alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Argued and submitted March 28,

sentences vacated and remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed May 8,

petition for review denied August 6,2002 (334 Or 491)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*LARRY LYDELL BELL, SR., *Appellant.*

990331898; A111069

46 P3d 216

Rankin Johnson IV, Deputy Public Defender, filed the opening briefs for appellant. With him on the briefs was David E. Groom, Public Defender. Larry Lydell Bell, Sr., filed the supplemental *briefpro se.*

Ann Kelley, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.

Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Kistler and Brewer, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*457PER CURIAM

Defendant was indicted for three counts of arson in the first degree based on his intentionally igniting a fire in a motel room. Count one alleged that he damaged the motel, a dwelling; count two alleged that he damaged a dwelling and its contents, recklessly placing a dwelling, the motel, in danger; and count three alleged that he damaged a dwelling and contents, recklessly placing persons, the employees and occupants of the motel, in danger. All charges were based on ORS 164.325(l)(b). On count one, the jury found him not guilty of arson but guilty of reckless endangerment; it convicted him of counts two and three. The trial court merged counts one and two and sentenced him separately on count three. On appeal defendant argues that it should have merged all three counts. The state concedes that he is correct, and we agree. *State v. Barrett,*331 Or 27, 10 P3d 901 (2000); *State v. Beason,*170 Or App 414, 12 P3d 560 (2000), *rev den*331 Or 692 (2001).

Defendant also raises issues under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 US 466, 120 S Ct 2348, 147 L Ed 2d 435 (2000). He did not present those issues to the trial court, and we decline to consider them. Finally, he asserts that the jury’s verdicts were inconsistent. However, he did not object before the trial court dismissed the jury, and he has therefore waived those arguments for appeal. *See*ORCP 59 G(4); ORS 136.330; *Building Structures, Inc. v. Young,*328 Or 100,110, 968 P2d 1287 (1998).

Sentences vacated and remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
#### George WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42555.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 28, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 263 So.2d 297.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                      12,865,549
<SECURITIES>                                         0   
<RECEIVABLES>                              171,535,111   
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,415,053   
<INVENTORY>                                          0   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0   
<PP&E>                                               0   
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             268,495,410   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0   
<BONDS>                                    230,473,118   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0   
<PREFERRED>                                          0   
<COMMON>                                         5,567   
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,449,049   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               268,495,410   
<SALES>                                     22,605,135   
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,605,135   
<CGS>                                        9,864,658   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,864,658   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,771,831   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             3,265,000   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,029,259   
<INCOME-TAX>                                   740,679   
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,288,579   
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0   
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0   
<CHANGES>                                            0   
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,288,579   
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23
                                           

</TABLE>
#### Charlene RUSSELL v. MOSOW SCREW DIVISION and Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.

No. 46092.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 22, 1971.

Douglas Abraham, Greenville, for appellant.

Lake, Tindall & Hunger, Frank S. Thackston, Jr., Greenville, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Washington County; B. B. Wilkes, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1547 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1547

  To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to review the dialysis 
  pilot program implemented by the Department of Veterans Affairs and 
  submit a report to Congress before expanding that program, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 25 (legislative day, September 24), 2013

   Mr. Burr introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to review the dialysis 
  pilot program implemented by the Department of Veterans Affairs and 
  submit a report to Congress before expanding that program, and for 
                            other purposes.

    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 ``Veterans Dialysis Pilot Program 
Review Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON EXPANSION OF DIALYSIS PILOT PROGRAM.

    (a) Limitation.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall not expand 
the dialysis pilot program to any facility that is not an initial 
facility until after the date that--
            (1) the Secretary has implemented the dialysis pilot 
        program at each initial facility for a period of not less than 
        two years;
            (2) an independent analysis of the dialysis pilot program 
        has been conducted at each initial facility; and
            (3) the report required by subsection (b) has been 
        submitted.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
completion of the independent analysis required by subsection (a)(2), 
the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that--
            (1) includes the results of that independent analysis; and
            (2) addresses any recommendations with respect to the 
        dialysis pilot program provided in a report prepared by the 
        Government Accountability Office.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Dialysis pilot program.--The term ``dialysis pilot 
        program'' means the pilot demonstration program established by 
        the Secretary in 2009 to provide dialysis care to patients at 
        certain outpatient facilities operated by the Department of 
        Veterans Affairs.
            (2) Initial facility.--The term ``initial facility'' means 
        one of the four outpatient facilities identified by the 
        Secretary to participate in the dialysis pilot program prior to 
        the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         324,989
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               324,989
<PP&E>                                       5,918,532
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,243,521
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           94,871
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,148,650
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,243,521
<SALES>                                      1,165,510
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,756,215
<CGS>                                          424,157
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  424,157
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               616,213
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,715,845
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,715,845
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,715,845
<EPS-BASIC>                                      24.83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    24.83



</TABLE>
J

~~~ ED STq rFs

r UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

PROt w 0 z


### JUL 1 5 2014

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION 

### Mr. J. R. Stroble, Manager National TRtJ Program Carlsbad Field Office U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 

### Carlsbad, New Mexico 88221-3090

Dear Mr. Stroble: This letter provides the results of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) continued contpliance (CC) inspection of the Central Characterization Project (CCP) at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) near ldaho Falls, Idaho. CCP is responsible for implementing transuranic (TRU) waste characterization (WC) program for contact-handled (CH) and remote-handled (RH) transuranic (TRU) waste at INL. In November 2005 and January 2007, respectively, EPA first approved INL-CCP's CH (A-98-49; Il-A4-59) and RH (A-98-49: II-A4-72) TRU waste characterization programs. Since then, INL-CCP continues to characterize CH and RH waste containers for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. On May 6-8, 2014, EPA conducted the CC inspection in accordance with Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 194.24(h). The enclosed report presents the results of the inspection (EPA Air pocket No. A-98-49; II-A4- 190). 

### As a result of this CC inspection, EPA confirms that the TRU waste characterization activities and processes listed below are, as implemented by INL-CCP, technically adequate and compliant with 40 CFR 194.24 requirements. • Acceptable knowledge (AK) for CH and RH wastes • Three Nondestructive Assay (NDA) Systems for CH TRU waste • Dose to Curie process for RH TRU waste • Real-time radiography (RTR) for RH TRU waste • Visual Examination (VE) for CH and RH TRU debris waste

During the inspection, EPA did not identify any findings. EPA, however, identified one concern not requiring a response regarding documentation of formal and informal NDA equipment calibration verifications.

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov

Recycled/Recyclabte • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100 % Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperSince the initial CH and RH baseline approvals, EPA has approved nine (9) CH Tier 1(T1)

changes and 16 RH Tl changes. In addition, EPA conducted three continued compliance and two unannounced inspections to confirm on-going compliance. Also, since initial approvals, EPA has concurred on all quarterly Tier 2 changes that INL-CCP made to the approved CH and RH programs. If you have any questions, please contact Rajani Joglekar (202-343-9462).



### Sinc , 

# p 4lr

- ~ Tom Peake, Director Center for Waste Management and Regulations



### Enclosure

cc: electronic distribution Alton Harris, DOE EM Joe Franco, CBFO Marcus Pinzel, CBFO Thomas Morgan, CBFO Norma Castaneda, CBFO Trais Kliphuis, NMED Site Documents, CBFO/LANL Jon Edwards, EPA
#### James F. PIERSON et al. v. PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE.

No. 61409.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 17, 1978.

In re: Parish of East Baton Rouge, applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 353 So.2d 726.

Writ denied.

SANDERS, C. J., DIXON and MARCUS, JJ., would grant the writ.
#### Pamela J. Fischbein, Appellant, v George B. Beitzel et al., Respondents.

[721 NYS2d 515]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered November 3, 1999, which, *inter alia,*granted defendants’ respective motions to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this challenge to the merger between Bankers Trust and Deutsche Bank, plaintiff, a stockholder of Bankers Trust, has alleged that Deutsche Bank acquired Bankers Trust at a price unfairly depressed at the stockholders’ expense by excessive compensation and bonus arrangements provided by the Bankers Trust Board of Directors to certain bank directors and employees. These allegations, however, set forth “a wrong to the corporation only, for which a shareholder may sue derivatively but not individually” *(Abrams v Donati,*66 NY2d 951, 953), and plaintiff has failed to satisfy the requisites for maintenance of a shareholder derivative action since she has neither made a demand upon the bank’s Board of Director’s to initiate an action in the bank’s behalf nor pleaded, in accordance with Business Corporation Law § 626, why such a demand would have been futile *(see, Marx v Akers,*88 NY2d 189, 198).

Moreover, even if plaintiff had standing to bring a direct action, a complaint disputing payments made to corporate directors and/or executives must, to survive a motion to dismiss, “allege compensation rates excessive on their face or other facts which call into question whether the compensation was fair to the corporation when approved, the good faith of the directors setting those rates, or that the decision to set the compensation could not have been a product of valid business judgment” *(Marx v Akers, supra,*at 203-204), and the complaint herein, composed in the main of conclusory allegations, does not meet these pleading standards. Indeed, since the record does not indicate the existence of a viable claim by plaintiff, leave to replead was properly denied *(see, Hornstein v Wolf,*67 NY2d 721, 723).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Andrias, Wallach, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.
saapcenibertetenen titadiiiediecialiens wee BE a AP bar, = 5 _
a.

ARTMEN o igeraenat ar angen
sineiceetiide Deal ee det mccrasecineatcs: | GRTRRWEM CRIMMUE OF Tork Uneasy oEaEe 1500
5 ee POPULATION SCHEDULE

—_——
HOUSEMOLD DATA EDUCATION PLACE OF BIRTE RRSEDENCE, APU 1. 1835 |

yest reaee La TOTP s Tes
ya = See eeest BE pee ee

“are per or Lee ‘.

Reter R ter at athe
‘vince.

NAME
2 | Meme of cack person where usual place
of residence o& Apri 1, 1940, was in
this bousebuld,
tom

ne SUR TO DECLODR:

Ferman om peerdy shecet trem besaahett

rine “ay” shor samme of tech parma.

5, Shen wader 3 year of opp. We “tetot"
Cad tee mat tes

aechald Ure one
Tos ot Be

Mighen erate of host cemposted

| Valent tees ftpwend > analy
| Tf

= <a

Age si tant Merthdiny
| ea a a”

ts
“i
S

To |e | seeattate (a), Pernt om

bes
“J

oP

RESRSSI

i

MS ie [eI

EMhe

Ate Nel No Nel.
(el NoNo! Db
Yoo! == j=

a i
ini

e ware

ars 2. | Yel . [jae false a a
s\rug| Fa ai FF | jee | oct —

niles ‘ . i r ares a a Tm

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

ST E a ce oe |TV 20) | penne yur go ~— Vu
Femi By AVA Lords Be Je = v=, ae 2
OE Me eh Wot A 4é |) Z f=

PNWIVS| Ss
= uke | NJ
lw |62| |
L | Fl wiyel 3 |
Fiw mes

SUE NUESTIONS FOR PERSONS OF ALL AGES vOR PERsomy 16 TEA35 ox am on i f POR OFFICE U4B ONLI—DO NOT WRITE IN THERE COLUE®

For Parsons Enumersind on Lines 99 and 68 | PLACE OF BISTH OF FATHER 45D MOTEIE xOTmn NouLeE, aes 42 COUT PATIOS, TEROSTAT, AFD CLAm GF WOREER

Sons pies money ts ent eae LA ue i
T b-wagn bets, pee ener om Parzary
— Ser g Ze ES

Dima sa pA Pal

ef eb Odree ore bere |

| CODE (insre plank
Exhibit 10.16


 





 



     


     


    

 





 



     


     


    

 





 



     


     


    

 





 



     


     


    

 





 



     


     


    

 





 



     


     


    

 





 



     


     


    

 





 



     


     


    

 





 



     


     


    

 





 



     


     


    

 





 



     


     


    

 





 



     


     


    

 





 



     


     


    

 





 



     


     


    

 





 



     


     


    

 





 



     


     


    

 





 






     


     


    

 


RESEARCH
AGREEMENT


Amendment
No. 1


(Non-Clinical)


 


This
Amendment (“Amendment”) entered into this 25th day of January, 2022 (“Amendment Effective Date”), by and between
the University of Miami, (“University”) and Epien Medical (“Company”) amends the agreement between the parties dated
August 20, 2021 (“Agreement”) which is incorporated by referenced herein and made part of this Amendment.


 


Whereas,
University and Company entered into the Agreement for the a study entitled: Determination of the Debridement Effects of Revity on Deep
Dermal Wounds in a Porcine Model (“Study”).


 


Whereas,
University and Company intend to amend the Agreement as follows:


 


1. The
amount of funding for the conduct of the Study is being increased by $15,541.00. The total amount of funding is hereby amended to a total
of $38,902.00.


 


2. Except
as expressly provided in this Amendment, all other terms, conditions and provisions of the Agreement shall apply and remain in full force
and effect. All terms used herein shall have the same meaning as ascribed to them in the Agreement. To the extent any term or provision
of this Amendment conflicts with any term or provision of the Agreement, the terms and provisions of this Amendment shall prevail.


 


[Remainder
of page left intentionally blank]


 






     


     


    

 





IN
WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment by their duly authorized officers or representatives:


 





	UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI:	 	 
	 	 
	/s/ D.
    Stewart MacIntyre III, JD	 
	Authorized University Representative	 
	D. Stewart MacIntyre III, JD	 
	Director, Office of Research Administration	 
	Name and Title	 
	 	 
	Feb 22, 2022	 
	Date	 


 


	Read
    and Understood:	 	 
	 	 	 
	PRINCIPAL
    INVESTIGATOR	 	 
	 	 	 
	/s/
    Stephen C. Davis	 	2/4/2022
	Stephen
    C. Davis	 	Date
	Research
    Professor	 	 
	University
    of Miami Miller School of Medicine	 	 
	Department
    of Dermatology & Cutaneous Surgery
‘Supervisor's Dist. No.
Enumeration Dist, No..

SCHEDULE: 1.—Inhabitants in_ 72

. Nl, Children BORN since
ho have DIED SINCE June 1, 1680, will be INCLUDED, "

: eee ee eae,
in the County ot_ Pade. | State ot Leads Y

day of June, 1880.
y e, "IE Leach

= — 7 eee ee
i | oe
H | 3
t
ennacerraa :

Visit http://www.archives.gov for mi

OE
Alc
iFi/3|

ore

Sasha |
Ta Laxalt) Locos
! -, 7
|p ezaeat. WAP Vand VT Ad T +
Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

filial |
4

a

a

RH S,

=e

NS
ORR

BS

NBR SRSERS

t

ly il babe —thoe

1 sexe it ain oe
saben stro Seaten crs es
bes opera eens 3, ae

eee prov, ln 1 phe he tobe nd,
#### Victor ORTIZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-588.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

June 25, 1968.

Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender and Jeffrey Michael Cohen, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

*58Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen. and Arthur L. Rothenberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Ortiz was adjudged guilty of larceny of a truck after a non-jury trial and was sentenced to 18 months in prison. He presents two points upon appeal. The first questions the sufficiency of the evidence and urges that the court erred in failing to grant his motion for a directed verdict made at the dose of the State’s case. The second urges that the court committed reversible error when it admitted into evidence appellant’s statement made to the arresting officer.

Appellant was employed by Lebon Cleaners in Miami. In March 1967 the owner of Lebon reported that one of his trucks had been stolen. Shortly after the report •ivas ’ made, the truck, with Ortiz driving, was involved in an accident in Bunnell, Florida, about 300 miles from Miami. Highway Patrol Trooper Neely arrested Ortiz. After Neely advised Ortiz of his constitutional rights as outlined in *Miran*da,1 Ortiz told Neely that he had taken the truck for the express purpose of driving to New York to see his wife. Neely’s account of Ortiz’s statement was admitted into evidence over the objection of defense counsel.

Ortiz argues that Neely did not meet *Miranda*standards in advising him of his constitutional rights, and that the inculpating statement should therefore not have been admitted into evidence. Although Neely did not recite the *Miranda*formula verbatim, he did adequately and fully inform the appellant of his constitutional rights.2 The warning was sufficient and the confession was properly admitted. See Biglow v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 205 So.2d 547.

The appellant also contends that without the inculpating statement there was not sufficient evidence upon which to base the judgment. This contention is without merit. The record contains evidence sufficient to sustain the conclusion of the trier of fact that the appellant was guilty of larceny of the truck even if the inculpating statement had been excluded. See Cone v. State, Fla.1953, 69 So.2d 175; Borghese v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So.2d 785.

Affirmed.

1

. Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

2

. “Q What did you tell him?

A I told him he did not have to tell me anything. He could obtain a lawyer, and if he was not in a position to obtain a lawyer, the State would furnish one to him. I told him he did not have to tell me anything without the advice of Counsel. He advised me that he would tell me about it.”