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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7224

STUART WAYNE TOMPKINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen,

Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00322-GCM)

Submitted: February 17, 2010 Decided: March 4, 2010

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stuart Wayne Tompkins, Appellant Pro Se. Yvonne Bulluck Ricci, 

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Stuart Wayne Tompkins seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) 

action. The district court entered its order on April 14, 2009. 

Tompkins filed his notice of appeal on June 23, 2009. Attached 

to his notice of appeal, Tompkins provided a sworn statement 

that he did not receive notice of the district court’s order 

until June 21, 2009. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of 

the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends 

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the 

appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period 

is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of 

Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted); see Bowles v. Russell

Tompkins’ notice of appeal is clearly untimely. 

However, we construe Tompkins’ notice of appeal as a motion to 

reopen the time to appeal. 

, 551 U.S. 205, 214 

(2007).

See United States v. Feuver, 236 

F.3d 725, 729 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we remand the 

case to the district court for the limited purpose of permitting 

that court to determine whether Tompkins can satisfy the 

requirements for reopening the appeal period set forth in Rule
3

4(a)(6). See Ogden v. San Juan County

REMANDED

, 32 F.3d 452, 454 (10th 

Cir. 1994). The record, as supplemented, will then be returned 

to this court for further consideration.
Exhibit 10.7.3 


 


	CONFIDENTIAL	 




 


SECOND AMENDMENT TO


COMMERCIALIZATION AGREEMENT


 


THIS Second Amendment to the
January 9, 2017 Commercialization Agreement (“Second Amendment”), effective as of the date this Second Amendment is signed
by both parties (the “Effective Date”), is made by and between Sera Prognostics, Inc. (“Sera”) and Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings (“Labcorp”). Sera and Labcorp may be referred to herein each as a “Party” or collectively
as “Parties.”


 


RECITALS


 


A.           Sera
and Labcorp entered into a Commercialization Agreement having an effective date of January 9, 2017, as amended June 25, 2018 (the “Agreement”);
and,


 


B.            The
Parties now wish to amend the Agreement in accordance with the terms of this Second Amendment.


 


TERMS


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for good and
valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and the mutual covenants set forth herein, the Parties agree as follows:


 


1.            Section
10.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated as follows:


 


10.1       Term.
This Agreement will commence on the Effective Date and, unless terminated pursuant to the terms hereof, will automatically renew on each
anniversary of the Effective Date.


 


2.        All
capitalized terms used in this Second Amendment and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned them in the Agreement.
Except as expressly stated in this Second Amendment, the Agreement remains unchanged and in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties
hereto have executed this Second Amendment through their authorized representatives signing below.


 


	LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS

                                                                                
	 	SERA PROGNOSTICS, INC.
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ Michael F. Minahan	 	By:	/s/ Douglas Fisher, MD
	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:	Michael F. Minahan	 	Name:	Douglas Fisher, MD
	 	 	 	 	 
	Title:	SVP & General Manager	 	Title:	Chief Business Officer
	 	 	 	 	 
	Date:	1/26/2021	 	Date:	1/25/2021
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Stephen J. Verleye, Chief Executive Officer of Applied
Microsystems Corporation (the ""Registrant''), do hereby certify in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  |  | (1) the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is
attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |  |  | (2) the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.                                                                                     

Dated: May 14, 2003



| | /s/ Stephen J.
Verleye                   
| | -----------------------------------------
| |                                          
| | Stephen J.
VerleyeChief Executive Officer
#### WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. v. L. & N. R. R. CO.

(Decided June 19, 1913.)

Appeal from Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. C. C. Nesmith.

George H. Fearons, Campbell & Johnston, W. C. Fitts, and Rusi-iton, Williams & Crenshaw, for ap*674pellant.

H. L. Stone, Geo. W. Jones, J. M. Foster, S. L. Fields, Mallory & Mallory, and Tillman, Bradley & Morrow, for appellee.

de Graffenried, J.

— Reversed and remanded on the authority of *W. U. T. Co. v. S. & N. Ala. Ry. Co., infra;*62 South. 788.

All the Justices concur, except' Sayre, J., who dissents.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1895 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1895

To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to prohibit oil and gas 
  preleasing, leasing, and related activities in certain areas of the 
    Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of Florida, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 20, 2015

Ms. Castor of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to prohibit oil and gas 
  preleasing, leasing, and related activities in certain areas of the 
    Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of Florida, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Florida Coastal Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND NATURAL GAS PRELEASING, LEASING, AND 
              RELATED ACTIVITIES IN CERTAIN AREAS OFF THE COAST OF 
              FLORIDA.

    Section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 
1344) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(i) Prohibition of Oil and Natural Gas Preleasing, Leasing, and 
Related Activities in Certain Areas Off the Coast of Florida.--
            ``(1) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        this section or any other law, the Secretary may not offer for 
        oil and gas leasing or preleasing or any related activity, any 
        tract located in--
                    ``(A) any area of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico that 
                is referred to in section 104(a) of the Gulf of Mexico 
                Energy Security Act of 2006;
                    ``(B) the portion of the South Atlantic Planning 
                Area south of 30 degrees 43 minutes North Latitude; or
                    ``(C) the Straits of Florida Planning Area.
            ``(2) Limitation on effect.--Nothing in this subsection 
        affects any right under any lease issued under this Act before 
        the date of enactment of this subsection.''.
                                 <all>
```
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 128508 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 128508 COA: 242186 Wayne CC: 01-000862 MICHAEL MAYBERRY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the April 5, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1024 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
#### In the Matter of Christopher H., a Person Alleged to be in Need of Supervision, Appellant.

— In a proceeding to place the appellant as a person in need of supervision pursuant to Family Court Act article 7, the appeal is from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Hurley, J.), dated July 23, 1986, which, after a hearing, denied Christopher H.’s application to extend his placement.

Ordered that the order is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by deleting the provision thereof which permitted Christopher H. to conclude his summer school program and extended his placement through the day following the last day of that program, and substituting therefor a provision permitting him to conclude the fall semester in the Riverhead School District and extending his placement through the day following the last day of the fall term. As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant Christopher H. applied for an extension of his placement to avoid returning to his parents. The Family Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to extend Christopher H.’s placement. The record supports the Family Court’s conclusion that none of the goals which underlie the placement of persons in need of supervision (hereinafter PINS) would be advanced by an extension of Christopher’s placement. It appears that his application to remain in placement is based on a desire to receive custodial care and not individualized treatment, and therefore contravenes the purpose of a PINS placement *(see, Matter of Lavette M.,*35 NY2d 136, 141). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1899 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend to all veterans with 

a serious service-connected injury eligibility to participate in the family 

caregiver services program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 21, 2015 

Mrs. LAWRENCE (for herself and Mrs. BUSTOS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend to all 

veterans with a serious service-connected injury eligibility 

to participate in the family caregiver services program. 

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 ‘‘Caregivers Expansion 

5 and Improvement Act of 2015’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1899 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION TO ALL VETERANS WITH A SERIOUS 

2 SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY OF ELIGI3 BILITY FOR PARTICIPATION IN FAMILY CARE4 GIVER PROGRAM. 

5 Section 1720G(a)(2)(B) of title 38, United States 

6 Code, is amended by striking ‘‘on or after September 11, 

7 2001’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### McGOWN, Respondent, v. McGOWN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 18, 1896.)

Action by Henry P. McGown, Jr., against Mary E. McGown. L. E. Pendergast, for appellant. C. Blandy, for respondent.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Willie B. DINKINS, Sergeant, U. S. Army, Appellant.

No. 30,294.

U. S. Court of Military Appeals.

Oct. 3, 1975.

*186
      *Lieutenant Colonel James Kucera, Captain Anthony J. Siano,*and *Captain Pete M. Dalmut*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Donald W. Hansen, Major Steven M. Werner,*and *Captain Raymond Michael Ripple*were on the pleadings for the Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

The Government points to several “unusual factors” to justify the 126-day Burton1 delay in bringing appellant to trial.2
      *See United States v. Marshall,*22 U.S.C.M.A. 431, 47 C.M.R. 409 (1973). The crucial delay triggering the *Burton*presumption was a Government witness’ failure to secure in advance of the scheduled trial date a passport to return to Germany to testify. Assuring the presence of witnesses for trial is one of the routine responsibilities of the prosecution for which ample allowance was made in establishing the 90-day standard. *United States v. Reitz,*22 U.S.C.M.A. 584, 48 C.M.R. 178 (1974). The Court of Military Review erred in affirming the findings and sentence.

The decision of the United States Army Court of Military Review is reversed. The charge and its specification are ordered dismissed.

. *United States v. Burton,*21 U.S.C.M.A. 112, 44 C.M.R. 166 (1971).

. Both parties acknowledge that the defense must share responsibility for a portion of the delay in bringing appellant to trial, but that the Government remains accountable for a period in excess of 90 days.

COOK, Judge

(concurring):

I concur.

I readily join in concluding that the Government has failed to justify the delay beyond the 90 days in bringing appellant to trial. Allowing for the absence of any known procedure to keep a person beyond his scheduled date of discharge solely for the purpose of testifying,3 and recognizing that unusual difficulties may be encountered when trial occurs in a foreign country, this record does not reflect the sort of diligence required to assure the timely presence of the witness. On the contrary, the Government relied on the “fair luck” it had experienced in the past in getting former service persons to return from the United States to Germany. Accordingly, the military judge erred in denying the defense motion to dismiss the charges for lack of a speedy trial.

. *United States v. Wheeler,*21 U.S.C.M.A. 468, 471, 45 C.M.R. 242, 245 (1972).
Exhibit 18.1
                                                     ------------

September 29, 2003

Eagle Supply Group, Inc.

We have audited the consolidated financial statements of Eagle
Supply Group, Inc. ("the Company") and subsidiaries as of June
30, 2003 and 2002, and for each of the three years in the period
ended June 30, 2003, included in your Annual Report on Form 10-K
to the Securities and Exchange Commission and have issued our
report thereon dated September 29, 2003, which expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph
concerning the Company's change in method of accounting for
certain inventories.  Note 3 to such financial statements
contains a description of your adoption during the year ended
June 30, 2003 of the average cost method of accounting for all
inventories previously accounted for on the last-in first-out
method.  In our judgment, such change is to an alternative
accounting principle that is preferable under the circumstances.

Yours truly,

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
#### Edward Winters, Appellant, v Main LLC et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. LC Main, LLC, et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v Roger & Sons Concrete, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[947 NYS2d 418]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered May 20, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants LC Main, LLC and George A. Fuller Company Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, granted third-party defendant Roger & Sons Concrete, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff testified that he lost his footing on a scaffold platform, causing a pipe he had been handed to slip downward in his hands, and that when he reached forward to grab the pipe, he felt a sharp pain in his back. He testified further that he did not know why he lost his footing; the scaffold did not shake or move, and there was no debris on the platform.

This evidence demonstrates as a matter of law that plaintiffs injuries were caused not by a failure to provide adequate protection against an elevation-related risk but by an accident arising from a routine workplace risk (see Labor Law § 240 [1]). Nor were plaintiffs injuries caused by a failure to comply with any of the Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) provisions he cited in support of his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, since the scaffold on which he was standing never moved, he never fell, and no hoisting equipment was in use. As to plaintiffs Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, his testimony demonstrates that his injuries were not caused by any unsafe condition of the work site, and his and other witnesses’ testimony that hand assembly was the standard method of scaffold construction *429demonstrates that his injuries were not caused by the way in which he performed his work. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and Richter, JJ. [Prior Case History; 2011 NY Slip Op 31553(U).]
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Ave Air Temp                    
csv

      Min Air Temp                    
csv

      Max Air Temp                    
csv

      Ave Dewpoint                    
csv

      Peak Wind Gust                    
csv

      Evapotranspiration, Kimberly-Penman                    
csv

      Evapotranspiration, Asce-Ewri Grass                    
csv

      Evapotranspiration, Asce-Ewri Alfalfa                    
csv

      Precipitation                    
csv

      Wy Precip                    
csv

      Avg Net Radiation                    
csv

      Ave Relative Humidity                    
csv

      Growing Degree Days                    
csv

      Ave Wind Speed                    
csv

      Ave Wind Direction                    
csv

      Wind Run                    
csv

      Average Soil Temperature, 4 In Depth                    
csv

      Average Soil Temperature, 40 In Depth                    
csv

      Minimum Soil Temperature, 40 In Depth                    
csv

      Maximum Soil Temperature, 40 In Depth                    
csv

      Minimum Soil Temperature, 20 In Depth                    
csv

      Maximum Soil Temperature, 20 In Depth                    
csv

      Maximum Soil Temperature, 2 In Depth                    
csv

      Minimum Soil Temperature, 2 In Depth                    
csv

      Average Soil Temperature, 2 In Depth                    
csv

      Precip Accum                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Ave Air Temp                    
json

      Min Air Temp                    
json

      Max Air Temp                    
json

      Ave Dewpoint                    
json

      Peak Wind Gust                    
json

      Evapotranspiration, Kimberly-Penman                    
json

      Evapotranspiration, Asce-Ewri Grass                    
json

      Evapotranspiration, Asce-Ewri Alfalfa                    
json

      Precipitation                    
json

      Wy Precip                    
json

      Avg Net Radiation                    
json

      Ave Relative Humidity                    
json

      Growing Degree Days                    
json

      Ave Wind Speed                    
json

      Ave Wind Direction                    
json

      Wind Run                    
json

      Average Soil Temperature, 4 In Depth                    
json

      Average Soil Temperature, 40 In Depth                    
json

      Minimum Soil Temperature, 40 In Depth                    
json

      Maximum Soil Temperature, 40 In Depth                    
json

      Minimum Soil Temperature, 20 In Depth                    
json

      Maximum Soil Temperature, 20 In Depth                    
json

      Maximum Soil Temperature, 2 In Depth                    
json

      Minimum Soil Temperature, 2 In Depth                    
json

      Average Soil Temperature, 2 In Depth                    
json

      Precip Accum                    
json
Exhibit
14.(a).2





CONSENT





I hereby consent to the inclusion of
the summary of my actuarial calculations  of Blue Square's various
employee benefits as described under the caption “Summary of Significant
Accounting Policies” (note 2t) in the consolidated financial statements of Blue
Square-Israel Ltd. contained in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Blue
Square-Israel Ltd., filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and to
the incorporation by reference of such summary in the previously filed
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-149175) of Blue Square-Israel
Ltd.




Tel Aviv, Israel
              /s/ Kost, Forer, Gabby &
      KasiererJune
      23, 2009
              Kost,
      Forer, Gabby & Kasierer
LORO - LORELLALatitude: 42.078Longitude: -121.224Elevation: None

LORO - Lorella

Courtesy NRCS - Go to State Line Site Page...



State Line

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Strawberry Site Page...



Strawberry

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Gerber Reservoir Site Page...



Gerber Reservoir

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Crowder Flat Site Page...



Crowder Flat
BROWN TROUT UPDATE 

LEES FERRY 

Bill Stewart and Lisa Winters 
LIFE HISTORY 

Brown Trout

 Spawn Nov-Dec  Feed  Aggressive piscivores 

(70% Yard et al.) 

 Move long distance to 

spawn 

 Not susceptible to whirling 

disease 

Rainbow Tr

 Spawn Feb-April  Predominately drif

feeders (3.3% Yard et al.) 

 Limited movement 
0 5 10 15 20 

Brown Trout 

Rainbow Trout 

Temperature °C Source: Valdez and Speas 2007 

TEMPERATURE PREFERENCE 
LOCATION OF BROWN TR

Colorado River Distribution 
HISTORICAL COMPARISON 

(AZGFD LONG TERM MONITORING) 
Number of Brown Trout Caught
 

HISTORICAL COMPARISON 

(NATAL ORIGINS LEES FERR Y) 

250 200 150 100 

50 

0 

November

April

July

September

October

December

January

April

June

September

October

December

January

April

June

September

October

December

January

April

2011 2012 2013 2014 
AZGFD Long Term 

Monitoring 
Natal Origins 

(LF Fall Surveys) 
CREEL 

Creel 
FISHING REGULATIONS 

 From Glen Canyon Dam to the Paria riffle: 

 Limit 4 rainbow trout per day. Rainbow trout >14 inches may not be possesseArtificial fly and lure only; Barbless hooks onlyRainbow trout taken from this portion of the ri

shall be killed and retained as part of bag limiimmediately released. 

No limit on other sport fish species (all species 

bass, catfish, other trout, and walleye). 
 Why have Brown Trout populations remained so low? 

 Unsuitable temperatures?  Competition from Rainbow Trout?  Limited spawning and rearing habitat? 

 Why have we seen an increase in Brown Trout at Lee

 Temperatures seems to be within their range  Rainbow trout abundance has been high  Are fall HFEs creating spawning habitat for Brown Trout? 
Questions