alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Larry L. Linder, OSB #010724 

llinder(ii')salememplovmentlawyer.com 

Douglas J. Davis, OSB #140577 

ddavis(a) salememploymentla \vyer .com 

The Law Office of Larry L. Linder, LLC 

3000 Market St. NE, Ste. 150 

Salem, OR 97301 

Tel: (503)585-1804 

Fax: (503)585-1834 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

EUGENE DIVISION 

KELSEA LUEBBERS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ST. CHARLES HEALTH SYSTEM, 

INC., a Domestic Non-Profit 

Corporation, dba PIONEER 

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, and KENT 

TIMMONS, an individual, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 6:14-cv-1994-TC 

STIPULATED JUDGMENT OF 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

Pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff Kelsea Luebbers, by her 

counsel, Larry Linder, co-Defendant Kent Timmons, by his counsel Russell D Bevans, 

and co-Defendant St. Charles Health System, dba Pioneer Memorial Hospital, by its 

Ill 

Ill 

Page 1 STIPULATED JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

Case 6:14-cv-01994-TC Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 2
counsel, Maryann Yelnosky, hereby stipulate that the claims in this case are dismissed 

with prejudice and without costs or attorneys' fees to any party. 

BULLARD LAW 

sf Maryann Yelnosky 

Maryann Yelnosky, OSB No. 863200 

Of Attorneys for Defendant 

St. Charles Health System, Inc. 

DATED: September 29, 2015 

BEV ANS & COOPER LLC 

sLRussell D. Bevans 

Russell D. Bevans, OSB No. 730280 

Of Attorneys for Defendant Kent Timmons 

DATED: September 29, 2015 

LAW OFFICES OF LARRY L. LINDER, LLC 

s/Larry L. Linder 

Larry L. Linder, OSB No. 010724 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 

DATED: September 29, 2015 

It is so ordered this J..J-.ciay of Jl(N £.. ~ . 

. S. Magistrate Judge 

Page 2 STIPULATED JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

Case 6:14-cv-01994-TC Document 21 Filed 06/22/16 Page 2 of 2
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2041

AN ACT

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater

Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of

the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and

construction of the Willow Lake Natural Treatment System Project for the reclamation and reuse of water,

and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 2041 ES

1 SECTION. 1. WILLOW LAKE NATURAL TREATMENT SYSTEM

2 PROJECT.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Reclamation Wastewater and

4 Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h

5 et seq.) is amended—

6 (1) by redesignating sections 1631, 1632, and

7 1633 as sections 1632, 1633, and 1634, respectively;

8 and

9 (2) by inserting after section 1630 the following

10 new section 1631:

11 ‘‘SEC. 1631. WILLOW LAKE NATURAL TREATMENT SYSTEM

12 PROJECT.

13 ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary, in coopera14 tion with the City of Salem, Oregon, is authorized to par15 ticipate in the design, planning, and construction of the

16 Willow Lake Natural Treatment System Project to re17 claim and reuse wastewater within and without the service

18 area of the City of Salem.

19 ‘‘(b) COST SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost

20 of a project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed

21 25 percent of the total cost.

22 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—The Secretary shall not provide

23 funds for the operation and maintenance of a project de24 scribed in subsection (a).’’.

25 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—That Act is fur26 ther amended—
3

S 2041 ES

1 (1) in section 1632 (43 U.S.C. 390h–13) (as

2 redesignated by subsection (a)(1)), by striking ‘‘sec3 tion 1630’’ and inserting ‘‘section 1631’’;

4 (2) in section 1633(c) (43 U.S.C. 390h–14) (as

5 so redesignated), by striking ‘‘section 1633’’ and in6 serting ‘‘section 1634’’; and

7 (3) in section 1634 (43 U.S.C. 390h–15) (as so

8 redesignated), by striking ‘‘section 1632’’ and insert9 ing ‘‘section 1633’’.

10 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents

11 in section 2 of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and

12 Adjustment Act of 1992 is amended by striking the items

13 relating to sections 1631 through 1633 and inserting the

14 following:

‘‘Sec. 1631. Willow Lake Natural Treatment System Project.

‘‘Sec. 1632. Authorization of appropriations.

‘‘Sec. 1633. Groundwater study.

‘‘Sec. 1634. Authorization of appropriations.’’.

Passed the Senate October 7 (legislative day, October 2), 1998.

Attest:

Secretary.
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2041

AN ACT

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and

other purposes.for the reclamation and reuse of water, and forWillow Lake Natural Treatment System Projectthe design, planning, and construction of theize the Secretary of the Interior to participate inGroundwater Study and Facilities Act to author-
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
 Manhattan, Kansas (NBAF)
 close




            Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Kenneth  Burton

                                                                (PhD)
                        Office of The Director

                        




                        
                        Deputy Director
                        Phone: (785) 712-3011
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)
                            ProjectsSupport Transfer of USDA Scientific Mission
                                                    Interagency Reimbursable Agreement
                                                                    (I)Accession Number: 445175Support Transfer of USDA Scientific Mission - US Army North
                                                    Memorandum of Understanding
                                                                    (M)Accession Number: 442453Support Transfer of USDA Scientific Mission - USAF-AMC
                                                    Memorandum of Understanding
                                                                    (M)Accession Number: 442898


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
FIRST AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                            AGREEMENT OF PARTNERSHIP
                     PW/GEODYNE PRODUCTION PARTNERSHIP II-H

       The Agreement of Partnership of PW/Geodyne  Production  Partnership  II-H
dated May 17, 1989 (the "Agreement") is hereby amended as follows:

       A.  The first  sentence of Section 2.1 is hereby  deleted and  replaced
by the following provision:

       "The  Production  Partnership  shall be conducted  under the name Geodyne
Production Partnership II-H."

       B.  All   references  in  the  Agreement  to   "PW/Geodyne   Production
Partnership II-H" are hereby changed to "Geodyne Production Partnership II-H."

       C.  The third  sentence of Section 2.1 is hereby  deleted and  replaced
by the following provision:

       "The office and principal place of business of the Production Partnership
shall be c/o  Geodyne  Production  Company,  Two West  Second,  Tulsa,  Oklahoma
74103."

       D.  The  name of the  "General  Partner"  and the  "Limited  Partnership"
reflected  in Article  One has been  changed  from  "PaineWebber/Geodyne  Energy
Income Limited  Partnership II-H" to "Geodyne Energy Income Limited  Partnership
II-H". All references in the Agreement to the name of the "General  Partner" and
the "Limited  Partnership" are hereby changed to reflect this name change.  This
change reflects a name change only and not a change of entity.

       In all other respects the Agreement is hereby ratified and affirmed.

 DATED:    February 26, 1993
                                         Managing Partner:

                                         Geodyne Production Company

                                         /s/ Michael E. Luttrell
                                         ---------------------------------
                                         Michael E. Luttrell
                                         Executive Vice President









                                      -1-
<PAGE>




                                         General Partner:

                                         Geodyne Energy Income Limited
                                         Partnership II-H

                                         By:  Geodyne Properties, Inc.,
                                              General Partner

                                         By: /s/ Michael E. Luttrell
                                             -----------------------------
                                              Michael E. Luttrell,
                                              Executive Vice President


                                      -2-
<PAGE>   1




                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

            Healthdyne Information Enterprises, Inc. and Subsidiary
             Statements of Computation of Per Share Earnings (Loss)
                    (in thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                     THREE MONTHS ENDED           NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                         SEPTEMBER 30,              SEPTEMBER 30,
                                              --------------------------------------------------------
                                                    1998          1997           1998         1997
                                                    ----          ----           ----         ----
                                                                      (UNAUDITED)
<S>                                                <C>          <C>            <C>          <C>
Net earnings (loss)                                $   985      $   (640)      $   255      $ (2,285)
                                                   =================================================



Weighted average number of common shares
outstanding                                         24,089        23,042        23,826        22,547
                                                   =================================================


Basic net earnings (loss) per share                $  0.04      $  (0.03)      $  0.01      $  (0.10)
                                                   =================================================
Shares used in the calculation of diluted net
earnings (loss) per share:

Weighted average number of common shares
outstanding                                         24,089        23,042        23,826        22,547

Additional shares issuable from assumed
exercise of options (see note 1)                     1,408             0         1,221             0
                                                   -------------------------------------------------
                                                    25,497        23,042        25,047        22,547
                                                   =================================================


Diluted earnings (loss) per share                  $  0.04      $  (0.03)      $  0.01      $  (0.10)
                                                   =================================================

</TABLE>


Note 1: Since stock options are anti-dilutive to the diluted loss per common
share calculation, stock options are not considered in such diluted loss per
share calculation for the three and nine months ended September 30, 1997.


                                       16
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1902

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the first $2,000

of health insurance premiums to be fully deductible.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 1, 1998

Mrs. BOXER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the

first $2,000 of health insurance premiums to be fully

deductible.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Health Insurance Tax

5 Relief Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. FIRST $2,000 OF HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS

7 FULLY DEDUCTIBLE.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 213 of

9 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to medical,

10 dental, etc., expenses) is amended to read as follows:
2

•S 1902 IS

1 ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION.—There shall be

2 allowed as a deduction the following amounts not com3 pensated for by insurance or otherwise—

4 ‘‘(1) the amount by which the amount of ex5 penses paid during the taxable year (reduced by the

6 amount deductible under paragraph (2)) for medical

7 care of the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, and the

8 taxpayer’s dependents (as defined in section 152) ex9 ceeds 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income, plus

10 ‘‘(2) so much of the expenses paid during the

11 taxable year for insurance which constitutes medical

12 care under subsection (d)(1)(D) (other than for a

13 qualified long-term care insurance contract) for such

14 taxpayer, spouse, and dependents as does not exceed

15 $2,000.’’

16 (b) DEDUCTION ALLOWED WHETHER OR NOT TAX17 PAYER ITEMIZES DEDUCTION.—Section 62(a) of the In18 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining adjusted gross in19 come) is amended by inserting after paragraph (17) the

20 following new paragraph:

21 ‘‘(18) HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS.—The

22 deduction allowed by section 213(a)(2).’’

23 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section

24 162(l)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relat-
3

•S 1902 IS

1 ing to special rules for health insurance costs of self-em2 ployed individuals) is amended to read as follows:

3 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of an indi4 vidual who is an employee within the meaning

5 of section 401(c)(1), there shall be allowed as

6 a deduction under this section an amount equal

7 to the sum of—

8 ‘‘(i) so much of the amount paid dur9 ing the taxable year for insurance which

10 constitutes medical care for the taxpayer,

11 his spouse, and dependents as does not ex12 ceed $2,000, plus

13 ‘‘(ii) the applicable percentage of the

14 amount so paid in excess of $2,000.’’

15 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

16 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

17 December 31, 1998.

Æ
#### In the Matter of Carlos G., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Bernadette M., Appellant; New York City Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent.

[947 NYS2d 468]

Order (denominated a decision), Family Court, Bronx County (Anne-Marie Jolly, J.), entered on or about August 2, 2011, which denied respondent mother’s motion for transfer of the permanency hearing concerning the subject child from the Referee to a judge or, in the alternative, modification of the order of reference to permit the Referee to hear and report, rather than to hear and determine, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the court’s ruling was denominated a “decision” and a decision is not an appealable order under CFLR 5512 (a) *(see Rodriquez v Chapman-Perry,*63 AD3d 645 [2009]), the *633denial of the mother’s application was appealable because the prior order of reference affected a substantial right, namely the mother’s right to have the proceeding determined by a judge *(see General Elec. Co. v Rabin,*177 AD2d 354, 356 [1991]). Moreover, the mother is an aggrieved party since she has a direct interest in the neglect proceeding, which will have a binding force on her parental rights to the child.

The record does not reflect that the mother ever provided written consent to the order of reference to the Referee to hear and determine, as required by CPLR 4317 (a). However, the mother implicitly consented to the order of reference in that she actively participated in the proceedings before the Referee, including pursuing two appeals of the Referee’s rulings before this Court, without ever challenging the Referee’s jurisdiction *(see Matter of Carlos G. [Bernadette M.],*84 AD3d 629 [2011]; *Matter of Carlos G. [Bernadette M.],*74 AD 3d 687 [2010]; *see also Meredith v City of New York,*61 AD3d 522 [2009]; *Law Offs. of Sanford A. Rubenstein v Shapiro Baines & Saasto,*269 AD2d 224 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 757 [2000]).

The child argues that the issue is moot because a permanency hearing has been scheduled before a Family Court Judge on the same day as the permanency hearing for the child’s siblings. However, the issue is not moot because the issues giving rise to the instant appeal are not resolved by the scheduling of the permanency hearing on the same day as the permanency hearing concerning the child’s siblings. The cases have not been consolidated, and the determination that the mother was not entitled to visit the child was made by a Referee, not by a judge, without the mother’s written consent.

The interests of justice and judicial economy do not favor revocation of the reference to permit one judge to resolve all issues concerning one family. The proceeding relating to this child is procedurally more advanced than the cases involving his siblings, and permanency for the child should not be delayed to accommodate later filed proceedings.

We have considered the mother’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leepoleon Jackson, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), rendered October 6, 1982, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.
#### People’s United Bank, Appellant, v Latini Tuxedo Management, LLC, et al., Defendants, and Moulton Paving, LLC, Respondent.

[944 NYS2d 909]—

*1286In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Bartlett, J.), dated October 26, 2011, as denied that branch of its motion which was, in effect, to vacate so much of an order of the same court dated September 26, 2011, as granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Moulton Paving, LLC, which was for leave to enter a default judgment on its counterclaims against the plaintiff upon the plaintiffs failure to timely reply to the counterclaims.

Ordered that the order dated October 26, 2011, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was, in effect, to vacate so much of the order dated September 26, 2011, as granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Moulton Paving, LLC, which was for leave to enter a default judgment on its counterclaims against the plaintiff is granted.

In seeking to vacate a default, a party must establish both a reasonable excuse for its delay in answering or appearing and a potentially meritorious defense *(see*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *Eugene Di Lorenzo, Inc. v A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co.,*67 NY2d 138, 141 [1986]; *Tribeca Lending Corp. v Correa,*92 AD3d 770 [2012]; *Westchester Med. Ctr. v Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co.,*69 AD3d 613 [2010]; *Cooney v Cambridge Mgt. & Realty Corp.,*35 AD3d 522 [2006]). “Whether an excuse is reasonable is a determination within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court” *(Walker v Mohammed,*90 AD3d 1034, 1034 [2011]). Where a party asserts law office failure, it must provide “a detailed and credible explanation of the default” *(Kohn v Kohn,*86 AD3d 630, 630 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see*CPLR 2005; *Matter of Esposito,*57 AD3d 894, 895 [2008]).

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in rejecting the plaintiffs proffered excuse of law office failure, as the plaintiff provided a detailed and credible explanation that its approximately two-week delay in replying to the counterclaims asserted against it by the defendant Moulton Paving, LLC (hereinafter Moulton), resulted in part from its counsel’s inadvertent miscalendaring of the time to reply *(see Simpson v Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc.,*48 AD3d 389, 392 [2008]; *Franco Belli Plumbing*& *Heating & Sons, Inc. v Imperial Dev. & Constr. Corp.,*45 AD3d 634, 636 [2007]). Further, the plaintiff set forth potentially meritorious defenses to the counterclaims *(see Mandarin Trading Ltd. v Wildenstein,*16 NY3d 173, 179 [2011]; *Howard Sav. Bank v Lefcon Partnership,*209 AD2d 473, 476 [1994]).

*1287Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was, in effect, to vacate so much of an order dated September 26, 2011, as granted that branch of Moulton’s cross motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment on its counterclaims against the plaintiff. Rivera, J.E, Belen, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.