alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
September 15, 1975 

The Honorable Kenneth D. Gaver, M. D. Opinion No. H- 691 

Commissioner 

Texas Department of Mental Health and 

Mental Retardation 

Box 12668, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711 

Re: Ability of Mental Health and 

Mental Retardation Patient Benefit 

Fund to borrow money against 

collateral of certificates of deposit 

in which the Fund is invested. 

Dear Dr. Gaver: 

You have requested our opinion concerning whether the trustee of the 

Patient Benefit Fund may, after placing the money in the Fhnd in certificates 

of deposit, pledge such certificates as collateral for loans. You explain that the 

Benefit Fund is maintained primarily in certificates of deposit in order to 

maximize the earnings of the Fund. When it becom,es necessary to make 

unexpected expenditures from the Fund, it is financially preferable to obtain a 

loan rather than redeem a certificate before its date of maturity. 

The Patient Benefit Fund is created in article 3 183c, V. T. C. S. It 

may be expended “for the education or entertainment of the inmates of the 

institution, or for the actual expense of maintaining the fund at the institution. ” 

Sec. 1. 

Assuming the trustee’s action is prudent under the standard set in 

article 742513-46, V. T. C. S., we see no meaningful distinction in this case 

between the direct expenditure of money from the Fund and the use of the Fund 

as collateral for a loan, where the proceeds of the loan are used for a purpose 

for which money from the Fund may be legally expended. Accordingly, we 

answer you question in the affirmative. 

p. 3003 
The Honorable Kenneth D. Gaver, M. D. - page 2 (H-691) 

SUMMARY 

Provided the action is prudent under the standard 

set in article 742513-46, V. T. C. S., the trustee of 

the Patient Benefit Fund may use certificates of 

deposit as collateral for a loan where the proceeds 

of the loan are used for a purpose for which money 

in the Fund may be legally expended. 

j-Jzji& 

Attorney General of Texas 

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant 

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

jwb 

p. 3004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MACHEEZMO
MOUSE RESTAURANTS, INC. 10-KSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         341,363
<SECURITIES>                                   511,107
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    108,700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,028,204
<PP&E>                                       1,447,092
<DEPRECIATION>                                 766,770
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,729,170
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          390,027
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,177,756
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,729,170
<SALES>                                      6,003,906
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,003,906
<CGS>                                        5,455,200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,936,344
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (93,878)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (838,560)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (838,560)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (838,560)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)
        

</TABLE>
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2999 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions 

AN ACT 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to enhance and 

increase the number of veterinarians trained in veterinary public health. 

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


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2999 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterinary Public 

3 Health Amendments Act of 2010’’. 

4 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF VETERINARY PUBLIC HEALTH IN 

5 CERTAIN PUBLIC HEALTH WORKFORCE PRO6 VISIONS. 

7 (a) PUBLIC HEALTH WORKFORCE GRANTS.—Sub8 sections (b)(1)(A) and (d)(6) of section 765 of the Public 

9 Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295) are amended by in10 serting ‘‘veterinary public health,’’ after ‘‘preventive medi11 cine,’’ each place it appears. 

12 (b) PUBLIC HEALTH WORKFORCE LOAN REPAY13 MENT PROGRAM.— 

14 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraphs (A) and (B) 

15 of section 776(b)(1) of the Public Health Service 

16 Act (42 U.S.C. 295f–1(b)(1)) are amended by strik17 ing ‘‘public health or health professions degree or 

18 certificate’’ each place it appears and inserting 

19 ‘‘public health (including veterinary public health) or 

20 health professions degree or certificate’’. 

21 (2) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Subparagraph 

22 (A) of section 776(b)(1) of the Public Health Service 

23 Act (42 U.S.C. 295f–1(b)(1)) is amended by adding 

24 ‘‘or’’ at the end. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 2999 RFS

1 (c) DEFINITION.—Section 799B of the Public Health 

2 Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295p) is amended by adding at 

3 the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(27) VETERINARY PUBLIC HEALTH.—The 

5 term ‘veterinary public health’ includes veterinarians 

6 engaged in one or more of the following areas to the 

7 extent such areas have an impact on human health: 

8 biodefense and emergency preparedness, emerging 

9 and reemerging infectious diseases, environmental 

10 health, ecosystem health, pre- and post-harvest food 

11 protection, regulatory medicine, diagnostic labora12 tory medicine, veterinary pathology, biomedical re13 search, the practice of food animal medicine in rural 

14 areas, and government practice.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 30 

(legislative day September 29), 2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
Prepared by R.R. Donnelley Financial -- EX-10.10




 Exhibit 10.10 

AMENDMENT TO LEASE 

BY THIS AMENDMENT TO LEASE (this “Amendment”) made and entered into as of May 27, 2014, Asante Solutions, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (“Lessee”) and Bel Arbor Investment Company, L.P., a California limited partnership (“Lessor”), RECITE AND AGREE as follows: 

R E C I T A L S 
  

	A.	This Amendment is entered into with reference to that certain Lease Agreement dated September 1, 2011 between Lessee and Lessor (the “Lease”) for those certain premises described in Subarticle 1(d) of the
Lease and located in Sunnyvale, California. Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms herein shall have the meanings given in the Lease and all references herein to Articles and Subarticles shall be references to the Articles and
Subarticles of the Lease. 

  

	B.	The parties desire to (i) extend the Term of the Lease until March 31, 2015, (ii) modify the monthly Base Rent for such extended Term and (iii) incorporate provisions required by statute, subject to
and in accordance with, the following terms and conditions. 

 A M E N D M E N T 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements herein contained and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, Lessor and Lessee hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Term. Article 1(e) is hereby amended by adding
“and five (5) months” after “Three (3) years”. 
 2. Expiration Date. Article 1(g) is hereby amended by
deleting “October 31, 2014” and substituting “March 31, 2015” therefor. 
 3. Base Rent. Article 1(h) is hereby
amended by adding the following at the end thereof: 
 “November 1, 2014 – March 31, 2015: $52,396.00” 

4. No Renewal Option. Article 63 is hereby deleted in its entirety. 

5. Certified Access Specialist. Lessee hereby acknowledges that Lessee has been advised that the Premises have not been inspected by a
Certified Access Specialist, as certified by the State of California. 
 5. Lessor and Lessee have contributed to the final form of this
Amendment. Therefore, neither Lessor nor Lessee shall be considered to be the author of this Amendment should authorship effect the interpretation of this Amendment by any tribunal. 

6. As hereby amended, the Lease shall remain in full force and effect. 

  
 1 









 7. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterpart copies, each of which shall be
deemed an original, but all of which, taken together, shall constitute one Amendment. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed
this Amendment to Lease as of the date first written above. 
 LESSOR: 

Bel Arbor Investment Company, L.P., a California limited partnership 

					
		
	By	 	/s/ Thomas Blumberg
		 	 
		 	Its	 	 

 LESSEE: 
 Asante Solutions,
Inc., a Delaware corporation 
  

					
		
	By	 	/s/ Eric Steuben
		 	 
		 	Its	 	VP of Operations


  
 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM WILSONS THE
LEATHER EXPERTS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF MAY 1, 1999 AND FOR THE QUARTER
ENDED MAY 1, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-01-1999
<CASH>                                          99,759
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,352
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,061
<INVENTORY>                                     70,682
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               176,379
<PP&E>                                          45,950
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,675
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 216,876
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,869
<BONDS>                                         65,450
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           108
<OTHER-SE>                                      95,233
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   216,876
<SALES>                                         80,518
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                80,518
<CGS>                                           58,302
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   82,872
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,458
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,069
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,881)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,884)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,997)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,997)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.28)


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PENELOPE VERONIKIS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 290 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of October, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### United States Institute of Peace

# AGENCY:

United States Institute of Peace.

# DATE/TIME:

Friday, October 20, 2017 (10:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.).

# LOCATION:

2301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20037.

# STATUS:

Open Session—Portions may be closed pursuant to Subsection (c) of Section 552(b) of Title 5, United States Code, as provided in subsection 1706(h)(3) of the United States Institute of Peace Act, Public Law 98-525.

# AGENDA:

October 20, 2017 Board Meeting: Chairman's Report; Vice Chairman's Report; President's Report; Approval of Minutes of the One Hundred and Sixty Second Meeting (April 21, 2017) and the One Hundred and Sixty Third Meeting (July 21, 2017) of the Board of Directors; Reports from USIP Board Committees; Ukraine/Russia Working Group Report; and Israel/Palestine Program Report.

# CONTACT:

                        William B. Taylor, Executive Vice President:                         *wtaylor@usip.org*.                    

Dated: October 3, 2017.

William B. Taylor,

Executive Vice President.

[FR Doc. 2017-21692 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6820-AR-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
      THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE MARCH 31, 2000 QUARTERLY REPORT FILED ON FORM 10-QSB
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           698,584
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 758,756
<PP&E>                                           466,997
<DEPRECIATION>                                     4,947
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,248,203
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            128,143
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                    2,000,000
<COMMON>                                           9,567
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,120,060
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,248,203
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       0
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    453,029
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (446,725)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (446,725)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.04)



</TABLE>
**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 Quarterly Report of Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Alan J. Gotcher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that to the best of my 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.








/s/
      Alan J. Gotcher


Alan
      J.
      Gotcher


Chief
      Executive Officer


August
      15, 2005
#### In the Matter of Karl Ragland, Petitioner, v Great Meadow Correctional Facility et al., Respondents.

[664 NYS2d 678]

White, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Washington County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

While an inmate at Great Meadow Correctional Facility in Washington County, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with refusing to obey a direct order and violating a movement regulation thereby disregarding certain prison disciplinary rules. The charges stemmed from petitioner’s refusal to keep up with the other inmates while being escorted to the mess hall despite having previously been counseled several times regarding this conduct. A determination following a disciplinary hearing finding petitioner guilty of both charges was affirmed on administrative appeal. This proceeding ensued.

Initially, we find that, contrary to petitioner’s contentions, any alleged error in the description of the location of the incident does not mandate annulment inasmuch as the misbehavior report sufficiently informed petitioner of the charges against him and enabled him to prepare a defense *(see generally, Matter of Lugo v Coombe,*240 AD2d 878; *Matter of Torres v Coombe,*234 AD2d 710). We reject petitioner’s contention that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence. The detailed misbehavior report, authored by the correction officer who gave petitioner the direct order and witnessed his refusal to comply therewith, together with petitioner’s testimony, provides substantial evidence to support the determination of petitioner’s guilt *(see, Matter of Rizzuto v Coombe,*225 AD2d 961, 962; *Matter of Faison v Stinson,*221 AD2d 746). Although petitioner contends that an unspecified *613medical condition prevented him from keeping up with the other inmates, he failed to offer or request his medical records to substantiate this defense; in any event, such defense presented an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see, Matter of Rivera v Coombe,*240 AD2d 830; *see also, Matter of Graham v Selsky,*238 AD2d 828, 829).

We find petitioner’s contentions of various procedural and due process errors to be unpersuasive. Our review of the record reveals that the Hearing Officer adequately set forth the evidence upon which he relied in reaching the determination and that he apprised petitioner of his right to appeal. Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his assertion regarding the intermittent gaps in the hearing transcripts, the Hearing Officer’s denial of petitioner’s request to call witnesses and bias on the part of the Hearing Officer, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit or unpreserved for our review.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
#### Robert E. Kolvek et al., Respondents, v Sando M. Ferrucci, Jr., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[667 NYS2d 554]

—Judgment and order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and answer reinstated. Memorandum: In this action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to determine competing claims to real property, plaintiffs claim title and the right to possession based on the alleged breach by Sando M. Ferrucci, Jr. (defendant) of an installment contract to purchase the property. Plaintiffs allege that defendant failed to pay taxes and obtain insurance on the property, as required by the contract. Following joinder of issue, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the affirmative defenses, which include lack of personal jurisdiction and payment, and for summary judgment on the complaint and counterclaim. Defendant appeals from a judgment and order that granted plaintiffs’ motion and thereby adjudged plaintiffs the sole owners of the property, extinguished any *1079claim of defendant, granted plaintiffs immediate possession and awarded plaintiffs approximately $17,000 for back taxes, the costs of insurance on the property and attorney’s fees in prosecuting the action.

The court erred in granting plaintiffs summary judgment. There are triable issues of fact concerning the merits of plaintiffs’ action and defendant’s affirmative defenses of lack of jurisdiction and payment. Although defendant specifically averred that he had not been served, plaintiffs did not address that defense or defendant’s averment, nor did they offer proof of service. Under the circumstances, defendant raised a color-able claim of improper service, thus shifting the burden to plaintiffs to come forward with proof of service (see, *Jenny Oil Corp. v Petro Prods. Distribs.,*121 AD2d 686, 687). The court therefore erred in summarily disposing of the jurisdictional objection *(cf., Juron & Minzner v Dranoff & Patrizio,*180 AD2d 439; *Firegreen Ltd. v Claxton,*160 AD2d 409, 411-412; *Graham v Sylvan Lawrence Co.,*82 AD2d 980).

Similarly, while plaintiffs allege that defendant breached his contractual obligations to pay taxes and obtain insurance coverage on the property, defendant averred that plaintiffs had accepted such payments and had either misappropriated them or had paid the charges in their own name without crediting defendant. Further, plaintiffs failed to prove that they had served notices of default and termination upon defendant, as required by the contract, and defendant denied receiving a 30-day notice with respect to his alleged failure to obtain insurance coverage. In the absence of proof that the required notices were sent and that defendant failed to cure his alleged default, plaintiffs failed to establish as a matter of law that defendant was in default under the contract. There is a triable question of fact on the issue of default, and thus the court erred in granting summary judgment *(see, First Natl. Bank v Volpe,*217 AD2d 967, 968; *Genrich v Holiday Lady Fitness Ctr.,*216 AD2d 897). (Appeal from Judgment and Order of Erie County Court, Rogowski, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wisner, Balio and Boehm, JJ.