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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SIR GIORGIO SANFORD CLARDY, No. 2:15-cv-01241-CL

Plaintiff, ORDER

v. 

 

JONES; STEINER; JOST; JUDY 

GILMORE; JASON BELL; MILLER; 

COLLETTE PETERS; WAGGONER; 

BUGHER; MOONEY; JOHN AND 

JANE DOES, all members of IPC 

Committee,

 Defendants.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Case 2:15-cv-01241-CL Document 117 Filed 11/23/20 Page 1 of 3
2 - ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on remand from the Ninth Circuit, affirmed the district 

court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants on all claims except for Plaintiff’s claim against 

Defendant Jost. The Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Jost and 

remanded the case for the district court to determine in the first instance whether ODOC deprived 

Plaintiff of an effective administrative remedy for his grievance against Defendant Jost. Magistrate 

Judge Clarke issued a Findings and Recommendation [113] on June 16, 2020, in which he finds 

that ODOC did not deprive Plaintiff of an effective administrative remedy and recommends that 

the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. 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).

Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation. Pl. Obj., 

ECF 115. When any 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 

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).

The Court has carefully considered Plaintiff’s objections and concludes that 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 Clarke’s Findings and Recommendation [113] and 

concludes that Oregon Department of Corrections’ grievance process did not deprive Plaintiff of 

an effective administrative remedy. Because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative 

remedies his claim is barred under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Therefore, Plaintiff’s 

Complaint [2] is dismissed with prejudice. 

Case 2:15-cv-01241-CL Document 117 Filed 11/23/20 Page 2 of 3
3 - ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________________.

 ___________________________

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

November 23, 2020

Case 2:15-cv-01241-CL Document 117 Filed 11/23/20 Page 3 of 3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6088

LAWRENCE E. WILLIAMS, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; WILLIAM W.

SONDERVAN, Ed. D., Commissioner (in his

official and individual capacity),

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge.

(CA-00-3779-H)

Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: May 23, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lawrence E. Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran,

Jr., Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant

Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Lawrence E. Williams, Jr., appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983

(West Supp. 2001) and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities

Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134 (1994). We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court that Williams’ claims lack merit. See Williams v. Maryland

Dep’t of Pub. Safety, No. CA-00-3779-H (D. Md. Dec. 3, 2001). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
----

| Name                                      | State      or other jurisdiction of organization | Percentage      of voting securities owned by its immediate parent at September 30,      2008 |
|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Sevcon,      Inc.                         | Delaware                                         | 100%                                                                                          |
| Sevcon      Ltd.                          | United      Kingdom                              | 100%                                                                                          |
| Industrial      Capacitors (Wrexham) Ltd. | United      Kingdom                              | 100%      (A)                                                                                 |
| Sevcon      SAS                           | France                                           | 100%                                                                                          |
| Sevcon      Asia Limited                  | South      Korea                                 | 100%                                                                                          |
| Sevcon      Japan KK                      | Japan                                            | 100%                                                                                          |
| (A)  Owned      by Sevcon Ltd.  |                                             |                                                                                          |

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-19-00434-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.A.T., D.T., S.T., and B.L.W., Children

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18-08-0730-CVA

Honorable Bob Brendel, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 11, 2019

MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED; AFFIRMED

Appellant mother (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights 

to her children, N.A.T., D.T., S.T., and B.L.W. Mother’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed 

a motion to withdraw and a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record, concluding 

there are no arguable grounds for reversal of the termination order. The brief satisfies the 

requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 

n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (recognizing that Anders procedures apply in parental termination 

cases). Additionally, counsel represents that she provided Mother with a copy of the brief and the 

motion to withdraw, advised Mother of her right to review the record and file her own brief, and 

informed Mother how to obtain a copy of the record, providing her with a form motion for access 
04-19-00434-CV

- 2 -

to the appellate record. We issued an order setting a deadline for Mother to file a pro se brief. 

However, Mother did not request the appellate record or file a pro se brief. 

After reviewing the appellate record and appointed counsel’s brief, we conclude no 

plausible grounds exist for reversal of the termination order. Accordingly, we affirm the trial 

court’s termination order. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw because it does not show good 

cause for withdrawal. See id. at 27 & n.7 (holding that counsel’s obligations in a parental 

termination case extend through exhaustion or waiver of all appeals and that withdrawal should be 

permitted by a court of appeals “only for good cause” (citing TEX. R. CIV. P. 10)).

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
**Exhibit  10.6**

**OPTION CERTIFICATE**

This Option Certificate evidences an Option (“Option”) to purchase shares (“Option Shares”) of Common Stock, par value $.0025, of PacificHealth Laboratories, Inc. (the “Company”) granted to **ROBERT PORTMAN**(the “Optionee”). The Option and Option Shares are not part of or issued under any stock option plan of the Company, but all terms and conditions of the Company’s 2000 Incentive Stock Option Plan (“Plan”) which are not inconsistent with the following terms, or the relevant provisions of the Employment Agreement, are incorporated herein by reference and shall apply to the Option. The Option and Option Shares are subject to the terms, conditions, limitations and restrictions set forth in the Plan and the following terms and conditions:

a.        The effective date of the grant of the Option is February 10, 2006, and the number of Option Shares that may be purchased upon exercise of the Option is**THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (300,000) share****s** (the Option Shares”).

b.        The  Option Price shall be **$0.60**per  Option Share.

c.        The  Option shall vest as follows: 100,000 shares shall vest on February 10, 2007;  100,000 shares shall vest on February 10, 2008; and 100,000 shares shall vest  on February 10, 2009.

d.        The Option shall be exercisable to purchase Option Shares beginning on the date the Option vests as to such Shares, and shall terminate as to vested Option Shares on February 10, 2011, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the Plan.

e.        The Option may not be exercised as to any Option Share prior to the time that the Option becomes vested as to such Share. 

f.        The Option Price is payable at the time of exercise and shall be paid at the election of the Optionee (i) in cash; or (ii) in such other manner as may be approved by the Board of Directors or Committee of the Board then administering the Plan. 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,** this Option Certificate has been executed on behalf of the Company by a duly authorized officer effective as of the 23rd day of February 2006.

 

|   |   | **PACIFICHEALTH LABORATORIES, INC.** |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------|
|        |   | **By: **                        | /s/ Stephen P. Kuchen |
|   |   |                                 |  

 

 

**Stephen P. Kuchen, CFO**

  |
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

          In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K (the "Report") of
ARC Wireless Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31,
2004, each of the undersigned Randall P. Marx, the Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, and Monty R. Lamirato, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the
undersigneds' knowledge and belief:

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

          (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Dated:  March 29, 2005                                   /s/ Randall P. Marx
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Randall P. Marx
                                                         Chief Executive Officer


Dated:  March 29, 2005                                   /s/ Monty R. Lamirato
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Monty R. Lamirato
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Buckner Woodford, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kentucky Bancshares,
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 officer 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)) for the registrant and have:
(a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
quarterly report is being prepared;
(b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
(c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting; and


5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, 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 over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial data; and
(b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls over financial reporting.
Date:   November 14, 2003
BY  /s/ Buckner Woodford
Buckner Woodford
President & Chief Executive Officer

2
Lexlibrary/197885.1
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
 Knipling-Bushland U.S. Livestock Insects Research Laboratory: Kerrville, TX
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Docs
                    Grand Challenge Synergies ProjectSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Kerrville, Texas Knipling-Bushland U.S. Livestock Insects Research Laboratory Docs





- IACUC Summary

IACUCheadline bar IACUC Executive Summary March 2024


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
DONALD L. OLSON, 

v. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

Plaintiff, 

Civil No. 1:15-cv-1692-CL 

CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, et al, 

Defendants. 

JUDGMENT 

Based upon the record, this action is remanded to the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon 

for the County of Josephine, Josephine County Case No 15-CV-20794. 

Dated: July ')I , 2016. 

JUDGMENT 

MICHAELJ. McSHANE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

DOCUMENT NO:~~~-

Case 1:15-cv-01692-CL Document 37 Filed 07/31/16 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Paul J. Murphy, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Apogee Technology, Inc.

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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 control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f))for the small business issuer and have:



5.     The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



|Date:                                                                                               |  | March 31, 2008 |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------- |  | 
|/s/PAUL J. MURPHY                                                                                   |  |               
|Paul J. Murphy,
Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance (principal financial officer)

---



QuickLinks
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
 Application Technology Research: Wooster, OH
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Departments
                        Agricultural Engineering
                                    Entomology
                                    Horticulture
                                    Plant Pathology
                                    IR-4 programSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Wooster, Ohio Application Technology Research People & Locations







Elizabeth  Regedanz
                        Application Technology Research

                        




                        
                        Biological Science Technician
                        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
Page 1 - STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE MARTIN, BISCHOFF, TEMPLETON, 

LANGSLET & HOFFMAN LLP

Attorneys at Law

888 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 900

Portland, OR 97204

Telephone (503) 224-3113 Fax (503) 224-9471

Jonathan M. Hoffman, OSB No. 754180

jhoffman@mblawgroup.com

Thomas W. Purcell, OSB No. 114938

tpurcell@mblawgroup.com

MB LAW GROUP, LLP

117 SW Taylor St., Suite 200

Portland, OR 97204

Telephone: (503) 914-2015

Facsimile: (503) 914-1725

Attorneys for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

Portland Division

JEFFREY ROSS GAUTHIER and CLUB 

MYSTIC, LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CATLIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-cv-1130-SB

STIPULATION OF DISMISSALWITH 

PREJUDICE

Pursuant to F.R.Civ. P. 41(a), the Parties hereby stipulate that the Complaint and action 

in the above-captioned matter be dismissed, with prejudice and without costs to either party. 

///

///

///

///

Case 3:15-cv-01130-SB Document 26 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 - STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE MARTIN, BISCHOFF, TEMPLETON, 

LANGSLET & HOFFMAN LLP

Attorneys at Law

888 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 900

Portland, OR 97204

Telephone (503) 224-3113 Fax (503) 224-9471

AGREED and STIPULATED to by the parties:

Dated: February 29, 2016.

 s/ Mark E. Olmsted

Mark E. Olmsted

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

MB LAW GROUP, LLP

 s/ Jonathan M. Hoffman

Jonathan M. Hoffman, OSB No. 754180

Of Attorneys for Defendant

Case 3:15-cv-01130-SB Document 26 Filed 02/29/16 Page 2 of 2