alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
子宫肌瘤

什么是子宫肌瘤?

子宫肌瘤是育龄妇女最常见的良性(非癌 性)肿

瘤 (或 称赘生物 )。子宫肌瘤生长在子宫肌壁内

部和周围, 可以是单发的,也可以是多发的。 它

们 可以小到一颗苹果籽 的大小,也可以大到一

个柚子 的大小。随着时间的推移,子宫肌瘤 的大

小可能会增大,也可能保持 不变。子宫肌瘤的另

一个医学术语是子宫平滑肌瘤,简称 "肌瘤"。

子宫肌瘤有哪些症

状?

子宫肌瘤并不一定会引起症状。有症状的 患者可

能会觉得子宫肌瘤 给她们带来了难以忍受 的痛

苦。子宫肌瘤的症状包括:

• 月经(例假)的变化

o 经期大量出血,每小时 可浸透一片或多片卫

生棉或护垫,或 出血持续七天以上

o 两次月经之间的阴道出血

o 大量 的和不规则 的出血 可导致贫血(红细胞

数量 降低)

o 痛经

• 胀气感或压力感

o 下腹部( 小腹)有 "饱胀" 感

o 尿频或排尿困难

• 疼痛

o 性爱时疼痛

o 腹部或 腰部疼痛

• 生殖问题

o 不孕不育

o 流产

o 早产

子宫肌瘤的病因是

什么?

子宫肌瘤的确切病因 尚不清楚。研究人员认为 致病

因素可能不止一个。这些因素可能包括:

• 年龄。患子宫肌瘤的风险随着年龄的增长而增

加,在 50 岁左右达到高峰。有些女性 的子宫肌

瘤可能会在绝经后缩小。

• 家族史或遗传学 因素。 如有亲属(如母亲、姐妹

或姨妈)患有子宫肌瘤 ,你 的患病的风险 就会较

高。

• 种族/民族。非裔美国人患上子宫肌瘤的几率是亚

裔、西班牙裔或白人的 2-3 倍。非裔美国人 的子宫肌

瘤的 发病年龄往往也较 低,而且肌瘤的生长速度也较

快.

• 体重。超重或肥胖会增加患子宫肌瘤的风险。

• 荷尔蒙。子宫肌瘤会受到 体内荷尔蒙(雌激素和

孕激素)水平的影响。

• 高血压。 会增加患子宫肌瘤的风险.

• 饮食因素。(例如缺乏维生素 D、 食用豆奶 等)。

如何知道自己是否

患有子宫肌瘤?

除非你有症状,否则你可能不知道自己是否患有

子宫肌瘤。在某些情况下,医疗服务提供者 可在 

进行常规盆腔检查 时发现子宫肌瘤。您的医疗服

务提供者还可能会要求您进行影像学检查,以了

解子宫肌瘤的情况。手术 程序(即宫腔镜 程序)

可以 对子宫肌瘤的超声诊断 进行确认,并提供更

多信息,如肌瘤的位置。

美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)

妇女健康办公室

www.fda.gov/womens
如何治疗子宫肌

瘤?

如果您出现了子宫肌瘤的症状, 可以用一些医

疗方法 来进行治疗。请与您的医疗服务提供者

讨论 您的子宫肌瘤的最佳方法。他们会考虑很

多 因素,例如:

• 您的症状及其严重程度

• 你将来 是否 希望怀孕

• 肌瘤的大小

• 肌瘤的位置

• 您的年龄以及您离更年期 还有多少年

如果您患有子宫肌瘤但没有症状,您可能不需要

接受医疗干预。医疗服务提供者可以在定期检查

时查看 您的子宫肌瘤是否 有所 增大,并询问您是

否注意到任何新的症状,或 您的 原有症状 是否加

重。医疗服务提供者可能会建议 您进行造影检

查,以检查子宫肌瘤生长情况或 其在大小 方面的

变化。

请与医疗服务提供者讨论您是否应该 通过服用药

物来控制症状,例如:

• 用于治疗或预防 由大 量出血 所引起的贫血

( 表现为红细胞计数低) 的铁补充剂。

• 用以缓解便秘 的大便软化剂。

• 用以缓解子宫肌瘤引起的疼痛 的非处方

(OTC)或处方止痛药。

医疗服务提供者可能会建议 您使用 含激

素 的治疗方法来控制出血 , 它们可能包

括:

• 使用避孕产品,如避孕药、避孕贴或阴道避孕

环

• 服用或注射黄体酮药 片(针剂)

• 使用带激素(黄体酮)的宫内节育器(IUD)

• 使用经批准用于控制绝经前妇女因子宫肌瘤引

起的月经大量出血的新药。

在开始或停止 接受治疗前,请与

您的医疗服务提供者讨论 治疗的

风险、益处和副作用。

如果子宫肌瘤导致中度或重度症状,医疗服务提

供者可能会建议 您采取上述药物治疗 ,也可能会

使用手术 来为您进行治疗。手术方案包括 :

• 子宫肌瘤剔除术 - 在不切除子宫健康组织的情

况下切除子宫肌瘤的手术。

• 子宫切除术 - 切除整个子宫的手术。

• 子宫肌瘤消融术 - 一种利用能量 在避免损伤正

常子宫组织的同时破坏子宫肌瘤组织 的手术方

法。肌瘤不会被切除,但会缩小。

• 子宫肌瘤栓塞术(UFE)或子宫动脉栓塞术

(UAE) - 医生会将一根细管穿入为肌瘤供血的

血管中 ,然后,将 细微的塑料或凝胶颗粒注入血

管。这将阻断子宫肌瘤的血液供应,使其萎缩。

这份 事实说明书介绍由美国食品和药物管理

局(FDA)妇女健康办公室编写。这些信息仅

供教育之用,并非包罗万象,不应 用其取代

您与医疗服务提供者的交流。

要了解有关子宫肌瘤的更多信息,

请访问:

www.fda.gov/uterinefibroids

JUNE 2022

请与医疗服务提供者讨论所有的治

疗方案及其风险和益处。您的医疗

服务提供者可以回答您 提出的所有

问题,并与您一起决定哪种治疗方

法适合您。

子宫肌瘤 (Simplified Chinese)
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Axcess International, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this quarterly report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal controls over financial reporting (as defined Exchange Act
Rules 13-15(f) and 15d-(f)) for the registrant and we have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidating
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report was prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report (the
Evaluation Date); andc)
    
    presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on the required
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and
 6.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly
report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our
most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.
  /s/ ALLAN L. FRANK

Allan L. Frank, Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and Secretary(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
Robert Earl READ, et ux., petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-8572.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

*2797Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 127 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center 

for the unveiling of a statue of Martha Hughes Cannon. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 3, 2024 

Ms. MALOY (for herself, Mr. CURTIS, Mr. MOORE of Utah, and Mr. OWENS) 

submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol 

Visitor Center for the unveiling of a statue of Martha 

Hughes Cannon. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR THE UN4 VEILING OF MARTHA HUGHES CANNON STAT5 UE. 

6 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—Emancipation Hall in the 

7 Capitol Visitor Center is authorized to be used for an 

8 event on December 11, 2024, to unveil a statue of Martha 

9 Hughes Cannon. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 127 IH 

1 (b) PREPARATIONS.—Physical preparations for the 

2 conduct of the event described in subsection (a) shall be 

3 carried out in accordance with such conditions as may be 

4 prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
No. 85-6366.

#### Johnson *v.*Missouri.

Sup. Ct. Mo. Certiorari denied.
1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2832

___________

Sidney Lyles, III, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Columbia Public School District; *

Dr. Phyllis Chase, Superintendent; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Dr. Mary Laffey, Principal; *

Debra Barksdale, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: December 24, 2008

Filed: December 31, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Sidney Lyles appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal with prejudice of his civil

complaint for failure to comply with court orders. After careful review of the record

and the parties’ submissions, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion and we affirm for the reasons stated in its order. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.

We also deny Lyles’s pending motion and petition.

______________________________
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

BRENDA WOODS,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2014-3098

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. AT-0353-12-0684-I-1.

______________________ 

ON MOTION

______________________ 

O R D E R

Brenda Woods moves for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis.

The court notes that this case was dismissed on May 

13, 2014 for failure to pay the fee and for failure to submit 

the Federal Circuit Rule 15(c) statement. The Rule 15(c) 

statement was filed on May 22, 2014. We treat Woods’ 

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis as a motion 

to reinstate the petition. 

Case: 14-3098 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 06/05/2014
2 WOODS v. USPS

Upon consideration thereof,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

 (1) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

is granted.

 (2) The mandate is recalled, the court’s dismissal 

order is vacated, and the petition is reinstated. 

 (3) The United States Postal Service’s informal brief 

is due within 21 days of the date of filing of this order. 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Daniel E. O’Toole 

Clerk of Court

s24

Case: 14-3098 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 06/05/2014
UNITED AIRLINES, INC., petitioner, v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.

No. 12-707.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

Case No. 5D23-2211

LT Case No. 2007-CF-004464

_____________________________ 

VINCENT CROWELL, 

Petitioner, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Respondent. 

_____________________________ 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

A Case of Original Jurisdiction. 

Vincent Crowell, Lawtey, pro se. 

No Appearance for Respondent. 

September 22, 2023 

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Vincent Crowell has filed a “Motion for Manifest 

Injustice” which this Court treats as a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus. In this successive pleading, Crowell has once again failed 

to establish that he is illegally detained or that any manifest 

injustice has occurred. Finding his petition to be unauthorized and 

successive, we dismiss the petition. See Johnson v. Singletary, 647 

So. 2d 106, 109 (Fla. 1994).
2

PETITION DISMISSED.

HARRIS and SOUD, JJ., concur.

MACIVER, J., concurs specially, with opinion.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
3

MACIVER, J., concurring. Case No. 5D23-2211

LT Case No. 2007-CF-4464

I concur in the dismissal of Crowell’s petition as an 

unauthorized successive petition seeking the same relief. I write 

separately to clarify that I do not agree with the district cases that 

have held that State v. Lewars, 259 So. 3d 793 (Fla. 2018), does not 

apply retroactively. 

Relying, perhaps too axiomatically, on Witt v. State, 387 So. 

2d 922 (Fla. 1980), district court opinions have described the 

Lewars holding as an “evolutionary refinement” of the law. See 

Sims v. State, 286 So. 3d 292, 294 (Fla. 4th DCA. 2019); Wilson v. 

State, 279 So. 3d 756, 757 (Fla. 2nd DCA. 2019). To the contrary, 

Lewars did little more than compel a plain reading of a statutory 

provision that had not itself been changed. 

Contrasting the major constitutional changes that would be 

cognizable in post-conviction capital cases, the Supreme Court in 

Witt elaborated on what it meant by “evolutionary refinements.”

In contrast to these jurisprudential upheavals are 

evolutionary refinements in the criminal law, 

affording new or different standards for the 

admissibility of evidence, for procedural fairness, for 

proportionality review of capital cases, and for other 

like matters. Emergent rights in these categories, or 

the retraction of former rights of this genre, do not 

compel an abridgement of the finality of judgments.

Witt, 387 So. 2d at 929. 

A dictate from the Supreme Court to read a statute as 

plainly written is not the same as a court’s expansion or retraction 

of rights under an amorphous, overarching standard and is not 

similar in kind to the other examples alluded to by the Witt court, 

i.e., standards of admissibility, standards of procedural fairness, 

or for proportionality review of capital cases. In short, the law has 

not “evolved,” rather, decisional law that was incompatible with 

the plain text of the statute was recognized as such and dispensed 

with.
Si usas guantes u otros utensilios cuando manejas comidas listas 

para comer, mantendrás a la comida y a tus clientes seguros.

 

✘

 

Evita que la gente se enferme. Usa siempre guantes u otros



utensilios cuando manejes alimentos listos para el comer.
Exhibit32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO and CFO**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of National Property Investors6 (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),Steven D. Cordes, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of thePartnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financialofficer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

Thiscertification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUDITH BADGLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No.17-cv-00877-HSG 

AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

Finding that there is good cause to modify the fact discovery deadline, the Court hereby 

SETS the following schedule pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), Civil Local 

Rule 16-10(b), and the Court’s prior scheduling order, Dkt. No. 39:

Litigation Event Date

Exchange Opening Expert Reports September 8, 2017

Exchange Rebuttal Expert Reports September 29, 2017

Close of Fact and Expert Discovery October 20, 2017

Dispositive Motion Hearing Deadline January 4, 2018, at 2:00 p.m.

Pretrial Conference March 20, 2018, at 3:00 p.m.

Jury Trial (3 days) April 9, 2018, at 8:30 a.m.

The parties are directed to review and comply with the Court’s standing orders.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

 

1

This order TERMINATES the parties’ stipulation with proposed order. See Dkt. No. 40.
Charles FLOYD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D19-823

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 6, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Kevin CHAPPELL, Warden, petitioner, v. Armenia Levi CUDJO, Jr.

No. 12-971.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
FDA

ᎥᏳᎩ ᎠᎭᎷᎩᏍᎩ

ᏱᏓᏛᎾ ᎤᏙᎯᏳᎢ

www.FDA.gov/COVID19vaccines

#FDAVaccineFacts

1 ᎢᎦᏛᏉ ᎥᎿᎢ FDA’s ᎠᏓᎪᎵᏰᏙᏗ ᎥᎿᎢ EUA 

ᎠᏔᏲᎯᎭ ᎾᏍᎩᎾ ᎪᏈᏗ-19 ᎥᏳᎩ

ᎠᎭᎷᎩᏍᎩ ᏧᏠᏯᏍᏗ ᎠᏓᎪᎵᏰᏙᏗ ᎾᏍᎩ

ᎠᏑᏰᏗ ᏧᏓᎴᎲᏓ ᏅᏬᏘ, ᎠᏃᏢᏍᎬᎢ, ᎠᎴ

ᏗᏱᎸᏍᏗ ᎧᏃᎮᏢᎥᏍᎩ ᎾᏍᎩᎾ ᎥᏳᎩ

ᎠᎭᎷᎩᏍᎩ. ᏰᎵᏉᏃ ᎦᏟᏌᏅᎯ ᎠᏎᏗᏃ ᎨᏒ

ᏚᏂᏲᏒᎢ ᎾᎢ ᎪᎯᏳᏙᏓ ᎾᏍᎩ ᎢᏲᏍᏓ ᎠᎴ

ᎤᏠᏱᎭᏊᏃ ᎥᎿᎢ ᎥᏳᎩ ᎠᎭᎷᎩᏍᎩ ᎦᎾᏗᏅᏗ. 

FDA ᎠᏎ ᏛᏅᏔᎾ ᏂᎦᎥ ᎠᏛᏅᎢᏍᏔᏅ

ᏗᎬᏔᏂᏓᏍᏗ ᎠᎴ ᎧᏃᎮᏢᎥᏍᎩ, ᎠᏠᏯᏍᏗ

ᏗᎪᏪᎳᏅᎯ ᏗᎪᎵᏰᏗ, ᎤᏙᏢᏒ ᏗᏩᏛᎯᏓᏍᏗ, 

ᎠᎴ ᏧᏩᎫᏔᏅ ᎠᏍᏓᏩᏛᏍᏗ ᏂᏧᎵᏍᏔᏅᏒᎢ, 

ᎾᎢ ᎬᏴᏍᏙᏗ ᎠᏍᏓᏩᏛᏍᏗ ᎤᏠᏯᏍᏗ

ᎾᏊᏥᎦ ᎣᏍᏓ ᎠᏃᏢᏍᎬᎢ ᎢᏳᎾᏛᏁᏗ.

2 FDA ᎾᏍᎩ ᎬᎾᎨᏒ ᏄᏅᏁᎸᎩ ᎾᏳᎢ ᏚᏂᏃᏗ

2020 ᎠᏓᏘᏁᎩ ᎤᏠᏯᏍᏔᏅ ᎤᏟᏍᏓ

ᎢᎦᎵᏍᏗᏍᎩ ᎬᏙᏗ ᎠᏓᎵᏍᎪᎸᏓᏁᎯ ᎾᏍᎩᎾ

ᎥᏳᎩ ᏗᎭᎷᎩᏍᎩ ᎾᎾᎢ ᎠᏲᎯᏍᏙᏗ ᎪᏈᏗ19, ᎥᏍᎩᎾᎢ, ᎾᏍᎩᎾ ᎪᏈᏗ-19 ᎥᏳᎩ

ᎠᎭᎷᎩᏍᎩ ᎾᏍᎩᎾ ᎦᏙᎤᏍᏗ ᎥᏍᎩ ᎡᎵᎢᎦ

ᎠᏃᏢᏍᎬᎢ ᎧᏃᎮᏢᎥᏍᎩ ᎾᎾᎢ ᎪᎯᏳᏙᏓ

ᎾᏍᎩ ᎢᏲᏍᏓ ᎠᎴ ᎤᏠᏱᎭᏊᏃ,

ᎠᏓᏯᏍᏓᏁᏗ ᎥᎿᎢ EUA ᎠᏎ ᎤᏓᎯᏕᏗ

ᏧᏄᎪᏔᏅᎩ ᎬᏗ FDA ᎥᏍᎩᎾᎢ ᎥᏳᎩ

ᏗᎭᎷᎩᏍᎩ

ᏧᎾᎵᏍᏕᎸᏙᏗ ᎤᎵᏍᎨᏗᏴ ᎾᏍᎩ ᏗᎦᎾᏰᎩ

ᏓᎳᏏᏔᏅᎩ ᎤᎾᎢ ᎦᏟᏌᏅᎯ ᏂᏓᏳᏓᎴᏅ

ᎤᏍᏗᎩᏳ ᎨᏒ ᏌᏊ ᎣᏍᏳ-ᎪᏢᏅᎯ

ᎦᎶᎯᏍᏗ 3 ᏅᏍᏩᏯᏍᏗ ᏴᏫ

ᎨᏥᎪᎵᏰᏍᎬᎢ ᎥᏍᎩᎾᎢ ᎥᏳᎩ ᏗᎭᎷᎩᏍᎩ

ᏗᎳᏏᏔᏅᎢ ᏄᎾᏰᎯᏍᏛᎾ ᎠᎴ ᎢᏳᎵᏍᏙᏗ

ᏂᎦᎵᏍᏗᏍᎬᎩ ᎾᎿᎢ ᎬᎾᎨᏒ ᎠᎴ

ᎤᏙᎯᏳᎯᏯ ᏄᏍᏛᎢ.

ᎾᏍᎩᏃ ᎠᏍᏓᏩᏛᏍᏗ ᎾᏍᎩᎾ ᎪᏈᏗ-19 ᎥᏳᎩ ᎠᎭᎷᎩᏍᎩ

ᏂᏓᏳᏓᎴᏅ ᎠᎦᏙᎲᏒᎩ ᎾᎢ ᎠᏓᎵᏍᎪᎸᏓᏁᎯ ᎬᏙᏗ ᎤᏟᏍᏓ

ᎢᎦᎵᏍᏗᏍᎩ

ᎾᏍᎩ ᎥᏳᎩ ᎠᎭᎷᎩᏍᎩ ᎪᏢᎥᏍᎩ ᏚᏂᎪᎵᏰᎥᎩ

ᎠᎦᏛᏙᏗ ᎧᏅᏑᎸᎢ ᎠᎦᏙᎲᏒᎩ ᎾᎢ ᎤᏃᏢᏅᎩ

Ꮎ ᎥᏳᎩ ᎠᎭᎷᎩᏍᎩ ᎠᏓᎪᎾᏙᏓ.

ᎾᏍᎩᏃ ᎪᏢᎥᏍᎩ ᏕᎦᏟᏏᏍᎪ ᎾᏍᎩ ᏂᏚᎵᏍᏔᏅ

ᎥᎿᎢ ᎠᎦᏛᏙᏗ ᎧᏅᏑᎸᎢ ᎠᎦᏙᎲᏒᎩ ᎠᎴ

ᎤᏂᎦᏛᎲᏍᎬ ᎾᎿ ᏅᎩ ᏗᏂᏅᏌᏓ ᎠᎴ ᎧᏃᎮᏢᎥᏍᎩ

ᎾᏍᎩ ᎢᏳᏍᏗ ᎠᏃᏢᏍᎬᎢ ᎢᏤ ᎠᎦᏙᎲᏒᎩ ᎠᎴ

ᎾᏍᎩ ᎢᏲᏍᏓ ᎨᏒᎢ ᎥᏳᎩ ᎠᎭᎷᎩᏍᎩ ᎠᎴ ᎠᏎ

ᏫᏓᏲᎯᏍᏗ ᎠᎦᏛᏂᏙᎸᎩ ᎢᏤ ᎠᎩᏍᏗ ᎤᏴᏍᏗ

(IND) ᎠᏔᏲᏍᏙᏗ ᎪᏪᎵ ᎾᎾᎢ FDA ᎤᏓᎷᎸ

ᎠᏓᎴᏂᏍᎬᎢ ᏴᏫ ᏅᏍᏩᏯᏍᏗ ᎠᏂᏴᏫ

ᏕᎨᏥᎪᎵᏰᏍᎬᎢ ᎥᏝ ᎠᎵᏍᎪᎸᏔᏅ ᏂᎨᏒᎾ ᎠᏱᎸᏍᏗᎢ

ᎾᏍᎩ ᎤᏓᎷᎸ ᎪᏪᎵ ᎪᏪᎳᏅᎯ ᎠᎵᏍᎪᎸᏗᏍᎩ

ᏅᏍᏩᏯᏍᏗ ᏄᏠᏯᏍᏛᎾ ᏱᎩ FDA ᏂᏓᏳᏓᎴᏅᎯ. ᎠᏂᏴᏫ ᏕᎨᏥᎪᎵᏰᏍᎬᎢ ᎨᎢᎢ

ᎤᏂᎪᎵᏰᎥᎩ ᎾᏍᎩ ᎦᏟᏌᏅᎯ ᎤᏂᏱᎸᏒᎩ

ᎾᏍᎩᎾᎢ ᏄᎾᏰᎯᏍᏛᎾ ᎠᎴ ᎢᏳᎵᏍᏙᏗ ᎨᎡᎢ

ᎾᏍᎩ ᎥᏳᎩ ᎠᎭᎷᎩᏍᎩ. Ꮎ ᎦᏟᏌᏅᎯ ᏄᎾᏰᎯᏍᏛᎾ ᎤᎾᎦᏎᏍᏓ

ᎤᎾᏓᏡᎬᎢ ᏗᏂᎪᎵᏰᏍᎩ ᎦᏟᏌᏅᎯ ᎾᏍᎩᎾ

ᎦᎶᎯᏍᏗ 3 ᏅᏍᏩᏯᏍᏗ ᏴᏫ ᎨᏥᎪᎵᏰᏍᎬᎢ ᎠᎴ

ᏗᏓᏕᏲᏗ ᎾᏍᎩ ᎥᏳᎩ ᎠᎭᎷᎩᏍᎩ ᎪᏢᎥᏍᎩ

ᎤᎬᏩᏢᎢ ᎢᏳᏃ ᏗᎫᎪᏙᏗ ᎾᏍᎩᎾ ᎤᏓᎷᎸᎧᏁᏍᏗ ᏅᏍᎶᏯᏍᏗ ᏭᎵᏍᏆᏛ ᏩᏎᎯᎯ, 

ᏥᏄᏍᏗᏋ ᎧᏃᎮᎸᎯ ᎠᎴ ᎣᏏ ᎠᏰᎸᏗ ᎾᎿᎢ ᎠᏱᎸᏛ

ᎤᏠᏯᏍᏗ FDA, ᎾᏍᎩ ᏂᎦᎵᏍᏓ ᎾᏍᎩᎾ

ᎤᎾᏙᏢᏒ ᎤᎾᏤᎵ ᎪᏈᏗ-19 ᎥᏳᎩ ᎠᎭᎷᎩᏍᎩ. ᏓᏂᎪᎵᏰᏍᎬ ᎦᏟᏌᏅᎯ ᎾᎢ ᏧᏄᎪᏙᏗ

ᎢᏳᏃ ᎾᏍᎩ ᏚᎾᏙᏢᏒ ᎠᏂᏏᎾᏍᏏ ᎠᏂᎦᏔᎿᎢ ᎠᎴ

ᎤᏦᏍᏗ ᏂᎬᎿᏅ ᏗᏂᏏᎾᏍᏛ ᎤᏃᎯᏳᏒ ᎥᏍᎩᎾᎢ

ᎥᏳᎩ ᎠᎭᎷᎩᏍᎩ ᏗᏙᎵᎩ ᎨᏒᎢ FDA’s

ᏚᏍᏓᏅᏃᏛᎢ ᎤᏚᎩ ᎤᏅᏒ ᎾᏍᎩᎾ

ᏄᎾᏰᎯᏍᏛᎾ ᎠᎴ ᎢᏳᎵᏍᏙᏗ ᎨᎡᎢ ᎾᏍᎩ ᎤᎾᎦᏌᏯᏍᏔᏅᎯ ᎦᏬᎯᎵᏴᏓ

ᏂᏓᏳᏓᎴᏅᎯ FDA, Ꮎ ᎤᎾᏙᏢᏒ ᏧᏄᎪᏙᏗ ᎢᏳᏃ

ᎠᎴ ᎿᏉ ᏗᏲᎯᏍᏗ ᎾᏍᎩ ᎠᏔᏲᎯᎭ ᎾᏍᎩᎾ

ᎤᏟᏍᏓ ᎢᎦᎵᏍᏗᏍᎩ ᎬᏙᏗ ᎠᎵᏍᎪᎸᏗᏍᎩ

ᎾᏳᏃ ᏚᏂᏲᏒᎢ (EUA) ᎾᎾᎢ FDA. , ᏄᎾᏛᏁᎵᏙᎸ ᎠᏂᏏᎾᏍᏏ

ᎠᏂᎦᏔᎿᎢ ᎠᎴ ᏗᏓᏅᏫᏍᎩ ᎾᎿᎢ FDA’s ᎠᏰᏟ

ᎾᏍᎩᎾ ᎬᏃᏗ ᏄᏍᏛ ᎠᏓᎪᎵᏰᏙᏗ ᎠᎴ

ᎠᎦᏙᎲᏒᎩ (CBER) ᎠᏎ ᏛᏂᎪᎵᏰᎢ ᎾᏍᎩ EUA 

ᎠᏔᏲᏍᏗ ᎾᏍᎩ ᎠᎦᏎᏍᏔᏅᎢ ᎥᏍᎩ

ᎦᏟᏌᏃᏅᎯ ᎥᎿᎢ ᎠᏏᎾᏍᏛ ᎤᏃᎯᏴᏔᏅᎢ

ᏄᏰᎵᏛ ᎾᏍᎩ ᎥᏳᎩ ᎠᎭᎷᎩᏍᎩ ᎥᏍᎩᎾᎢ

ᎠᏛᏅᎢᏍᏔᏅ ᎾᎢ FDA.1 FDA ᏕᎦᏟᏏᏍᎢ ᎠᏰᎵ ᏧᎾᏠᎯᏍᏗᎢ ᎾᏍᎩᎾᎢ ᎥᏳᎩ

ᏗᎭᎷᎩᏍᎩ ᎠᎴ ᏗᎵᎪᏙᏗ ᎬᏃᏓ ᏄᏍᏗᏓᏅ

ᎠᎦᏎᏍᏔᏅᎩ ᏗᏃᏢᏍᎩ ᎠᎾᏓᏕᏲᎲᏍᎩ ᎠᏂᎧᎻᏗ

(VRBPAC) ᎾᎢ ᏗᎪᏏᏐᏗ ᎾᏍᎩ ᎦᏟᏌᏅᎯ ᏓᏳᏓᎴᏅᎯ

ᏅᏍᏩᏯᏍᏗ ᎠᏂᏴᏫ ᏕᎨᏥᎪᎵᏰᏍᎬᎢ.

ᎾᏍᎩᏃ ᏓᎾᏠᏐᏅ ᎠᎾᏓᏕᏲᎲᏍᎩ ᎠᏂᎧᎻᏗ, 

CBER’s ᏄᎾᏛᏁᎵᏙᎸ ᏫᏓᏤᏢ ᎢᏯᎾᏛᏁᎯ

ᏧᏂᎸᏫᏍᏓᏁᎯ ᎠᏎ ᎤᎾᏓᏅᏖᏗ ᎾᏍᎩ

ᎦᏬᎯᎵᏴᏓ ᎥᎿᎢ ᎠᎾᏓᏕᏲᎲᏍᎩ ᎠᏂᎧᎻᏗ ᏓᏁᎸᎩ

ᎠᎴ ᏂᎬᎵᏱᎵᏒ ᎤᏂᎲ ᎠᏓᎪᎵᏰᏙᏗ ᎾᎢ ᏧᏬᎪᏙᏗ

ᎢᏳᏃ ᎠᏛᏅᎢᏍᏔᏅ ᏄᎾᏰᎯᏍᏛᎾ, 

ᎢᏳᎵᏍᏙᏗ ᎨᎡᎢ, ᎠᎴ ᎠᏃᏢᏍᎬᎢ ᎦᏟᏌᏅᎯ

ᎠᏍᏕᎸᏗ ᎠᎵᏍᎪᎸᏗᏍᎩ ᎾᏍᎩᎾ ᎬᏗᏍᎩ

ᏗᎪᏍᎩ ᎪᏈᏗ-19 ᎥᏳᎩ ᎠᎭᎷᎩᏍᎩ ᎾᎿᎢ U.S.

ᎢᏳᏃ FDA ᏱᏚᏅᎪᏔᎾ ᎥᏍᎩᎾᎢ ᏗᎫᎪᏙᏗ ᎾᏍᎩᎾ

EUA ᎾᏍᎩ ᏅᎵᏍᏔᏅᎩ, ᎤᏠᏯᏍᏗ ᎥᏍᎩᎾ

ᏳᎵᏍᏙᏗ ᎠᎴ ᏱᎬᏩᎵᏍᏙᏗ ᏧᎾᎵᏍᏕᎸᏙᏗ

ᎤᎵᏍᎨᏗᏴ ᎾᏍᎩ ᏳᎵᏍᏙᏗ ᎠᎴ ᏱᎬᏩᎵᏍᏙᏗ

ᏗᎦᎾᏰᎩ ᎾᏍᎩ ᎥᏳᎩ ᎠᎭᎷᎩᏍᎩ ᎠᎴ ᎥᏍᎩᎾᎢ

ᎠᏃᏢᏍᎬᎢ ᎧᏃᎮᏢᎥᏍᎩ ᎾᏍᎩ ᎡᎵᏆ ᎢᎦᎢ ᎪᎯᏳᏙᏓ

ᎾᏍᎩ ᎢᏲᏍᏓ ᎨᏒᎢ ᎠᎴ ᎤᏠᏱᎭᏊᏃ, FDA ᎡᎵᏊ

ᏯᎵᏍᎪᎸᏓ ᎾᏍᎩ ᎥᏳᎩ ᎠᎭᎷᎩᏍᎩ ᎾᏍᎩᎾ

ᎤᏟᏍᏓ ᎢᎦᎵᏍᏗᏍᎩ ᎬᏙᏗ. 2

FDA ᏗᏓᏃᎯᏎᎭ ᎾᏍᎩ ᎤᎾᎵᎪᏒᎢ ᎥᏍᎩᎾᎢ

EUA ᎤᎵᏍᎪᎸᏔᏅᎯ ᏂᎦᎵᏍᏓ.

FDA

ᎥᏳᎩ ᎠᎭᎷᎩᏍᎩ

ᏱᏓᏛᎾ ᎤᏙᎯᏳᎢ
Shimon WOLKOWICKI, et al., Appellants, v. In re: FLORIDA COMMUNITY BANK, N.A., etc., v. Water Place Group, LLC, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 3D18-1498

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT
12








STATEMENT
REGARDING COMPUTATION OF RATIOS








FIRST
GUARANTY BANCSHARES, INC.





Return on average
assets has been computed by dividing net income for each period presented
by average total assets for the respective period.





Return on average
equity has been computed by dividing net income for each period presented
by average Stockholders’ equity for the respective period.





Dividend
payout has been computed by dividing the cash dividends paid per share of
common stock by net income per share for the respective period.





Leverage ratiois a ratio of equity to assets, defined as period end Tier I capital as a
percent of average assets for the recent quarter adjusted for core deposit
intangible and unrealized gain and losses on securities available for
sale.





Book Value per
common shareis common shareholders equity divided by common shares
outstanding.





Efficiency ratiois computed by dividing noninterest expense by taxable equivalent net
interest income plus noninterest income, excluding securities gains (losses);
this ratio measures the cost to generate revenue.
Joseph LOMBARDO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-7394.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARGARET WARD, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE COUNTY OF MENDOCINO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00911-PJH 

ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 145

On March 29, 2019, defendant Marvin Trotter, M.D. filed a proposed order (without 

an accompanying motion) that would enter judgment in this action. Dkt. 145. The court 

declines to enter that order.

If a party wishes to have judgment entered in this action with respect to fewer than 

all claims or all parties, the party’s motion for such judgment must satisfy the stricter

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Rule 54(b) requires the court to 

“expressly determine[] that there is no just reason for delay” prior to entering final 

judgment “as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2019

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN H. TODD,

Plaintiff

- A ppellant,

v.

GALE A. Mc MAH O N; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 16

- 36022

D.C. No. 1:15

- cv

- 01091

- MC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 26, 2017 **

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

John H. Todd appeals pro se from the distri ct court’s summary judgment in

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from the

seizure of neglected cats pursuant to a search warrant

. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

. United States v. Luk

, 859 F.2d 667, 670

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 3 4(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 6 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 36022

( 9th Cir. 1988). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Gordon v.

Virtumundo, Inc ., 575 F .3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

S ummary judgment on Todd’s Fourth Amendment claim was proper

because Todd failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether

defendant McMahon was not authorized to obtain the warrant

. See Or. Rev. Stat.

§ 167.345(2) (“ [A] peace officer, after obtaining a search warrant

. . . may enter the

premises or motor vehicle where the ani mal is located to provide the animal with

food, water and emergency medical treat ment and may impound th e animal

. ”); Or.

Rev. Stat. § 161.015 (defining a “ [ p ] eace officer” as a membe r of the Oregon State

Police, sheriff, or reserve officer); Or. Rev. Stat. § 204.635 (providing that sheriff

ma y appoint deputies and may also by special written appointment authorize any

other person to do any particular ac t).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by deny ing Todd’s motions for

sanctions and to strike because Todd failed to establish grounds for relief. See

Dunn v. Trans World Airlines, Inc ., 589 F.2d 408, 415 (9th Cir. 1978) (“The

sanctions available to a trial judge under [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] are

discreti onary and the imposition of such sanctions will not be reversed unless there

has been an abuse of discretion.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) ).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit A

Case 5:17-cv-00603-EJD Document 1-3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 32