alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 - ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

DAVID HODGES, No. 6:15-cv-00521-AC

Plaintiff, ORDER

 

v. 

 

CORIZON HEALTH, INC.; ANDREW 

GRASLEY, MD; CHERYL CALCAGNO,

FNP; and TRANG TRAN, RN;

 Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation [146] on April 25, 

2018, in which he recommends that this Court deny Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 

[65] based on the timeliness of Plaintiff’s claims. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Defendants filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & 

Recommendation. Defs. Obj., ECF 148. When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate 

Judge's Findings & Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of 
2 - ORDER

that portion of the 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).

In their objections, Defendants argue that Judge Acosta erred in finding that the 

continuing violation doctrine applies to Plaintiff’s claims. Specifically, they argue that Judge 

Acosta applied the incorrect standard for the continuing violation doctrine in his analysis. 

Regardless, however, of whether the standard described in National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 117 (2002), or the “related acts” theory applies to this 

case, the Court finds that the analysis of the timeliness of Plaintiff’s claims of deliberate

indifference is sound. 

The Court has carefully considered the rest of Defendants’ objections and concludes there 

is no basis to modify the Findings & Recommendation. The Court has also reviewed the 

pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & 

Recommendation. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta’s Findings and Recommendation [146]. 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [65] based on the timeliness of Plaintiff’s claims is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this ________________ day of ____________, 2018.

____________________________________________________

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           86766
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 86766
<PP&E>                                           31032
<DEPRECIATION>                                   31032
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   86766
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             6000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                       80754
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     86766
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  4438
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    37080
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (32642)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (120)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (32522)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (32522)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

LAURA D. GIFFIN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

MOSMAN,J., 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

EUGENE DIVISION 

No. 6:15-cv-00800-PK 

OPINION AND ORDER 

On May 16, 2016, Magistrate Judge Papak issued his Findings and Recommendation 

(F&R) [15], recommending that the Commissioner's final decision should be AFFIRMED. No 

objections to the Findings and Recommendation were filed. 

DISCUSSION 

The magistrate judge makes only reconunendations to the comi, to which any pmiy may 

file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, 

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 

make a de nova determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or 

recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). However, the court 

is not required to review, de nova or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 

the magistrate judge as to those po1iions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-00800-PK Document 17 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 2
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R 

depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, 

or modify any pa1t of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). 

Upon review, I agree with Judge Papak's recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [15) 

as my own opinion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

11.. J'v...-

DATED this L~ay of~""'),016. 

Chief United States District Judge 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:15-cv-00800-PK Document 17 Filed 06/07/16 Page 2 of 2
1 – JUDGMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JUSTIN MICHAEL WILKENS, 

Plaintiff, No. 6:14-cv-00907-MC

v. JUDGMENT

ROBERT WAYNE EDWARDS, in his 

individual capacity, THE STATE OF

OREGON, 

Defendants. 

_____________________________ 

MCSHANE, Judge:

Based on the jury’s verdict, judgment in the amount of $19,749.05 in economic damages, 

$100,000.00 in noneconomic damages, and $50,000.00 in punitive damages in favor of Justin 

Wilkens against Robert Edwards, arising from Justin Wilkens’s excessive force claim. Judgment 

in the amount of $11,420.57 in economic damages in favor of Justin Wilkens against the State of 

Oregon, arising from Justin Wilkens’s negligence claim. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this _19th day of January, 2016. 

_ _______________________ 

 Michael J. McShane

United States District Judge

s/ Michael J. McShane

Case 6:14-cv-00907-MC Document 133 Filed 01/19/16 Page 1 of 1
FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT





This First
Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of February 1, 2018,
by and between Rocky Mountain High Brands, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and Michael Welch (the “Executive”),
is made effective as of this 11th day of May, 2020 (the “Amendment Effective Date”).


For good and
valuable consideration, including the covenants and agreements contained in this Amendment, and intending to continue to be bound
by the Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, the parties hereby agree as follows:


1.                 
Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.


 


2.                 
Section 2.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended such that that the Executive’s position with the Company will be Chief
Operating Officer and Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors commencing on the date of this Amendment and continuing
through the remainder of the Employment Term.


 


3.                 
All other terms and conditions under the Agreement not otherwise amended, modified or affected by this Amendment shall continue
to be in effect and bind the parties. The Agreement and this Amendment may only be modified with prior written agreement from both
parties.


 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment effective as of the Amendment Effective Date.


Company:


Rocky Mountain High Brands, Inc.


 


By: /s/ David Seeberger


David Seeberger, CEO and General
Counsel


 


Executive:


 


By: /s/ Michael Welch


Michael Welch
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
 Commodity Protection and Quality Research: Parlier, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Units
                        San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Sciences Center
                                    Crop Diseases, Pests and Genetics Research
                                    Water Management Research
                                    National Arid Land Plant Genetic RepositorySearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Parlier, California San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Sciences Center Commodity Protection and Quality Research People & Locations







Esther  Fernandez
                        Commodity Protection and Quality Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Technician
                        Phone: (559) 596-2768
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


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
#### PEOPLE, Respondent, v. NELSON, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.

December 3, 1895.)

Action by (he people against George Nelson.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TOMAS GUTIERREZ

,

Appellant

,

v.

MARY JANE RIOS

,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 9

- 00 0 85

- C V

Appeal from the

143 rd District Court

of Reeves County, Texas

(TC# 17

- 05

- 21962

- CVR )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third m otion for extension of time within which to

file the brief until January 18, 2020

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO F ILE THE APPELLANT’S BR IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. James D. Lucas , the Appellant’s attorney, prepare

the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before January 18, 2020

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 20 th day of December , 201 9

.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
FILED IN 14th COURT OFAPPEALS 

## OCT 26 2015
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE 

# GWVL, -/



# «w£V« ^"W^lHs^oV Vo,VbH,^o^ r^^M^Mk ^ea^yWfCec^*r 

## %

X

o 

## \ bO w 

# V \n " rH 

# ^f r

c -& 

## r 

# -J

>• 

# 1 3 tK 

### 9 

# i 5> 0 3 rtj 

### <t 

## ^ ^ orCM 10 O (M W O o
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
 Livestock Issues Research: Lubbock, TX
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    NewsletterSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






LIRU Annual Newsletterheadline bar Annual LIRU Research Newsletter


Return to top


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
EX-10.1






EXHIBIT 10.1




FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGEN FINANCIAL, LLC

ENDORSEMENT SPLIT-DOLLAR PLAN




     This First Amendment to the Origen Financial, LLC Endorsement Split-Dollar Plan (this
“Amendment”) is made by Origen Financial, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”)
on December 15, 2008. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings set
forth in the Origen Financial, LLC Endorsement Split-Dollar Plan, as amended (the “Plan”).



RECITALS:




     A. The Company maintains the Plan for the benefit of a select group of management or highly
compensated employees to provide life insurance benefits in the event of the employee’s death.



     B. The Internal Revenue Service issued final regulations regarding the application of Internal
Revenue Code (“Code”) section 409A to nonqualified deferred compensation plans, including
split-dollar life insurance arrangements, with an effective date of January 1, 2008.



     C. Because the Plan is subject to Code section 409A, the Company desires to amend the Plan to
meet the requirements of Code section 409A and the accompanying final regulations.



     D. Under Section 16 of the Plan, the Company may amend the Plan if the amendment does not
adversely affect a Participant or Beneficiary’s entitlement to benefits previously accrued.



     E. This Amendment shall supersede the provisions of the Plan to the extent those provisions
are inconsistent with the provisions of this Amendment.



     Now, therefore, effective as of December 31, 2007, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:



     1. Section 11, entitled “Termination of this Plan for All Participants, and Termination of an
Employee’s Participation,” is hereby amended by the addition of the following opening sentence:




	 	 	 	“The termination of an Employee’s participation in this Plan pursuant to this
section 11 shall not cause the acceleration of any distribution to such Employee
under this Plan or under the Capital Accumulation Plan (defined below).”





     2. Section 11(b) is deleted in its entirety.



     3. Section 13, entitled “Termination of Employee’s Participation and Forfeiture of Company’s
Interest if Company Misses a Premium,” is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:



 









 






	 	 	 	“13. Termination of Employee’s Participation if Company Fails to Pay a
Premium . If the Company fails to pay a premium on a Policy on an Employee’s life
within sixty (60) days of the due date (as extended for any grace period), such
Employee’s participation in this Plan shall terminate.”





     4. Unless otherwise modified by this Amendment, all provisions of the Plan shall remain in
full force and effect. Copies (whether photostatic, facsimile or otherwise) of this Amendment may
be made and relied upon to the same extent as an original.



     In witness whereof, the Company has executed this First Amendment to the Origen Financial, LLC
Endorsement Split-Dollar Plan on the date first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Origen Financial, LLC,

a Delaware limited liability company

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Ronald A. Klein
 	 
	 	 	Ronald A. Klein, Manager
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
 Mississippi State, Mississippi
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Sereta  Richardson
                        Location Support Staff

                        




                        
                        FIN & BUDG TECHN
                        Phone:    
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


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
EX-10.3







Exhibit 10.3




DESCRIPTION OF BONUS PLANS AS MODIFIED DECEMBER 16, 2008




     For fiscal 2009, the Company has two bonus plans in which its executive officers, together
with other employees, participate including a Corporate Bonus Plan and a Business Unit Bonus Plan.
Messrs. Bakken, Bhame, and Narowski participate in the Corporate Bonus Plan and the remaining
executive officers participate in the Business Unit Bonus Plan. Ms. Till’s bonus for fiscal 2009
is determined pursuant to the terms of her Employment Agreement outside of the terms of the bonus
plans.



     Under the Corporate Bonus Plan, for fiscal 2009 a fixed dollar pool for all participants of
$990,000 is established. The actual payout from the pool increases or decreases based upon
achievement of pre-set levels of “Adjusted EBITDA” (EBITDA adjusted to remove the effect of
non-cash stock-based compensation expense). Each participant in the Corporate Bonus Plan is
allocated a specified percentage of the pool. In order for a participant in the Corporate Bonus
Plan to achieve his full personal target bonus, Adjusted EBITDA would have to be at least budget.
Based upon better or worse performance, bonus payouts can increase or decrease. Absent any
discretionary allocation, no bonus is payable if performance is less than 90% of budget.



     Under the Business Unit Bonus Plan for fiscal 2009, individual metrics are established for
each participant. In general, 25% of each participant’s bonus is determined based upon
Company-wide operating profit, 65% of bonus is based upon operating profit for the particular
business unit with which the officer is associated, and 10% of the bonus is based upon evaluation
of performance against individual management objectives. Full bonus payouts will be made with
respect to the 25% and 65% portions of the bonus upon achievement of budgeted operating profit for
the Company and applicable business unit, respectively, , with a minimum threshold of 80% of
budgeted operating profit for receipt of the respective portion of the bonus. Within the Business
Unit Bonus Plan bonuses may be increased or decreased by set percentages based upon client
satisfaction scores for the business unit with which a particular officer is associated.



     Up to 10% under all of the Company’s bonus plans is available to be awarded to the
participants in any of those plans in the discretion of the Chief Executive Officer, subject in the
case of executive officers to approval by the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee
of the Board of Directors also reserves the right to increase the payouts that would otherwise be
applicable.



Page 1 of 1