alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.25











July 30, 2012








Brian Stiver


471 San Gabriel Court


Sierra Madre, CA  91024








Dear Brian,





This letter is to confirm our offer to you for the Senior Vice President, Infusion Sales position reporting to Rick Smith, Chief Executive Officer.  We are delighted to offer you this promotion, Brian!





Your salary will be increased to $10,576.93 bi-weekly, subject to applicable taxes and other withholdings.  Your promotion and salary increase will be effective July 30, 2012.





Additionally, you would be eligible to participate in BioScrip’s Management Incentive Bonus Program as long as you remain continuously employed with BioScrip through the date that the bonus is paid.  You would be eligible for a bonus of up to 40% of your base salary with the pool determined by the Company and the Board of Directors and subject to corporate, departmental and individual objectives being met.  Your participation in this plan would be prorated based on your promotion date. This plan is subject to change.





For clarification and the protection of both you and the Company, your acceptance of this offer represents the sole agreement between you and the Company.  No prior promises, representations, and/or understandings relating to the offer of employment as set forth in this letter are to be considered part of this letter.  This offer supersedes all prior offers, both verbal and written.





If you have any questions regarding this offer, please don’t hesitate to call me at 513-458-4848.


Congratulations!  We look forward to your success in this important role.








Sincerely,





/s/ Erinn Wainscott





Erinn Wainscott                Agreed and Accepted:


Manager, Human Resources


BioScrip, Inc.


513-458-4848 /s/Brian Stiver


Fax 952-674-5672                Brian Stiver                    Date
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00349-CV

Elsie Hansen, Appellant

v. Texas Department of Family & Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 02-2020-FC2-FC1, HONORABLE SUZANNE BROOKS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant’s motion to dismiss this appeal is granted. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). The appeal is dismissed.

Bea Ann Smith, Justice Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Pemberton Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: August 12, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM CONDENSED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING OCTOBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000350403
<NAME> GEOFF STANFORD
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                            1142
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    39359
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      33079
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 75948
<PP&E>                                          252386
<DEPRECIATION>                                  123792
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  207684
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            29012
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           512
<OTHER-SE>                                       90002
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    207684
<SALES>                                         113435
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                113951
<CGS>                                            97984
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    97984
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2426
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5656
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2327
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               3329
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3329
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .65
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 6.1

                                 EPS CALCULATION


The following schedule summarizes the information used to compute earnings per
common share:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  Years ended December 31,
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                             2002         2001           2000
                                         -----------   -----------   -----------
<S>                                      <C>           <C>           <C>
Weighted average number of common
  shares used to compute basic net
  income per common share                144,795,000   142,962,000   142,040,000
Dilutive effect of stock options             992,000     2,093,000     3,031,000
                                         -----------   -----------   -----------
Weighted average number of common
  shares used to compute diluted net
  income per common share                145,787,000   145,055,000   145,071,000
                                         ===========   ===========   ===========
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 35 (Monday, February 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9437-9438]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03535]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: Coral Reef Conservation Program Administration.
    OMB Control Number: 0648-0448.
    Form Number(s): None.
    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved 
information collection).
    Number of Respondents: 35.
    Average Hours Per Response: 2.
    Burden Hours: 70.
    Needs and Uses: This request is for extension of a currently 
approved information collection.
    The Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 (Act) was enacted to 
provide a framework for conserving coral reefs. The Coral Reef 
Conservation Grant Program, under the Act, provides funds

[[Page 9438]]

to broad-based applicants with experience in coral reef conservation to 
conduct activities to protect and conserve coral reef ecosystems. The 
information submitted by applicants is used to determine if a proposed 
project is consistent with the NOAA coral reef conservation priorities 
and the priorities of authorities with jurisdiction over the area where 
the project will be carried out. As part of the application, NOAA 
requires a Data and Information Sharing Plan in addition to the 
standard required application materials.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; not-
for-profit institutions; state, local, or tribal government.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. 
Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections 
currently under review by OMB.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#135c5a41524c4066717e7a60607a7c7d537c7e713d767c633d747c65"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="511e1803100e0224333c382222383e3f113e3c337f343e217f363e27">[email protected]</span></a> or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: February 17, 2015.
Sarah Brabson,
NOAA PRA Clearance Offcer.
[FR Doc. 2015-03535 Filed 2-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JE-P


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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1291 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1291

     To authorize early repayment of obligations to the Bureau of 
 Reclamation within the Northport Irrigation District in the State of 
                               Nebraska.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 12, 2015

 Mrs. Fischer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To authorize early repayment of obligations to the Bureau of 
 Reclamation within the Northport Irrigation District in the State of 
                               Nebraska.

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

SECTION 1. EARLY REPAYMENT OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 213 of the Reclamation 
Reform Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390mm), any landowner within the 
Northport Irrigation District in the State of Nebraska (referred to in 
this section as the ``District'') may repay, at any time, the 
construction costs of project facilities allocated to the landowner's 
land within the District.
    (b) Applicability of Full-Cost Pricing Limitations.--On discharge, 
in full, of the obligation for repayment of all construction costs 
described in subsection (a) that are allocated to all land the 
landowner owns in the District in question, the parcels of land shall 
not be subject to the ownership and full-cost pricing limitations under 
Federal reclamation law (the Act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, 
chapter 1093), and Acts supplemental to and amendatory of that Act (43 
U.S.C. 371 et seq.), including the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (13 
U.S.C. 390aa et seq.).
    (c) Certification.--On request of a landowner that has repaid, in 
full, the construction costs described in subsection (a), the Secretary 
of the Interior shall provide to the landowner a certificate described 
in section 213(b)(1) of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 
390mm(b)(1)).
    (d) Effect.--Nothing in this section--
            (1) modifies any contractual rights under, or amends or 
        reopens, the reclamation contract between the District and the 
        United States; or
            (2) modifies any rights, obligations, or relationships 
        between the District and landowners in the District under 
        Nebraska State law.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORBIN FARM SERVICE, Patrick William Feeney, Frank Harry Michaud, Jr., and John Richard Harris, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 78-1286.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

July 12, 1978.

*260Richard W. Nichols, Chief Asst. U. S. Atty., Sacramento, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.

Donald Cole Byrd (argued), Willows, Cal., for defendants-appellees.

Before BROWNING, CARTER and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the United States from a judgment of the district court dismissing nine counts of an information filed against defendants for multiplicity. The sole issue is whether the proper unit of prosecution for the killing of ducks under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 703 *et seq.,*is each duck killed. The district court ruled that multiple bird deaths resulting from a single transaction cannot be separately charged under the MBTA. We affirm.

The defendants were each involved in various capacities with the application of Furadan 4, a registered pesticide, to an alfalfa field which allegedly caused the death of more than 1,000 American Wigeons, a migratory duck. Corbin Farm Service is the dealer/distributor of the Fura-dan. John Richard Harris is an employee of Corbin who provided pesticide advice to farmers with the expectation that they would purchase from Corbin. Patrick W. Feeney is the owner of the alfalfa field which was sprayed. Frank H. Michaud, Jr., is the licensed aerial operator who sprayed the field.

The United States, contending it has prosecutorial discretion to charge a violation of the MBTA for each individual duck killed chose ten Wigeons and charged Feeney, Michaud and Harris with their deaths in ten separate counts of a twelve count information. The remaining two counts alleged violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. § 136 *et seq,,*but are unrelated to this appeal.

. The defendants filed numerous pretrial motions seeking, *inter alia,*dismissal of nine of the ten MBTA counts for multiplicity. After extensive briefing the district court filed a lengthy opinion disposing of each of the motions. We affirm the district court and adopt its opinion on the issue of multiplicity as our own. The relevant part of the district court’s opinion can be found at *United States v. Corbin Farm Service, et al.,*444 F.Supp. 510, 527-31 (E.D.Cal.1978) (We adopt the district court’s decision beginning with “(1) Multiplicity” at the top of 444 F.Supp. 527 and continuing through the first full paragraph of the second column at 444 F.Supp. 531, ending with the sentence: “Accordingly, nine of the ten counts brought against defendants Harris, Feeney and Michaud under the MBTA are dismissed.”).

AFFIRMED.
SCPW-12-0001066

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

KAWIKA KEOKI AKUI, Petitioner,

vs.

TED SAKAI, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC

SAFETY, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)

Upon review of petitioner Kawika Keoki Akui’s “Motion

to Transfer Habeas Corpus”, filed on December 7, 2012, which we

treat as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and the record, 

it appears that petitioner can seek relief in the circuit court

and by way of appeal, as appropriate, and petitioner presents no

special reason for invoking the supreme court’s original

jurisdiction at this time. See Oili v. Chang, 57 Haw. 411, 412,

557 P.2d 787, 788 (1976). Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is denied

without prejudice.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 23, 2013.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-12-0001066

23-JAN-2013

02:07 PM
Exhibit 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our report dated May 14, 2004, except for Note 18 and the first
paragraph of Note 14, as to which the date is June 10, 2004, accompanying the
consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of
Schick Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2004. We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the
Registration Statement of Schick Technologies, Inc. on Forms S-8. (File No.
333-46825, effective February 24, 1998, File No. 333-83488, effective February
27, 2002).


/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP
New York, New York
June 21, 2004
refuted). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion, 

and we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

D-Z 

Douglas 

cc: Hon. Michael Montero, District Judge 

Humboldt County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Humboldt County District Attorney 

Humboldt County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 33 (Thursday, February 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 8849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03410]



[[Page 8849]]

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

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD


Meetings

AGENCY: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board 
(Access Board) plans to hold its regular committee and Board meetings 
in Washington, DC, Monday through Wednesday, March 9-11, 2015 at the 
times and location listed below.

DATES: The schedule of events is as follows:

Monday, March 9, 2015

11:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. Ad Hoc Committee Meetings; Closed to Public.

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

9:30-10:00 a.m. Budget Committee.
10:30--11:00 Technical Programs Committee.
11:00--Noon Planning and Evaluation Committee.
1:30--3:30 p.m. Ad Hoc Committee on Frontier Issues.

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

1:30--3:00 p.m. Board Meeting.

ADDRESSES: Meetings will be held at the Access Board Conference Room, 
1331 F Street NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding the 
meetings, please contact David Capozzi, Executive Director, (202) 272-
0010 (voice); (202) 272-0054 (TTY).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: At the Board meeting scheduled on the 
afternoon of Wednesday, March 11, 2015, the Access Board will consider 
the following agenda items:
    <bullet> Approval of the draft January 14, 2015 meeting minutes 
(vote);
    <bullet> Ad Hoc Committee Reports: Self-Service Transaction 
Machines; Information and Communications Technologies; Design Guidance; 
Public Rights-of-Way and Shared Use Paths; Passenger Vessels; Frontier 
Issues; Transportation Vehicles (vote); and Medical Diagnostic 
Equipment;
    <bullet> Budget Committee;
    <bullet> Planning and Evaluation Committee;
    <bullet> Technical Programs Committee;
    <bullet> Election Assistance Commission Report;
    <bullet> Election of Officers (vote);
    <bullet> Executive Director's Report.
    All meetings are accessible to persons with disabilities. An 
assistive listening system, Communication Access Realtime Translation 
(CART), and sign language interpreters will be available at the Board 
meeting and committee meetings. Persons attending Board meetings are 
requested to refrain from using perfume, cologne, and other fragrances 
for the comfort of other participants (see www.access-board.gov/the-board/policies/fragrance-free-environment for more information).

David M. Capozzi,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2015-03410 Filed 2-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8150-01-P
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

       We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Prospectus
    constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-3 of Converse Inc.
    of our report dated February 18, 1998, appearing on page F-2 of Converse
    Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 3, 1998.  We
    also consent to the application of such report to the Financial Statement
    Schedule for the three years ended January 3, 1998 listed under Item 14(a)
    of Converse Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 3,
    1998 when such schedule is read in conjunction with the financial statements
    referred to in our report.  The audits referred to in such report also
    included this Financial Statement Schedule.  We also consent to the
    reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such Prospectus.


    /s/  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
    -------------------------------
    PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


    Boston, Massachusetts
    December 8, 1998
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7213

LINDA ANN TYLER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GLORIA JEAN RACKLEY; E. RICHARD BAZZLE, Warden

of Leath Correctional Institution; CHARLES

KEARNEY, JR., Captain; DIANE HAMRICK, Lieutenant; MELISSA WHITT; BERNICE WIGGLETON, Major;

BARBARA L. PARTILEDGE, Officer; R. IRBY, Mental Health Counselor; DIANE LITWER, Grievance

Coordinator; RANCE COBB, Principal; BETTY

FLEMING, Sergeant; V. C. HILL, Lieutenant;

BARBARA SHUMATE, of Operations at Leath Correctional Institution; T. J. PHILSON, Captain;

SHERRI CHANDLER, Administrative Assistant,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CA-99-2845-4-22BF)

Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 28, 2001

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Linda Ann Tyler, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Pruitt,

MCDONALD, PATRICK, TINSLEY, BAGGETT & POSTON, Greenwood, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Linda Ann Tyler appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion to transfer her case to another judge. We dismiss

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not

appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The

order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We deny all of Tyler’s

outstanding motions, including her motions for reconsideration of

this court’s prior orders in her case. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED