement of regulated articles. ( a ) *Non-protected areas.* Interstate movement of regulated articles into or through any State or area that is not designated as a protected area under § 301.38-3(d) is allowed without restriction under this subpart.
( b ) *Protected areas* — ( 1 ) *Prohibited movement.* The following regulated articles are prohibited from moving interstate into or through any protected area: ( i ) All rust-susceptible *Berberis*, *Mahoberberis*, and *Mahonia* plants, seeds, fruits, and other plant parts capable of propagation, except Mahonia cuttings for decorative purposes.
( ii ) All seed-propagated plants of the *Berberis* species and varieties designated as rust-resistant in § 301.38-2(a)(1) that are of less than 2 years' growth, and any seeds, fruits, and other plant parts capable of propagation from such plants.
( 2 ) *Restricted movement.* The following regulated articles may be moved interstate into or through a protected area with a certificate issued and attached in accordance with §§ 301.38-5 and 301.38-7: ( i ) Seed-propagated plants of at least 2 years' growth, clonally propagated plants of any age, seeds, fruits, and other plant parts capable of propagation of the *Berberis* species and varieties designated as rust-resistant in § 301.38-2(a)(1);
( ii ) Plants, seeds, fruits, and other plant parts capable of propagation of the *Mahoberberis* and *Mahonia* species and varieties designated as rust-resistant in accordance with § 301.38-2.
( c ) An inspector may issue a limited permit to allow a regulated article not eligible for certification under § 301.38-4(b)(2) to move interstate into or through a protected area to a specified destination that is stated in the permit and is outside the protected area, if the requirements of all other applicable Federal domestic plant quarantines are met. A regulated article moved interstate under a limited permit must be placed in a closed sealed container that prevents unauthorized removal of the regulated article, and that remains sealed until the regulated article reaches the final destination stated in the permit. At the final destination, the sealed container must be opened only in the presence of an inspector or with the authorization of an inspector obtained expressly for that shipment.
( d ) The United States Department of Agriculture may move any regulated article interstate into or through a protected area in accordance with the conditions determined necessary to prevent the introduction or spread of black stem rust in protected areas, as specified in a Departmental permit issued for this purpose.
[54 FR 32791, Aug. 10, 1989, as amended at 67 FR 8180, Feb. 22, 2002; 71 FR 5778, Feb. 3, 2006; 87 FR 80005, Dec. 29, 2022]
THE STATE OF TEXAS 

### M A N D A T E

TO THE 175TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on November 12, 2014, the cause upon appeal to

revise or reverse your judgment between

Jose Luis Riojas, Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04

- 14

- 00217

- CR and Tr. Ct. No. 2013CR1304

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is

DISMISSED.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas,

with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on May 14, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
#### § 240.6 Funds for States which have phased out facilities.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, any State which phased out its food distribution facilities prior to June 30, 1974, may, for purposes of the National School Lunch Program, the Summer Food Service Program for Children, and the Child Care Food Program, elect to receive cash payments in lieu of donated foods. Where such an election is made, FNS shall make cash payments to such State in an amount equivalent in value to the donated foods (or cash in lieu thereof) to which the State would otherwise have been entitled under section 6(e) of the Act, if it had retained its food distribution facilities, except that the amount may be based on the number of meals served in the current school year, rather than on the number of meals served in the preceding school year with a subsequent reconciliation.

[47 FR 15982, Apr. 13, 1982, as amended at 58 FR 39120, July 22, 1993]
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2337 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2337

     To provide for the conveyance of the Forest Service Lake Hill 
            Administrative Site in Summit County, Colorado.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 12, 2013

  Mr. Polis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To provide for the conveyance of the Forest Service Lake Hill 
            Administrative Site in Summit County, Colorado.

    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 ``Lake Hill Administrative Site 
Affordable Housing Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) County.--The term ``County'' means Summit County, 
        Colorado.
            (2) Lake hill administrative site.--The term ``Lake Hill 
        Administrative Site'' means the parcel of approximately 40 
        acres of National Forest System land in the County, as depicted 
        on the map entitled ``Lake Hill Administrative Site'' and dated 
        June 2012.
            (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of Agriculture.

SEC. 3. CONVEYANCE OF FOREST SERVICE LAKE HILL ADMINISTRATIVE SITE, 
              SUMMIT COUNTY, COLORADO.

    (a) Conveyance Authority.--Upon receipt of an offer from the County 
in which the County agrees to the condition imposed by subsection (c), 
the Secretary shall use the authority provided by the Forest Service 
Facility Realignment and Enhancement Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-54; 16 
U.S.C. 580d note) to convey to the County all right, title, and 
interest of the United States in and to the Forest Service Lake Hill 
Administrative Site.
    (b) Application of Law.--
            (1) Treatment as administrative site.--The Lake Hill 
        Administrative Site is considered to be an administrative site 
        under section 502(1)(A) of the Forest Service Facility 
        Realignment and Enhancement Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-54; 16 
        U.S.C. 580d note).
            (2) Exception.--Section 502(1)(C) of that Act does not 
        apply to the conveyance of the Lake Hill Administrative Site.
    (c) Costs.--The County shall be responsible for processing and 
transaction costs related to the direct sale under subsection (a).
    (d) Proceeds.--Proceeds received from the conveyance pursuant to 
subsection (a) shall be available, without further appropriation and 
until expended, for capital improvement and maintenance of Forest 
Service facilities in Region 2 of the United States Forest Service.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Anna Casson, Respondent, v. A. C. Horn Co., Division of Sun Chemical Corp., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Herlihy, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board awarding death benefits. On January 30, 1952 the decedent was severely burned about the face, chest and arms as a result of the spontaneous ignition of paint containing zylol and synthetic resins. He was hospitalized for approximately six weeks and thereafter remained under regular medical care until 1960 when he developed an infection of the right lung. His subsequent death in January, 1964 was revealed by an autopsy as due to squamous cell carcinoma of the right upper lobe bronchus. The appellants contend that there is no relation between the accident and the eventual *967death as there were no immediate symptoms of cough, congestion or lung trouble after the accident. There was a medical dispute as to the issue. The carrier’s experts testified that if the decedent had inhaled a damaging amount of fumes, there would have been immediate symptoms. It should be noted that there was testimony that the decedent at the time of the accident “was on fire for at least 1 minute” and the fire being in and about his face, it is readily inferable that at that time he inhaled the vapors which resulted from the explosion and fire. The medical testimony of the claimant established causal relationship between the exposure as a result of the accident and the resulting death from carcinoma of the lung. Dr. Kaufman stated: “ There is evidence of a single extensive exposure of an irritant. This irritant is in the nature of the hydrocarbons and in the nature of resins and tars which are definitely carcinogenic. There is evidence based upon considerable investigation that a single exposure to an inhalant or to a specific incident can produce carcinoma of the lung”, and such was the present circumstance. Dr. Jones reported death due to carcinoma of the right lung caused “ directly ” by the accident by “Inhalation of fumes and gases during fire” and who testified to the same effect, that is, that claimant’s “ terminal illness had a direct relationship to his original injury in ’52”. The board accepted this testimony and found causal relation and we find that the medical testimony has a reasonable basis in fact and is substantial. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board . Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Herlihy, J.
#### § 29.406 Import inspection certificate.

An import inspection certificate shall consist of a certificate issued by the Tobacco Division in a form approved by the Director. A certificate shall be issued to the importer as soon as practicable following the completion of inspection. A separate certificate shall be issued for each lot of tobacco. In case of a lost or destroyed certificate, a duplicate may be issued under the same number, date, and name by an authorized official. Duplicate certificates shall be plainly marked “Duplicate” above the signature of the supervising official who issued it.

[49 FR 27468, July 3, 1984]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                                CONSILIUM, INC.
               STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF INCOME/LOSS PER SHARE
               (Amounts in thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 Year Ended October 31,
                                             1995         1994         1993  
                                        ----------   ----------   ---------- 
<S>                                     <C>          <C>          <C>
Net income/(loss)                              627      ($6,248)     ($5,283)  
                                        ==========   ==========   ========== 
                                                                             
Weighted average number of 
  shares outstanding                         7,567        7,362        7,025
Weighted average number of shares
  computed using the treasury                                               
  stock method (1)                             345           --           --
                                        ----------   ----------   ----------  
Weighted average number of shares
  outstanding, as adjusted                   7,912        7,362        7,025  
                                        ==========   ==========   ========== 
                                                                             
Income/(loss) per share                      $0.08       ($0.85)      ($0.75)  
                                        ==========   ==========   ========== 
</TABLE>

(1)   Stock options have not been included in the calculation of loss per share
      as there effect would be anti-dilutive.

Note: There is no material difference in the calculation of primary and fully
      diluted income (loss) per share.
Case 4:20-cv-00148-RH-MAF Document 1-8 Filed 03/20/20 Page 1 of 5
Case 4:20-cv-00148-RH-MAF Document 1-8 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 5
Case 4:20-cv-00148-RH-MAF Document 1-8 Filed 03/20/20 Page 3 of 5
Case 4:20-cv-00148-RH-MAF Document 1-8 Filed 03/20/20 Page 4 of 5
Case 4:20-cv-00148-RH-MAF Document 1-8 Filed 03/20/20 Page 5 of 5