alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60800

(Summary Calendar)

 

HAROLD J. BLAKELY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN J. CALLAHAN, Acting Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(USDC No. 2:95-CV-108-PG)

- - - - - - - - - -

July 28, 1997

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Harold J. Blakely appeals from the district court’s judgment

affirming the denial of his application for supplemental security

income. Blakely argues that substantial evidence did not exist to

support the finding that he was not disabled and that a prior

application should have been reopened. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Further, this court lacks
2

jurisdiction to address Blakely’s argument that his previous

application should have been reopened. See Torres v. Shalala, 48

F.3d 887, 890 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the judgment of the

district court is 

AFFIRMED.
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-11-0530 SAT Date: 8/2/2011 Print Date: 5/1/2013
Related cases : Health related cases : Ecotox related cases:

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1-2 1 Health: PMN substance ; Eco: intact material 2 3 Health: Incomplete incineration product ; Eco: high concern for toxicity o incomplete incineration products to terrestrial organisms
Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 3 1 1 PMN 3 2 2 Deg Pdt.

Exposure Based Review : Health: N o Ecotox: N o Routes of exposure : Health: Dermal Drinking Water Inhalation Ecotox: N o releases to water Fate: ; PMN negl; Deg Pdt rapid

P 2 Rec Comments : Comment: N o Commen t Keywords : Keywords: IRR-E,S,L GI LUNG UNCERT WATERPROOFING

LIVER BLOOD MALE REPROIMMUNO ONCO AQUATOX -C Summary of Assessment : Fate : Fate Summary: P-11-0530 FATE: S = Disp. VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E) BP > 400 C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) POTW removal (%) = PMN 90 via sorption; Deg Pdt 0 via stripping Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg ≥ mo Sorption to soils/sediments = PMN v.strong; Deg Pdt low PBT Potential: PMN P3B1; Deg Pdt P3B2 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = PMN negl; Deg Pdt rapid
Health : Health Summary: Absorption is nil all routes, based on physical/chemical p roperties. There is concern for irritation to the eye, skin, and lung, and for disturbances to the GI tract if ingested, based on information in the PMN MSDS. There also is concern for lung toxicity if inhaled based on lung overload for high molecular weight polymers, and uncertain concern for lung waterproofing, based on fluorinated surfactants.

. For the potential degradation product, based on test data for the analog concerns are liver toxicity, blood toxicity, and male reproductive toxicity [rat 28-day oral N OAEL = 50 mg/kg, LOAEL = 150 mg/kg with liver toxicity; rat 90-day oral LOAEL = 10 mg/kg based on decreased body weight in males at all doses and liver toxicity and anemia at 200 mg/kg; there were toxic effects on the testes in 2 males in the 90-day oral study that were judged by the reviewer to be indicative of the potential for male reproductive toxicity. There is also concern for immunosuppression and oncogenicity based on data for
Ecotox : Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments
fish 96-h LC50 >100 daphnid 48-h LC50 >100 green algal 96-h EC50 >100 fish

_ chronic value >10daphnid

_ chronic value >10 algal

_ chronic value >10 Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for nonionic polymers; SAR chemical class = p olyme r with mp unknown (P); S = dispersible in water at 25 C (P); effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and nominal concentrations ; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L; high concern for the degradation product
Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) 1000

SARs nonioinic polymers SAR Class p olyme r -nonionicEcotox Category
Ecotox Factors Comments: SAT Chair: J. Kwiat
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

STANLEY PAUL SMITH, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, et al., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

Civil Action No. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

FI:.i3 2 4 20iO 

Clerk, U.S. District and 

Bankruptcy Courts 

10 0290 

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff s application to proceed in 

forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The court will grant the application, and dismiss the 

complaint. 

The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by 

pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted 

by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, 

must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 

(D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint 

contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand 

for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum 

standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted, sufficient to 

prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the 

doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497,498 (D.D.C. 1977). 

1 
!$ 

The list of defendants exceeds 10 pages, and there appear to be so many factual 

allegations against so many defendants that the Court cannot discern what claim or claims he 

brings against which defendant. The complaint is so vague, disorganized and confusing that it 

utterly fails to "give the defendant[s] fair notice of what the plaintiffs claim is and the grounds 

upon which it rests." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47-48 (1957). Neither the court nor the 

defendants can discern the nature or basis of plaintiff s claim, the relief plaintiff demands, and 

the basis of the court's jurisdiction. For these reasons, the complaint will be dismissed without 

prejudice for its failure to comply with Rule 8(a). An Order consistent with this Memorandum 

Opinion is issued separately. 

United States District 

Date: f.J. ~ J. OlD 

2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. EMMANUEL S. MCCRAE, a/k/a Ike, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:01-cr-00106-BO-1) Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 23, 2008 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emmanuel S. McCrae, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Emmanuel S. McCrae seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683- 84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McCrae has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
§ 21.5740 Eligibility. ( a ) *Establishing eligibility.* To establish eligibility to educational assistance under 10 U.S.C. Chapter 107 an individual must— ( 1 ) Enlist or reenlist for service on active duty as a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marine Corps after September 30, 1980 and before October 1, 1981 specifically for benefits under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 2141 through 2149, Pub. L. 96-342,
( 2 ) Have graduated from a secondary school,
( 3 ) Meet other requirements as the Secretary of Defense may consider appropriate for the purpose of this chapter and the needs of the Armed Forces,
( 4 ) Meet the service requirements stated in paragraph (b) of this section, and
( 5 ) If a veteran, have been discharged under honorable conditions. (Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2142(b), 38 U.S.C. 5303A)
( b ) *Service Requirements.* ( 1 ) The individual must complete 24 continuous months of active duty of the enlistment or reenlistment described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or
( 2 ) If the enlistment described in paragraph (a) of this section is the individual's initial enlistment for service on active duty, the individual must— ( i ) Complete 24 continuous months of active duty, or
( ii ) Be discharged or released from active duty— ( A ) Under 10 U.S.C. 1173 (hardship discharge), or
( B ) Under 10 U.S.C. 1171 (early-out discharge), or
( C ) For a disability incurred in or aggravated in line of duty; or
( iii ) Be found by the VA to have a service-connected disability which gives the individual basic entitlement to disability compensation as described in § 3.4(b) of this title. Once the VA makes this finding, the individual's eligibility will continue notwithstanding that the disability becomes noncompensable.
( 3 ) In computing time served for the purpose of this paragraph, VA will exclude any period during which the individual is not entitled to credit for service as specified in § 3.15 of this title. However, those periods will not interrupt the individual's continuity of service.
(Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2142; 38 U.S.C. 5303A)
[45 FR 31, Jan. 2, 1980, as amended at 54 FR 34984, Aug. 23, 1989]
# Official Journal L 243/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 243 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6223 September 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 243

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6223 September 2019

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1574 of 20 September 2019 implementing Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Central African Republic | 1 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision (EU) 2019/1575 of 16 September 2019 amending Decision 1999/70/EC concerning the external auditors of the national central banks, as regards the external auditors of the Bank Ċentrali ta' Malta/Central Bank of Malta | 4 |
| | * | Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/1576 of 20 September 2019 implementing Decision 2013/798/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Central African Republic | 6 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1574 of 20 September 2019 implementing Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Central African Republic

1

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision (EU) 2019/1575 of 16 September 2019 amending Decision 1999/70/EC concerning the external auditors of the national central banks, as regards the external auditors of the Bank Ċentrali ta' Malta/Central Bank of Malta

4

*

Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/1576 of 20 September 2019 implementing Decision 2013/798/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Central African Republic

6

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

RAE Construction, LLC ) ASBCA No. 62169

)

Under Contract No. N62473-16-G-1831 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Brett W. Johnson, Esq.

 Snell & Wilmer LLP

 Phoenix, AZ

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Craig D. Jensen, Esq.

 Navy Chief Trial Attorney

Anthony K. Hicks, Esq.

 Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: October 14, 2020

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62169, Appeal of RAE Construction, 

LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: October 14, 2020

JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Housing and Urban Development

          - [Docket No. FR-5300-N-31]

# AGENCY:

Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control, HUD.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        Through this notice, HUD announces the availability on its Web site of the application information, submission deadlines, funding criteria, and other requirements for the FY2009 Lead Hazard Control Capacity Building Grant Program NOFA. The Lead Hazard Control Capacity Building Grant Program NOFA makes $1.7 million available under the Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 111-8, approved March 11, 2009). The notice providing information regarding the application process, funding criteria and eligibility requirements is available on the HUD Web site at                         *http://www.hud.gov/​offices/​adm/​grants/​fundsavail.cfm*                         or                         *http://www.hud.gov/​offices/​lead*. The Catalogue for Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for the Lead Hazard Control Capacity Building Grant Program is 14.912. Applications must be submitted electronically through                         *OHHLHCNOFAreview@HUD.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For information concerning the Lead Hazard Control Capacity Building Grant Program, contact Warren Friedman, Senior Advisor to the Director, Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 8236, Washington, DC 20410-3000; telephone 202-402-7574 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with speech or hearing impairments may access this telephone number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service during working hours at 800-877-8339.

Dated: September 15, 2009.

Matthew Ammon,

Acting Director, Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control.

[FR Doc. E9-23220 Filed 9-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
Second Amendment to the ClubCorp, Inc. Omnibus Stock Plan



 Exhibit 10.3 
  
 SECOND AMENDMENT 
 TO THE CLUBCORP, INC. 
 OMNIBUS STOCK PLAN 
  
 This Second Amendment to the ClubCorp, Inc. Omnibus Stock Plan (the “Amendment”) of ClubCorp, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the “Company”), is executed and delivered to be effective as of the 1st day of January, 2003, by the Company pursuant to the terms of Section 7.2 of the ClubCorp, Inc. Omnibus Stock Plan, as amended (the
“Plan”). 
  
 RECITALS: 

 
 WHEREAS, the Company originally established the Plan as approved and
ratified by the stockholders of the Company, effective February 10, 1998; 
  
 WHEREAS, on December 22, 2000, the Company transferred 1,379,501 shares authorized under the Company’s Executive Stock Option Plan (the “Executive Plan”), which shares were registered on Form S-8
Registration Statement No. 33-96568, to the Plan; 
  
 WHEREAS, the
Plan was previously amended and restated effective as of January 1, 2001 and amended by the First Amendment to the ClubCorp, Inc. Omnibus Stock Plan, effective as of May 8, 2002; 
  
 WHEREAS, on February 28, 2002, the Company’s Board of Directors approved the increase in the numbers of shares
authorized to be issued under the Plan by 436,861 shares; 
  
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has adopted this Amendment to the Plan by unanimous written consent in lieu of a special meeting of the Board of Directors dated August 13, 2003, to increase the total number of shares
authorized to be issued under the Plan to reflect the total number of shares that the Board of Directors has authorized to be issued under the Plan pursuant to its past actions, to reflect the transfer of an additional 1,822,500 shares unused under
the Executive Plan, from the Executive Plan to the Plan, and to increase the aggregate number of shares of Stock that may be issued to any single Eligible Individual in a calendar year under the Plan. 
  
 AGREEMENTS: 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority of the Board of Directors of the
Corporation under Section 7.2 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
  
 1. Increase in Authorized Shares. Section 2.1 of the Plan is hereby amended to delete the reference to “four million (4,000,000)” and substitute in lieu thereof “seven million six hundred thirty
eight thousand eight hundred sixty two (7,638,862).” 







 2. Increase in Individual Limitations. Section 2.2 of the Plan is hereby amended to delete the
reference to “five hundred thousand (500,000)” and substitute in lieu thereof “nine hundred twenty five thousand (925,000).” 
  
 3. Effective Date. This Amendment shall be effective as of the effective date hereof. 
  
 4. Defined Terms: Effect Upon Plan. All initially capitalized terms used without definition herein shall have the
meanings set forth therefor in the Plan. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 
  
 [Signature page follows] 
  

 2 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is executed and delivered as of the _15th day of August, 2003. 
  
 CLUBCORP, INC. 
  
 By: /s/ Thomas T. Henslee 
 Name: Thomas T. Henslee 
 Title: Secretary
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20

- 0065

_________________ ANIMALS OF MONTANA, INC., TROY HYDE, Permit Holder,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PARKS,

Respondent and Appellee. O R D E R

_________________ Upon consideration of Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time, and good cause shown, Appellant is hereby granted an extension of time until January 21 , 202 1 , within which to file and serve Appellant’s reply brief. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 16 2020

12/16/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0065
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

November 30, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00499

- CV

IN RE E.J.G AND E.I.G

. , From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CI05544 Honorable Nick Catoe Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellant’s brief has been filed. Although only substantial compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 is required, we may order a party to amend, supplement, or redraw a brief if it flagrantly violates Rule 38. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.9(a). The court has determined that the following briefing defects described constitute flagrant viol ations of Rule 38.1:

- the brief does not contain an index of authorities, Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(c);

- the statement of the case is not supported by record references, Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(d);

- the statement of facts is not supported by record references, T ex. R. App. P. 38.1(g);

- the argument does not contain appropriate citations to authorities and to the record, Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i); and

- the brief does not contain a certificate of service, as required by Rule 9.5, acknowledging that appellant served a copy of the document on all parties to the proceeding. Tex. R. App. P. 9.5(a), (d), (e).

We order appellant to file an amended brief by December 17, 2018

. If a timely amended brief that corrects these deficiencies is not filed, we may strike the brief, pr ohibit appellant from filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 38.9(a). This may include dismissal of this appeal for want of prosecution. See R. 38.8(a)(1); Elizondo v. City of San Antonio , 975 S.W.2d 61, 63 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1998, no pet.).

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 30th day of November, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk of Court