alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | (Date      of report)                  | February      22, 2010 |
|--------|----------------------------------------|------------------------|
|   | (Date      of earliest event reported) | February      22, 2010 |

| Delaware                          |   | 1-12202           |   | 93-1120873               |
|-----------------------------------|--------|-------------------|--------|--------------------------|
| (State      or other jurisdiction |   | (Commission       |   | (IRS      Employer       |
| of      incorporation)            |   | File      Number) |   | Identification      No.) |

----

| Item 2.02 |   | Results of Operations and Financial      Condition                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|-----------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|      |   |  On      February 22, 2010, we announced our results of operations for the quarter      and year ended December 31, 2009.  The news release is furnished      as Exhibit 99.1 and incorporated by reference herein.  |
| Item 9.01 |   | Financial Statements and      Exhibits                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|      |   |  Exhibits                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|      |   | 99.1   News      release issued by ONEOK Partners, L.P. dated February 22,      2010.                                                                                                                                     |
|      |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |

----

|   |                   |   | ONEOK      Partners, L.P.By:  ONEOK      Partners GP, L.L.C., General      Partner |
|--------|------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                   |   |                                                                                         |
| Date:  | February      22, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Curtis L. Dinan                                                                          |
|   |                   |   | Executive      Vice President -Chief      Financial Officer andTreasurer                |
Exhibit 10.48**FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**     This First Amendment to Employment Agreement is entered into and effective as of June15, 2006 (the Effective Date”), by and between Cyberonics, Inc. (the “Company”) and George E.Parker (“Employee”).RECITALS     WHEREAS, the Company and Employee previously entered into an Employment Agreement dated July14, 2003 (the “Agreement”), which Agreement remains in full force and effect as of this date. TheCompany and Employee now desire to amend the Agreement as provided herein.     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth in this Amendment and othergood and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows:TERMS1. Section 2 of the Agreement (“Term”) is deleted in its entirety and the followingprovision is inserted therefor:“Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, unless sooner terminatedpursuant to Section 5 of this Agreement, Employee shall be employed by the Companycommencing on the Effective Date and terminating on June 1, 2009(the “Term”). Termination of this Agreement shall not alter or impair any rights of Employee (orhis beneficiaries or heirs) with respect to payments, benefits or other rightsprovided by the terms of this Agreement, arising before or after theend of the Term.”2. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the provisions of the Agreement remainunchanged and in full force and effect.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have caused the Amendment to be executed in one or morecounterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original.     Cyberonics Employee:     By: /s/ Robert P. Cummins /s/ George E. Parker       Robert P. Cummins George E. Parker  Chairman of the Board of Directors and    Chief Executive Officer
No. 10383.

#### The Board of Education of Oregon Township *v.*The Board of Education of the City of Toledo.

Decided June 2, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Lucas county.

*Mr. Lyman W. Wachenheimer,*prosecuting attorney; *439
      *Mr. J. S. Martin*and *Mr. PI. C. Webster,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. C. S. Northup,t*city solicitor, and *Mr. Orion W. Nelson,*for defendant in *error.*

Judgment affirmed.

Si-iauck, Crew, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2







                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                               ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Del Laboratories, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph
Sinicropi, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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














/S/ JOSEPH SINICROPI
--------------------
Joseph Sinicropi
Chief Financial Officer
August 7, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 110 (Thursday, June 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 26489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12273]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


End of the Call for Participation for Computational Photography 
Project for Pill Identification (C3PI)

AGENCY: National Institutes of Health, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: With the successful completion of the 2016 Pill Image 
Recognition Challenge, the National Library of Medicine (NLM) 
gratefully acknowledges the pharmaceutical manufacturers, re-packagers, 
wholesalers, and retail and institutional pharmacies that submitted 
prescription drug products for imaging as part of its Computational 
Photography Project for Pill Identification (C3PI). Effective 
immediately, the NLM is concluding its collection of digital imagery of 
C3PI oral solid dosage formulations (OSDFs), discontinuing the program, 
and is no longer accepting prescription drug products for photography.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any question regarding C3PI and its 
discontinuation should be sent to: Dr. Terry Yoo at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0b787b6762666a6c6e4b65676625656263256c647d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4f3c3f2326222e282a0f2123226121262761282039">[email protected]</span></a>, 301-827-4976.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: C3PI developed information infrastructure 
and computational tools for identifying pills from digital photographs 
and associated data. C3PI issued a Pill Image Recognition (PIR) 
computer vision challenge in January 2016, seeking software solutions 
for the content-based information retrieval of drug information from 
images submitted as queries. NLM quantitatively evaluated the resulting 
entries and awarded prizes to the winners. The findings from the PIR 
challenge were published in October 2016. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5973812/.
    NLM is ending the project. No future prescription drug products 
will be accepted. Digital images will not be obtained of drug products 
that may have been submitted but not photographed as of the termination 
of this project.
    Previous NLM Imaging Initiative Superseded: This notice supersedes 
all prior instructions provided by 79 FR 56381-56382 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/09/19/2014-22308/call-for-participation-for-computational-photography-project-for-pill-identification-c3pi, published on September 19, 2014.

    Dated: June 1, 2018.
Patricia Brennan,
Director, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
[FR Doc. 2018-12273 Filed 6-6-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-22-00491-CV

MODIVCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC formerly known as LogistiCare Solutions, LLC; and 

ModivCare Solutions, Inc. formerly known as Providence Service Corporation,

Appellants

v.

Andrew Nathan VIERA and Adela Garza,

Appellees

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Duval County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-20-17

Honorable Baldemar Garza, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 21, 2022

DISMISSED IN PART

Appellants ModivCare Solutions, LLC and ModivCare Solutions, Inc. have filed a motion 

to dismiss their appeal as to only Appellee Adela Garza. According to appellants, they and Garza 

have settled the dispute between them. Thus, appellants request that their appeal be dismissed with 

respect to Appellee Garza. However, they emphasize their appeal with respect to Appellee Andrew 

Nathan Viera should remain pending. We grant appellants’ motion and dismiss their appeal as to 
04-22-00491-CV

- 2 -

Appellee Garza. Appellants’ appeal with regard to Appellee Viera remains pending on the docket 

of this court. 

PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT 21.1

                              JUNIPER GROUP, INC.

                                  SUBSIDIARIES


All of the Company's subsidiaries are wholly-owned.

Juniper Group, Inc. Subsidiaries                                Incorporated In

Juniper Entertainment, Inc. ..................................   New York
Juniper Medical Systems, Inc. ................................   New York
Juniper Group, Inc. ..........................................   Nevada

Juniper Entertainment, Inc. Subsidiary                          Incorporated In

Juniper Pictures, Inc. .......................................   New York

Juniper Medical Systems, Inc. Subsidiaries                      Incorporated In

PartnerCare, Inc. ............................................   New York
Juniper Healthcare Containment Systems, Inc. .................   New York
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000036548
<NAME> FIRST MORTGAGE CORP.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                         104,158
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  636,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               740,658
<PP&E>                                           6,783
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,277
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 991,086
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           71,130
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        51,102
<OTHER-SE>                                     868,854
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   991,086
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               357,579
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               166,882
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                190,697
<INCOME-TAX>                                    57,728
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            132,969
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   132,969
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Gosta TOLLIUS, Appellant, v. DUTCH INNS OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 40669.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 20, 1971.

Rehearing Denied May 20, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.

ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

DEKLE, J., dissents.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

HALA LEWIS HARBY, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D19-802

)

MOHAMED WANIS HARBY, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed September 25, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.130 from the Circuit Court for

Pasco County; Linda H. Babb, Judge.

Mark F. Baseman of Felix, Felix & 

Baseman, LLC, Tampa, for Appellant.

Heather A. Harwell of Law Office of 

Heather A. Harwell, P.A., Wesley 

Chapel, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

VILLANTI, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7425 

To amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act to allow for the interstate internet sales of certain Stateinspected meat, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 30, 2020 

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota (for himself and Mr. CUELLAR) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry 

Products Inspection Act to allow for the interstate internet sales of certain State-inspected meat, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Direct Interstate Re5 tail Exemption for Certain Transactions Act’’ or the ‘‘DI6 RECT Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7425 IH

1 SEC. 2. INTERSTATE INTERNET SALES OF CERTAIN STATE2 INSPECTED MEAT ALLOWED. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 301(c)(2) of the Federal 

4 Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 661(c)(2)) is amended, 

5 by inserting after the first sentence, the following: ‘‘For 

6 the purposes of this subparagraph, any retail store, res7 taurant, or similar retail-type establishment may sell over 

8 the internet and ship by carrier in commerce (other than 

9 for export to a foreign country) any State-inspected meat 

10 or meat food product, provided the meat or meat food 

11 product so inspected is shipped directly to household con12 sumers and in normal retail quantities.’’. 

13 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 301 of the 

14 Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 661) is amend15 ed— 

16 (1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting before the 

17 period at the end the following: ‘‘or for distribution 

18 pursuant to the second sentence of paragraph 

19 (c)(2)’’; and 

20 (2) in subsection (c)(2), in the first sentence, by 

21 inserting ‘‘or by’’ after ‘‘conducted at’’. 

22 SEC. 3. INTERSTATE INTERNET SALES OF CERTAIN STATE23 INSPECTED POULTRY ALLOWED. 

24 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5(c)(2) of the Poultry 

25 Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 454(c)(2)) is amend26 ed, by inserting after the first sentence, the following: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7425 IH

1 ‘‘For the purposes of this subparagraph, any retail store, 

2 restaurant, or similar retail-type establishment may sell 

3 over the internet and ship by carrier in commerce (other 

4 than for export to a foreign country) any State-inspected 

5 poultry product, provided the poultry product so inspected 

6 is shipped directly to household consumers and in normal 

7 retail quantities.’’. 

8 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 5 of the 

9 Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 454) is 

10 amended— 

11 (1) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting before the 

12 period at the end the following: ‘‘or for distribution 

13 pursuant to the second sentence of paragraph 

14 (c)(2)’’; and 

15 (2) in subsection (c)(2), in the first sentence, by 

16 inserting ‘‘or by’’ after ‘‘conducted at’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Joey B. DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1906.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 31, 1978.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Stephannie L. DaCosta, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Martha J. Cook, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s probation supervisor filed an affidavit charging appellant with violating conditions (2) and (4) of his probation. At the hearing on the affidavit, the trial court found that appellant had violated condition (4) of his probation and revoked the probation. We affirm that revocation, but we agree with appellant that there are imperfections in the order revoking probation and in the subsequent sentence.

In the first place, owing to an apparent clerical error, the order revoking probation recites that appellant violated not only condition (4) but also condition (2). Since at the hearing the court only found that appellant had violated condition (4), it should now remove any reference to condition (2) from its order.

The phrase “at hard labor” in the present sentence is improper. *Molina v. State,*349 So.2d 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).

We remand the case for the court to make the corrections which this opinion mandates, and appellant need not be present at that time.

OTT, A. C. J., and RYDER and DAN-AHY, JJ., concur.
#### Louis A. WILSON, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DIVISION OF UNIVERSITIES, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, Respondent.

No. R-378.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 26, 1972.

James R. Pierce, Gainesville, for petitioner.

Thomas S. Briggs, Jr. and Judith A. Brechner, Gainesville, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for certiorari, we have for review an order of the Career Service Commission affirming the action of the Department of Education, Division of Universities, University of Florida dismissing the petitioner for conduct involving a physical assault upon his supervisor.

We have carefully considered the record on appeal and the briefs submitted by the respective parties. It is our conclusion that petitioner has failed to demonstrate reversible error and further that the Commission’s findings and conclusions are fully supported by competent, substantial evidence. Accordingly, the petition for a writ of certiorari is hereby dismissed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.44 2013 10-K






AMENDMENT TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”), is effective this 1st day of January, 2014 (the “Effective Date”) by and between William P. Chaney, an individual resident of the State of Texas (the “Executive”) with a residence at [***], and RealPage, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Employer”), having its chief offices at 4000 International Parkway, Carrollton, Texas 75007. 
WHEREAS, Executive and Employer entered into that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated August 1, 2012 (the “Employment Agreement”); and 
WHEREAS, Executive and Employer now wish to amend the Employment Agreement as of the Effective Date. 
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual agreements set forth below, the parties hereby agree as follows: 
	
			
	1.
	 
	Executive shall be entitled to receive, upon termination of employment following a Change In Control (as defined in the Plan) or a Business Combination Transaction, in addition to all other compensation payable under this Agreement following such Change In Control or Business Combination Transaction, all employee benefits to which Executive was entitled immediately prior to such termination, fully paid for the term of the severance Executive is entitled to upon such termination under this Agreement, plus a lump sum payment equal to Executive’s target annual bonus amount.  

	2.
	 
	Executive shall be entitled to receive $3,500 per annum in medical benefits to be used toward medical expenses, including annual physical examinations.

	3.
	 
	Except as set forth herein, the Employment Agreement is hereby ratified and confirmed.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, intending to be legally bound, have executed this Amendment to Employment Agreement on the Signature Date. 
	
					
	 
	REALPAGE, INC.
	 

	 
	/s/ Stephen T. Winn 
	 

	 
	By: Stephen T. Winn 
	 

	 
	Its: President and Chief Executive Officer 
	 






	
					
	 
	Effective Date: 1/1/14
	 

	 
	/s/ William P. Chaney
	 

	 
	William P. Chaney, an individual
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KENNETH WHEATON,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. PATR IC K GLEB E,

R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 16-35554 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-00518-JC C
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington John C . C o u ghe nour, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 6, 2017 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : HAW KINS, M c KEOW N, a nd C HRISTEN, C i rc uit Judge s. Ke nne th W

he at on a ppe a ls the de nia l of his 28 U.S.C . § 2254 ha be a s c orpus pe tition c ha lle n g ing his c o nvic tion for two c ounts of se c o nd-de gre e ra pe and one 

# FIL ED DEC 08 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).c ount of fe l ony ha ra ssm e nt. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . §§ 1291 a nd 2253, a nd we a ffirm
. 1. It wa s not obje c tive ly

unre a sona

ble or c ontra

ry to c le arly e sta blishe d la w for the sta te c ourt to c onc lude tha

t Wh e aton’ s right to a public tria l wa s not viola te d give n the a

b se nc e of a

ny e vide nc e tha

t (1) the tria l judge orde re d the
c ourtroom

c lose d or (2) the public wa s wholly e xc lude d due to spa c e lim ita tions. Unite d State s v . W ithe r s , 638 F.3d 1055, 1063 (9th C ir. 2011). 2. Whe aton’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im

is proc e d ura lly de fa ulte d be c a use he did not fairly

pre se nt it to the

W a shington Suprem e C ourt. C oope r v . N

e v e n , 641 F.3d 322, 326 (9th C ir. 2011). W he aton a lso fa ile d to ra ise the c la i m in his fe de ra l ha

b e a s pe tition until his re

ply brie f. Se eC

ac ope rdo v

. De mosthe ne

s , 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th C ir. 1994). AFFIRM E D.

2