alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Children's Nutrition Research Center: Houston, TX
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




The**Children's Nutrition Research Center**was established in 1978 through the cooperation of the USDA, ARS; Baylor College of Medicine; and Texas Children's Hospitaland is located in the Texas Medical Center.
 At the **Children's Nutrition Research Center** in Houston, Texas, ARS physiologist and professor of pediatrics Doug Burrin (left) and associate professor of pediatrics Darryl Hadsell examine a microscope image of pancreatic beta cells obtained from piglets fed by total parenteral nutrition.
 Experimental Website Helps Teens Eat More Veggies - Smart and sometimes funny cartoon characters in *Teen Choice: Food and Fitness* videos may help real-life teens eat more veggies, according to an ARS-funded study. Image courtesy of Archimage Inc., Houston, Texas.


Mission


Publications
                            More... Lac-Phe mediates the effects of metformin on food intake and body weight Designing stories to make children move: Some psycho-behavioral theoretical insights Disruption of the Arabidopsis Acyl-Activating Enzyme 3 impairs seed coat mucilage accumulation and seed germination


Plains Area   doug.burrin@ars.usda.gov


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Exhibit 10.1   Lock-up Agreement


November 10, 2008

Tone and Twenty
4301 S. Valley View Ave., Suite 20
Las Vegas, NV 89103

Re:  Stock Lock-up Agreement

Gentlemen:

The undersigned, San Nicholas, Inc., a Nevada corporation, is the record
owner of 500,000 shares of the preferred stock of Tone and Twenty, a Nevada
corporation, par value $0.001 per share, which can be converted to
100,000,000 common shares of Tone and Twenty.

This lock up agreement adds a level of protection to the investors of Tone in
Twenty, a Nevada corporation.  Therefore, for the benefit of Tone and Twenty,
and its investors, San Nicholas, Inc. has agreed lock-up their entire Tone and
Twenty stock holdings as follows:

1.  San Nicholas, Inc. shall not convert more than two thousand five hundred
(2,500) of its preferred stock into common stock each consecutive twelve (12)
months for the next three (3) years.  This conversion would equate to a
conversion of no more than 500,000 common shares each year for the next three
years.  This restriction applies to the entire holdings (preferred and common
stock) of Tone in Twenty held by San Nicholas, Inc.
be converted to more than ten percent (10%) of the total outstanding common
stock, the lock-up of their unconverted preferred shares applies.

3.  San Nicholas, Inc., acknowledges that Integrity Stock Transfer, 3027 E.
Sunset Road, Suite 103, Las Vegas, NV 89120 the transfer agent for Tone in
Twenty, has been advised of the restrictions described herein and that any
attempts by the undersigned to violate said restriction may result in legal
action(s) by Tone in Twenty.

THIS LOCK-UP AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE CONFLICT OF LAWS

2.  No additional conversion can take place until San Nicholas, Inc. preferred
shares represent a converted common stock ownership in Tone and Twenty of no
more than ten percent (10%) of the total outstanding common shares in Tone in
Twenty.  In other words, as long as San Nicholas, Inc. owns more than ten
percent (10%) of the total outstanding common stock or preferred stock that
can PRINCIPLES THEREOF.

Very truly yours,

San Nicholas, Inc.

/s/ Evagelina Esparza Barrza
------------------------------
    Evagelina Esparza Barrza
    President

cc: Integrity Stock Transfer
1 – ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MERCY MEDICAL CENTER,

No. 3:15-cv-00699-PK

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v. 

 

OREGON NURSES ASSOCIATION,

 Defendant.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Papak issued a Findings and Recommendation [31] on December 29, 

2015, recommending that this Court grant Defendant Oregon Nurses Association’s (“ONA”)

Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff Mercy Medical Center timely filed objections [36] to 

the Findings & Recommendation. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

When a party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & 

Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the 

Case 3:15-cv-00699-PK Document 42 Filed 04/22/16 Page 1 of 3
2 – ORDER

Magistrate Judge’s report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th 

Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

I have carefully considered Plaintiff Mercy Medical Center’s (“MMC”) objections and 

conclude there is no basis to modify Judge Papak’s Recommendation to grant summary 

judgment in favor of ONA.

However, the Court notes an error in Judge Papak’s description of the facts of this case, 

and offers the following clarification. Judge Papak wrote that Nancy Sheiner, the individual 

whose conduct and termination form the factual basis of this dispute, “accessed a co-worker’s 

[Protected Health Information (“PHI”)] in violation of the Minimum Necessary Rule” of the 

parties’ collective bargaining agreement. Findings & Recommendation, ECF No. 31, at 2. 

Sheiner actually accessed the PHI of a patient who had been assigned to one of Sheiner’s coworkers. Compl. at 11, ECF No. 1; Pl.’s Obj. at 3 n.2, ECF No. 36 (noting the parties agree that 

Sheiner accessed a patient’s, not a co-worker’s, PHI) . Because Sheiner’s actions fell short of the 

Arbitrator’s interpretation of what constitutes a “serious breach,” this factored into the 

Arbitrator’s decision to award Sheiner’s reinstatement with a final written warning. Compl. at 

28–29, 40; Findings & Recommendation at 3. 

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:15-cv-00699-PK Document 42 Filed 04/22/16 Page 2 of 3
3 – ORDER

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak’s Findings & Recommendation [31]. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [19] is denied, Defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment [17] is granted, and Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this ____________ day of ______________________________ , 2016.

______________________________________ 

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00699-PK Document 42 Filed 04/22/16 Page 3 of 3
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James A. Maskal, Jr., Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 913]

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J. Murphy, III, J), rendered May 27, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted disseminating indecent material to minors in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted disseminating indecent *1678material to minors in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 235.22). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal *(see generally People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and that valid waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence *(see id.*at 255; *see generally People v Lococo,*92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; *People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Carni, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 160 (Monday, August 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 47162]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17941]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permit Modification Received Under the Antarctic 
Conservation Act of 1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permit modification request received and permit 
issued.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a 
notice of requests to modify permits issued to conduct activities 
regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the 
required notice of a requested permit modification and permit issued.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Polly Penhale, ACA Permit Officer, 
Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower 
Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; 703-292-7420; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ecfcdcffeebfce3e7fafdcee0fde8a0e9e1f8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1a5b595b6a7f6877736e695a74697c347d756c">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Science Foundation (NSF), as 
directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541, 45 
CFR 670 as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation 
Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a 
permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of 
certain animals and certain geographic areas a requiring special 
protection.
    Description of Permit Modification Requested: The Foundation issued 
a permit (ACA 2017-021) to Leidos Innovations Group on October 30, 
2016. The issued permit allows the applicant entry into 8 Antarctic 
Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs) in the McMurdo/Ross Sea region of 
Antarctica. Entry into the specially protected areas is permitted to 
support the research and logistic objectives of the United States 
Antarctic Program.
    The applicant requests a permit modification to extend the 
expiration date of the permit until January 31, 2023.
    The Environmental Officer has reviewed the modification request and 
has determined that the amendment is not a material change to the 
permit, and it will have a less than a minor or transitory impact.
    Dates: October 30, 2016-January 31, 2023.
    The permit modification was issued on August 17, 2021.

Erika N. Davis,
Program Specialist, Office of Polar Programs.
[FR Doc. 2021-17941 Filed 8-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

RUBY REED, Special Administrator of )
the Estate of J. C. Reed, Deceased, y
)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) No. 01 C 7865

)

CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal )
corporation, et al., )
)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Defendants Edwards Medical Supply, Inc. (Edwards), Cypress Medical Products, Ltd.
and Cypress Medical Products, Inc. (collectively “Cypress”), move for summary judgment.
That judgment is granted.

A major continuing issue in this case is who sold to the City of Chicago the isolation
gown J. C. Reed used to hang himself. Edwards and Cypress insist it was not them and
plaintiff has not presented enough evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that
they are wrong.

An earlier summary judgment motion was denied because an answer by the City
indicated that the gown came from these defendants. A subsequent deposition disclosed that
the City really did not know; its answer was an assumption based on the fact that these
defendants were the current suppliers at the time of the incident.

So, what do we know? We know that the gown had a label indicating it was
manufactured in Thailand. An affiant and witness for these defendants has represented that

their gowns did not have individual labels and that they were purchased from companies with


No. O1 C 7865 Page 2

manufacturing facilities in China and Taiwan. Plaintiff has not come up with any gowns
clearly attributable to these defendants that have individual labels, much less any such gowns
indicating they were manufactured in Thailand. Rather, she relies on the supposition that
these defendants have not excluded the possibility that the Chinese or Taiwanese companies
may have outsourced orders to Thailand. Of course, such outsourcing is a possibility, although
it is highly unlikely that an Asian manufacturer would choose to have a product it is capable
of manufacturing made by a concern in another country. But it is up to the plaintiff to prove
the source of the gowns, and its supposition is at best a speculation insufficient to permit a
reasonable jury to conclude that these defendants were in the chain of distribution of the

isolation gown worn by the deceased.

@. Yora_.

JAMES B. MORAN

enior Judge, U. S. District Court
( } . pF _, 2005.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of ATS Medical, Inc. of our report dated January 25, 2002, included in the 2001
Annual Report to Shareholders of ATS Medical, Inc.

Our audit also included the financial statement schedule of ATS Medical, Inc.
listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In
our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered
in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly
in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 No. 333-55154 pertaining to the ATS Medical, Inc. 2000 Stock
Incentive Plan, Form S-8 No. 333-49985 pertaining to the 1998 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, Form S-8 Nos. 33-44940 and 333-49985 pertaining to the 1987 Stock
Option and Stock Award Plan of ATS Medical, Inc. (formerly Helix BioCore, Inc.),
Form S-3 No. 333-43360 pertaining to the registration of 2,727,273 shares of ATS
Medical, Inc. common stock, and Form S-3 No. 333-39288 pertaining to the
registration of 1,100,000 shares of ATS Medical, Inc. common stock, of our
report dated January 25, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in the
preceding paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule included in
the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of ATS Medical, Inc.


                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 22, 2002


                                       24
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAURICE WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

A. AYON, Correctional Officer, sued in

their individual capacity; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 56078

D.C. No. 2:16

- cv

- 09113

- JVS

MRW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 11, 2019 *

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Maurice Washington , a California state prisoner, appeal s pro se from the

district court’ s summary judgment for fail ure to exhaust administrative remedies in

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment claims. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U. S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Albino v. Baca , 747

* This disposition is not approp riate 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. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 18 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 56078

F.3d 1162, 1168 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc). W e affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Washington

failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and failed to raise a genuine dispute of

material fact as to whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable to

him. See Woodford v . Ngo , 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (the Prison Litigation Reform

Act requires “proper exhaustion

. . . which means using all steps that the agency

holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency add resses the issues on the

merits) ” (citation and in ternal q uotation marks omitted) ) ; see also Ross v. Blake

,

136 S. Ct. 1850, 1858

- 60 (2016) (setting forth circumstances when administrative

remedies are unavailable)

.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Washington’s request for appointment of counsel, set forth in the opening

brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.
.... 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

DEAN SCHMIDT, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SUMMIT FUNDING, INC., a 

California corporation; 

and DAVID KAMMERER, 

Defendants. 

COFFIN, Magistrate Judge: 

Civil No. 6:15-CV-0640-TC 

Findings and Recommendation 

The parities have stipulated to the dismissal of the only federal 

claim in this action. 

This court should exercise its discretion and decline to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim as all 

federal claims have been dismissed and such action is appropriate in 

the circumstances of this case. See 28 U.S.C §1367 (c) (3); Acri v. 

Varian Associates, Inc., 114 F .3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) ("The 

Supreme Court has stated, and we have often repeated, that 'in the 

usual case in which all federal- law claims are eliminated before 

Case 6:15-cv-00640-TC Document 76 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 2
-· 

trial, the balance of factors will point towards declining to 

exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims'" (citation 

omitted)) This court has not invested its judicial energies as 

to the state claim to such an extent that would justify retaining 

jurisdiction. Nor is it apparent that judicial economy would be 

served by retaining jurisdiction over this case. Although it might 

be more convenient for the parties if the court retained jurisdiction, 

fairness and comity would be served by declining jurisdiction. 

CONCLUSION 

The court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 

over the remaining state claim in this action. As such, this action 

should be remanded to the Circuit Court for the County of Lane. 

DATED this 

LC)+--

- day of January, 2017. 

2 - Findings & Recommendation 

THOMAS 

United Judge 

Case 6:15-cv-00640-TC Document 76 Filed 01/10/17 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       8,216,722
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,056,476
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (266,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,322,258
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,765,258
<PP&E>                                      16,919,518
<DEPRECIATION>                             (8,140,279)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              37,689,317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       27,280,854
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        302
<COMMON>                                        85,386
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,995,499
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                37,689,317
<SALES>                                     24,907,016
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,907,016
<CGS>                                       24,793,108
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,793,108
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,019
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                112,889
<INCOME-TAX>                                    71,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             41,389
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    41,389
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 25, 2011 

h0418 

Order 

 

April 25, 2011 

142060 

DEBRA PATE, JEFFREY PATE, 

PAUL ANDERSON, TANYA THOMAS, 

Individually, and as next friend for her minor 

children, JAKOB HEFFNER, CALEB 

HEFFNER, MICHAEL THOMAS, JAMIE 

ANDERSON, individually, and as next friend 

for her minor children, KIANNA CAIN and 

RIMICK CAIN, and BRIAN HORD 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v SC: 142060 

 COA: 297273 

Dickinson CC: 09-015862-NH 

ALEXANDER S. JUDY, M.D., and 

MARQUETTE GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC., 

d/b/a/ MARQUETTE MEDICAL CLINIC, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 23, 2010 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should now be reviewed by this Court.