alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00633-CR

Ramon Aguilar Jr.

v.

The State of Texas

On appeal from the

398th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR-1112-16-I

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The Court 

orders the appeal DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION in accordance with its 

opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 28, 2019
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

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

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

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Nursing Research Initial Review Group.                    

*Date:*                         October 19, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Nursing Research, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Weiqun Li, MD, Scientific Review Officer, National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy, Suite 710, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-5966,                         *wli@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.361, Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 12, 2023.

Victoria E. Townsend, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-20059 Filed 9-15-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (3.33 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
EX-10.12



 Exhibit 10.12 

May     , 2016 
 Robert J. Schotzinger,
M.D., Ph.D. 
 7000 Potomac Ct. 
 Raleigh, NC 27613 

Dear Bob, 
 It is my pleasure to extend the
following offer of employment to you on behalf of Viamet Pharmaceuticals Corp. (the “Company”) effective upon its conversion from Viamet Pharmaceuticals Holdings, LLC to a Delaware Corporation. The following is offered as part of your
compensation package: 
  

			
	Title:	  	President and Chief Executive Officer
		
	Base Salary:	  	As determined by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors from time to time

 You will be eligible to receive an annual cash bonus as determined by the Company’s Board of Directors in
accordance with the Company’s performance-based bonus program. 
 Your employment with the Company is for no specified period and
constitutes “at-will” employment in that it can be terminated with or without cause, and with or without notice, at any time, at the option of either the Company or yourself, except as otherwise provided by law. The terms of this offer
letter, therefore, do not and are not intended to create either an express and/or implied contract of employment with the Company. Similarly, nothing in this letter shall be construed as an agreement, either express or implied, to pay you any
compensation or grant you any benefit beyond the end of your employment with the Company. 
 This letter sets forth the terms of your
employment with the Company and supersede any prior representations or agreements whether written or oral. 
 You represent that you are not
bound by any employment contract, restrictive covenant or other restriction preventing you from entering into employment with or carrying out your responsibilities for the Company, or which is in any way inconsistent with the terms of this letter.

 If you agree with and accept the terms of this offer of employment, please sign below and return this letter to me. We are pleased to
have you join the Viamet team, and we look forward to our success together. 







 
			
	Very truly yours,
		
	By:	 	  

		 	Robert J. Schotzinger, M.D., Ph.D.
		 	President & CEO


  

	
	AGREED AND ACCEPTED BY:
	
	  

	Robert J. Schotzinger, M.D., Ph.D.
No. 611, Misc.

#### Harris *v.*Reincke, Warden.

Superior Court of Connecticut, Hartford County. Certiorari denied.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein Joan L. Larsen,

Justices 

# Order

December 22, 2016

150298

________________________________________

In re Contempt of KELLY MICHELLE DORSEY.

_________________________________________

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICH IGAN, Petitioner

- Appellee,

v SC: 150298 COA: 309269 Livingston CC Family Division:

08

- 012596

- DL TYLER MICHAEL DORSEY, Respondent,

and

KELLY MICHELLE DORSEY, Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 9, 2014 judgment of the Court of Appeals is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we AFFIRM the result reached by the Court of Appeal s. We agree that MCL 712A.2 gave the Livingston Circuit Court Family Division (“family court”) subject matter jurisdiction over the juvenile proceeding in which it entered the drug test order underlying the contempt orders. The appellant has mounted a

co llateral attack on that order, asserting that the family court lost subject matter jurisdiction because it violated MCL 712A.6. That argument amounts only to a claim that the court improperly exercised its subject matter jurisdiction to hear the juvenile delinquency case. The appellant’s collateral attack is accordingly barred. See Jackson City Bank & Trust Co v Fredrick , 271 Mich 538, 544

- 545 (1935). We decline to address whether this Court should adopt any other exceptions to the general rule barring such collateral attacks because, under the circumstances presented in this case, the appellant had a meaningful opportunity to appeal the drug test order, and there is no indication that her rights could not have been vindicated had she pursued an appeal t hrough the normal procedures. We therefore VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment addressing whether the family court order for random drug screens constituted an illegal search and seizure, because it was unnecessary to decide the case.I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 22, 2016

d1214 2

Clerk However, the appellee conceded in its first supplemental brief that the appellant may be entitled to some form of relief. See Rose v Aaron

, 345 Mich 613, 615 (1956) (“We do not think, in view of the circumstances of this case and the provisions of the lower court’s order, that that court is called upon to protect its dignity by resentencing defendant for violation of a temporary restraining or der improperly entered.”), citing

Holland v Weed , 87 Mich 584, 590 (1891). Given that the appellee conceded the underlying order was improperly entered, and that enforcement of the contempt orders has been stayed pending appeal, the Livingston Circuit Cou rt Family Division shall not be required to enforce the contempt orders on remand.
From: lrostlund@netzero.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:29:30 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Lin R. Ostlund

Chehalis, WA 98532
No. 253, Misc.

#### Davis *v.*United States.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Theodore George Gilinsky*for the United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: whall@mich.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:22:37 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Willard Hall

Dryden, MI 48428
-----Original Message----- 

From: eileen toolin [mailto:eileentoolin@aol.com] 

Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 3:44 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN1210-AB33 

Leave my IRA alone. No required annuitization- by default or 

otherwise. This is not ( yet ) Argentina.
From: ChCortez@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:58:09 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Graciela Gray

Upland, CA 91784
<PAGE>
                       New Century Financial Corporation            Exhibit 11.1
                Statement Re Computation of Per Share Earnings

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       Six Months Ended June 30,      Three Months Ended June 30,
                                                   --------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         1999            1998           1999            1998
                                                   --------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                    <C>             <C>            <C>            <C>
Basic:

Net earnings                                           $20,691,000     $13,725,000    $10,879,000    $  7,492,000
                                                    =============================================================
    Weighted average common shares outstanding          14,299,783      14,037,678     14,353,488      14,070,835
                                                   --------------------------------------------------------------
Earnings per share                                     $      1.45     $      0.98    $      0.76    $       0.53
                                                    =============================================================
Diluted:

Net earnings                                           $20,691,000     $13,725,000    $10,879,000    $  7,492,000
                                                    =============================================================
Weighted average number of common and common
 equivalent shares outstanding:
   Weighted average common shares outstanding           14,299,783      14,037,678     14,353,488      14,070,835
   Dilutive effect of convertible preferred stock,
    stock options and warrants, after application        3,769,039         869,200      3,814,245         947,744
                                                   --------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        18,068,821      14,906,878     18,167,732      15,018,579
                                                    =============================================================
Earnings per share                                     $      1.15     $      0.92    $      0.60     $      0.50
                                                    =============================================================
</TABLE>
From: dennis.taylor@plumcreek.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:34:34 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Dennis Taylor

Hampton, GA 30228