text:
Participating Organization(s) |
National Institutes of Health (NIH) |
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) |
Funding Opportunity Title |
Advanced Neural Prosthetics Research and Development (U01) |
Activity Code |
U01 Research Project Cooperative Agreements |
Announcement Type |
Reissue of PA-11-147 |
Related Notices
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Number |
Companion FOA |
PAR-12-054, Advanced Neural Prosthetics Research and Development (SBIR [U44]) |
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s) |
93.853, 93.286, 93.865 |
FOA Purpose |
The purpose of this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is to encourage applications to pursue translational and pilot clinical studies for neural prosthetics. The program will utilize the cooperative agreement mechanism to enable support for milestone-driven projects for the development and demonstration of clinically-useful neural prosthetic devices. Activities supported in this program include implementation of clinical prototype devices, preclinical safety and efficacy testing, design verification and validation activities, pursuit of regulatory approval for clinical study, and proof-of-concept or pilot clinical studies. |
Posted Date |
December 8, 2011 |
Open Date (Earliest Submission Date) |
January 5, 2012 |
Letter of Intent Due Date |
One month prior to application due date. |
Application Due Date(s) |
Standard dates apply, by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization. |
AIDS Application Due Date(s) |
Standard dates apply, by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization. |
Scientific Merit Review |
Standard dates apply |
Advisory Council Review |
Standard dates apply |
Earliest Start Date(s) |
Standard dates apply |
Expiration Date |
January 8, 2015 |
Due Dates for E.O. 12372 |
Not Applicable |
Required Application Instructions
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide, except where instructed to do otherwise (in this FOA or in a Notice from the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts). Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the FOA) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions. Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
Part 1. Overview Information
Part 2. Full Text of the Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
Section II. Award Information
Section III. Eligibility Information
Section IV. Application and Submission
Section V. Application Review Information
Section VI. Award Administration Information
Section VII. Agency Contacts
Section VIII. Other Information
Neural prosthetic devices restore or supplement function of the nervous system lost during disease or injury. The purpose of this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is to encourage applications for cooperative agreements (U01s) to pursue translational and pilot clinical studies for neural prosthetics. This program enables support for milestone-driven projects for the development, testing, and demonstration of neural prosthetic devices. Activities that can be supported in this program include implementation of clinical prototype devices, design verification and validation activities, demonstration of preclinical safety and efficacy, pursuit of regulatory approval for clinical study, and proof-of-concept or pilot clinical studies. Projects within this program will pursue the translation of bench-level neural engineering activities towards realization of clinically-deployable neural prosthetic devices and systems.
Note: Applicants are encouraged to look at the Advanced Neural Prosthetics Program Announcement Frequently Asked Questions (located at http://www.ninds.nih.gov/research/npp/faqs_advanced_neural_prosthetics_research_dev.htm) for a listing of common questions regarding the preparation and submission of applications to this program.
For over 40 years, the NIH has supported research and development through the Neural Prosthesis Program (NPP; http://www.ninds.nih.gov/research/npp/index.htm). The NPP has supported neural prosthetics research in topics including but not limited to biomaterials, cochlear implants, visual prosthetics, peripheral nerve interfaces, safety of electrical stimulation, microelectrode arrays, functional electrical stimulation (FES), cortical prosthesis, and spinal cord microstimulation. A major achievement of the NPP has been the development of the cochlear implant, a safe and effective implantable device that offers sound perception to some severely deaf individuals (http://report.nih.gov/NIHfactsheets/ViewFactSheet.aspx?csid=83).
Progress has also been made in neural prosthetics for individuals with spinal cord injury, stroke, and locked in syndrome. FES devices are being developed for bladder function, upper/lower extremity control, and breathing/coughing. Recent efforts in brain machine/computer interfaces include real time cortical control of robotic limbs in non-human primates and the control of computer cursors by paralyzed individuals. There are opportunities to capitalize on advances in fundamental understanding of natural neuromuscular systems and in neural interfaces to develop new prosthetic limbs. For epilepsy, implantable devices that operate through closed-loop control to sense seizure onset and deliver targeted therapeutic stimuli or neuroactive compounds appear promising. At the bench, new techniques for interfacing with the damaged nervous system are emerging that involve novel materials, architectures, system designs, and modalities (e.g., optical stimulation). In spite of this promise, neural prosthetic device innovation needs to address issues concerning animal efficacy, safety, and biocompatibility tests. A significant milestone toward clinical usage is attainment of an investigational device exemption (IDE) from the FDA, which is typically required to pursue pilot/feasibility studies in humans. IDE approval is based upon an evaluation of whether or not the risks to the subject are outweighed by the anticipated benefits to the subjects and the knowledge obtained (see http//TBD for more information on the FDA regulatory process).
The Advanced Neural Prosthetics Research and Development Program supports the development of clinical prototype devices leading to regulatory submission and potentially first-in-human demonstrations, including design verification and validation activities, demonstration of preclinical safety and efficacy, pursuit of regulatory approval for clinical study, and proof-of-concept or pilot clinical studies. This program is not intended to support definitive clinical trials of implanted devices. To be fully successful, partnerships between engineers, scientists, and clinicians will be required; these partnerships will likely span academia and the private sector.
For entry to the program, projects must have identified one or more clinically meaningful device outcomes based on input from both clinicians and patients. Ideally preliminary proof of concept data would be available, preferably obtained using in vivo animal model representative of the intended patient population. When projects do not include a representative animal model for efficacy testing, an acceptable alternative for entry to the program is efficacy data obtained through laboratory work and in vivo proof of concept demonstrated in normal animals. As preliminary proof of concept data are strongly recommended for entry into this program, innovation will in part be judged on presenting a credible path towards regulatory submission at the end of the project period.
There is increasing awareness among neurological disease/disorder communities that sufficient information must be available about study design, execution, analysis, and interpretation to assess the predictive value of preclinical research. Preliminary data should demonstrate rigor in the preliminary evaluation of device efficacy. Examples of the critical elements of a well-designed study are summarized on the NINDS website (http://www.ninds.nih.gov/funding/transparency_in_reporting_guidance.pdf). Applicants are strongly urged to consider these elements when describing supporting data and designing the proposed studies.
Applications must include proposed annual milestones to be within program scope. Milestones toward clinical device development are goals that create yearly go/no-go decision points in the project and include quantitative success criteria (see http://www.ninds.nih.gov/research/npp/example_milestones_advanced_neural-prosthetics_research_dev.htm). Achievement of milestones will be evaluated by NIH program staff, and funding of non-competing award years will depend on milestone accomplishment.
Efforts to develop neurotechnology for fundamental study of the nervous system are not within scope of this program. Likewise, fundamental basic/applied research projects related to neural prosthetics, such as the study of tissue-device interface, use of devices for studying sensorimotor integration, algorithm development for neural decoding, are outside the scope of the present FOA but may be within scope of the Bioengineering Research Grants and Partnerships program announcements (see http://www.ninds.nih.gov/research/bioengineering/). Finally, projects focused on neural prosthetic technologies for augmentation of healthy individuals are not within scope of this FOA.
Some examples of research projects that could be supported by this FOA include, but are not limited to:
The Advanced Neural Prosthetics Research and Development Program is implemented with the U01 cooperative agreements mechanism, where specific milestones of progress established at the time of award must be met prior to funding of each subsequent budget period. NIH program staff will have a significant, although not dominant, role in the planning and execution of the supported activities. In addition, NIH program staff will examine the scope and relevance of the applications to the institute's mission prior to review, promote collaborations within the program, and have a significant role in the development and annual assessment of milestones. Applicants are strongly encouraged to consult with NIH staff as plans for an application are being developed. Early contact provides an opportunity for program staff to discuss the program scope and goals, and to provide information and guidance on how to develop an appropriate milestone plan. Other aspects of an application that are unique to this program are also discussed. Consultations may include both an introductory call and a conference call with NIH staff. The introductory call should be completed at least 10 weeks before a receipt date and the conference call at least 8 weeks before a receipt date.
Participating investigators will comply with the NIH Data Sharing Policy, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/, and will be expected to share data, materials, and expertise with outside groups. In addition, investigators will be expected to participate in a biennial neural interfaces conference, and efforts towards the development of standards for safety/efficacy testing and device/systems integration. Consequently, budgeting for travel expenses related to the biennial neural interfaces conference is expected.
For projects pursuing clinical demonstration or studies, the use of the Design Control process (http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm070627.htm) is required. Pre-IDE meetings with the FDA, intermediate steps in the Design Control process (design reviews, design verification, and design validation), and IDE submission should be represented in the annual milestones. Budgeting for consultants with expertise in the Design Control process and/or regulatory submission is permissible. In the design of studies with clinical components, applicants should consider Guidelines and Policies for Monitoring Clinical Research in the formation of a plan for data and safety monitoring: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/research/clinical_research/policies/dsm.htm .
Funding Instrument |
Cooperative Agreement |
Application Types Allowed |
New The OER Glossary and the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide provide details on these application types. |
Funds Available and Anticipated Number of Awards |
The number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations, and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications. |
Award Budget |
Budgets for direct costs per year will depend upon specific project requirements. The maximum direct costs for any single year may not exceed $1,000,000 per year. |
Award Project Period |
Scope of the proposed project should determine the project period. The maximum period is 5 years. |
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made in response to this FOA.
Higher Education Institutions
The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:
Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education
For-Profit Organizations
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions) are eligible to apply.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are eligible to apply.
Foreign components, as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, are allowed.
Applicant organizations must complete the following registrations
as described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide to be eligible to apply
for or receive an award. Applicants must have a valid Dun and Bradstreet
Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number in order to begin each of the following
All Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s))
must also work with their institutional officials to register with the eRA
Commons or ensure their existing eRA Commons account is affiliated with the eRA
Commons account of the applicant organization.
All registrations must be completed by the application due date. Applicant
organizations are strongly encouraged to start the registration process at
least 4-6 weeks prior to the application due date.
Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources
necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Program Director(s)/Principal
Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s)) is invited to work with his/her organization to
develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial
and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always
encouraged to apply for NIH support.
For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PD(s)/PI(s), visit the Multiple
Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) Policy and submission details in
the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the SF 424 (R&R)
Application Guide.
This FOA does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.
NIH will not accept any application in response to this FOA that is essentially the same as one currently pending initial peer review unless the applicant withdraws the pending application. NIH will not accept any application that is essentially the same as one already reviewed. Resubmission applications may be submitted, according to the NIH Policy on Resubmission Applications from the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Applicants must download the SF424 (R&R) application package associated with this funding opportunity using the Apply for Grant Electronically button in this FOA or following the directions provided at Grants.gov.
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, except where instructed in this funding opportunity announcement to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in the Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
For information on Application Submission and Receipt, visit Frequently Asked Questions Application Guide, Electronic Submission of Grant Applications.
Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.
By the date listed in Part 1. Overview Information, prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:
The letter of intent should be sent to:
Kip Ludwig
6001 Executive Blvd
North Bethesda, MD
Telephone: 301-496-1447
Email: email@example.com
The forms package associated with this FOA includes all applicable components, mandatory and optional. Please note that some components marked optional in the application package are required for submission of applications for this FOA. Follow all instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide to ensure you complete all appropriate optional components.
All page limitations described in the SF424 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:
Overall Plan for Neural Prosthetics Development
Projects submitted under the U01 award mechanism must include an overall plan for neural prosthesis development. This plan requires a clearly stated project timeline that includes practical, achievable goals, and annual project milestones. These milestones must be based on quantitative criteria for success and should create go/no-go decision points for the project. For projects proposing proof-of-concept clinical studies, a key step in the Design Control process is the collection of Design Inputs that capture the needs of users (patients, clinicians, caregivers, customers); this initial step should be completed before application submission and will be evaluated for adequacy. For projects that pursue feasibility in humans, the plan should include contact with appropriate regulatory bodies (e.g. FDA in the form of Pre-IDE meetings and IDE submission), and must address clinical considerations including, but not limited to, the tools and process for device insertion and method for evaluating the functional integrity of the device. This plan will often involve cooperation among the investigators, clinical researchers, and may include the participation of private-sector companies and/or voluntary agencies. The overall plan for neural prosthetics development should be included in the Approach portion of the Research Strategy section (5.5.3c) of the application.
Resource Sharing Plan
Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans (Data Sharing Plan, Sharing Model Organisms, and Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) as provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, with the following modification:
Do not use the Appendix to circumvent page limits. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Foreign (non-US) institutions must follow policies described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, and procedures for foreign institutions described throughout the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates. Applicants are encouraged to submit in advance of the deadline to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission.
Organizations must submit applications via Grants.gov, the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies. Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIH's electronic system for grants administration.
Applicants are responsible for viewing their application in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.
Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.
All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide. Paper applications will not be accepted.
Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.
For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit Applying Electronically.
All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the
Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile Component of the SF
424(R&R) Application Package. Failure to register in the Commons and
to include a valid PD(s)/PI(s) Commons ID in the credential field will prevent
the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH.
The applicant organization must ensure that the DUNS number it provides on the
application is the same number used in the organization's profile in the eRA
Commons and for the Central Contractor Registration (CCR). Additional
information may be found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
See more
tips for avoiding common errors.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness by the Center for Scientific Review, NIH. Applications that are incomplete will not be reviewed.
Applicants requesting $500,000 or more in direct costs in any year (excluding consortium F&A) must contact NIH program staff at least 6 weeks before submitting the application and follow the Policy on the Acceptance for Review of Unsolicited Applications that Request $500,000 or More in Direct Costs as described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in NOT-OD-10-115.
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. As part of the NIH mission, all applications submitted to the NIH in support of biomedical and behavioral research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.
Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD(s)/PI(s), do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses
well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project?
Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success
presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the
strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be
If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of
human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members
of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms
of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?
To what extent does the applicant have the ability to address regulatory issues, either through their own staff members or through appropriate arrangements with external regulatory consultants?
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact/priority score, but will not give separate scores for these items.
Protections for Human Subjects
For research that involves human subjects but does
not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR
Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human
subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their
participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to
subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the
subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data
and safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or
more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46,
the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human
subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For
additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to
the Human
Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines.
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children
When the proposed project involves clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for inclusion of minorities and members of both genders, as well as the inclusion of children. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Human Subjects Protection and Inclusion Guidelines.
Vertebrate Animals
The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following five points: 1) proposed use of the animals, and species, strains, ages, sex, and numbers to be used; 2) justifications for the use of animals and for the appropriateness of the species and numbers proposed; 3) adequacy of veterinary care; 4) procedures for limiting discomfort, distress, pain and injury to that which is unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound research including the use of analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs and/or comfortable restraining devices; and 5) methods of euthanasia and reason for selection if not consistent with the AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section.
Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.
For Resubmissions, the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project.
Not Applicable
For Revisions, the committee will consider the appropriateness of the proposed expansion of the scope of the project. If the Revision application relates to a specific line of investigation presented in the original application that was not recommended for approval by the committee, then the committee will consider whether the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group are adequate and whether substantial changes are clearly evident.
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact/priority score.
Applications from Foreign Organizations
Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources.
Select Agent Research
Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
Resource Sharing Plans
Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: 1) Data Sharing Plan; 2) Sharing Model Organisms; and 3) Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS).
Budget and Period of Support
Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by the Center for Scientific Review, in accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures, using the stated review criteria. Review assignments will be shown in the eRA Commons.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications:
Applications will be assigned on the basis of established PHS referral guidelines to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications . Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the appropriate national Advisory Council or Board. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD(s)/PI(s) will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons.
Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH
will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as
described in the NIH
Grants Policy Statement.
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided
to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by
the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via
email to the grantee's business official.
Awardees must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.5. Funding Restrictions. Selection
of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any
costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These
costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.
Any application awarded in response to this FOA will be subject to the DUNS,
CCR Registration, and Transparency Act requirements as noted on the Award
Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website.
All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities. More information is provided at Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants.
Cooperative Agreement Terms and Conditions of Award
The following special terms of award are in addition to, and
not in lieu of, otherwise applicable U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
administrative guidelines, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
grant administration regulations at 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92 (Part 92 is
applicable when State and local Governments are eligible to apply), and other
HHS, PHS, and NIH grant administration policies.
The administrative and funding instrument used for this program will be the
cooperative agreement, an "assistance" mechanism (rather than an
"acquisition" mechanism), in which substantial NIH programmatic
involvement with the awardees is anticipated during the performance of the
activities. Under the cooperative agreement, the NIH purpose is to support and
stimulate the recipients' activities by involvement in and otherwise working
jointly with the award recipients in a partnership role; it is not to assume
direction, prime responsibility, or a dominant role in the activities.
Consistent with this concept, the dominant role and prime responsibility
resides with the awardees for the project as a whole, although specific tasks
and activities may be shared among the awardees and the NIH as defined below.
The PD(s)/PI(s) will have the primary responsibility for:
NIH staff have substantial programmatic involvement that is above and beyond the normal stewardship role in awards, as described below:
Areas of Joint Responsibility include:
Dispute Resolution:
Any disagreements that may arise in scientific or programmatic matters (within the scope of the award) between award recipients and the NIH may be brought to Dispute Resolution. A Dispute Resolution Panel composed of three members will be convened. It will have three members: a designee of the Steering Committee chosen without NIH staff voting, one NIH designee, and a third designee with expertise in the relevant area who is chosen by the other two; in the case of individual disagreement, the first member may be chosen by the individual awardee. This special dispute resolution procedure does not alter the awardee's right to appeal an adverse action that is otherwise appealable in accordance with PHS regulation 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart D and DHHS regulation 45 CFR Part 16.
When multiple years are involved, awardees will be required to submit the Non-Competing Continuation Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
A final progress report, invention statement, and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for awardees of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All awardees of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over $25,000. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.
We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity
and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.
If you are uncertain which participating NIH institute is most suitable for
your project, please send your inquiry (on one email) to all three
scientific/research contacts listed below.
Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and
submission, downloading or navigating forms)
Contact Center Phone: 800-518-4726
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
GrantsInfo (Questions regarding application instructions and
process, finding NIH grant resources)
Telephone 301-710-0267
Email: email@example.com
eRA Commons Help Desk(Questions regarding eRA Commons
registration, tracking application status, post submission issues)
Phone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)
Email: email@example.com
Kip Ludwig, Ph.D.
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)
Telephone: 301-496-1447
Email: email@example.com
Louis Quatrano, Ph.D.
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Telephone: 301-402-4221
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Grace C.Y. Peng, Ph.D.
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging & Bioengineering (NIBIB)
Telephone: 301-451-4778
Email: email@example.com
Examine your eRA Commons account for review assignment and contact information (information appears two weeks after the submission due date).
Tijuanna E. DeCoster, MPA
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)
Telephone: 301-496-9231
Email: email@example.com
Margaret Young
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Telephone: 301-435-7008
Email: email@example.com
Katie Ellis
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB)
Telephone: 301-496-8521
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
| ||||||
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) |
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health® Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files. |


text:
Showing all 5 results
Cochrane Family Farm is 30 acres of organic certified farmland, featuring a unique country store with a full line of organic and local food products, our vegetables, heirloom seeds and herbal products and a seasonal garden centre.
We are fully stocked with a great variety of over 300 organic and natural food products.
5324 Hwy 289 Upper Stewiacke, Nova Scotia
Monday to Friday: 9AM — 6PMSaturday: 9AM — 4PMSunday: Seasonal when Garden Centre is open 11AM – 4PM
© 2024 Cochrane Family Farm. All Rights Reserved. Website designed and built by Red Ear Media.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Play videos in Azure, create apps from templates in a browser, use a device's native camera, and more
In the most recent PowerApps update, 2.0.610 and 2.0.611, we're excited to share a host of improvements around creating and running apps.
Use Azure Media Services
You can use PowerApps to build and run apps with media hosted on Azure Media Services.
- From your Azure Media Services account, locate and publish your video asset from Settings > Assets.
- After the video is published, copy its URL.
- From PowerApps, add the Video control from Insert > Media.
- Set the Media property to the URL that you copied.
As this graphic shows, choose any streaming URL that AMS supports:
If you don't have an Azure Media Services account, you can create and store videos in Azure by following these steps:
- Create an account for Azure Media Services.
- Upload the media.
- Encode your media.
- Publish your video to get the URL to the content.
Create apps from a template in a browser
Template apps showcase real world scenarios with sample data and are also a starting point to learn how PowerApps. With this update, you no longer need PowerApps Studio on Windows to create apps from templates. You can now create apps from templates from any supported browser. To learn more about creating and running apps from templates see here.
Add Picture control with images from the Camera
We heard feedback from customers who wanted to add high-resolution images from the cameras on their mobile devices. With this update, if you insert an Add picture control into an app, users can tap the control to add a picture from their photo library or the native camera on their mobile device. See the graphic below on the choice to select the native camera.
Automatically connect to Microsoft services such as SharePoint, Office, and OneDrive
If you're launching an app using a Microsoft service such as OneDrive, SharePoint, or Office, PowerApps will automatically create a connection to that service if one doesn't already exist. You won't have to configure connections to those services so you can create your app faster. However, users with whom you share the app will still have to consent to those connections before they run it.
We've also boosted performance and let you magnify an app using a browser's zoom feature. We would love to get your feedback – please post your comments and questions on our forums.
Happy app building!
-PowerApps Team.


text:
Patrick DeStefano is a 6'6" 280 pound offensive line prospect from Roebuck, South Carolina. In his junior season, he helped Dorman to the state championship game and later received several accolades, including 2nd Team All-State. Widely regarded as one of the top offensive line prospects in the state, Patrick has already received verbal scholarship offers from an impressive group of college programs, and Duke was among the first. Highlights of Patrick's sophomore season can be viewed here.
BDN: Can you start off by describing the strengths and weaknesses of your game for someone who hasn't had a chance to see you play?
I'd say for me personally, the biggest strength is my versatility. In Dorman's system I play regularly on a gamely basis, tackle, guard, center, tight end, fullback, defensive tackle, defensive end, and nose guard. But just as an offensive lineman, I've been told I have natural knee bend, I play with a straight back and I have really nice hips, and I can get up to the second level good.
BDN: What are some of the things you've been working on this offseason?
I mean, this is my last offseason before I actually get with the big boys, so every aspect of my game I need to improve. Bigger, faster, stronger, you know, you can never have enough of those. I know that I'm miles away from where I need to be to be a Divison I recruit, so I'm just trying to work as hard as I can. To be specific, it's hard to single out just one piece of my game, but I guess I would say the biggest thing would be working on technique, just better technique.
BDN: I know you had a great year last season. What are your goals for you team and yourself individually for the fall?
We lost the state game to our arch rivals, the Byrnes Rebels. That just gets me going. No offense to them, but I can't stand Byrnes. I hate them, and they hate me too, so it's a mutual feeling. My biggest thing is I want to beat them in State. I understand they're great rivals, they're great competitors, it's going to be a hard competition, but that's my goal and our team's goal, hopefully. But just for me personally, just every day trying to get better.
BDN: What are the most important things you are looking for in a college?
The biggest thing I'm looking for in a school is how comfortable am I with that school. When I step foot on that campus, do I want to be there? Because I'm potentially going to be spending the next four or five years of my life there, so that's definitely a big thing. The next thing I'm looking for is the academics of the school, because something my dad always drove into me as a little kid, he said that God many one day see it fit to take away your athletics, but he will never take away your academics.
BDN: Is there a particular field or program that you're interested in academically?
No, I thought so, but not really. I'm 17, life changes, I'm just a growing kid.
BDN: What schools have you recently heard from? Who were the first schools to contact you?
As far as the first schools, I had three offers come in on the same day in the spring, it was a great day, it was a blessing. Clemson, Duke, and South Carolina all came in on the same day. But as far as the total rap sheet, those three plus North Carolina, North Carolina State, Wake Forest, Tennessee, Arkansas, Northwestern, Stanford, and I think that may be. I may be forgetting one somewhere in there. I know it's at 11 or 12, I'm sorry. I know that sounds arrogant, but it starts to blend together, I hope that doesn't come across as cocky.
BDN: Which schools have you had a chance to visit so far? What schools do you definitely plan on visiting later this year?
My visits haven't really started up yet. So far I've only visited Duke and Clemson. But you know I also have plans for setting up other visits to different colleges. I don't really want to say what colleges because I don't know yet, all I know is I have several other colleges to visit this spring.
BDN: Were there any schools that have impressed you with your visits or with your contact with them so far?
If you had asked me that question a few months ago, I would have had five schools, top five all ready to go, but you know, this recruiting process has just gotten so big lately that it's all gotten jumbled together. So many schools have so many great things to offer that I couldn't honestly give you a top five.
BDN: It's still very early in the process, but ideally, when would you like to make your college decision?
I am going to graduate a semester early so I can go into spring practice wherever I want to go. I just know I need to have my mind made up before December.
BDN: Thanks a lot, Patrick and best of luck to you.
Thanks, have a good day.


text:
DigiTech's compact stereo looper and phrase sampler the JamMan Express XT has gone on general sale.
The compact pedal features 10 minute of looping times, and automatically synchronizes with other JamMan products, which is handy if you're already a fan.
The pedals vital statistics look something like this:
- Compact stereo looper with up to 10 minutes of looping time
- JamSync-automatically synchronizes multiple JamSync enabled loopers
- Simple, easy-to use looper
- True-bypass
- Battery powered
Click here to visit DigiTech for more info. In the meantime, the JamMan Express XT is out now for around £90 - and you can watch a video demo below.


text:
Waves Audio, a leading provider of digital signal processing solutions, unveils the third processor in the Waves Post Production line, the W43 Noise Reduction Plugin. Inspired by the classic, long-out-of-production Cat. 43 hardware noise reduction tool, Waves' new W43 builds upon the legacy of this hard-to-find unit that has been a post production favorite for decades. Ambient noise like hiss, hum, traffic noise, wind and air conditioning can all wreak havoc on a dialogue track, but with the Waves W43 plugin, they're a thing of the past. The W43 delivers high-quality, minimal artifact multiband noise reduction like the original hardware, while adding all the advantages of software.
Waves W43 offers easy-to-use four-band noise suppression controlled by four faders, a global threshold and an "engage" button. The W43's workflow approach and interface will be very familiar to engineers who perform noise reduction using the Cat. 43. Both PC- and Mac®-compatible, W43 supports multiple simultaneous instances and features true Pro Tools integration, full recall, zero latency, full automation, up to 24-bit, 192kHz resolution, and support for TDM, RTAS, Audio Suite, VST and AU. Also, no degradation of sound resulting from I/O conversion occurs.
Waves' new W43 Noise Reduction Plugin is available separately (U.S. MSRP USD 300 Native/600 TDM) and as part of the Waves Mercury bundle. Mercury V7 owners covered by Waves Update Plan receive the W43 at no additional charge. For more information, please visit www.waves.com.
Filmmakers go-to destination for pre-production, production & post production equipment!
Shop Now


text:
Good morning all
It's Alison here with our new challenge for this week here at
Fab'n'Funky Challenges
Thank you for all your lovely entries for last week's challenge. Scroll down to see if you were our lucky winner or one of our top 3
Our challenge this week is
So we would like to see magical creatures on your project. Any of these would be suitable for this challenge - fairies, mermaids, dragons, witches, gnomes, unicorns etc .
This week our lovely sponsor is
who are giving our prize winner a voucher to spend in store
Now it's time for some inspiration from the DT. We always appreciate a visit so if you click the name you can hop over and leave a comment.
Jan Using Veil of petals
We hope you will be able to join us in with our challenge this week. We look forward to visiting your blogs and seeing your gorgeous creations. Please be sure to post a link back to Fab'n'Funky Challenges in your blog post in order to be eligible for this weeks prize! The deadline for entries is Tuesday evening (8).
So all that's left is for you to get creative and link up your entry to the linky at the bottom of the page
Have fun


text:
Pro Se Productions, a New Pulp Publisher noted for bringing monthly Pulp magazines into the modern era, releases today its latest issue of its award winning magazine, PRO SE PRESENTS! The ninth issue of this New Pulp periodical features the first half of an epic new adventure set in the classic era of the Pulps featuring a mix of new characters as well as fantastic original Pulp characters that are now in the Public Domain!
THE SONS OF THOR by noted New Pulp Author Erwin K. Roberts is so much of an epic that it will consume TWO full issues of Pro Se Presents. Beginning with Issue 9 and finishing in Issue Ten at the end of May, this story looks at the prospect of the villains of a tale being as strong as the heroes who stand against them!
They are a legend told in fearful whispers- A terror generations old…
They believed that they were the chosen of the old Norse Gods. They could not fail unless someone touched by another pantheon of gods intervened. To this end, they trained themselves and their families to such extremes that even the ancient Spartans would have been appalled.
They believed they would rule first all of Europe, then the entire world. We thought the sect gone forever.
We were wrong. The Sons of Thor live!
Heaven Help the Foolish Few Who Dare to Challenge THE SONS OF THOR!
Available now at www.amazon.comand www.prosepulp.com for $6.00 in print! Also available as an ebook from Amazon, Barnes & Noble and www.smashwords.com for $1.99. Featuring Cover art and design by Sean Ali and Ebook formatting by Russ Anderson! Edited by Don Thomas and Lee Houston, Jr.!
Pro Se Presents #9 Featuring THE SONS OF THOR Part One by Erwin K. Roberts!
For more information on Pro Se, go to www.prosepulp.com!


text:
$24.84 $28.78
Simple and quick disassembly design ia suitable for sunny weather to use.
It can be set up at any time, durable and firm.
Three specifications of front fork ball plug to meet the needs.
Various colors are avaliable.
Give you enjoyable riding experience.
Texture: High quality imported plastics Color: White, yellow, red, green, black, gray
Product include: Mud guard
Attention: Because of the problem of light, the color of the photo may be different from that of the object. Product size may have an error of 1-3 cm. If you have any questions, please contact us in time.


text:
Ontario Fishing Tournaments & Minnesota USA
Fishing Tournaments are a great sport enjoyed by many anglers and fishermen that come from far and near to fish our lakes & rivers in Northwestern Ontario Canada.
"Rainy River Walleye Tournament" - the mouth of the Rainy River is 8 miles by Lake from our Fishing Resort.
Fishing Tournaments are a big draw on Lake of the Woods, on the Rainy River, and throughout NorthWestern Ontario because of the many species of freshwater fish found here.
Although most of the tournaments are either Walleye Fishing Tournaments or Bass Fishing Tournaments, the March Fishing Tournament in Baudette, MN is a Northern Pike Fishing Tournament. There are many other fresh water fish that are available for catching: Muskie (Muskelunge, Musky), Perch, Black Crappie, Burbot, Tulibee, Trout etc.
Fish being weighed in at the Rainy River Fishing Tournament
Sport anglers compete for tournament prizes, cash and the honour of being named as the best fishermen!
Fishing Tournaments are very popular, have great prizes, plus give the fishermen alot of boasting rights when it comes to "the biggest Catch of the Day", "the biggest Catch of the Tournament", "Trophy Fishing" and "Record Size Fish" commendable for Ontario Angler Awards.
Although tournament fishing is a sport, the tournaments are usually "catch and release" and strictly adhere to the local Provincial and State Fishing Regulations to respect and preserve our natural resourses in the areas fished.
Harris Hill Resort is only 18 miles from Rainy River, ON and Baudette, MN. , a short drive on paved highways.
We are also only approx 8 miles to the mouth of the Rainy River on the water by Boat. That's only a short boat ride, depending on how big your boat and motor are.
The fishing Tournaments are held throughout the province of Ontario, Canada as well as neighboring Minnesota, USA. Here are the ones nearby that we know of.
OFAH Ontario Angler Awards Jan 1 - Dec 31
Annual Stratton Fishing Derby 807-483-5330
Emo Walleye Classic 807-482-1811 or 807-482-2171
Fort Frances Canadian Bass Championship 807-274-0316
Bronzeback Classic Kenora 807-548-4547
KENORA BASS International 807-468-5555
Atikokan Bass Classic 807-597-2940
MORSON BASS International 807-488-5905
Red Lake Fall Classic 807-727-2660
Perch Lake Bass Challenge Sept 4
'Bassin' for Bucks Sioux Narrows 807-226-5293
Crow Lake Classic 807-484-2525
Robert Ottertail Jr. Memorial Bass Tournament Fort Frances 807-485-2534
RAINY RIVER Walleye Tournament 807-852-3224
LOTW Walleye Challenge 807-488-5905
Please go to our FISHING Main Page for Fishing Package Rates |
View our Guided Fishing Vacation section for Guided Fishing Packages |
To request more information or to book your holiday or vacation adventure: |
please phone us Toll Free at 1 - 855 - 488-1116 or click on "contact us" to e-mail us from our web site |


text:
15 S.Ct. 563
39 L.Ed. 672
DAVIDSON. DAVIDSON v. MEXICAN NAT. R. CO.
Nos. 880 and 876.
March 18, 1895.
The Mexican National Construction Company, a citizen of Colorado, assigned certain causes of action against the Mexican National Railroad Company, also a citizen of Colorado, to Davidson, a citizen of New York, September 11, 1891; and, on the same day, Davidson began his action of attachment in the supreme court of the state of New York against the railroad company, which in due season removed the cause into the United States circuit court for the Eastern district of New York. Davidson, the plaintiff, recovered judgment for $151,832.41, upon a trial before the court without a jury. 58 Fed. 653. From this judgment the railroad company sued out its writ of error to the circuit court of appeals of the United States for the second circuit, and Davidson also sued out a writ of error on the ground that he should have had judgment for a larger amount.
The circuit court of appeals certified to this court in each case the following questions:
'First. Whether or not the United States circuit court of the Eastern district of New York had jurisdiction to hear and determine the first cause of action.
'Second. Whether or not the United States circuit court of the Eastern district of New York had jurisdiction to hear and determine the second cause of action.'
These questions were preceded by a statement of facts by that court setting forth, among other things, that plaintiff sought to recover upon two causes of action:
'(1) To recover, with interest from the 15th of October, 1886, the amount of a debt owing the construction company by the Mexican National Railway Company on 15th October, 1886, which the defendant, in consideration of the transfer to it of certain railroad property, agreed to pay with other debts up to the extent of a certain fund which was put into its hands, and which was sufficient in amount for that purpose. The other debts had been fully paid before suit brought.
'(2) To recover $1,731, damages sustained by the construction company (being its payment of the reasonable fees of an umpire and stenographer) through the breach by the defendant of an agreement between it and the construction company to adjust by arbitration the controversy over the claim first mentioned.' And that among the assignments of error duly filed in that court by the Mexican National Railroad Company were these: 'That the court, upon the trial, entertained jurisdiction of this cause; that the court, upon the trial, entertained jurisdiction of the first alleged cause of action set forth in the complaint; that the court, upon the trial, entertained jurisdiction of the second alleged cause of action set forth in the complaint.' But that the record showed that no question as to the jurisdiction of the circuit court was raised upon the trial, and no such question was referred to in the findings or opinion of the circuit court.
The portions of sections 1 and 2 of the act of March 3, 1887, as corrected by the act of August 13, 1888, defining the jurisdiction of district and circuit courts of the United States, bearing upon the questions involved, are as follows:
'Sec. 1. That the circuit courts of the United States shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, * * * in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different states, in which the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value aforesaid, * * * and no civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts against any person by any original process or proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant, but where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different states, suit § all be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant; nor shall any circuit or district court have cognizance of any suit, except upon foreign bills of exchange, to recover the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action in favor of any assignee, or of any subsequent holder if such instrument be payable to bearer and be not made by any corporation, unless such suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents if no assignment or transfer had been made. * * *
'Sec. 2. * * * Any other suit of a civil nature, at law or in equity, of which the circuit courts of the United States are given jurisdiction by the preceding section, and which are now pending, or which may hereafter be brought, in any state court, may be removed into the circuit court of the United States for the proper district by the defendant or defendants therein, being non-residents of that state. * * *'
Treadwell Cleveland, for Mexican Nat. R. Co.
Edward M. Shepard, for Davidson.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
This action was based, as to its first cause, upon an alleged indebtedness of $104,244.10, existing October 1, 1886, in favor of the construction company and against the railway company, with interest. The obligation to pay the indebtedness devolved upon the railroad company by reason of an agreement, annexed to the complaint, between the persons to whom the construction company had disposed of the first mortgage bonds of the railroad company and the construction company. This agreement provided for the foreclosure of the mortgage upon the property of the railway company and the formation of a new railroad company under the laws of Colorado; the conveyance of the property bid in at foreclosure sale to the new company; the issue of new first mortgage bonds by the latter company; the sale of these to a certain amount, and from the proceeds of such sale the deposit with the new railroad company of a sum not exceeding $217,000, to be applied to liquidate the indebtedness of the railway company. The complaint set forth the agreement and the proceedings thereunder, resulting in the deposit of the sum of $217,000, and alleged that of that sum 'there remains, to liquidate the indebtedness of the railway company,' a sum exceeding that for which the complaint demanded judgment. The issue on the merits was therefore whether the construction company was entitled to recover this claim against the railroad company out of the fund of $217,000.
Was the action brought, as to its first cause, 'to recover the contents of a chose in action,' and could it have been originally brought in the circuit court of the United States? If not, could the jurisdiction be sustained on removal?
The language of section 11 of the judiciary act of 1789 was as follows: 'Nor shall any district or circuit court have cognizance of any suit to recover the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action in favor of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents if no assignment had been made.' 1 Stat. 78, c. 20.
In Sere v. Pitot, 6 Cranch, 332, 335, an action was commenced in the district court for the district of New Orleans to foreclose a mortgage given by a citizen of Louisiana to another citizen of the same state. The plaintiff was the general assignee in insolvency of the mortgagor, and was an alien; and Chief Justice Marshall, delivering the opinion of the court, said: 'Without doubt, assignable paper, being the chose in action most usually transferred, was in the mind of the legislature when the law was framed; and the words of the provision are therefore best adapted to that class of assignments. But there is no reason to believe that the legislature were not equally disposed to except from the jurisdiction of the federal courts those who could sue in virtue of equitable assignments, and those who coul sue in virtue of legal assignments. The assignee of all the open accounts of a merchant might, under certain circumstances, be permitted to sue in equity in his own name, and there would be as much reason to exclude him from the federal courts as to exclude the same person when the assignee of a particular note. The term 'other chose in action' is broad enough to comprehend either case; and the word 'contents' is too ambiguous in its import to restrain that general term. The contents of a note are the sum it shows to be due; and the same may, without much violence to language, be said of an account.'
In Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 441, 449, a bill in equity had been filed in the circuit court of the United States by the assignee of a bond and mortgage for a decree of sale of the mortgaged premises. The mortgagor and mortgagee were both citizens of Michigan, and the assignee was a citizen of New York. It was held that the court had no jurisdiction, Mr. Justice Grier saying: 'The term 'chose in action' is one of comprehensive import. It includes the infinite variety of contracts, covenants, and promises which confer on one party a right to recover a personal chattel or a sum of money from another, by action.'
In Corbin v. Blackhawk Co., 105 U. S. 659, it was decided that a suit to compel the specific performance of a contract or to enforce its other stipulations was a suit to recover the contents of a chose in action, and not maintainable, under section 11 of the act of 1789, as re-enacted in section 629 of the Revised Statutes, in the circuit court by an assignee if it could not have been prosecuted by the assignor had no assignment been made. And this was reaffirmed in Shoecraft v. Bloxham, 124 U. S. 730, 8 Sup. Ct. 686. But, while the exception extended to all actions ex contractu, it has been held not applicable to a tortious taking or wrongful detention of a chose in action against the right or title of the assignee, where the injury is one to the right of property in the thing, and the derivation of title unimportant. Deshler v. Dodge, 16 How. 622, 631; Ambler v. Eppinger, 137 U. S. 480, 11 Sup. Ct. 173.
In the acts of March 3, 1887, and August 13, 1888 (24 Stat. 552, c. 373; 25 Stat. 433, c. 866), the provision is couched in these words: 'Nor shall any circuit or district court have cognizance of any suit, except upon foreign bills of exchange, to recover the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action in favor of any assignee, or of any subsequent holder if such instrument be payable to bearer and be not made by any corporation, unless such suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the said contents if no assignment or transfer had been made.' The act of 1875 referred to suits 'founded on contract,' but the act of 1887 restored the words of the act of 1789, 'to recover the contents of any promissory note or other chose in action'; and we do not think that the words 'if such instrument be payable to bearer and be not made by any corporation' limit the comprehensiveness of 'chose in action,' as construed under the act of 1789; and, as this cause of action is based on contract, we are of opinion that it is within the definition heretofore ascribed to the words 'to recover the contents of a chose in action.' This being so, it follows that the action could not have originally been brought in the circuit court of the United States by Davidson, the assignee of a Colorado corporation, against a Colorado corporation.
We inquire, then, whether the first cause of action was one of which a circuit court of the United States could take cognizance through removal from a state court.
By the twelfth section of the judiciary act of 1789 it was provided 'that if a suit be commenced in any state court against an alien, or by a citizen of the state in which the suit is brought against a citizen of another state, * * * and the defendant shall, at the time of entering his appearance in such state court, file a petition for the emoval of the cause for trial into the next circuit court, * * * it shall then be the duty of the state court to accept the surety, and proceed no further in the cause, * * * and the cause shall there proceed in the same manner as if it had been brought there by original process.' And it was held in Green v. Custard, 23 How. 484, and Bushnell v. Kennedy, 9 Wall. 387, that the restriction of the original jurisdiction of the circuit courts in respect of suits by an assignee, whose assignor could not be sued in that court, did not apply to a suit removed from a state court under the twelfth section.
By the second section of the act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat. 470), the exception out of the original jurisdiction as to assignees of choses in action occupied the same relative position as in the act of 1789, and the same conclusion was reached in regard to it; namely, that the restriction upon the commencement of suits contained in section 1 did not apply to the removal of suits under section 2. Claflin v. Insurance Co., 110 U. S. 81, 3 Sup. Ct. 507; Delaware Co. Com'rs v. Diebold Safe & Lock Co., 133 U. S. 473, 10 Sup. Ct. 399. And see Goldey v. Morning News, 15 Sup. Ct. 559.
But the second section of the act of 1887 (as corrected in 1888) contained a radical difference from section 12 of the act of 1789 and section 2 of the act of 1875 in confining the suits which might be removed to those 'of which the circuit courts of the United States are given original jurisdiction by the preceding section.' As already stated, the last part of the preceding section provides that no circuit or district court shall have cognizance to recover the contents of a chose in action in favor of an assignee, unless such suit might have been prosecuted therein to recover such contents if no assignment had been made; while the second section provides for the removal of suits now pending or which may be hereafter brought in any state court of which the circuit courts of the United States were given jurisdiction by the first section. This change was made in accordance with that intention to restrict the jurisdiction of the circuit courts which has been so often recognized by this court. Smith v. Lyon, 133 U. S. 315, 319, 10 Sup. Ct. 303; In re Pennsylvania Co., 137 U. S. 451, 454, 11 Sup. Ct. 141; Fisk v. Henarie, 142 U. S. 459, 467, 12 Sup. Ct. 207; Shaw v. Mining Co., 145 U. S. 444, 12 Sup. Ct. 935; Hanrick v. Hanrick, 153 U. S. 192, 14 Sup. Ct. 835.
We must hold, therefore, as has, indeed, already been ruled (Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank, 152 U. S. 454, 461, 14 Sup. Ct. 654), that the jurisdiction of the circuit courts on removal by the defendant, under this section, is limited to such suits as might have been brought in that court by the plaintiff under the first section. The question is a question of jurisdiction as such, and cannot be waived. Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cranch, 126; Railway Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 4 Sup. Ct. 510; Metcalf v. Watertown, 128 U. S. 586, 9 Sup. Ct. 173. It is true that by the first section, where the jurisdiction is founded on diversity of citizenship, suit is to be brought 'only in the district of the residence of the plaintiff or the defendant'; and this restriction is a personal privilege of the defendant, and may be waived by him. Railway Co. v. McBride, 141 U. S. 127, 11 Sup. Ct. 982. Section 2, however, refers to the first part of section 1, by which jurisdiction is conferred, and not to the clause relating to the district in which suit may be brought. Machine Co. v. Walthers, 134 U. S. 41, 10 Sup. Ct. 485.
As to the second cause of action, the sum sued for was under the jurisdictional amount.
The result is that in each case both questions certified must be answered in the negative.


text:
Not a member? Join Us
Forgot your password?
Your cart is currently empty.
This zippered accessory pouch is soft and flexible allowing you to store keys, money, credit cards, makeup, cell phones and all the things you need on the go.
The canvas style fabric is decorated by American workers. It features custom art, which is dyed into the fibers so it will never fade. Our many designs are created by independent artists who receive a portion of each sale – so when you buy this accessory pouch you are helping to support an artist.


text:
We ordered their business lunch, a great deal for ns49, since it includes a soup, juice and a main course. I had decided to go back to their Tuna salad, which I had liked at a previous visit there. The "soup of the day" was Pea soup, which we both were looking forward to.
Yes, the soup looked lovely. You can see the pieces of carrot. I couldn't wait to eat it. We both hungrily and enthusiastically filled our soup spoon and ate that first mouthful of soup.
"Yuck!"My friend was out more quickly than I could run. The waitress begged me to stay and talk to the manager. He quickly offered a different soup, onion soup.
"Pepper, it's full of pepper!!"
"Too much salt!"
"My mouth hurts!"
"I'm leaving!!!"
"Waitress, this is inedible!!!!"
"We're going!!!"
"But I've eaten your onion soup and it's just some thickener."But he didn't give me some water to clean my mouth from the salt, so nothing at that point could taste good and my friend refused to even return to try it.
"This is a new improved version," and he quickly gave me a small cup to sample.
We ended up eating at the Rimon Dairy Cafe` which wasn't bad, though we didn't get any free soup with our business lunch.


text:
John Cleese: Create a Tortoise Enclosure for Your Mind
"I want to be as well-informed as I can possibly be before I die" -John Cleese, in a speech on creativity, sleeping on problems, rewrites, and creating "tortoise enclosures" for your mind by creating boundaries of space and time. This is a brilliant little ten-minute talk for anyone who's interested in writing or any other creative pursuit. I wish it went on longer, as this man really does have a lot to say about his subject.
Here's a sample quote:
"When I suddenly discovered that I could sit down with a blank sheet of paper and two hours later I could have written something that then made people laugh -- this was an extraordinary moment for me, and I thought, 'My goodness, I am creative.' So, because I had been brought up as a scientist -- I got into Cambridge on Science -- I started observing what was going on when I was creating. "... The first thing that I noticed was that when I was trying to write a sketch at night and I got stuck or I couldn't think of an ending, or I couldn't see how to continue the sketch, I would go to bed. And when I woke up in the morning and made myself a cup of coffee and went back to my desk and looked at the problem, not only was the solution to this problem immediately apparent to me, but I couldn't even remember what the problem had been the previous night. ... I began to believe that this business of 'sleeping on the problem' ... was absolutely extraordinary."
Another choice Cleese nugget after the jump.
"To know how good you are at something requires the same skills that it does to be good at that thing. Which means, if you're absolutely hopeless at something, you lack exactly the skills that you need to know that you're absolutely hopeless at it. And this is a profound discovery. That most people who have absolutely no idea what they're doing, have absolutely no idea that they have no idea what they're doing. It explains a great deal of life. It explains, particularly, Hollywood."
(Via Kung Fu Grippe, the awesome blog of Merlin Mann; he got it from Tape Noise Diary who got it from Broadcasting Brain, update: who got it from Ewan McIntosh, who got it from Tessy, who got it from Benjamin Ellis.)


text: July - September 2019 Due to patient confidentiality all mission pins are approximate and do not specify the exact mission location or details. To search missions by month click on the icon on the top left of the map and select the desired option. Red pins are the approximate locations of daytime missions Blue pins are the approximate locations of missions that take place after the hours of darkness Zoom in and click on the pin to see where the mission is located. Have you been airlifted or has our crew helped someone you know? If so please do tell us your story. Manage Cookie Preferences


text:
Reportage by Rachel Ralph, Fecal Face's new San Francisco correspondent. You can email her at rachel(at)fecalface.com
111 Minna never disappoints and Friday night was no exception. Even the uber-corporate crowd, with their glowing ID badges couldn't detract from the quality of the work in their newest show, "Corporeal Clusters" with works from Kelly Allen, Melissa Arendt and Xiau-Fong Wee. The place was packed, as I stepped on more than one shined toe from men's dress shoes, and was filled playing top 40 hits, a weird atmosphere for the gallery. However, the quality of the work is what prevails; there are some really beautiful paintings here.
The show opens with Kelly Allen's photorealistic paintings of animals combined with geometric and biomorphic shapes, setting the tone with a geometric and animalistic thread that runs throughout the entire gallery. Next on inside are Melissa Arendt's paintings on wood panels using geometric shapes and human figures, while letting the grain of the wood compose the background. I was especially attracted to the grouping Clusterfuck Series #s 11, 6, 7, 9, 5. Is that Bowie a la Labrynth I see in the center? Why yes it is, and it made my day. Her next grouping had several works which incorporated glitter, and most of these had been sold by the time I had gotten there at 8:00.
While there is no question of the beauty in both Allen's and Arendt's works, the standout for me were the acrylic paintings on canvas by Xiau-Fong Wee. My god are they beautiful. All I could say (literally) was "wow." The works have amorphous animal/human figures, most of which have the female form, indicating a connection with mother nature. The delicate treatment of the surface of the paintings and the natural aesthetic qualities reminded me of the surreal beauty of Tiffany Bozic's work, but taken to a whole new, dream-like level.
Ultimately, the crowd won the battle of wits, and I just had to get out of there. I will definitely be back before the show closes on November 10th, when I can actually see the paintings, without the soul-crushing music and the creepy businessmen. Really, this show is a must-see, and I guarantee you that you don't want to miss it. -more photos
Xiau-Fong Wee, Slow Motion, 2012


text:
Grand Essex - offering a simple, modern take on the traditional lantern
Browse the Grand Essex Post Top (7600) products and find the product that you are looking for. Not all products are shown below.
Sort by:
Load more products
The Hadco Grande Essex post top family offers a simple modern take on the traditional lantern, providing style and elegance to downtown areas, commercial developments, parks and residential communities. The Grande Essex offers a range of optical distributions and panel globes to suite any application.


text:
Career Center
Job Seekers, Welcome to Western University of Health Sciences College of Veterinary Medicine
Search Filters
Use this area to filter your search results. Each filter option allows for multiple selections.
Conejo Valley Veterinary Hospital
Thousand Oaks , California
Town and Country Animal Clinic
Greenville, Michigan
Palo Verde Animal Hospital
Phoenix, Arizona
Teller Park Veterinary Clinic
Divide, Colorado
Morganside Veterinary Clinic
Sparta, Wisconsin
Saunders Veterinary Services
Avon Park, Florida
Robinson Hospital for Animals
Robinson, Illinois
Vet Villa Animal Hospital
South Pasadena , California
Featured! Featured!
Featured! Featured!
Empire Veterinary Hospitals
Covina, California
Los Angeles County, California
Broadview Animal Hospital
Dover, New Hampshire
West Olympia Pet Hospital
Olympia, Washington
SoCal Veterinary Hospital
San Marcos, California
Loading... Please wait.
Job Saved
Save Job
Associate Veterinarian | Conejo Valley | Thousand Oaks, CA
Conejo Valley Veterinary Hospital
Loading. Please wait.
Powered By


text:
Steve Ballmer's $2 billion deal to buy the Los Angeles Clippers dwarfs the previous $550 million record price for an NBA team the way a basketball center towers over a jockey.
But it's not quite as crazy as it seems, even if it's a purchase driven in no small part by the glamor of being a team owner.
That's because Ballmer's timing to spend that kind of money for the team couldn't be better.
The team is poised to see a huge jump in television dollars in just a few years. And those sports rights deals are likely to further lift team valuations in coming years, as advertisers scramble to find programing that viewers won't watch days after it originally airs.
Related: Steve Ballmer will ruin the 'Clippies'
"Every buy, in any business, to a certain extent is a vanity buy," said Sal Galatioto, an investment banker who handles the sale of sports teams, but was not involved in this one. He thinks the deal will be work out well for Ballmer.
"The asset appreciation in the sports world has been excellent," Galtioto said. "Media content value is continuing to go up. And it's something he'll have fun with."
Ballmer, worth an estimated $20 billion, doesn't have to worry about covering debt service on his purchase. And he has a chance of making a better return than the $55 million in dividend payments that he would be getting on $2 billion worth of Microsoft (MSFT) stock.
Related: Ballmer now Microsoft's largest shareholder
The team's current local television rights deal that runs through the 2015-16 season pays about $20 million a year. It was negotiated in the midst of a recession in 2009, when the team was still a joke on the court and playing before empty seats many nights.
But the Clippers' on-court performance has improved, led by superstars Blake Griffin and Chris Paul. The team has sold out every game since early 2011 and its ratings are significantly higher.
Related: Ballmer buys Clippers for $2 billion
Perhaps more importantly, Los Angeles now has several competing regional sports networks, owned by Fox (FOX), Time Warner Cable (TWC) and the Los Angeles Dodgers. And because all of them are scrambling to lock up games to broadcast, experts estimate the next deal's rights could jump to $75 million to $80 million a year.
"The timing is terrific for a new owner to come in," said Lee Berke, CEO of LHB Sports Entertainment and Media, a consulting firm. "You're entering into a seller's market. and you have a chance to profit on that momentum."
The NBA's national TV deal, which pays each team about $30 million a year, also ends after the 2015-16 season, and the annual payout could double as well, said Berke.
But even if the team's annual profit quadruples to $60 million because of all the new TV money, it'll take more than three decades for Ballmer to make back the purchase price. So the real payout will come whenever he, or his heirs, decide to sell the team at some point that's likely well in the future.
"My guess is that he would be able to make a higher rate of return if he invested it elsewhere," said a Patrick Rishe, a professor of sports business at Webster University. "But this is not about dollars and cents. He's doing this because he wants to be part of this exclusive club. Why not invest in something he's passionate about?"


text:
Highly detailed 3D model of adjustable book holder, available in 3dsMax and Vray, complete with textures. Use it for office supplies planning, office equipment design, scene simulation modeling, three-dimensional art or pattern design.
Available 3D object format:
.MAX (3DS Max) + V-Ray
Texture type: JPG
You can free download this 3d-objects for 3D modeling application and use it for your 3D visualisation works, 3D interactive design, 3D graphic simulation and rendering.


text:
Former President George H.W. Bush, who has been hospitalized for a month undergoing treatment for bronchitis, may not be released from a Houston hospital in time to celebrate Christmas at home as doctors had hoped.
Bush, 88, remained in stable condition and doctors were optimistic he would make a full recovery, George Kovacik, a spokesman at Methodist Hospital, said in an emailed statement on Sunday.
But doctors were being "extra cautious" with his care and no discharge date had been set, the statement said. Earlier this month, Kovacik said doctors expected Bush would be able to spend Christmas at home with his family.
"His doctors feel he should build up his energy before going home," the statement said.
Bush, the 41st president and a Republican, took office in 1989 and served one term in the White House. The father of former President George W. Bush, he also is a former congressman, U.N. ambassador, CIA director and vice president for two terms under Ronald Reagan.


text:
With flags flying at half-staff across Georgia, thousands of mourners streamed into the Capitol Rotunda in Atlanta Saturday to pay their respects to Coretta Scott King. Public officials offered statements of praise and admiration, and Governor Sonny Perdue, who opened the Capitol for the viewing, hailed the late civil rights and human rights hero as a national icon. Through its display of reverence, the state drew a sharp contrast between 2006 and 1968, when Governor Lester Maddox, an avid segregationist, refused to close the state government for the funeral of Martin Luther King Jr. But with regard to one of Coretta's signature issues–capital punishment–the Georgia of today looks all too similar to the Georgia of decades past.
In a speech to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty in 1981, Coretta delivered one of the world's most famous statements against capital punishment. "As one whose husband and mother-in-law have died the victims of murder and assassination, I stand firmly and unequivocally opposed to the death penalty for those convicted of capital offenses," she said. "An evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed of retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the taking of a human life. Morality is never upheld by a legalized murder."
Despite having spent the past week memorializing this death penalty abolitionist, Georgia remains one of the nation's leaders in executions, ranking fourth all-time among US states and seventh since the reinstatement of capital punishment in 1976. Moreover, four decades after the height of the civil rights movement, racial discrimination–one of the principal factors in the rise of the death penalty in the United States in the 1920s and '30s–continues to plague Georgia's capital punishment process.
In fact, the day Coretta Scott King died, the American Bar Association released a Death Penalty Assessment Report for Georgia, which notes that the state is not in compliance with ABA recommendations in a majority of categories concerning the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities. Specifically, the report suggests that Georgia continues to ignore patterns of racial discrimination and has failed to adopt legislation explicitly stating that no person should be put to death in accordance with a sentence sought or imposed as a result of the race of the defendant or victim. Though the ABA's conclusions are hardly the first of their kind, Atlanta's political heavyweights have consistently dismissed calls for a moratorium on executions and ignored the prospect of abolition.
As for the past, Georgia is in large part responsible for the modern death penalty–not just within its own borders but throughout the entire United States. In 1968, the year Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated, capital punishment in America was a practice in decline. But Georgia, having executed more people than any other state from 1930 to 1967, joined with Texas in defending the death penalty at all costs, eventually before the US Supreme Court in 1972. In Furman v. Georgia, the Court declared the two states' death penalty statutes unconstitutional and suspended capital punishment nationwide. Undeterred, Georgia quickly revised its statute and re-ignited its death penalty machine. In the 1976 case Gregg v. Georgia, the Court upheld the new statute, effectively launching the modern era of capital punishment.
Since Georgia prevailed in Gregg, 1,009 individuals have been executed in the United States, and the 1,010th execution is scheduled on the day of Coretta's funeral. This uninterrupted use of capital punishment throughout the nation suggests that while political leaders in Georgia and beyond seem well aware of the significance of the past week's events, they have thus far failed to grasp the spirit of humanity underlying that significance.
"Coretta Scott King taught us the power of forgiveness," says David Elliot, communications director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. "And with the power of forgiveness she reminded us of the possibility of human redemption."
Though the official events honoring Coretta Scott King conclude today, the state of Georgia–with more than 100 inmates on its death row and a history of dictating the nation's course on capital punishment–has an opportunity to honor her legacy for much longer by recognizing that possibility.


text:
Tiny Blessed arriving in the mail. |
Tiny Blessed and her transitional objects. |
Tiny Blessed experiencing snow. |
Tiny Blessed arriving in the mail. |
Tiny Blessed and her transitional objects. |
Tiny Blessed experiencing snow. |
How sweet is Tiny Blessed wanting to work with the kids. Denise's work is lovely. Cute post.
Thanks Carole.
What a lovely and creative way to address the needs of foster children! Transitions are hard for all of us, but more so for children who are no longer grounded with family members. If only we could all have a "Tiny Blessed" to help us with our transitions =-)
Thank you for this beautiful and charming post Karen and thank you for pointing the way to Denise and her work! I'm looking at some darlings to travel to my creative space now =-)
Such a sensitive post. The children you work with must be mighty lucky.
I have tears in my eyes.. this is exactly the role they were made for.
we need to send her a sister. Let me see over the weekend who wants to go to be a co therapist.
I'll be in touch.
I also have one of these one of these beautiful treasures, she resides over my studio and keeps the creative juices flowing. Thanks for commenting on my blog too.
Oh love this post and Tiny Blessed and that card behind her are too cool. Bless you for the work you do Karen!
Hey! Just stopping by to let you know that I enjoyed your post...shared it with my art therapy community on fb and tw :)
Love it!
This has touched my heart, I will be looking for a similar agency located near me to see if they are interested in having some little angels around.
I came over from Denise, what a wonderful post! It's so nice to be shown that art does actually help people, and to see it put to practical use. As an artist I feel this to be so, but can rarely give concrete examples when challenged by the "we should be spending the money on improving the bus service/public toilets/roads" brigade.
I came over from Denise's. This is a lovely site. As a fellow Canuck and therapist I doubly appreciate what you're doing!