fishing job
There's nothing more Aussie than a snake slithering onto a plane and being wrangled off the by a television star. or signup to continue reading Virgin Australia 1482 to Perth was scheduled to take off from Broome Airport at 10.30am on Thursday when a snake was discovered onboard. A brave passenger stepped up to remove the non-venomous snake, garnering applause from the . In a bizarre twist, the passenger was ocean videographer Andre Rerekura, who stars in Disney's Shipwreck Hunters Australia. Mr Rerekura said of the snake: "He was so cute, we should have taken him home." A cabin crew member can be heard on the loudspeaker saying "there's never a dull moment in aviation" before declaring "we're going to continue on as normal". Virgin Australia said in this scenario, the crew would typically report the incident and call a professional to remove the wildlife, but the passenger removed the snake while this process was underway. The snake was handed over to the airport reporting officer and the service continued to Perth as normal. The airline thanked the affected passengers for their patience. The snake was reported by ABC as being a Stimson's python. These snakes are found in a wide range of arid environments, in areas such as rocky outcrops and stony ranges, according to the Australian Museum. They can grow up to around a metre, and are a popular species to be kept in captivity, the museum said. DAILY Today's top stories curated by our news team. WEEKDAYS Grab a quick bite of today's latest news from around the region and the nation. WEEKLY The latest news, results & expert analysis. WEEKDAYS Catch up on the news of the day and unwind with great reading for your evening. WEEKLY Get the editor's insights: what's happening & why it matters. WEEKLY Love footy? We've got all the action covered. WEEKLY Every Saturday and Tuesday, explore destinations deals, tips & travel writing to transport you around the globe. WEEKLY Going out or staying in? Find out what's on. WEEKDAYS Sharp. Close to the ground. Digging deep. Your weekday morning newsletter on national affairs, politics and more. TWICE WEEKLY Your essential national news digest: all the big issues on Wednesday and great reading every Saturday. WEEKLY Get news, reviews and expert insights every Thursday from CarExpert, ACM's exclusive motoring partner. TWICE WEEKLY Get real, Australia! Let the ACM network's editors and journalists bring you news and views from all over. AS IT HAPPENS Be the first to know when news breaks. DAILY Your digital replica of Today's Paper. Ready to read from 5am! DAILY Test your skills with interactive crosswords, sudoku & trivia. Fresh daily! Advertisement AdvertisementNone
Lindsey Vonn takes another step in comeback at age 40, competes in a pair of downhillsAnthem Blue Cross Blue Shield reverses decision to put a time limit on anesthesiaGlobe Life Brushes Off 'Short' Gamble, Analyst Remains Bullish
TORONTO, Dec. 3, 2024 /PRNewswire/ - IsoEnergy Ltd. ("IsoEnergy") (TSX: ISO) (OTCQX: ISENF) is pleased to announce shareholders of the company (the "Shareholders") have overwhelmingly approved two resolutions at the Special Meeting of Shareholders (the "Meeting") held today. These include the ordinary resolution (the "Share Issuance Resolution") to approve the share issuance in connection with the previously announced arrangement (the "Arrangement") involving IsoEnergy and Anfield Energy Corp. ("Anfield") and the special resolution (the "Share Consolidation Resolution") approving the discretionary consolidation of IsoEnergy shares. The Share Issuance Resolution was required to be approved by a simple majority of the votes cast by Shareholders virtually in person or represented by proxy at the Meeting and the Share Consolidation Resolution was required to be approved by at least two-thirds (66 2/3%) of the votes cast by Shareholders virtually in person or represented by proxy at the Meeting. A total of 116,633,626 Common Shares, representing approximately 65.23% of votes entitled to be cast at the Meeting, were represented in person or by proxy at the Meeting. Approximately 99.56% of the votes eligible to be cast were voted in favour of the Share Issuance Resolution and 99.19% in favour of the Share Consolidation Resolution. The report of voting results will be made available under IsoEnergy's profile on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca . In addition to the approval by IsoEnergy Shareholders, Anfield shareholders approved the Arrangement at its special meeting today. Anfield will seek a final order approving the Arrangement from the Supreme Court of British Columbia on December 6, 2024. Closing of the Arrangement remains subject to satisfaction of certain customary closing conditions, including receipt of final court and stock exchange approvals. Subject to the satisfaction of these closing conditions, the parties currently expect to complete the Arrangement in December 2024. IsoEnergy is also pleased to announce that the parties have received written notice from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States that it has concluded its review of the Arrangement and determined that there are no unresolved national security concerns with respect to the Arrangement. Further details regarding the Arrangement, including the principal closing conditions and the anticipated benefits for Shareholders, can be found in the Company's management proxy circular dated October 31, 2024, in respect of the Meeting, which can be found under the Company's SEDAR+ profile at www.sedarplus.ca . None of the securities to be issued pursuant to the Arrangement have been or will be registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "U.S. Securities Act"), or any state securities laws, and any securities issuable in the Arrangement are anticipated to be issued in reliance upon available exemptions from such registration requirements pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the U.S. Securities Act and applicable exemptions under state securities laws. This press release does not constitute an offer to sell, or the solicitation of an offer to buy, any securities. Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information This press release contains "forward-looking information" within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation. Generally, forward-looking information can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as "plans", "expects" or "does not expect", "is expected", "budget", "scheduled", "estimates", "forecasts", "intends", "anticipates" or "does not anticipate", or "believes", or variations of such words and phrases or state that certain actions, events or results "may", "could", "would", "might" or "will be taken", "occur" or "be achieved". These forward-looking statements or information may relate to the Arrangement, including statements with respect to the consummation of the Arrangement and the timing thereof; satisfaction of conditions to closing of the Arrangement, including receipt of final court and stock exchange approvals; and any other activities, events or developments that the companies expect or anticipate will or may occur in the future. Forward-looking statements are necessarily based upon a number of assumptions that, while considered reasonable by management at the time, are inherently subject to business, market and economic risks, uncertainties and contingencies that may cause actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from those expressed or implied by forward-looking statements. Such assumptions include, but are not limited to, assumptions that IsoEnergy and Anfield will complete the Arrangement in accordance with, and on the timeline contemplated by the terms and conditions of the relevant agreements; that the parties will receive the required court and stock exchange approvals and will satisfy, in a timely manner, the other conditions to the closing of the Arrangement; and that general business and economic conditions will not change in a material adverse manner. Although IsoEnergy has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking information, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. Such statements represent the current views of IsoEnergy with respect to future events and are necessarily based upon a number of assumptions and estimates that, while considered reasonable by IsoEnergy, are inherently subject to significant business, economic, competitive, political and social risks, contingencies and uncertainties. Risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to the following: the inability of IsoEnergy and Anfield to complete the Arrangement; a material adverse change in the timing of and the terms and conditions upon which the Arrangemen tis completed; the inability to satisfy or waive all conditions to closing the Arrangement; the failure to obtain shareholder, regulatory, court or stock exchange approvals in connection with the Arrangement; unanticipated changes in market price for IsoEnergy Shares and/or Anfield shares; changes to IsoEnergy's and/or Anfield's current and future business plans and the strategic alternatives available thereto; growth prospects and outlook of Anfield's business; regulatory determinations and delays; stock market conditions generally; demand, supply and pricing for uranium; and general economic and political conditions in Canada, the United States and other jurisdictions where the applicable party conducts business. Other factors which could materially affect such forward-looking information are described in the risk factors in IsoEnergy's most recent annual information form, the Circular and IsoEnergy's other filings with the Canadian securities regulators which are available, respectively, on each company's profile on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca . IsoEnergy does not undertake to update any forward-looking information, except in accordance with applicable securities laws. View original content to download multimedia: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/isoenergy-announces-voting-results-from-special-meeting-302321595.html SOURCE IsoEnergy Ltd.Woodward Reports Record Sales & Earnings for Fiscal Year 2024
Chuck Woolery, smooth-talking game show host of 'Love Connection' and 'Scrabble,' dies at 83
Marrakech Film Festival bestows Palestinian film 'Happy Holidays' with top awardGirls for Gender Equity, a Brooklyn-based advocacy organization focused on uplifting Black girls and gender non-conforming youth, released a new report showing room for potential reform in school dress codes across New York City. This report follows the enactment of Local Law 083 of 2024, a law aimed at mitigating the alleged discriminatory impacts of existing dress code policies. GGE’s report, the third in a series examining dress code policies, analyzed compliance across all five boroughs of New York City. The results indicated that schools achieved an average score of 60% in complying with the Department of Education’s guidelines concerning dress codes. Brooklyn schools showed the highest compliance scores, averaging a grade of B, while Bronx schools scored the lowest with an average grade of D. Quaidra Coles, director of policy advocacy for GGE, explained the impetus behind the focused research. “We initiated this project to bolster our advocacy efforts for Local Law 083, which has been on the table for five years. The time for action is now, especially as school budgets and priorities shift post-pandemic,” she told amNewYork Metro. More than 40% of the schools examined either did not have their dress codes published on their websites or used ambiguous language, making it challenging for students to understand what was permissible. “How can students adhere to dress codes if they are not even aware of what those codes entail,” Coles added. Per the New York City Public Schools website , students are free to wear what they want unless the attire is dangerous, interferes with teaching and learning or violates the DOE’s anti-discrimination policy. Schools are also required to show justification for each dress requirement. A significant highlight of GGE’s findings includes the impact of dress codes on mental health. In interviews, students expressed that restrictive dress codes adversely affected their self-esteem and school attendance. For example, a young participant shared with Coles that when they felt unable to present their authentic selves through clothing, it deterred them from attending school, which ultimately affected their academic performance. This correlation emphasizes the importance of allowing students the freedom to express themselves, as it can significantly enhance their engagement and well-being. The study also found that dress codes often reflect underlying biases. Among the schools evaluated, those with punitive measures for dress code violations disproportionately targeted Black girls and gender non-conforming youth, leading to higher rates of suspension or removal from classrooms. “These policies are often enforced under the guise of mitigating distractions,” Coles said. “When in reality, they create an environment of exclusion.” While the report acknowledges the difficulty of implementing uniforms across NYC’s diverse school system, it advocates for a cultural shift in how educators perceive and enforce dress codes. “It’s essential for educators to understand the social dynamics influencing students’ clothing choices,” Coles said. “A collaborative approach that includes input from students and families can lead to healthier school environments.” GGE’s leadership goals for the coming year include continuing to advocate for meaningful policy changes and fostering dialogue between students and educators. “We need to ensure that young people feel empowered to express themselves, as this will positively impact their mental health and future decision-making,” Coles stated.Russell Vought, one of the chief architects of Project 2025 — a conservative blueprint for the next presidency — is no fan of the federal government that President-elect Donald Trump will soon lead. He believes “woke” civil servants and “so-called expert authorities” wield illegitimate power to block conservative White House directives from deep within federal agencies, and wants Trump to “bend or break” that bureaucracy to his will, he wrote in the second chapter of the Project 2025 playbook. Vought is a vocal proponent of a plan known as Schedule F, under which Trump would fire thousands of career civil servants with extensive experience in their fields and replace them with his own political loyalists, and of Christian nationalism, which would see American governance aligned with Christian teachings. Both are core tenets of Project 2025. Throughout his campaign, Trump adamantly disavowed Project 2025, even though its policies overlapped with his and some of its authors worked in his first administration. He castigated anyone who suggested the blueprint, which polls showed was deeply unpopular among voters, represented his aims for the presidency. But last week, the president-elect nominated Vought to lead the Office of Management and Budget, which oversees the White House budget and its policy agenda across the federal government. Trump called Vought, who held the same role during his first term, an “aggressive cost cutter and deregulator” who “knows exactly how to dismantle the Deep State and end Weaponized Government.” The nomination was one of several Trump has made since his election that have called into question his claims on the campaign trail that Project 2025 was not his playbook and held no sway over him or his plans for a second term. He selected Tom Homan, a Project 2025 contributor and former visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the conservative organization behind the blueprint, as his “border czar.” Trump named Stephen Miller, an immigration hard-liner also linked to Project 2025, as his deputy chief of staff for policy. Both also served in the first Trump administration. He also named Brendan Carr to serve on the Federal Communications Commission. Carr wrote a chapter of Project 2025 on the FCC, which regulates U.S. internet access and TV and radio networks, and has echoed Trump’s claims that news broadcasters have engaged in political bias against Trump. Trump named John Ratcliffe as his pick for CIA director and Pete Hoekstra as ambassador to Canada. Both are Project 2025 contributors. It has also been reported that the Trump transition team is filling lower-level government spots using a Project 2025 database of conservative candidates. During the campaign Trump said that he knew “nothing about” Project 2025 and that he found some of its ideas “absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.” In response to news in July that Project 2025’s director, Paul Dans, was leaving his post, Trump campaign managers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles — whom the president-elect has since named his chief of staff — issued a statement saying that “reports of Project 2025’s demise would be greatly welcomed.” Asked about Trump’s selection of several people with Project 2025 connections to serve in his administration, Trump transition spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt responded with a statement, saying Trump “never had anything to do with Project 2025.” “This has always been a lie pushed by the Democrats and the legacy media, but clearly the American people did not buy it because they overwhelmingly voted for President Trump to implement the promises that he made on the campaign trail,” Leavitt wrote. “All of President Trump’s cabinet nominees and appointments are whole-heartedly committed to President Trump’s agenda, not the agenda of outside groups.” Leavitt too has ties to Project 2025, having appeared in a training video for it. In addition to calling for much greater power in the hands of the president, Project 2025 calls for less federal intervention in certain areas — including through the elimination of the Department of Education. It calls for much stricter immigration enforcement and mass deportations — a policy priority of Trump’s as well — and rails against environmental protections, calling for the demolition of key environmental agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service. It calls for tougher restrictions on abortion and for the federal government to collect data on women who seek an abortion, and backs a slew of measures that would strip rights from LGBTQ+ people. For Trump’s critics, his selections make it clear that his disavowal of the conservative playbook was nothing more than a campaign ploy to pacify voters who viewed the plan as too far to the right. It’s an argument many were making before the election as well. “There are many of us who tried to sound the alarm bell before the election,” when voters still had the power to keep such a plan from coming to fruition, said Ben Olinsky, senior vice president of structural reform and governance at the liberal Center for American Progress. Now, he said, he expects many of the more “draconian pieces” of Project 2025 to start being implemented given the nominees Trump has put forward. That includes Vought’s plan to eviscerate the career civil service, the core of American government, by doing away with merit-based staffing in favor of loyalty-based appointments, Olinsky said. “We know what happened before there was a merit-based civil service. There was cronyism in American government, and we can look back through history and see that kind of graft and cronyism,” Olinsky said. Filling the government with Trump loyalists will clear the way for more policies of Project 2025 to be implemented without resistance, Olinsky said. Olinsky said the Supreme Court and the Republican-controlled House have already proved they are not willing to stand up to Trump. There are “still some institutionalists” in the Senate — soon to be controlled by Republicans, as well — who could leverage their power to push back, he said, but it is not clear that they will. Incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has signaled that he may be willing to do so: According to reports from his home state, he said at a local Chamber of Commerce event Tuesday that all presidents try to push policy through executive action, and that Congress “sometimes will have to put the brakes on.” In the end, Olinsky said, real resistance might come only once Americans start realizing that Trump’s new government, stripped of all of its experts, is failing them in serious ways. “They do care about their Social Security checks being delivered. They do care about the nation being defended properly. They care that, when they turn on the faucet, they will drink water that won’t sicken them and their kids,” Olinsky said. “And that’s what requires expertise.” ©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
* Policy against prosecuting sitting presidents cited * Courts must approve the two dismissal requests WASHINGTON: US prosecutors moved on Monday to drop the two federal criminal cases against Donald Trump involving his efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat and his handling of classified documents, citing Justice Department policy against prosecuting a sitting president. The steps by prosecutors working with Special Counsel Jack Smith in the two cases represent a big legal victory for the Republican president-elect, who won the Nov. 5 US election and is set to return to office on Jan. 20. The Justice Department policy that the prosecutors cited dates back to the 1970s. It holds that a criminal prosecution of a sitting president would violate the US Constitution by undermining the ability of the country’s chief executive to function. Courts will still have to approve both requests from prosecutors. The prosecutors in a filing in the election subversion case said the department’s policy requires the case to be dismissed before Trump returns to the White House. “This outcome is not based on the merits or strength of the case against the defendant,” prosecutors wrote in the filing. Smith’s office similarly moved to end its attempt to revive the case accusing Trump of illegally retaining classified documents when he left office in 2021 after his first term as president. But the prosecutors signaled they will still ask a federal appeals court to bring back the case against two Trump associates who had been accused of obstructing that investigation. Trump spokesman Steven Cheung hailed what he called “a major victory for the rule of law.” Trump had faced criminal charges in four cases — the two brought by Smith and two in state courts in New York and Georgia. He was convicted in the New York case while the Georgia case is in limbo. In a post on social media, Trump railed on Monday against the legal cases as a “low point in the History of our Country.” The moves by Smith, who was appointed in 2022 by US Attorney General Merrick Garland, represents a remarkable shift from the special prosecutor who obtained indictments against Trump in two separate cases accusing him of crimes that threatened US election integrity and national security. Prosecutors acknowledged that the election of a president who faced ongoing criminal cases created an unprecedented predicament for the Justice Department. It shows how Trump’s election victory over Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris was not just a political triumph, but also a legal one. Trump pleaded not guilty in August 2023 to four federal charges accusing him of conspiring to obstruct the collection and certification of votes following his 2020 loss to Democrat Joe Biden. Trump, who as president will again oversee the Justice Department, was expected to order an end to the federal 2020 election case and to Smith’s appeal in the documents case. Florida-based Judge Aileen Cannon, who Trump appointed to the federal bench, had dismissed the classified documents case in July, ruling that Smith was improperly appointed to his role as special counsel. Smith’s office had been appealing that ruling and indicated on Monday that the appeal would continue as it relates to Trump personal aide Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, a manager at his Mar-a-Lago resort, who had been previously charged alongside Trump in the case. Both Nauta and De Oliveria have pleaded not guilty, as did Trump. In the 2020 election case, Trump’s lawyers had previously said they would seek to dismiss the charges based on a US Supreme Court ruling in July that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution over official actions taken while in the White House. Smith attempted to salvage the case following that ruling, dropping some allegations but arguing that the rest were not covered by presidential immunity and could proceed to trial. Judge Tanya Chutkan had been due to decide whether the immunity decision required other portions of the case to be thrown out. A trial date originally set for March 2024 had not been rescheduled. The case was brought following an investigation led by Smith into Trump’s attempts to retain power following his 2020 election defeat, culminating in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol by a mob of his supporters following his inflammatory speech near the White House. Trump denied wrongdoing and argued that the US legal system had been turned against him to damage his presidential campaign. He vowed during the campaign that he would fire Smith if he returned to the presidency. Trump in May became the first former president to be convicted of a crime when a jury in New York found him guilty of felony charges relating to hush money paid to a porn star before the 2016 election. His sentencing in that case has been indefinitely postponed. The criminal case against Trump in Georgia state court involving the 2020 election is stalled.
For years, patients in the U.S. health care system have grown frustrated with . Doctors are included in an insurer’s network one year but not the next. Getting someone on the phone to help can be next to impossible. Coverage of care and prescriptions is often unceremoniously denied. This week’s of has unleashed a wave of public feeling — exasperation, anger, resentment, helplessness — from Americans sharing personal stories of interactions with insurance companies, often seen as faceless corporate giants. In particular, the words found at the shooting scene — “delay,” “deny” and “depose,” echoing a phrase used to describe how insurers dodge claim payouts — amplified voices that have long been critical of the industry. “All of a sudden, I am fired up again,” said Tim Anderson, describing how his wife, Mary, had to deal with UnitedHealthcare coverage denials before she died from Lou Gehrig’s disease, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2022. Anderson said they couldn’t get coverage for machines to help his wife breathe or talk — toward the end, she communicated by blinking when he showed her pictures. The family had to rely on donations from a local ALS group, he said. “The business model for insurance is don’t pay,” said Anderson, 67, of Centerville, Ohio. “When Mary could still talk, she said to me to keep fighting this,” he added. “It needs to be exposed.” For Anderson and others, Thompson’s death and the message left at the scene have created an opportunity to vent their frustrations. Conversations at dinner tables, office water coolers, social gatherings and on social media have pivoted to the topic, as police efforts keep the case in the news. Hans Maristela said he understands why the chatter is bubbling up. The 54-year-old caregiver in California was moved to comment on Facebook about UnitedHealthcare’s reputation of denying coverage. As a Catholic, he said, he grieves Thompson’s death and feels for his family, especially with the holidays around the corner. But he sees frustration with insurers even among his clients, most of them wealthy older people who’ve not been shielded from high out-of-pocket costs. “And then you know the you pay a lot of money to gets $10 million dollars a year, you won’t have a lot of sympathy for the guy,” Maristela said, citing Thompson’s compensation package that included base pay and stock options. “Health care is a business, I understand, but the obsession with share price, with profit, has to be reevaluated.” University of Pennsylvania researcher Michael Anne Kyle said she’s not surprised by the growth of conversation around insurers. “People are often struggling with this by themselves, and when you see someone else talk about it, that may prompt you to join the conversation,” she said. Kyle studies how patients access care and said she’s seen frustration with the system build for years. Costs are rising, and insurers are using more controls such as prior authorizations and doctor networks to manage them. Patients are often stuck in the middle of disputes between doctors and insurers. “Patients are already spending a lot of money on health care, and then they’re still facing problems with the service,” she said. Insurers often note that most of the money they bring in goes back out the door to pay claims, and that they try to corral soaring costs and the overuse of some care. In Ohio, Anderson said his initial reaction to the CEO shooting was to question whether it was connected to a coverage denial, like the ones he’d experienced with his wife. “I definitely do not condone killing people,” he said. “But I read it and said, ‘I wonder if somebody had a spouse whose coverage was denied.’” It’s something Will Flanary, a Portland-based ophthalmologist and comedian with a large social media following, saw online a lot in the shooting’s immediate aftermath and found very telling. “It’s zero sympathy,” he said. “And the lesson to take away from that is not, ‘Let’s shame people for celebrating a murder.’ No, it’s: ‘Look at the amount of anger that people have toward this system that’s taken advantage of people and do something to try to fix that.’” Flanary’s content, published under the name Dr. Glaucomflecken, started out as niche eye doctor jokes and a way to cope with his own experiences with two cancer diagnoses and a sudden cardiac arrest. But it has evolved, featuring character skits that call attention to and satirize the decisions of large health insurers, including UnitedHealthcare. He said he’s never seen conversations around health insurance policy take off the way they did this week — and he hopes these new voices can help bring about change. “I’m always talking about how powerful social media can be with advocacy,” he said, “because it really is the only way to put a significant amount of pressure on these corporations who are doing bad things for patients.”US-Google face off as ad tech antitrust trial comes to close
Carolina Panthers tight end Ja'Tavion Sanders was taken to a hospital for a neck injury after landing on his head while making a catch late in the first half of Sunday's 30-27 home loss to the Kansas City Chiefs. As Sanders was brought down near the sideline after a 10-yard reception, he was flipped upside down and landed directly on the top of his helmet as he went out of bounds on the tackle by cornerback Trent McDuffie. After receiving attention from the team's medical staff, Sanders was strapped to a backboard and taken off the field on a cart with 40 seconds remaining in the half. He was taken to Atrium Health Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte for observation and later released Sunday afternoon, according to the team. On the CBS broadcast following halftime, Panthers head coach Dave Canales said Sanders had movement in all his extremities, while extreme precaution was taken because of back tightness. CBS reported he was being examined for a concussion before later amending that to a neck injury. The 21-year-old rookie out of Texas had a team-leading three receptions for the Panthers at the half for 49 yards. In 11 games this season, Sanders has 29 receptions for 302 yards and a touchdown. Sanders was a fourth-round selection in the NFL draft in April. --Field Level Media
AP News Summary at 2:47 p.m. EST
There's nothing more Aussie than a snake slithering onto a plane and being wrangled off the by a television star. or signup to continue reading Virgin Australia 1482 to Perth was scheduled to take off from Broome Airport at 10.30am on Thursday when a snake was discovered onboard. A brave passenger stepped up to remove the non-venomous snake, garnering applause from the . In a bizarre twist, the passenger was ocean videographer Andre Rerekura, who stars in Disney's Shipwreck Hunters Australia. Mr Rerekura said of the snake: "He was so cute, we should have taken him home." A cabin crew member can be heard on the loudspeaker saying "there's never a dull moment in aviation" before declaring "we're going to continue on as normal". Virgin Australia said in this scenario, the crew would typically report the incident and call a professional to remove the wildlife, but the passenger removed the snake while this process was underway. The snake was handed over to the airport reporting officer and the service continued to Perth as normal. The airline thanked the affected passengers for their patience. The snake was reported by ABC as being a Stimson's python. These snakes are found in a wide range of arid environments, in areas such as rocky outcrops and stony ranges, according to the Australian Museum. They can grow up to around a metre, and are a popular species to be kept in captivity, the museum said. DAILY Today's top stories curated by our news team. WEEKDAYS Grab a quick bite of today's latest news from around the region and the nation. WEEKLY The latest news, results & expert analysis. WEEKDAYS Catch up on the news of the day and unwind with great reading for your evening. WEEKLY Get the editor's insights: what's happening & why it matters. WEEKLY Love footy? We've got all the action covered. WEEKLY Every Saturday and Tuesday, explore destinations deals, tips & travel writing to transport you around the globe. WEEKLY Going out or staying in? Find out what's on. WEEKDAYS Sharp. Close to the ground. Digging deep. Your weekday morning newsletter on national affairs, politics and more. TWICE WEEKLY Your essential national news digest: all the big issues on Wednesday and great reading every Saturday. WEEKLY Get news, reviews and expert insights every Thursday from CarExpert, ACM's exclusive motoring partner. TWICE WEEKLY Get real, Australia! Let the ACM network's editors and journalists bring you news and views from all over. AS IT HAPPENS Be the first to know when news breaks. DAILY Your digital replica of Today's Paper. Ready to read from 5am! DAILY Test your skills with interactive crosswords, sudoku & trivia. Fresh daily! Advertisement AdvertisementNone
Lindsey Vonn takes another step in comeback at age 40, competes in a pair of downhillsAnthem Blue Cross Blue Shield reverses decision to put a time limit on anesthesiaGlobe Life Brushes Off 'Short' Gamble, Analyst Remains Bullish
TORONTO, Dec. 3, 2024 /PRNewswire/ - IsoEnergy Ltd. ("IsoEnergy") (TSX: ISO) (OTCQX: ISENF) is pleased to announce shareholders of the company (the "Shareholders") have overwhelmingly approved two resolutions at the Special Meeting of Shareholders (the "Meeting") held today. These include the ordinary resolution (the "Share Issuance Resolution") to approve the share issuance in connection with the previously announced arrangement (the "Arrangement") involving IsoEnergy and Anfield Energy Corp. ("Anfield") and the special resolution (the "Share Consolidation Resolution") approving the discretionary consolidation of IsoEnergy shares. The Share Issuance Resolution was required to be approved by a simple majority of the votes cast by Shareholders virtually in person or represented by proxy at the Meeting and the Share Consolidation Resolution was required to be approved by at least two-thirds (66 2/3%) of the votes cast by Shareholders virtually in person or represented by proxy at the Meeting. A total of 116,633,626 Common Shares, representing approximately 65.23% of votes entitled to be cast at the Meeting, were represented in person or by proxy at the Meeting. Approximately 99.56% of the votes eligible to be cast were voted in favour of the Share Issuance Resolution and 99.19% in favour of the Share Consolidation Resolution. The report of voting results will be made available under IsoEnergy's profile on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca . In addition to the approval by IsoEnergy Shareholders, Anfield shareholders approved the Arrangement at its special meeting today. Anfield will seek a final order approving the Arrangement from the Supreme Court of British Columbia on December 6, 2024. Closing of the Arrangement remains subject to satisfaction of certain customary closing conditions, including receipt of final court and stock exchange approvals. Subject to the satisfaction of these closing conditions, the parties currently expect to complete the Arrangement in December 2024. IsoEnergy is also pleased to announce that the parties have received written notice from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States that it has concluded its review of the Arrangement and determined that there are no unresolved national security concerns with respect to the Arrangement. Further details regarding the Arrangement, including the principal closing conditions and the anticipated benefits for Shareholders, can be found in the Company's management proxy circular dated October 31, 2024, in respect of the Meeting, which can be found under the Company's SEDAR+ profile at www.sedarplus.ca . None of the securities to be issued pursuant to the Arrangement have been or will be registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "U.S. Securities Act"), or any state securities laws, and any securities issuable in the Arrangement are anticipated to be issued in reliance upon available exemptions from such registration requirements pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the U.S. Securities Act and applicable exemptions under state securities laws. This press release does not constitute an offer to sell, or the solicitation of an offer to buy, any securities. Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information This press release contains "forward-looking information" within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities legislation. Generally, forward-looking information can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as "plans", "expects" or "does not expect", "is expected", "budget", "scheduled", "estimates", "forecasts", "intends", "anticipates" or "does not anticipate", or "believes", or variations of such words and phrases or state that certain actions, events or results "may", "could", "would", "might" or "will be taken", "occur" or "be achieved". These forward-looking statements or information may relate to the Arrangement, including statements with respect to the consummation of the Arrangement and the timing thereof; satisfaction of conditions to closing of the Arrangement, including receipt of final court and stock exchange approvals; and any other activities, events or developments that the companies expect or anticipate will or may occur in the future. Forward-looking statements are necessarily based upon a number of assumptions that, while considered reasonable by management at the time, are inherently subject to business, market and economic risks, uncertainties and contingencies that may cause actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from those expressed or implied by forward-looking statements. Such assumptions include, but are not limited to, assumptions that IsoEnergy and Anfield will complete the Arrangement in accordance with, and on the timeline contemplated by the terms and conditions of the relevant agreements; that the parties will receive the required court and stock exchange approvals and will satisfy, in a timely manner, the other conditions to the closing of the Arrangement; and that general business and economic conditions will not change in a material adverse manner. Although IsoEnergy has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking information, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such information will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information. Such statements represent the current views of IsoEnergy with respect to future events and are necessarily based upon a number of assumptions and estimates that, while considered reasonable by IsoEnergy, are inherently subject to significant business, economic, competitive, political and social risks, contingencies and uncertainties. Risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to the following: the inability of IsoEnergy and Anfield to complete the Arrangement; a material adverse change in the timing of and the terms and conditions upon which the Arrangemen tis completed; the inability to satisfy or waive all conditions to closing the Arrangement; the failure to obtain shareholder, regulatory, court or stock exchange approvals in connection with the Arrangement; unanticipated changes in market price for IsoEnergy Shares and/or Anfield shares; changes to IsoEnergy's and/or Anfield's current and future business plans and the strategic alternatives available thereto; growth prospects and outlook of Anfield's business; regulatory determinations and delays; stock market conditions generally; demand, supply and pricing for uranium; and general economic and political conditions in Canada, the United States and other jurisdictions where the applicable party conducts business. Other factors which could materially affect such forward-looking information are described in the risk factors in IsoEnergy's most recent annual information form, the Circular and IsoEnergy's other filings with the Canadian securities regulators which are available, respectively, on each company's profile on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca . IsoEnergy does not undertake to update any forward-looking information, except in accordance with applicable securities laws. View original content to download multimedia: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/isoenergy-announces-voting-results-from-special-meeting-302321595.html SOURCE IsoEnergy Ltd.Woodward Reports Record Sales & Earnings for Fiscal Year 2024
Chuck Woolery, smooth-talking game show host of 'Love Connection' and 'Scrabble,' dies at 83
Marrakech Film Festival bestows Palestinian film 'Happy Holidays' with top awardGirls for Gender Equity, a Brooklyn-based advocacy organization focused on uplifting Black girls and gender non-conforming youth, released a new report showing room for potential reform in school dress codes across New York City. This report follows the enactment of Local Law 083 of 2024, a law aimed at mitigating the alleged discriminatory impacts of existing dress code policies. GGE’s report, the third in a series examining dress code policies, analyzed compliance across all five boroughs of New York City. The results indicated that schools achieved an average score of 60% in complying with the Department of Education’s guidelines concerning dress codes. Brooklyn schools showed the highest compliance scores, averaging a grade of B, while Bronx schools scored the lowest with an average grade of D. Quaidra Coles, director of policy advocacy for GGE, explained the impetus behind the focused research. “We initiated this project to bolster our advocacy efforts for Local Law 083, which has been on the table for five years. The time for action is now, especially as school budgets and priorities shift post-pandemic,” she told amNewYork Metro. More than 40% of the schools examined either did not have their dress codes published on their websites or used ambiguous language, making it challenging for students to understand what was permissible. “How can students adhere to dress codes if they are not even aware of what those codes entail,” Coles added. Per the New York City Public Schools website , students are free to wear what they want unless the attire is dangerous, interferes with teaching and learning or violates the DOE’s anti-discrimination policy. Schools are also required to show justification for each dress requirement. A significant highlight of GGE’s findings includes the impact of dress codes on mental health. In interviews, students expressed that restrictive dress codes adversely affected their self-esteem and school attendance. For example, a young participant shared with Coles that when they felt unable to present their authentic selves through clothing, it deterred them from attending school, which ultimately affected their academic performance. This correlation emphasizes the importance of allowing students the freedom to express themselves, as it can significantly enhance their engagement and well-being. The study also found that dress codes often reflect underlying biases. Among the schools evaluated, those with punitive measures for dress code violations disproportionately targeted Black girls and gender non-conforming youth, leading to higher rates of suspension or removal from classrooms. “These policies are often enforced under the guise of mitigating distractions,” Coles said. “When in reality, they create an environment of exclusion.” While the report acknowledges the difficulty of implementing uniforms across NYC’s diverse school system, it advocates for a cultural shift in how educators perceive and enforce dress codes. “It’s essential for educators to understand the social dynamics influencing students’ clothing choices,” Coles said. “A collaborative approach that includes input from students and families can lead to healthier school environments.” GGE’s leadership goals for the coming year include continuing to advocate for meaningful policy changes and fostering dialogue between students and educators. “We need to ensure that young people feel empowered to express themselves, as this will positively impact their mental health and future decision-making,” Coles stated.Russell Vought, one of the chief architects of Project 2025 — a conservative blueprint for the next presidency — is no fan of the federal government that President-elect Donald Trump will soon lead. He believes “woke” civil servants and “so-called expert authorities” wield illegitimate power to block conservative White House directives from deep within federal agencies, and wants Trump to “bend or break” that bureaucracy to his will, he wrote in the second chapter of the Project 2025 playbook. Vought is a vocal proponent of a plan known as Schedule F, under which Trump would fire thousands of career civil servants with extensive experience in their fields and replace them with his own political loyalists, and of Christian nationalism, which would see American governance aligned with Christian teachings. Both are core tenets of Project 2025. Throughout his campaign, Trump adamantly disavowed Project 2025, even though its policies overlapped with his and some of its authors worked in his first administration. He castigated anyone who suggested the blueprint, which polls showed was deeply unpopular among voters, represented his aims for the presidency. But last week, the president-elect nominated Vought to lead the Office of Management and Budget, which oversees the White House budget and its policy agenda across the federal government. Trump called Vought, who held the same role during his first term, an “aggressive cost cutter and deregulator” who “knows exactly how to dismantle the Deep State and end Weaponized Government.” The nomination was one of several Trump has made since his election that have called into question his claims on the campaign trail that Project 2025 was not his playbook and held no sway over him or his plans for a second term. He selected Tom Homan, a Project 2025 contributor and former visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the conservative organization behind the blueprint, as his “border czar.” Trump named Stephen Miller, an immigration hard-liner also linked to Project 2025, as his deputy chief of staff for policy. Both also served in the first Trump administration. He also named Brendan Carr to serve on the Federal Communications Commission. Carr wrote a chapter of Project 2025 on the FCC, which regulates U.S. internet access and TV and radio networks, and has echoed Trump’s claims that news broadcasters have engaged in political bias against Trump. Trump named John Ratcliffe as his pick for CIA director and Pete Hoekstra as ambassador to Canada. Both are Project 2025 contributors. It has also been reported that the Trump transition team is filling lower-level government spots using a Project 2025 database of conservative candidates. During the campaign Trump said that he knew “nothing about” Project 2025 and that he found some of its ideas “absolutely ridiculous and abysmal.” In response to news in July that Project 2025’s director, Paul Dans, was leaving his post, Trump campaign managers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles — whom the president-elect has since named his chief of staff — issued a statement saying that “reports of Project 2025’s demise would be greatly welcomed.” Asked about Trump’s selection of several people with Project 2025 connections to serve in his administration, Trump transition spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt responded with a statement, saying Trump “never had anything to do with Project 2025.” “This has always been a lie pushed by the Democrats and the legacy media, but clearly the American people did not buy it because they overwhelmingly voted for President Trump to implement the promises that he made on the campaign trail,” Leavitt wrote. “All of President Trump’s cabinet nominees and appointments are whole-heartedly committed to President Trump’s agenda, not the agenda of outside groups.” Leavitt too has ties to Project 2025, having appeared in a training video for it. In addition to calling for much greater power in the hands of the president, Project 2025 calls for less federal intervention in certain areas — including through the elimination of the Department of Education. It calls for much stricter immigration enforcement and mass deportations — a policy priority of Trump’s as well — and rails against environmental protections, calling for the demolition of key environmental agencies such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service. It calls for tougher restrictions on abortion and for the federal government to collect data on women who seek an abortion, and backs a slew of measures that would strip rights from LGBTQ+ people. For Trump’s critics, his selections make it clear that his disavowal of the conservative playbook was nothing more than a campaign ploy to pacify voters who viewed the plan as too far to the right. It’s an argument many were making before the election as well. “There are many of us who tried to sound the alarm bell before the election,” when voters still had the power to keep such a plan from coming to fruition, said Ben Olinsky, senior vice president of structural reform and governance at the liberal Center for American Progress. Now, he said, he expects many of the more “draconian pieces” of Project 2025 to start being implemented given the nominees Trump has put forward. That includes Vought’s plan to eviscerate the career civil service, the core of American government, by doing away with merit-based staffing in favor of loyalty-based appointments, Olinsky said. “We know what happened before there was a merit-based civil service. There was cronyism in American government, and we can look back through history and see that kind of graft and cronyism,” Olinsky said. Filling the government with Trump loyalists will clear the way for more policies of Project 2025 to be implemented without resistance, Olinsky said. Olinsky said the Supreme Court and the Republican-controlled House have already proved they are not willing to stand up to Trump. There are “still some institutionalists” in the Senate — soon to be controlled by Republicans, as well — who could leverage their power to push back, he said, but it is not clear that they will. Incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has signaled that he may be willing to do so: According to reports from his home state, he said at a local Chamber of Commerce event Tuesday that all presidents try to push policy through executive action, and that Congress “sometimes will have to put the brakes on.” In the end, Olinsky said, real resistance might come only once Americans start realizing that Trump’s new government, stripped of all of its experts, is failing them in serious ways. “They do care about their Social Security checks being delivered. They do care about the nation being defended properly. They care that, when they turn on the faucet, they will drink water that won’t sicken them and their kids,” Olinsky said. “And that’s what requires expertise.” ©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
* Policy against prosecuting sitting presidents cited * Courts must approve the two dismissal requests WASHINGTON: US prosecutors moved on Monday to drop the two federal criminal cases against Donald Trump involving his efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat and his handling of classified documents, citing Justice Department policy against prosecuting a sitting president. The steps by prosecutors working with Special Counsel Jack Smith in the two cases represent a big legal victory for the Republican president-elect, who won the Nov. 5 US election and is set to return to office on Jan. 20. The Justice Department policy that the prosecutors cited dates back to the 1970s. It holds that a criminal prosecution of a sitting president would violate the US Constitution by undermining the ability of the country’s chief executive to function. Courts will still have to approve both requests from prosecutors. The prosecutors in a filing in the election subversion case said the department’s policy requires the case to be dismissed before Trump returns to the White House. “This outcome is not based on the merits or strength of the case against the defendant,” prosecutors wrote in the filing. Smith’s office similarly moved to end its attempt to revive the case accusing Trump of illegally retaining classified documents when he left office in 2021 after his first term as president. But the prosecutors signaled they will still ask a federal appeals court to bring back the case against two Trump associates who had been accused of obstructing that investigation. Trump spokesman Steven Cheung hailed what he called “a major victory for the rule of law.” Trump had faced criminal charges in four cases — the two brought by Smith and two in state courts in New York and Georgia. He was convicted in the New York case while the Georgia case is in limbo. In a post on social media, Trump railed on Monday against the legal cases as a “low point in the History of our Country.” The moves by Smith, who was appointed in 2022 by US Attorney General Merrick Garland, represents a remarkable shift from the special prosecutor who obtained indictments against Trump in two separate cases accusing him of crimes that threatened US election integrity and national security. Prosecutors acknowledged that the election of a president who faced ongoing criminal cases created an unprecedented predicament for the Justice Department. It shows how Trump’s election victory over Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris was not just a political triumph, but also a legal one. Trump pleaded not guilty in August 2023 to four federal charges accusing him of conspiring to obstruct the collection and certification of votes following his 2020 loss to Democrat Joe Biden. Trump, who as president will again oversee the Justice Department, was expected to order an end to the federal 2020 election case and to Smith’s appeal in the documents case. Florida-based Judge Aileen Cannon, who Trump appointed to the federal bench, had dismissed the classified documents case in July, ruling that Smith was improperly appointed to his role as special counsel. Smith’s office had been appealing that ruling and indicated on Monday that the appeal would continue as it relates to Trump personal aide Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, a manager at his Mar-a-Lago resort, who had been previously charged alongside Trump in the case. Both Nauta and De Oliveria have pleaded not guilty, as did Trump. In the 2020 election case, Trump’s lawyers had previously said they would seek to dismiss the charges based on a US Supreme Court ruling in July that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution over official actions taken while in the White House. Smith attempted to salvage the case following that ruling, dropping some allegations but arguing that the rest were not covered by presidential immunity and could proceed to trial. Judge Tanya Chutkan had been due to decide whether the immunity decision required other portions of the case to be thrown out. A trial date originally set for March 2024 had not been rescheduled. The case was brought following an investigation led by Smith into Trump’s attempts to retain power following his 2020 election defeat, culminating in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol by a mob of his supporters following his inflammatory speech near the White House. Trump denied wrongdoing and argued that the US legal system had been turned against him to damage his presidential campaign. He vowed during the campaign that he would fire Smith if he returned to the presidency. Trump in May became the first former president to be convicted of a crime when a jury in New York found him guilty of felony charges relating to hush money paid to a porn star before the 2016 election. His sentencing in that case has been indefinitely postponed. The criminal case against Trump in Georgia state court involving the 2020 election is stalled.
For years, patients in the U.S. health care system have grown frustrated with . Doctors are included in an insurer’s network one year but not the next. Getting someone on the phone to help can be next to impossible. Coverage of care and prescriptions is often unceremoniously denied. This week’s of has unleashed a wave of public feeling — exasperation, anger, resentment, helplessness — from Americans sharing personal stories of interactions with insurance companies, often seen as faceless corporate giants. In particular, the words found at the shooting scene — “delay,” “deny” and “depose,” echoing a phrase used to describe how insurers dodge claim payouts — amplified voices that have long been critical of the industry. “All of a sudden, I am fired up again,” said Tim Anderson, describing how his wife, Mary, had to deal with UnitedHealthcare coverage denials before she died from Lou Gehrig’s disease, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, in 2022. Anderson said they couldn’t get coverage for machines to help his wife breathe or talk — toward the end, she communicated by blinking when he showed her pictures. The family had to rely on donations from a local ALS group, he said. “The business model for insurance is don’t pay,” said Anderson, 67, of Centerville, Ohio. “When Mary could still talk, she said to me to keep fighting this,” he added. “It needs to be exposed.” For Anderson and others, Thompson’s death and the message left at the scene have created an opportunity to vent their frustrations. Conversations at dinner tables, office water coolers, social gatherings and on social media have pivoted to the topic, as police efforts keep the case in the news. Hans Maristela said he understands why the chatter is bubbling up. The 54-year-old caregiver in California was moved to comment on Facebook about UnitedHealthcare’s reputation of denying coverage. As a Catholic, he said, he grieves Thompson’s death and feels for his family, especially with the holidays around the corner. But he sees frustration with insurers even among his clients, most of them wealthy older people who’ve not been shielded from high out-of-pocket costs. “And then you know the you pay a lot of money to gets $10 million dollars a year, you won’t have a lot of sympathy for the guy,” Maristela said, citing Thompson’s compensation package that included base pay and stock options. “Health care is a business, I understand, but the obsession with share price, with profit, has to be reevaluated.” University of Pennsylvania researcher Michael Anne Kyle said she’s not surprised by the growth of conversation around insurers. “People are often struggling with this by themselves, and when you see someone else talk about it, that may prompt you to join the conversation,” she said. Kyle studies how patients access care and said she’s seen frustration with the system build for years. Costs are rising, and insurers are using more controls such as prior authorizations and doctor networks to manage them. Patients are often stuck in the middle of disputes between doctors and insurers. “Patients are already spending a lot of money on health care, and then they’re still facing problems with the service,” she said. Insurers often note that most of the money they bring in goes back out the door to pay claims, and that they try to corral soaring costs and the overuse of some care. In Ohio, Anderson said his initial reaction to the CEO shooting was to question whether it was connected to a coverage denial, like the ones he’d experienced with his wife. “I definitely do not condone killing people,” he said. “But I read it and said, ‘I wonder if somebody had a spouse whose coverage was denied.’” It’s something Will Flanary, a Portland-based ophthalmologist and comedian with a large social media following, saw online a lot in the shooting’s immediate aftermath and found very telling. “It’s zero sympathy,” he said. “And the lesson to take away from that is not, ‘Let’s shame people for celebrating a murder.’ No, it’s: ‘Look at the amount of anger that people have toward this system that’s taken advantage of people and do something to try to fix that.’” Flanary’s content, published under the name Dr. Glaucomflecken, started out as niche eye doctor jokes and a way to cope with his own experiences with two cancer diagnoses and a sudden cardiac arrest. But it has evolved, featuring character skits that call attention to and satirize the decisions of large health insurers, including UnitedHealthcare. He said he’s never seen conversations around health insurance policy take off the way they did this week — and he hopes these new voices can help bring about change. “I’m always talking about how powerful social media can be with advocacy,” he said, “because it really is the only way to put a significant amount of pressure on these corporations who are doing bad things for patients.”US-Google face off as ad tech antitrust trial comes to close
Carolina Panthers tight end Ja'Tavion Sanders was taken to a hospital for a neck injury after landing on his head while making a catch late in the first half of Sunday's 30-27 home loss to the Kansas City Chiefs. As Sanders was brought down near the sideline after a 10-yard reception, he was flipped upside down and landed directly on the top of his helmet as he went out of bounds on the tackle by cornerback Trent McDuffie. After receiving attention from the team's medical staff, Sanders was strapped to a backboard and taken off the field on a cart with 40 seconds remaining in the half. He was taken to Atrium Health Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte for observation and later released Sunday afternoon, according to the team. On the CBS broadcast following halftime, Panthers head coach Dave Canales said Sanders had movement in all his extremities, while extreme precaution was taken because of back tightness. CBS reported he was being examined for a concussion before later amending that to a neck injury. The 21-year-old rookie out of Texas had a team-leading three receptions for the Panthers at the half for 49 yards. In 11 games this season, Sanders has 29 receptions for 302 yards and a touchdown. Sanders was a fourth-round selection in the NFL draft in April. --Field Level Media
AP News Summary at 2:47 p.m. EST
-
"> -
"> -
"> -
">
