alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1208. Future rights-of-way

#### (a) Access across Federal lands; application approval

After January 14, 1983, the State or State-owned railroad may request the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture, as appropriate under law, to expeditiously approve an application for a right-of-way in order that the Alaska Railroad or State-owned railroad may have access across Federal lands for transportation and related purposes. The State or State-owned railroad may also apply for a lease, permit, or conveyance of any necessary or convenient terminal and station grounds and material sites in the vicinity of the right-of-way for which an application has been submitted.

#### (b) Consultative requirements prior to approval of application; conformance of rights-of-way, etc.

Before approving a right-of-way application described in subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture, as appropriate, shall consult with the Secretary. Approval of an application for a right-of-way, permit, lease, or conveyance described in subsection (a) of this section shall be pursuant to applicable law. Rights-of-way, grounds, and sites granted pursuant to this section and other applicable law shall conform, to the extent possible, to the standards provided in the Act of March 12, 1914 (43 U.S.C. 975 et seq.) and section 1202(6) of this title. Such conformance shall not be affected by the repeal of such Act under section 615 of this title.1

(Pub. L. 97–468, title VI, §609, Jan. 14, 1983, 96 Stat. 2574; Pub. L. 108–7, div. I, title III, §345(5), Feb. 20, 2003, 117 Stat. 418.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Act of March 12, 1914 (43 U.S.C. 975 et seq.), referred to in subsec. (b), is act Mar. 12, 1914, ch. 37, 38 Stat. 305, popularly known as the Alaska Railroad Act, which enacted section 353a of Title 16, Conservation, and sections 975 to 975g of Title 43, Public Lands, and which was repealed by section 615(a)(1) of Pub. L. 97–468 effective on the date of transfer of Alaska Railroad to the State [Jan. 5, 1985], pursuant to section 1203 of this title.

Section 615 of this title, referred to in subsec. (b), means section 615 of title VI of Pub. L. 97–468, Jan. 14, 1983, 96 Stat. 2577. Title VI of Pub. L. 97–468 is known as the Alaska Railroad Transfer Act of 1982 and is classified principally to this chapter. Under section 615, the repeal is effective on the date of transfer to the State of Alaska (pursuant to section 1203 of this title) or other disposition (pursuant to section 1210 of this title), whichever first occurs.

#### Amendments

2003—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 108–7 struck out subsec. (c) which read as follows: "Reversion to the United States of any portion of any right-of-way or exclusive-use easement granted to the State or State-owned railroad shall occur only as provided in section 1209 of this title. For purposes of such section, the date of the approval of any such right-of-way shall be deemed the 'date of transfer'."

1 See References in Text note below.
§ 27.30 Conduct of the sale. ( a ) The commissioner shall accept written one-price sealed bids from any party including the Secretary so long as those bids conform to the requirements described in the Notice of Default and Foreclosure Sale. The commissioner shall announce the name of each such bidder and the amount of the bid. The commissioner shall accept oral bids from any party, including parties who submitted one-price sealed bids, if those oral bids conform to the requirements described in the Notice of Default and Foreclosure Sale. The commissioner will announce the amount of the high bid and the name of the successful bidder before the close of the sale.
( b ) Relatives of the commissioner who may not bid at the foreclosure sale include parents, siblings, spouses and children. Related business entities which may not bid include entities or concerns whose relationship with the commissioner at the time the commissioner is designated is such that, directly or indirectly, one concern or individual formulates, directs, or controls the other concern; or has the power to formulate, direct, or control the other concern; or has the responsibility and authority either to prevent in the first instance, or promptly to correct, the offensive conduct of the other concern. Business concerns are also affiliates of each other when a third party is similarly situated with respect to both concerns.
( c ) If the commissioner employs an auctioneer to conduct the foreclosure sale, the auctioneer must be a licensed auctioneer, an officer of State or local government, or any other person who commonly conducts foreclosure sales in the area in which the security property is located.
MID-ATLANTIC COMMUNITY BANKGROUP, INC.
Exhibit (11)--Statement re: computation of per share earnings


                                                  6 Months Ended June 30,
                                                 1997                 1996
                                                 ----                 ----


PRIMARY

       Average shares outstanding                 944,333            944,333
       Net effect of dilutive stock
         options--based on the treasury
         stock method using average
         market price                              33,049             30,233
                                            -------------       ------------

       TOTAL                                      977,382            974,566
                                             ============       ============


       Net Income                             $   764,587        $   715,459
                                              ===========        ===========


       Per Share Amount                    $         0.78     $         0.73
                                           ==============     ==============


FULLY DILUTED

       Average shares outstanding                 944,333            944,333
       Net effect of dilutive stock
         options--based on the treasury
         stock method using the year
         end market price, if higher
         than average market price                 33,065             32,705
                                           --------------     --------------

       TOTAL                                      977,398            977,038
                                            =============      =============


       Net Income                            $    764,587       $    715,459
                                             ============       ============


       Per Share Amount                   $          0.78    $          0.73
                                          ===============    ===============



                                       19
#### GRUET, Respondent, v. MOLES, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 27, 1905.)

Action by Charles B. Gruet against Sarah Ann Moles. No opinion. Order of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
AND ORDER THEREON

Case 3:09-cv-00195-MMC Document 32 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 2
February 18, 2010

Case 3:09-cv-00195-MMC Document 32 Filed 02/18/10 Page 2 of 2
#### § 241.865 Election by the lender.

Where a real estate mortgage, or other security instrument has been used to secure the payment of a loan made under the provisions of this subpart and subpart C of this part, the lender may either elect to assign the loan to the Commissioner in exchange for the payment of insurance benefits or may exercise its rights under the note and security instrument in lieu of making a claim for insurance benefits. If the lender elects the latter course, the Commissioner shall be so notified and the contract of insurance shall be deemed terminated upon the date of receipt of such notification.
#### § 35.705 Definitions and other general requirements.

Definitions and other general requirements that apply to this subpart are found in subpart B of this part.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SERAFIN CRUZ-SANCHEZ,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-73300

Agency No. A200-946-741

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 18, 2017** 

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Serafin Cruz-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision finding him removable and denying his motion to

suppress evidence and terminate proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

FILED

JAN 24 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1252. We review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress, and claims of

constitutional violations. Martinez-Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029, 1033 (9th

Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in denying Cruz-Sanchez’s motion to suppress the

Form I-213, where Cruz-Sanchez did not demonstrate that the I-213 was obtained

through an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment. See Lopez-Rodriguez v.

Mukasey, 536 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2008) (a Fourth Amendment violation is

egregious if evidence is obtained by a deliberate violation of the Fourth

Amendment, or by conduct a reasonable officer should have known is in violation

of the Constitution).

The agency did not err or violate Cruz-Sanchez’s due process rights by

admitting the I-213 into evidence, where the I-213 was probative, its admission

was fundamentally fair, and Cruz-Sanchez did not demonstrate that it was

inaccurate or obtained by coercion. See Sanchez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 1107, 1109

(9th Cir. 2012); Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[I]nformation

on an authenticated immigration form is presumed to be reliable in the absence of

evidence to the contrary presented by the alien.”); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,

1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due

process claim).

2 14-73300
We reject Cruz-Sanchez’s contention that he was entitled to confront the

preparer of the I-213 in court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B); Espinoza, 45 F.3d at

311 (the immigration judge was not required to permit cross-examination of the 

I-213’s preparer).

Finally, we reject Cruz-Sanchez’s contention that the BIA failed to address

all issues raised on appeal. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.

2010) (agency need not “write an exegesis on every contention” (internal citation

omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 14-73300
### SUBCHAPTER IV—RANGE MANAGEMENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

AS MODIFIED

Judge James Ware

3/17/2010

Case 3:08-cv-04606-JSW Document 87 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:08-cv-04606-JSW Document 87 Filed 03/17/10 Page 2 of 3
April 16, 2010. March 17, 2010 All other deadlines shall remain unchanged. 

Case 3:08-cv-04606-JSW Document 87 Filed 03/17/10 Page 3 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BESS M. BREWER, #100364

LAW OFFICE OF 

BESS M. BREWER & ASSOCIATES

P.O. BOX 5088

Sacramento, CA 95817

Telephone: (916) 454-3111

Facsimile: (916) 454-3131

besshelena@earthlink.net

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELENA O’CONNOR ) Case No. CIV-09-1508 JCS

 )

)

)

)

) [PROPOSED] STIPULATION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, ) EXTENDING PLAINTIFF’S TIME TO

) FILE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

v. ) OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND 

) DECLARATION

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE )

Commissioner of Social Security )

of the United States of America, )

)

Defendant. )

)

 )

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, through their attorneys, and with the

permission of the Court as evidenced below, that the Plaintiff’s time to file the summary judgment in this

case is hereby extended from its current due date of February 9, 2010 to February 19, 2010 . This

additional 10 day extension is required due to plaintiff’s counsel’s impacted briefing schedule. See,

Declaration of Bess M. Brewer set forth below

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

1

Case 3:09-cv-01508-JCS Document 18 Filed 02/10/10 Page 1 of 3 Case3:09-cv-01508-JCS Document17 Filed02/09/10 Page1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dated: February 8, 2010 s/Bess M. Brewer 

BESS M. BREWER

Attorney at Law

Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: February 9, 2010 Benjamin G. Wagner 

United States Attorney

/s/ Shea Lita Bond

SHEA LITA BOND

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

Social Security Administration

Attorney for Defendant

DECLARATION OF BESS M. BREWER

I, Bess M. Brewer, Declare:

1. I represent the plaintiff, Ms. O’Connor, in the above referenced case pending in this

court and submit this declaration in support of plaintiff’s stipulated request for an extension of time to

file her motion for summary judgment.

2. Due to my extremely busy briefing schedule, I require an additional two weeks to

complete Ms. O’Connor’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum.

3. The granting of this extension of time to file Ms. O’Connor’s summary judgment will

not have an appreciable effect on the briefing of this case.

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best

of my knowledge, and that this declaration was executed on February 8, 2010, in Sacramento,

California. /s/ Bess M. Brewer 

BESS M. BREWER

2

Case 3:09-cv-01508-JCS Document 18 Filed 02/10/10 Page 2 of 3 Case3:09-cv-01508-JCS Document17 Filed02/09/10 Page2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

APPROVED AND SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

HONORABLE JOSEPH C. SPERO

3

Case3:09-cv-01508-JCS Document17 Filed02/09/10 Page3 of 3

Feb. 10, 2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Case 3:09-cv-01508-JCS Document 18 Filed 02/10/10 Page 3 of 3
#### § 50.36 Updating of environmental reviews.

The environmental review must be re-evaluated and updated when the basis for the original environmental or compliance findings is affected by a major change requiring HUD approval in the nature, magnitude or extent of a project and the project is not yet complete. A change only in the amount of financing or mortgage insurance involved does not normally require the environmental review to be re-evaluated or updated.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


      Exhibit 11.1.  Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings

                                                        Three Months Ended
                                                             March 31,
(Dollars in thousands)                                  1999          1998
                                                        ----          ----
<S>                                               <C>           <C> 
Basic Earnings Per Share

   Net income                                      $     5,744  $     8,251
                                                   ===========  ===========

   Weighted average number of common
   and common equivalent shares:                    15,358,749   15,372,688
   -------------------------------------------

   Basic earnings per share                        $      0.37  $      0.54
                                                   ===========  ===========


Diluted Earnings Per Share

   Net income                                      $     5,744  $     8,251
                                                   ===========  ===========

   Weighted average number of common
   and common equivalent shares:
   -------------------------------------------

      Average number of shares outstanding          15,358,749   15,372,688

      Net effect of dilutive stock options
      based on treasury stock method                    10,973        1,081

   Total average shares:                            15,369,722   15,373,769
                                                    ==========   ==========

   Diluted earnings per share                     $       0.37 $       0.54
                                                  ============ ============

</TABLE>
### §231k. Incompetence

(a) Every individual receiving or claiming benefits, or to whom any right or privilege is extended, under this subchapter or any other Act of Congress now or hereafter administered, in whole or in part, by the Board shall be conclusively presumed to have been competent until the date on which the Board receives written notice, in a form and manner acceptable to the Board, that he is an incompetent, or a minor, for whom a guardian or other person legally vested with the care of his person or estate has been appointed: Provided, however, That, regardless of the legal competency or incompetency of an individual entitled to a benefit administered by the Board, the Board may, if it finds the interest of such individual to be served thereby, recognize actions by, and conduct transactions with, and make payments to, such individual, or recognize actions by, and conduct transactions with, and make payments to, a relative or some other person for such individual's use and benefit.

(b) Every guardian or other person legally vested with the care of the person or estate of an incompetent or minor who is receiving or claiming benefits, or to whom any right or privilege is extended, under this subchapter or any other Act of Congress now or hereafter administered, in whole or in part, by the Board shall have power everywhere, in the manner and to the extent prescribed by the Board, but subject to the provisions of the preceding subsection, to take any action necessary or appropriate to perfect any right or exercise any privilege of the incompetent or minor and to conduct all transactions on his behalf under this subchapter or any other Act of Congress now or hereafter administered, in whole or in part, by the Board. Any payment made pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be a complete settlement and satisfaction of any claim, right, or interest in and to such payment.

(Aug. 29, 1935, ch. 812, §12, as restated June 24, 1937, ch. 382, pt. I, 50 Stat. 307, as restated Pub. L. 93–445, title I, §101, Oct. 16, 1974, 88 Stat. 1345.)
Document

Exhibit 10.1
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
2020 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN


    WHEREAS, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Root, Inc. (the “Company”) has adopted the 2020 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “2020 ESPP”); and


    WHEREAS, the Board adopted the 2020 ESPP, effective as of October 18, 2020; and


WHEREAS, on June 7, 2022, the Company’s stockholders approved a reverse stock split of the Company’s common stock; and


WHEREAS, the Board delegated to a subcommittee of the Board authority to approve the final split ratio; and


WHEREAS, on August 1, 2022, a subcommittee of the Board approved a one-for-eighteen reverse stock split effective as of 5:00 p.m. eastern time on August 12, 2022; and


WHEREAS, Section 12 of the 2020 ESPP permits the Board to amend the 2020 ESPP from time to time, subject only to certain limitations specified therein, none of which are applicable to this amendment; and


WHEREAS, this amendment will not require stockholder approval because it relates to a capitalization adjustment; and


WHEREAS, the Board and the Compensation Committee authorized any officer of the Company to adopt such amendment on behalf of the Board; and


NOW, THEREFORE, the following amendment is hereby made part of the 2020 ESPP, effective as of August 12, 2022:


The introductory sentence of Section 2(a) is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


(a)Share Reserve. Subject to the provisions of Section 11(a) relating to Capitalization Adjustments, the maximum number of shares of Class A Common Stock that may be issued under the Plan will not exceed 277,777 shares of Class A Common Stock, plus the number of shares of Class A Common Stock that are automatically added on January 1st of each year for a period of up to ten years, commencing on the first January 1 following the year in which the IPO Date occurs and ending on (and including) January 1, 2030, in an amount equal to the lesser of (i) 1% of the total number of shares of Capital Stock outstanding on December 31st of the preceding calendar year, and (ii) 416,666 shares of Class A Common Stock. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Board may act prior to the first day of any calendar year to provide that there will be no January 1st increase in the share reserve for such calendar year or that the increase 








in the share reserve for such calendar year will be a lesser number of shares of Class A Common Stock than would otherwise occur pursuant to the preceding sentence. For the avoidance of doubt, up to the maximum number of shares of Class A Common Stock reserved under this Section 3(a) may be used to satisfy purchases of Class A Common Stock under the 423 Component and any remaining portion of such maximum number of shares may be used to satisfy purchases of Class A Common Stock under the Non-423 Component.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this First Amendment to the 2020 Employee Stock Purchase Plan.


                        Root, Inc.
                        
By:    /s/ Alexander Timm        
Name: Alexander Timm
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date: August 12, 2022
Exhibit 3.2



                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO

                                     BYLAWS

                                       OF

                           EDGE PETROLEUM CORPORATION

                  The following amendment to the Bylaws was adopted by the Board
of Directors of Edge Petroleum  Corporation (the "Corporation") on September 28,
1999:

                  Section 3.1 of the Bylaws of the Corporation is hereby amended
to add the following paragraph (d) thereto:

                  (d) No person shall be eligible for nomination for election as
         a  director  of the  Corporation  if such  person is 70 years of age or
         older or will  become  70 years of age or older on or prior to the date
         of the annual meeting of  stockholders of the Corporation at which such
         person would be considered  for election to the Board of  Directors.  A
         director  who  becomes  70 years of age  during  the term of his or her
         directorship  may  complete  his  or  her  term.   Notwithstanding  the
         foregoing,  any  director  who is also an employee  of the  Corporation
         shall  be  deemed  to  resign  from  the  Board  of  Directors  on such
         director's  65th  birthday  and may not  thereafter  be  nominated  for
         election as a director of the  Corporation.  The Board of Directors may
         waive  the  provisions  of  this  Section  3.1(d)  only  by a vote of a
         majority of the members of the whole Board of Directors  (including the
         director who would  otherwise be deemed to resign or be ineligible  for
         nomination  as a director)  if the Board of  Directors  in its judgment
         determines  that  such  waiver  would be in the best  interests  of the
         Corporation.




                                       1
<PAGE>