alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.18(3)


 


 


 


April 28, 2021


 


Thomas Garite, MD


653 Round Tree Drive


Grand Junction, CO 81506


 


Re:  3rd Amendment to Offer of Employment for Thomas Garite,
MD dated June 17, 2020


 


Dear Tom:


 


This letter is the 3rd amendment (the
 “3rd Amendment”) to the aforementioned Offer of Employment from Sera Prognostics, Inc. dated June 17, 2020 (the
 “Offer of Employment”), as amended on July 1, 2020 (the 1st Amendment) for the purpose of a change in salary and
on July 30, 2021 (the 2nd Amendment) for the purpose of a change in the initial number of options.


 


	Effective date:	January 1, 2021




 


	Annual Salary:	$267,000, based on an assumption of an average monthly effort of 112 hours or .65 FIE, paid semi-monthly on the 15th
 & last day of each month.




 


	Annual Incentive:	Under the annual incentive plan (“AIP”) you will be eligible to earn a 35% annual target cash incentive, measured
on a calendar year basis.




 


All other terms, conditions, and provisions of
the Offer of Employment as amended by the 1st and 2nd Amendments remain unchanged by this 3rd amendment
and are in full force and effect.


 


	 	Sincerely,




 


	 	Sera Prognostics, Inc.




 


	 	By:	/s/ Gregory Critchfield




	 	 	Gregory Critchfield
	 	Its:	Chairman, President, and CEO




 


This Amendment is accepted and agreed to as of the ‘hate hereof:


 


	/s/ Thomas Garite, MD	 	Dated:
	Thomas Garite, MD
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50232 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. LUIS FRANCISCO WONG Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:06-CR-2186-1 Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Luis Francisco Wong has moved for leave to withdrawand has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Wong has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR. R. 42.2. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 22, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-0 9 -00 555 -CR

Di ane Wil so n , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF CALDWELL COUNTY , 421S T JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 2008 -23 1 , HO NORAB LE TODD A. B LOM ERTH , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N Pursuant to a plea a g ree ment, Diane Wi lson pleade d guilty to a cha rg e of bur g lary

of a building. T he cour

t defe rre d adjudication, and Wilson was place d on community supervision for ten year s. She filed a notice of appeal i n which she a cknowledg ed that the punishment asse ssed does not exceed the puni s hment rec ommended by the prosec utor and to which she and her attorney agree d. Wil son never

theless asser

ts her intention to appea l pretrial r ulings includingthe denial of her motions to dismi ss, to suppress a wr itten statement, and to set as ide her indictment based on the lack of a speedy trial. The trial court cer tified that this “ is a plea barg ain case , and the def endant has NO r ight of

appea l.” SeeTex. R. App. P . 25.2(d). Wil son and her

attorney both signed the “Admonishments, Plea Agree ment, Waiver of R ights, a

nd Stipul ation of Evidenc e Reg ardingPlea of De fenda nt.” The a dmonishments section of t hat a g r e e me n t p r o v id e s th at, if th e p un is h me n t a s s e s s e d d o e s n o t e xc e e d

th e p un is h ment2

re c omm end e d b y

the pr os e c uto r a

nd a g re e d to by

Wils on and he r atto rn e y , Wil so n mu st o bta in the trial court’s permission to a ppeal any matter e x cept f

or those ra ised by

pretria l, written motion. The wa iver of rights sec tion, however , provides that “D efe ndant waive s the ri gh t to file a Motion for Ne w Trial, wa ives the right to pursue an a ppeal of the conviction and se ntence here in, and waives a ll rights conta ined in the written and oral admonishments g iven by the Court.” Wils on and her attorney

both signe d the agree ment immediately below the wa iver of rights sec tion. T h e r u le s o f a p p e ll ate p r o c e d

ur e p r o v id e th at “ [t ]h e a

p p e a l m u s t b e d is missed if a
cer tification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the re cord under the se rules.” Tex. R. App. P
. 25.2(d). No such cer tification has bee n made pa rt of the r ecor d. We m us t di smi ss t

his a pp e a l. Dismissed.

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Waldrop and He nson Dismissed Filed: Oc tober 23, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 03-4504

KENITH TONEY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley.

Charles H. Haden II, District Judge.

(CR-02-299)

Submitted: October 29, 2003

Decided: December 23, 2003

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Richard M. Gunnoe, ZIEGLER & GUNNOE, Hinton, West Virginia,

for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, W. Chad Noel,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Kenith Toney pled guilty to distribution of more than five grams

of cocaine base (crack), 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2000), and was sentenced

to a term of 168 months imprisonment. He contests the district court’s

determination that he failed to accept responsibility for his conduct

under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (2002). We affirm.

Immediately following his arrest, Toney made a statement to the

investigating officers in which he said he had made one or two trips

a month from Ohio to West Virginia over the previous six or seven

months, each time bringing two or three ounces of crack with him to

sell, and making a profit of five or six thousand dollars on each trip.

Some months later, when he was interviewed by the probation officer,

Toney said he had lied to the officers, and that he had never before

sold crack in West Virginia. The district court determined that

Toney’s first statement was the more reliable one, while his second

statement was intended to minimize his exposure. Because the district

court found that Toney had not provided truthful information to the

probation officer, the court denied him an adjustment for acceptance

of responsibility. 

A defendant need not divulge relevant conduct outside the offense

of conviction, but "a defendant who falsely denies, or frivolously contests, relevant conduct that the court determines to be true has acted

in a manner inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility." USSG

§ 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(a)); United States v. Pauley, 289 F.3d 254,

261 (4th Cir.), modified, 304 F.3d 335 (4th Cir. 2002), cert. denied,

123 S. Ct. 1007 (2003). Because the district court found that Toney

had not truthfully acknowledged the extent of his criminal conduct in

his statement to the probation officer, we conclude that the district

court did not clearly err in denying him the adjustment. United States

v. Ruhe, 191 F.3d 376, 388 (4th Cir. 1999) (stating standard of

review). 

We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district court. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

2 UNITED STATES v. TONEY
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. TONEY 3
#### State of New York, Respondent, v Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Appellant.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Xavier Riccobono, J., on order; Michael Dontzin, J., on opn), entered on September 2, 1986, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Michael Dontzin, J., without costs and without disbursements. Concur — Rupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ. *[See,*133 Misc 2d 57.]
#### Gertrude A. Lane et al., Respondents, v Texas Roadhouse Holdings, LLC, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 339]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Anthony J. Paris, J.), entered May 3, 2011 in a personal injury action. The order denied the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging that a “dangerous and defective condition” on defendant’s property caused Gertrude A. Lane (plaintiff) to slip and fall. Defendant appeals from an order denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. We reject the contention of defendant that it met its initial burden on the motion by establishing as a matter of law that plaintiffs were unable to identify what caused plaintiff to fall “ ‘without engaging in speculation’ ” *(Smart v Zambito,*85 AD3d 1721, 1721 [2011]). “It is well established . . . that ‘[a] moving party must affirmatively [demonstrate] the merits of its cause of action or defense and does not meet its burden by noting gaps in its opponent’s proof ” *(Dodge v City of Hornell Indus. Dev. Agency,*286 AD2d 902, 903 [2001], quoting *Orcutt v American Linen Supply Co.,*212 AD2d 979, 980 [1995]; *see Brown v Smith,*85 AD3d 1648, 1649 [2011]). “Although [m]ere conclusions based upon surmise, conjecture, speculation or assertions are without probative value . . . , a case of negligence based wholly on circumstantial evidence may be established if the plaintiffs show[ ] facts and conditions from which the negligence of the defendant and the *1365causation of the accident by that negligence may be reasonably inferred” *(Seelinger v Town of Middletown,*79 AD3d 1227, 1229 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, although plaintiff was unable to identify the specific source of her fall at her deposition due to the onset of unrelated mental status issues, plaintiffs “ submitt [ed] evidence establishing that she fell in the immediate vicinity of [several uneven and unsteady pavement blocks of which defendant had actual notice], thereby rendering any other potential cause of her fall ‘sufficiently remote or technical to enable [a] jury to reach [a] verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence’ ” *(Nolan v Onondaga County,*61 AD3d 1431, 1432 [2009]).

We have considered the remaining contentions of the parties and conclude that they are without merit, or need not be addressed in light of our determination. Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Fahey and Peradotto, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

No. DA 22-0240 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

JASON EBY, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER 

Upon consideration of the parties' Motion to Dismiss by 

Stipulation, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the case is remanded to the 

Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, for that court to 

enter an amended judgment striking the felony designation for Count 

II: Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remainder of the appeal is 

dismissed with prejudice. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to the 

Honorable Matthew Cuffe and counsel of record. 

1 Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 14 2023

11/14/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0240
Southern Paiute Monitoring Program

Charley Bulletts

Southern Paiute Consortium
Twenty Years of Monitoring

• Program Goals: 

1. Monitor

2. Train and educate Southern Paiute monitors

3. Educate tribal members and the general public

4. Discuss and evaluate traditional cultural properties

protection and management 

• Additional goal in 2016: assess the SPC’s 20-yearold program

– How might the monitoring program be best adjusted

to address current tribal needs and interests, resource

availability, and changing adaptive management

priorities?
Site # Site name Date Activities Completed

- Lees Ferry June 7, 2016  River safety orientation and monitor training

5 South Canyon June 8, 2016  Southern Paiute interpretation and cultural activities

 Monitoring of archaeology, rock writing, and the beach, and 

assessment of monitoring program

6 Nankoweap June 9, 2016  Southern Paiute interpretation and cultural activities

 Monitoring of archaeology and and assessment of monitoring 

program

7 Lava Chuar June 11, 2016  Cultural hike and ethnobotany discussion

 Monitoring of archaeological site and assessment of monitoring 

program

8 Salt Mines June 10, 2016  Southern Paiute interpretation and cultural activities

Blacktail Canyon June 12, 2016  Discussion of LTEMP, AMWG participation, and gathering of 

information to inform potential changes in SPC monitoring program

10 Deer Creek June 13, 2016  Southern Paiute interpretation and cultural activities

 Monitoring of plants, archaeology, and visitors, and assessment of 

monitoring program

 Cultural hike featuring ethnobotany and history 

12 Vulcan’s Anvil June 14, 2016  Southern Paiute interpretation and cultural activities 

 Assessment of monitoring program

13 Whitmore June 15, 2016  Southern Paiute interpretation and cultural transmission

 Monitoring of rock writing and assessment of monitoring program

15 Ompi Cave June 15, 2016  Southern Paiute cultural activities

18 Pumpkin Spring June 16, 2016  Southern Paiute interpretation and cultural transmission

 Monitoring of spring & beach, and assessment of monitoring program

2016 River Trip
Discussing & Assessing the Program
2016 River Trip Participants
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 16, 2022

No. 04-22-00013-CV

THE HENDERSON-WESSENDORFF FOUNDATION,

Appellant

v.

PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES USA, INC.,

Appellee

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

Trial Court No. 17-08-00196-CVK

Honorable Lynn Ellison, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due March 24, 2022. Appellant’s first motion for 

extension of time was granted, extending the deadline for filing the brief to April 11, 2022. On 

April 11, 2022, appellant filed a motion requesting an additional extension of time to file the 

brief until May 11, and we granted appellant’s motion. 

On May 12, 2022, appellant filed a third motion for extension of time requesting an 

additional 14 days to file the brief, for a total extension of 62 days. After consideration, we 

GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant to file its brief by May 25, 2022. Counsel is 

advised that no further extensions of time will be granted absent extraordinary 

circumstances. 

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of May, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
Hydroacoustic Fish 

Distribution

Michael Horn, USBR, Denver



Forebay Fish Distribution March 2022

Longitude

-111.494 -111.492 -111.490 -111.488 -111.486 -111.484

Latitude

36.940

36.942

36.944

36.946

36.948

36.950

36.952

36.954
Longitude

-111.494 -111.492 -111.490 -111.488 -111.486 -111.484

Latitude

36.940

36.942

36.944

36.946

36.948
Date

3/1/22 6/1/22 9/1/22 12/1/22 3/1/23 

Density (Fish/1000m

3

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Confluence

Forebay

Wahweap
Date

3/1/22 6/1/22 9/1/22 12/1/22 3/1/23 

Average Fish Length (cm)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Confluence

Forebay

Wahweap
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1693 

To rescind unobligated amounts for White House salaries and expenses. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2015 

Mrs. ELLMERS of North Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To rescind unobligated amounts for White House salaries 

and expenses. 

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 ‘‘White House Account5 ability Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) That the President has failed to fulfill his 

9 duty to enforce immigration law. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1693 IH

1 (2) That our national security is the primary 

2 responsibility of the United States Federal Govern3 ment. 

4 (3) That it stands to reason that when you do 

5 not fulfill your responsibilities, you typically lose 

6 your compensation. 

7 SEC. 3. RESCISSION. 

8 Of the funds made available for fiscal year 2015 for 

9 ‘‘The White House—Salaries and Expenses’’, the unobli10 gated balance is rescinded. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
ACTIVITY Status A M J J A SO ND J FM AMJ J A SONDJ F MAMJJ A S O N D

2009 WORK PLAN/BUD

WY09 Hydrograph

FY07 Project review

FY08 Program guidance 

& WY09 hydrograph

GCMRC annual 

projects report

AMP Effectiveness Wkshp Unknown

CORE MONITORING EVAL.

INs Workshop (HBC/trout)

BHBF PLAN

BHBF Test ?

MRP

Sediment Core Monitoring

Evaluation Report 

Terrestrial Veg Core 

Monitoring Report 

Lee Ferry Trout Core 

Monitoring Evaluation Rpt 

LTEP EIS

LTEP Chapter 4 review

 Final LTEP EIS

 ROD

LTEP Science Plan

STRATEGIC PLAN REVIEW

DEVELOP FUTURE 

RESOURCE CONDITIONS

TWG DFCAHG Report

sediment & HBC DFCs ?

ROLES AD HOC REPORT

MRP UPDATE/LTEP DONE

Colorado River Basin 

Science Conference

PROGRAMMATIC

AGREEMENT

Memorandum of Agreement

TWG Initial review AMWG review

TWG recommendation to AMWG BAHG/CRAHG review

AMWG recommendation to Secretary

Target dates AMP involvement uncertain

2007 2008 2009

GLEN CANYON DAM ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

2007-2009 PROGRAM SCHEDULE
#### Sharon Anne Robertson *v.*Robert Apuzzo

Decided May 13, 1975

Acting pursuant to that portion of § 692 of the Practice Book which provides that this court “may also, on its own motion or upon motion of any party, (1) order a judge to take any action necessary to complete the record for the proper presentation of the appeal,” it is ordered that the trial judge file with this court a supplemental finding as to the issue of indigency, such as circumstances permit, and also setting forth the basis for its ultimate conclusion, including any claims of law made together with the conclusions reached thereon, with respect to the denial of the defendant’s motion entitled “Motion to Waive Jury Fee.”
Exhibit 32.01

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 of Caraustar Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, 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 his knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                     |  |  |  |                                                         
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 15, 2007 |  |  |  |                                                         
|                     |  | 
|                     |  |  |  | /s/ Michael J. Keough                                   
|                     |  |  |  | Michael J. Keough, President and Chief Executive Officer
Merrill Schneider, OSB #77336 

merrillschneider@schneiderlaw.com 

Schneider Kerr & Robichaux 

PO Box 14490 

Portland, Oregon 97293 

Phone: 503-255-9092 

Fax: 503-255-9145 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MATTHEW REYES, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYN COL VIN, 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

3:15-CV-02206-BR 

ORDER FOR ATTORNEY 

FEES UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) 

The court finds and orders an attorney fee of $6,113.09 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). 

The attorney fee of $2,481.97 allowed pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act will be 

refunded to Plaintiff upon counsel's receipt of the allowed 406(b) fee awarded, provided the 

allowed BAJA fees are not seized by the Treasury. 

~ 

Dated this \i;' day of ~ , 2017. 

Anna 

United 

Br~~ States District Court Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-02206-BR Document 28 Filed 02/15/17 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32(B)

                            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 of Murray United Development Corp.
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending July 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Anthony Campo, Chairman of the
Board and Chief Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


         1. The Report 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 result of operations of the
Company.


Date:  October 25, 2004                       / s / Anthony Campo
                                            ---------------------

                                            ANTHONY CAMPO,
                                            Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                            Financial and Accounting Officer