alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Counties in Bold Contain Distressed Areas

County Economic Status and Number of Distressed Areas in 

Appalachian Mississippi, Fiscal Year 2021

County Status

Economic

Areas

Distressed

Number of

Alcorn Transitional 1

Benton Distressed

Calhoun At-Risk 2

Chickasaw At-Risk 2

Choctaw At-Risk 1

Clay At-Risk 3

Itawamba Transitional 1

Kemper Distressed

Lee Transitional 4

Lowndes At-Risk 6

Marshall At-Risk 2

Monroe At-Risk 3

Montgomery Distressed

Noxubee Distressed

Oktibbeha At-Risk 2

Panola At-Risk 3

Pontotoc Transitional 1

Prentiss At-Risk 2

Tippah At-Risk 2

Tishomingo At-Risk 1

Union Transitional 1

Webster At-Risk 2

Winston At-Risk 2

Yalobusha At-Risk 1

Appalachian Regional Commission, June 2020
Distressed Areas in Appalachian Mississippi, 

Fiscal Year 2021

County

Census Tract 

ID Number County

Census Tract 

ID Number

Alcorn 9505

Calhoun 9504

Calhoun 9505

Chickasaw 9501

Chickasaw 9503

Choctaw 9503

Clay 9501

Clay 9503

Clay 9504

Itawamba 9503

Lee 9506.02

Lee 9507

Lee 9509.02

Lee 9510.02

Lowndes 5

Lowndes 6

Lowndes 7

Lowndes 8

Lowndes 9

Lowndes 11

Marshall 9504.01

Marshall 9504.02

Monroe 9504

Monroe 9505.02

Monroe 9508

Oktibbeha 9503

Oktibbeha 9505

Panola 9501

Panola 9502

Panola 9503

Pontotoc 9504

Prentiss 9503

Prentiss 9505

Tippah 9501

Tippah 9503

Tishomingo 9502

Union 9502

Webster 9502

Webster 9503

Winston 9501

Winston 9503

Yalobusha 9501

Appalachian Regional Commission, June 2020
LEE

KEMPER

PANOLA

MONROE

CLAY

NOXUBEE

MARSHALL TIPPAH

WINSTON

UNION

CALHOUN

ITAWAMBA

LOWNDES

BENTON ALCORN

PONTOTOC

WEBSTER

CHICKASAW

PRENTISS

CHOCTAW

YALOBUSHA

OKTIBBEHA

T SI HOM NI GO

MONTGOMERY

0 25 50

Miles

Levels of

Economic Status

Distressed County

At-Risk County

Transitional County

Competitive County

Attainment County

County Economic Status in Appalachian Mississippi,

Fiscal Year 2021
LEE

MONROE

PANOLA

KEMPER

CLAY

MARSHALL

WINSTON NOXUBEE

UNION

CALHOUN

TIPPAH

ALCORN

LOWNDES

BENTON

PONTOTOC ITAWAMBA

PRENTISS

WEBSTER

CHOCTAW

YALOBUSHA

CHICKASAW

OKTIBBEHA

TISHO

MINGO

MONTGOMERY

County Economic Status and Distressed Areas in

Appalachian Mississippi, Fiscal Year 2021

Levels of

Economic Status

Distressed County

At-Risk County

Distressed Area

Transitional County

Distressed Area

Competitive County

Attainment County

0 15 30

Miles

M S

A L
Map Created: March 2015

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 

American Community Survey, 2009–2013

High School Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2009–2013

(County Rates)

A high school completion rate is the percentage of persons ages 

25 and over with a high school diploma or more. The map uses 

natural breaks in the distribution to organize the data into groups 

of common values. 

0 50 100 

Miles 

GEORGIA 

ALABAMA 

MISSISSIPPI 

SOUTH 

CAROLINA 

NORTH CAROLINA 

VIRGINIA 

WEST 

VIRGINIA 

KENTUCKY 

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA 

WISCONSIN 

MICHIGAN 

DE 

NJ PENNSYLVANIA 

MARYLAND 

NEW YORK 

TENNESSEE

55.2% - 71.2%

71.3% - 77.9%

78.0% - 84.2%

84.3% - 93.1%

Completion Rate 

U.S. average = 86.0%

Appalachian average = 84.6%

(Natural Breaks Classification)
#### Harold J. CONINE, Appellant (One of Defendants below), and Taylor Pontiac Buick, Inc., and Wilbert Fritchel, (Defendants), v. Lenore I. BROWN, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

No. 3120.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

May 4, 1962.

Walter C. Urbigkit, Jr., Cheyenne, in support of motion.

Ferrall, Bloomfield, Osborn & Lynch, Cheyenne, in opposition to motion.

Before BLUME, C. J., and PARKER, HARNSBERGER and McINTYRE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Harold J. Conine, has undertaken to appeal from an order sustaining a motion to strike one of two defenses interposed in a cause of action now pending in the District Court of Laramie County. Appellee, Lenore I. Brown, has moved to dismiss such appeal for the reason that the order is not a final order as defined by Rule 72(a), Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure.

The definition of a final order as now contained in Rule 72(a) was taken from §, 3-5301, W.C.S., 1945. It has been a part of our civil code at least since 1886. During that time and prior to the adoption of our present rules of procedure, this court repeatedly held that an order sustaining a demurrer to a petition in an action is not a judgment or final order upon which an appeal can be based. Cooley v. Frank, 68 Wyo. 436, 235 P.2d 446, 449; Lawer Auto Supply Co. v. Teton Auto Co., 45 Wyo. 119, 16 P.2d 38; Bock v. Nefsy, 29 Wyo. 33, 207 P. 1008; Hahn v. Citizens’ State Bank, 25 Wyo. 467, 171 P. 889, 893, 172 P. 705; Greenawalt v. Natrona Improvement Co., 16 Wyo. 226, 92 P. 1008, 1009;. Turner v. Hamilton, 10 Wyo. 177, 67 P. 1117; Menardi v. Omalley, 3 Wyo. 327, 23 P. 68.

Rule 7(c), Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure, abolishes demurrers. However,. Rule 12(f), Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure, authorizes the court to strike from any pleading any insufficient defense. We have no doubt that the order of the district-court striking one of the defenses, in the instant case, is equivalent to an order sustaining a demurrer to such defense under the procedure applicable prior to our present rules. We therefore have no hesitancy in saying that the order here in question, is not any more of a final order under existing procedures than an order sustaining a demurrer was under former procedures.

In this jurisdiction, we do not have a code provision or rule which permits an appeal from an order striking out matter pleaded as a defense, and we do not care to change our position from the long-established rule that an appeal does not lie from an order which is in effect an order sustaining a demurrer. To do so would unnecessarily open the door to a duplicity of appeals and to burdensome delays for litigants.

Appeal dismissed.
#### PEOPLE OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA on the relation of the AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Captain C. E. STASTNY, Commanding Officer of the Long Beach Naval Station, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 72-2905.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

July 15, 1976.

Melissa A. Taubman, Deputy County Counsel (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.

Jaques B. Gelin, Atty. (argued), Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., and Jan Chat-ten, Deputy Atty. Gen. (argued), Los Angeles, Cal, for defendants-appellees.

*

 Honorable William G. East, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.

OPINION

Before WALLACE and SNEED, Circuit Judges, and EAST, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM:

The disposition of the above appeal was withdrawn from submission and deferred pending the disposition of two cases pending in the Supreme Court of the United States. Those cases have now been decided and are entitled *Hancock v.*Train, -U.S. -, 96 S.Ct. 2006, 48 L.Ed.2d 555 (1976); and *Seeber v.*Alabama, -U.S.--, 96 S.Ct. 2643, 48 L.Ed.2d 384 (1976). It is, therefore, now ordered that the above appeal be submitted for disposition.

Upon the authority of the Supreme Court’s decision in *Hancock,*the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.
County Economic Status in Appalachia, Fiscal Year 2016

(Effective October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016)

The Appalachian Regional Commission uses an index-based county 

economic classification system to identify and monitor the economic 

status of Appalachian counties. See the reverse side for a description of 

each economic level.

Map Created: March 2015

Data Sources:

Unemployment data: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, LAUS, 2011–2013

Income data: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, REIS, 2013

Poverty data: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009–2013

0 50 100

Miles

GEORGIA

ALABAMA

MISSISSIPPI

SOUTH

CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

VIRGINIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

KENTUCKY

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA

WISCONSIN

MICHIGAN

DE

NJ PENNSYLVANIA

MARYLAND

NEW YORK

TENNESSEE

Distressed (93)

At-Risk (110)

Transitional (205)

Competitive (11)

County Economic Levels

Attainment (1)
County Economic Status Classification System, FY 2016

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) uses an index-based county economic classification system to 

identify and monitor the economic status of Appalachian counties. The system involves the creation of a 

national index of county economic status through a comparison of each county’s averages for three economic 

indicators—three-year average unemployment rate, per capita market income, and poverty rate—with national 

averages. The resulting values are summed and averaged to create a composite index value for each county. 

Each county in the nation is then ranked, based on its composite index value, with higher values indicating 

higher levels of distress.

County Economic Levels

Each Appalachian county is classified into one of five economic status designations, based on its position in the 

national ranking. 

Distressed

Distressed counties are the most economically depressed counties. They rank in the worst 10 percent of the 

nation’s counties.

At-Risk

At-Risk counties are those at risk of becoming economically distressed. They rank between the worst 10 percent 

and 25 percent of the nation’s counties.

Transitional

Transitional counties are those transitioning between strong and weak economies. They make up the largest 

economic status designation. Transitional counties rank between the worst 25 percent and the best 25 percent of 

the nation’s counties.

Competitive

Competitive counties are those that are able to compete in the national economy but are not in the highest 10 

percent of the nation’s counties. Counties ranking between the best 10 percent and 25 percent of the nation’s 

counties are classified competitive.

Attainment

Attainment counties are the economically strongest counties. Counties ranking in the best 10 percent of the 

nation’s counties are classified attainment.

Attainment 

Counties

Best 10% of 

U.S. Counties

Competitive 

Counties

Best 10+ to 25% of 

U.S. Counties

At-Risk 

Counties

Worst 10+ to 25% 

of U.S. Counties

Distressed 

Counties

Worst 10%

 of U.S. 

Counties

ARC County Economic Status Designation by National Index Value Rank

Ranked Index Values 

of U.S. Counties

Transitional Counties

Higher Index Values Lower Index Values
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.42    
    


 
 

AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER LICENSE AGREEMENT    
    


This
is an Amendment to the Master License Agreement (Agreement) between SurModics, Inc. (SURMODICS) and Microvena Corporation (MICROVENA), fully executed on December 29, 1998, a copy of
which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 


The
parties desire to amend certain terms and conditions contained in the Agreement as follows: 


The
following is added as new Paragraph 26: 


26.   OFF-SITE STORAGE OF REAGENTS/CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS  


During
a term of five (5) years beginning ninety (90) days following the date of the last signature below, SURMODICS shall maintain in an off-site storage facility, the
following quantities of reagents and chemical compounds, which are estimated to be a three (3) to six (6) month supply, based on market estimates provided by MICROVENA: 


ATTACHMENT B1—GUIDE WIRES  



	Reagent/Compound Name
 
	 	Qty.

	[***]	 	[***]





ATTACHMENT B2—DEBRIS COLLECTION SYSTEM  



	Reagent/Compound Name
 
	 	Qty.

	[***]	 	[***]





SURMODICS'
obligations with respect to the reagents and chemical compounds named above in connection with each of Attachments B1 and B2 shall terminate upon termination of such respective Attachments. 


Notwithstanding
the foregoing, SURMODICS provides no guarantee as to the continued long-term availability of [***] and [***], as the raw
materials are supplied by a sole source vendor to SURMODICS. Should SURMODICS be unable to procure raw 




	[***]
	Confidential
treatment has been requested for the bracketed portions. The confidential redacted portion has been omitted and filed separately with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. 








materials,
SURMODICS shall not be obligated to provide or store [***] and [***] off site. 


SURMODICS
and MICROVENA agree to evaluate on a quarterly basis the above quantities in comparison to actual usage by MICROVENA, and adjust the numbers as mutually agreed upon in writing. In no event
will SURMODICS store off-site more than six (6) months inventory of the identified reagents or chemical compounds, based on the most recent quarterly usage figures. Notwithstanding
the above, SURMODICS need not store off-site more than three (3) months inventory of [***]. 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto execute this Amendment by their duly authorized employees. 



	AGREED:	 	AGREED:	 
	

SurModics, Inc.	
 	

Microvena Corporation
	

BY:	

/s/ Walter H. Diers, Jr.
	
 	

BY:	

/s/ Daniel Bulver

	

PRINTED NAME:	

Walter H. Diers, Jr.
	
 	

PRINTED NAME:	

Daniel Bulver

	

TITLE:	

Vice President
	
 	

TITLE:	

V.P. of Operations

	

DATE:	

5 July 2000
	
 	

DATE:	

6/29/00







	[***]
	Confidential
treatment has been requested for the bracketed portions. The confidential redacted portion has been omitted and filed separately with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.42


AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER LICENSE AGREEMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50699

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERTO SIMON GARCIA-LARA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:13-CR-1336-1

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roberto Simon Garcia-Lara appeals the 80-month within-guidelines 

sentence he received for his guilty plea to illegal reentry. Garcia-Lara argues 

that his sentence is greater than necessary to meet the sentencing goals of 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a). He specifically contends that the guidelines sentencing range 

was too severe because his prior burglary conviction was used to enhance his 

offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 and to increase his criminal history score, 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 22, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50699 Document: 00513016421 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2015
No. 14-50699

because his motive for returning to the United States was to work, because his 

offense was essentially an international trespass, and because his longest prior 

sentence was three years. He argues that his within-guidelines sentence 

should not be afforded a presumption of reasonableness because the illegal 

reentry Guideline, § 2L1.2, lacks an empirical basis.

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of 

discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A presumption of 

reasonableness applies to Garcia-Lara’s within-guidelines sentence. See

United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). As Garcia-Lara 

correctly concedes, the argument that a presumption of reasonableness should 

not apply to his sentence because § 2L1.2 lacks empirical support has been 

rejected by this court. See United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th 

Cir. 2009); United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th 

Cir. 2009). We have also rejected the arguments that illegal reentry is merely 

an international trespass offense that is treated too harshly under § 2L1.2, see 

United States v. Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006), and that a 

sentence imposed pursuant to § 2L1.2 is greater than necessary to meet 

§ 3553(a)’s goals as a result of any double counting inherent in that Guideline, 

see Duarte, 569 F.3d at 529-31. 

Garcia-Lara’s contentions regarding his mitigating factors and benign 

motive do not rebut the presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. 

Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. GomezHerrera, 523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the judgment of 

the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-50699 Document: 00513016421 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2015
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 121 (Tuesday, September 11, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1483]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   THE ANNIVERSARY OF SEPTEMBER 11TH

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. ADAM B. SCHIFF

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 11, 2012

  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, today, we remember those lost eleven years 
ago on September 11, 2001. We also remember the extraordinary acts of 
bravery and heroism performed by courageous passengers and crew on 
United Flight 93, by the first responders who rushed into burning 
buildings, and by the thousands of nameless volunteers who provided 
assistance on that terrible day.
  We think, too, of our troops around the world who stand in harm's 
way, many of whom enlisted in the days and weeks that followed the 
attack on our country. And of those troops we have lost, and who paid 
the ultimate price for our liberty.
  For millions of Americans, September 11th serves a day of solemn 
reflection. For others, it has become a day of community--gathering 
together in remembrance and in service. No matter how we choose to 
remember, ours is a tribute that is a deeply personal one.
  We lost a great deal on that tragic day, but America also revealed 
herself to be resilient, and more unified and determined than ever.
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 120 (Monday, September 10, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6046-S6047]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

          RECOGNIZING THE CONGRESSIONAL MANAGEMENT FOUNDATION

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I stand before you today to congratulate the 
Congressional Management Foundation on its 35th anniversary of service 
to Capitol Hill. Founded in 1977, CMF is a non-profit, nonpartisan 
organization dedicated to improving management practices within the 
Halls of Congress, as well as facilitating better communication between 
legislators and their constituents. By improving congressional 
operations, providing institutional research, and educating Americans 
on how Congress actually works, the Congressional Management Foundation 
has been a valuable contributor to building trust and effectiveness in 
Congress.
  The Congressional Management Foundation strives to help legislators 
get off on the right foot even before they are sworn into office. 
Within 5 days after election day, all incoming freshmen receive a copy 
of ``Setting Course'' and ``The 90-Day Road Map''--

[[Page S6047]]

two experience-driven publications produced by CMF that provide new 
House Members, Senators, and their staff a detailed outline for setting 
up and running an effective office. ``Keeping it Local'' stresses the 
importance of maintaining a strong presence in district offices and the 
value of effective constituent outreach and interaction at the local 
level. These publications are time-tested, indispensable resources that 
provide our leaders with the appropriate tools they need to overcome 
the challenges of lawmaking on the national stage.
  In the past decade, CMF has adapted its mission to keep up with the 
rapid introduction of new technology on Capitol Hill. Recently CMF has 
offered guidance on how to design effective and accessible Web sites, 
culminating in CMF's Gold Mouse Awards for the best congressional Web 
sites. CMF has helped Senators significantly improve their online 
operations, resulting in more transparency and accountability in 
government. Because of CMF's research and guidance in Web sites and 
online communications, Americans have a better understanding of the 
Congress and better access to necessary services.
  Finally, I wish to congratulate CMF on focusing on improving the 
Congress in a nonpartisan way. There are only a few places left in 
Washington where those of us who are in public service can gather and 
truly engage in problem solving. I congratulate the Congressional 
Management Foundation on more than three decades of outstanding work 
and wish them success in all of their future endeavors.

                          ____________________
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0308 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ROBERT LEROY JAMES ALLERY,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including February 25, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 19 2022

01/19/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0308
# C_2009006EN.01004304.xml

| 10.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/43

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 — Messe Düsseldorf v OHIM — Canon Communications (MEDTEC)

(Case T-173/08) (1)

1

(2009/C 6/87)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.

1

---
#### Stewart Funeral Service, Inc., Respondent, v J. J. Stoyer et al., Appellants.

Casey, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Williams, J.), entered May 4, 1989 in Sullivan County, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate a default judgment entered against them.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover the amount of the funeral bill for services rendered to Mary Stoyer, the deceased wife of defendant J. J. Stoyer and the deceased mother of defendant James M. Stoyer. When defendants failed to answer or otherwise appear, plaintiff moved for a default judgment and thereafter an inquest on the amount of damages was held. Defendants moved to open the default judgment and Supreme Court denied the motion, resulting in this appeal.

Defendants sought to open the default on the grounds that plaintiff had never obtained personal jurisdiction over them and that the default was excusable. Defendants also claim that they have a meritorious defense. The record contains affidavits of service upon defendants pursuant to CPLR 308 (4), and defendants’ affidavits in support of their motion contain no factual allegations to show that service was not *335properly done in compliance with the requirements of CPLR 308 (4). On this appeal, defendants raise the question of whether there was compliance with the due diligence requirement of CPLR 308 (4). The affidavits of service show eight attempts to serve one defendant and 12 attempts to serve the other. Defendants did not assert a lack of due diligence in their motion to open the default and presented no evidence relevant to the issue in their affidavits. In these circumstances, we are of the view that defendants waived the issue and cannot raise it for the first time on appeal *(see, McCormack v Gomez,*137 AD2d 504, 505).

Nor does the record contain any support for defendants’ claim that their default was excusable. On the contrary, the record clearly establishes that defendants had notice of the action and ample opportunity to appear and defend, but chose not to do so. Defendants’ claim of a meritorious defense is based upon conclusory allegations unsupported by any allegations of fact. Supreme Court’s order denying defendants’ motion to open the default judgment should, therefore, be affirmed.

Mahoney, P. J., Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.