alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JEFFREY CAMPBELL,

Petitioner,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE,

Respondent.

Case No. C05-5611RBL

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and the

remaining record, does hereby find and Order:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) The petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons set forth in

the Report and Recommendation.

(3) The clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Petitioner, counsel for

Respondent, and to the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold Strombom.

DATED this 9th day of December, 2005.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05611-RBL Document 6 Filed 12/09/05 Page 1 of 1
ttoo-ex1037_508.htm



EXHIBIT 10.37

AMENDMENT 

TO

SEVERANCE AND CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT

 

This Amendment to Severance and Change in Control Agreement is entered into as of March 6, 2018, by and between T2 Biosystems, Inc., a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business at 101 Hartwell Avenue, Lexington, Massachusetts 02421 USA (“T2 Bio”) and Alec Barclay (“Employee”).  Capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Severance / Change in Control Agreement (as defined below). 

 

Recitals

 

A.T2 Bio and Employee previously executed that certain Letter Agreement governing severance compensation and payments upon a Change in Control, dated as of February 1, 2017 (as may be amended, restated, or otherwise modified, the “Severance Agreement”).

 

B.T2 Bio and Distributor desire to amend the Severance Agreement.

 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual agreements set forth below, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties to this Amendment agree to amend the Severance Agreement in accordance with Section 4(a) thereof as follows:

  

1. Amendment to Section 1(a).  Section 1(a) of the Severance Agreement is hereby amended by deleting it in its entirety and replacing it with the following:

 

“(a)the Company will pay you severance in an amount equal to 12 months of your then current annual base salary, payable in equal installments over a period of 12 months (the “Severance Period”) in accordance with the Company’s payroll practices, commencing on your termination of employment;”

 

2.No Other Amendments.  Except to the extent amended hereby, all of the definitions, terms, provisions and conditions set forth in the Severance Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed and shall remain in full force and effect.  The Severance Agreement and this Amendment shall be read and construed together as a single agreement and the term “Agreement” shall henceforth be deemed a reference to the Severance Agreement as amended by this Amendment.  This Amendment may be signed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.  In making proof of this Amendment, it shall not be necessary to produce or account for more than one such counterpart.

 

 

[Signature Page Follows]




 



 

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives below.

 


					
	
T2 BIOSYSTEMS, INC.
	
 
	
 

 

	
By:
	
/s/ Michael Gibbs___________
	
 
	
By:
	
/s/ Alec Barclay________

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Name:
	
Michael Gibbs
	
 
	
Name:
	
Alec Barclay

	
Title:
	
General Counsel
	
 
	
Date:
	
 March 6, 2018




 

 

 

 




2

 



 

 

 

3
No. 62279.

#### Armour and Company *v.*United States,

protests 287619-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of meats, prepared or preserved, not specially provided for, similar in all material respects to the meat the subject of *United States*v. *Mercantil Distribuidora, S. A., et al.*(45 C. C. P. A. 20, C. A. D. 667), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MINUTE ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

GEN ADS, LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ANDREW BREITBART, et al.

Defendants.

CASE NO. C06-137JLR

MINUTE ORDER

The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable

James L. Robart:

On May 23, 2006, the court received the parties’ proposed stipulated protective order

(Dkt. # 34). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), protective orders should be issued “for good cause

shown.” This is a public court and its business should be conducted publicly unless there is a

specific reason to keep things confidential. As stated in Local Rules W.D. Wash. CR 5(g),

“[t]here is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files and records which may be

overcome only on a compelling showing that the public’s right of access is outweighed by the

interests of the public and the parties in protecting files, records, or documents from public view.” 

When protective orders are appropriate, they should be narrowly drawn, the presumption being in

favor of open and public litigation. The parties may, of course, agree on confidentiality

Case 2:06-cv-00137-JLR Document 35 Filed 05/31/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MINUTE ORDER – 2

among themselves, but when they request that the court become involved the parties must

make the requisite showing. 

Against this backdrop, the court has reviewed paragraph 4 of the parties’ proposed

order and finds it too broad. As such, the stipulated protective order will remain lodged

in the file, but the court will not enter it. 

Filed and entered this 31st day of May, 2006. 

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

s/Mary Duett

By

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00137-JLR Document 35 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Renville Young, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 995]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered November 29, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

*790Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he had knowledge of the weight of the controlled substance is unpreserved for appellate review *(see, People v Lawrence,*85 NY2d 1002; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. The defendant’s contention that the evidence as to the chain of custody of the vials was insufficient to support a finding that the evidence admitted was the same as that seized from the defendant is also unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Jackson,*199 AD2d 535). The evidence was admitted without objection and the defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal did not specify this ground.

The remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
Number of 

water-budget 

subareas

Area 

(square 

miles)

Mean recharge as 

a percentage of 

water input1

Number of 

water-budget 

subareas

Area 

(square 

miles)

Mean recharge as 

a percentage of 

water input1

Number of 

water-budget 

subareas

Area 

(square 

miles)

Mean recharge as 

a percentage of 

water input1

Open native forest (outside fog zone) 659 2.06 0.7 317 0.41 0.5 1,029 3.58 9.6

Closed native forest (outside fog zone) 2 <0.005 0.0 566 0.23 0.3 1,470 6.71 7.9

Alien and mixed forest (outside fog zone) 13 0.02 0.7 4,505 9.80 0.0 3,841 16.38 0.4

Open native forest (inside fog zone) 25 0.02 14.3 371 0.50 15.3 2,558 14.08 36.6

Closed native forest (inside fog zone) 2 <0.005 16.8 203 0.33 12.1 1,922 18.69 37.3

Alien and mixed forest (inside fog zone) 4 0.01 3.4 388 1.22 5.7 857 2.68 12.1

Shrubland 208 0.44 6.7 429 0.81 15.8 4,066 27.05 33.8

Agriculture: Macadamia 0 – – 85 0.18 2.6 338 1.04 5.4

Coffee 0 – – 0 – – 0 – –

Diversified 0 – – 69 0.26 24.8 264 0.67 20.3

Forest (eucalyptus) 0 – – 0 – – 0 – –

Fallow/Grassland 0 – – 0 – – 0 – –

Golf course 0 – – 0 – – 0 – –

Low-intensity developed 933 1.18 10.2 5,614 6.32 8.8 10 0.02 32.6

High-intensity developed 533 0.48 29.1 824 0.32 33.9 0 – –

Grassland 2,839 69.15 2.9 5,086 39.95 8.3 2,446 11.54 28.9

Sparsely vegetated 1,004 2.43 16.0 402 0.37 19.0 486 0.91 36.6

Wetland vegetation 0 – – 1 <0.005 10.3 79 0.35 24.1

Water body2 25 0.04 – 118 0.17 – 68 0.09 –

2

Recharge was not calculated using the water-budget model (see USGS SIR 2011–5078, p. 28).

1

Recharge as a percentage of water input was calculated for each subarea using the formula: [(recharge - direct recharge)/(rainfall + fog + irrigation)] x 100. Values for each subarea in a particular land-cover category were then multiplied 

by the area and summed, and that sum was then divided by the total area of that category to obtain a mean. Direct recharge is described in USGS SIR 2011–5078.

Table S-2. Estimated mean annual groundwater recharge as a percentage of water input for baseline conditions in the Kohala aquifer sector of the Island of Hawai‘i, compiled by land-cover type 

and precipitation amount (refer to USGS SIR 2011–5078).

[<, less than; –, not applicable; water input is defined as the sum of mean annual rainfall, fog, and irrigation; baseline conditions are defined as 2008 land cover and mean annual rainfall for the period 1916–83; the 

Kohala aquifer sector consists of the Häwï, Waimanu, and Mahukona aquifer systems and is defined by the Hawai‘i Commission on Water Resource Management (see 

http://www.state.hi.us/dlnr/cwrm/mapsillustrations/gwhu_hawaii.pdf); reported mean recharge is an area-weighted average; no distinction is made between fog and non-fog conditions for shrubland, coffee, and 

eucalyptus forest plantations]

Land-cover description

Mean annual rainfall plus fog equal to 40 

inches or less

Mean annual rainfall plus fog greater than 40 

inches and less than 80 inches

Mean annual rainfall plus fog equal to 80 

inches or greater
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

VINCENT DANIEL HOPPER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN DOE MYERS RECREATIONAL

COACH NORTHWEST DETENTION

CENTER et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5680RBL

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION REGARDING

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO

DISMISS

The Court, having reviewed, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge J. Kelley

Arnold, objections to the report and recommendation, if any, and the remaining record, does hereby

find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Defendants motion is DENIED as to all defendant’s except the Bureau of

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, (BICE). BICE is dismissed from this action. 

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, counsel for defendants

who have appeared and to the Hon. J. Kelley Arnold.

DATED this 8th day of September, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05680-RBL Document 100 Filed 09/08/06 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 67751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21737]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged 
in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question 
whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the 
BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20551-0001, not later than 
October 17, 2023.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Ivan J. Hurwitz, Head of Bank 
Applications) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001. 
Comments can also be sent electronically to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e1828e8c8c848f9592cf8091918d88828095888e8f92a18f98cf879383cf8e9386"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="83e0eceeeee6edf7f0ade2f3f3efeae0e2f7eaecedf0c3edfaade5f1e1adecf1e4">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., New York, New York; to engage in 
community development activities pursuant to section 225.28(b)(12) of 
the Board's Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2023-21737 Filed 9-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Before the First Division,

April 9, 1969

No. P69/90.

protests 66/72535,etc. (New York).

#### Florabelle Flowers, Inc. *v.*United States,

Watson, J.

In accordance with, stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of artificial flowers in chief value of plastic, assembled in the same manner as the plastic artificial flowers in *Armbee Corporation et al.*v. *United States*(60 Cust. Ct. 105, C.D. 3278) and *Zunold Trading Corporation et al.*v. *United States*(60 Cust. Ct. 112, C.D. 3279), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: brinkfam@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:27:05 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,

Barbara Brink

Las Vegas, NV 89178
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Moody, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 924]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rivera, J.), rendered April 26, 1993, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the indictment should have been dismissed because one of the witnesses who testified at trial omitted from his Grand Jury testimony certain facts that would have warranted a justification charge and that would have materially influenced the Grand Jury’s investigation and findings. By failing to make a written motion to dismiss the indictment, as instructed by the trial court, the defendant waived this claim of error *(see, People v Lawrence,*64 NY2d 200, 203-204; CPL 210.45 [1]).

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that he was unduly prejudiced by the testimony of a witness who, it was later learned, had lied when she testified that she had seen the defendant shoot the victim *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]). Defense counsel did not object to the witness’s testimony but merely requested that the court compel the People to produce the witness’s mother, who had indicated that the witness was elsewhere when the defendant shot the victim. Moreover, after the witness admitted that she had lied about seeing the shooting, the court struck her testimony, at defense counsel’s request, and instructed the jury not to consider her testimony during its deliberations. Presumably, the jury followed the court’s instruction *(see, People v Berg,*59 NY2d 294, 299-300).

The defendant’s sentence is not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Thompson and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.39  AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE OF MARCH 3, 2008 The undersigned, Loco Lobo, LLC (Payee), at 1201 First St. North, #203, Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250, agrees to modify the terms of the Promissory Note (Original Note) for $75,000 made by Crystal Magic, Inc., a Florida corporation (Maker) dated March 3, 2008, as follows: The first paragraph of the aforementioned note shall now be replaced with the following two paragraphs: FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Crystal Magic, Inc., a Florida corporation ("Maker"), promises to pay to the order of Loco Lobo, LLC (Payee), at 1201 First St. North, #203, Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250, the principal sum of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) simultaneous with the closing of any additional financing that exceeds $1.5 million that occurs after the Company has begun trading as a publicly trading company on the OTC bulletin board (the "Maturity Date"), unless Payee consents to an extension of the Maturity Date,­­ together with inter­est on the principal amount hereof at the rate of 6% per annu­m. Payments on both principal and interest are to be made in lawful money of the United States of America unless Payee agrees to another form of payment. Notwithstanding the paragraph above, should John Wolf be terminated from his employment with Propell Corporation under his current Employment Agreement as amended on December 21, 2008, for any reason other than Cause (as defined in such Employment Agreement) or voluntary termination, this note shall become payable, such payment to be made in three equal monthly installments of $25,000 each, together with inter­est on the remaining principal amount hereof at the rate of 6% per annu­m, with the first of the three payments due within 30 days of such termination. All other terms of the Original Note remain in force, unless superseded by this document.  CRYSTAL MAGIC, INC.LOCO LOBO, LLCBy:/s/ Steven M. RhodesBy:/s/ John C. WolfName:  Steven M. RhodesName:  John C. WolfTitle:    PresidentTitle:Manager     In the event that Crystal Magic, Inc. fails to make a payment under the Original
  Note as amended (the Amended Notes) when due, Propell Corporation hereby guarantees payment of the debt evidenced by the Amended Notes in
  accordance with the terms of the Amended Notes, such guarantee to be effective only from and after the date that (i) the Option Agreement that provides
  Steve Rhodes with the option to purchase shares of Class A Preferred Stock of Crystal Magic, Inc, is terminated  without exercise, (ii) the financial
  statements of Crystal Magic, Inc are consolidated with the financial statements of Propell Corporation in compliance with accounting standards and principles,
  including, GAAP and all  SEC rules and regulations and (iii) the board of directors of Propell Corporation  is  comprised of five or more
  members, a majority of which are  deemed to be independent under Item 407 of Regulation S-K.  PROPELL CORPORATIONBy:/s/ Edward L. BernsteinName:  Edward L. BernsteinTitle:    CEO