alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### OCT 26 2000 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
ROLAND LOBSTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. THE BOEING COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 00-3040 (D.C. No. 99-CV-1378-WEB)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA , EBEL , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Roland Lobster appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice for failure to stat e a claim under federal law. Our-2-

review is de novo. See Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for Deaf & Blind , 173 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Cir. 1999). We have reviewed the record on appeal in light of the parties’ arguments, and affirm for substantially the same reasons as those set out in the district court’s January 18, 2000 order. AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe Circuit Judge
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

KIMBERLY HENDER

- MOODY,

Petitioner

v.

AMERICAN HERITAGE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION (WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD),

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 127 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 23rd day of August, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
kld-ex101_20.htm



 

Exhibit 10.1

 

February 24, 2020

 

 

Christopher Weiler

 

 

Dear Chris,

 

You have agreed to a base salary pay change, effective February 24, 2020.  The details of this pay change are outlined below.

 

 

Current annualized base salary:  $490,000

Calculated bi-weekly amount (annualized salary/26):  $18,846

New annualized base salary:  $400,000

New calculated bi-weekly amount (annualized salary/26):  $15,385

% of Pay Change:  18.37%

 

 

All other terms and conditions of your employment remain unchanged.

 

To confirm your acceptance of the pay change, please sign and return this letter.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

/s/ Lindsey Hammond

 

Lindsey Hammond

Sr. Director, Global Talent

 

___________________________________________________________________________________

 

I accept the above change to my base salary and acknowledge that this change is now part of my employment agreement.

 

NameChristopher Weiler

 

Signature/s/ Christopher Weiler

 

Date5/7/2020
# EUR-Lex - 12008M034 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008M034

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union - TITLE V: GENERAL PROVISIONS ON THE UNION'S EXTERNAL ACTION AND SPECIFIC PROVISIONS ON THE COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY - Chapter 2: Specific provisions on the common foreign and security policy - Section 1: Common provisions - Article 34 (ex Article 19 TEU) **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0035 - 0035 *

Article 34

(ex Article 19 TEU)

1. Member States shall coordinate their action in international organisations and at international conferences. They shall uphold the Union's positions in such forums. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shall organise this coordination.

In international organisations and at international conferences where not all the Member States participate, those which do take part shall uphold the Union's positions.

2. In accordance with Article 24(3), Member States represented in international organisations or international conferences where not all the Member States participate shall keep the other Member States and the High Representative informed of any matter of common interest.

Member States which are also members of the United Nations Security Council will concert and keep the other Member States and the High Representative fully informed. Member States which are members of the Security Council will, in the execution of their functions, defend the positions and the interests of the Union, without prejudice to their responsibilities under the provisions of the United Nations Charter.

When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Council agenda, those Member States which sit on the Security Council shall request that the High Representative be invited to present the Union's position.

--------------------------------------------------
# EUR-Lex - 12008E056 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E056

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART THREE: UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS - TITLE IV: FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS, SERVICES AND CAPITAL - Chapter 3: Services - Article 56 (ex Article 49 TEC) **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0070 - 0070 *

Article 56

(ex Article 49 TEC)

Within the framework of the provisions set out below, restrictions on freedom to provide services within the Union shall be prohibited in respect of nationals of Member States who are established in a Member State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended.

The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may extend the provisions of the Chapter to nationals of a third country who provide services and who are established within the Union.

--------------------------------------------------
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5465 

AN ACT 

To clarify where court may be held for certain district courts 

in Texas and California. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 5465 ES

1 SECTION 1. ORGANIZATION OF TEXAS DISTRICT COURTS. 

2 Section 124(b)(2) of title 28, United States Code, is 

3 amended, in the matter preceding paragraph (3), by in4 serting ‘‘and College Station’’ before the period at the end. 

5 SEC. 2. ORGANIZATION OF CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COURTS. 

6 Section 84(d) of title 28, United States Code, is 

7 amended by inserting ‘‘and El Centro’’ after ‘‘at San 

8 Diego’’. 

Passed the Senate December 16, 2024. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5465 

AN ACT 

To clarify where court may be held for certain 

district courts in Texas and California.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 22
- 00470
- CV

In re Kerry Lynn Gallagher

OR I GINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Relator has filed a petition for writ of injunction seeking to restrain th e justice of the peace, an attorney, and the State of Texas from taking further action in an underlying eviction proceeding. Our injunctive power is limited t o preventing a litigant from taking actions. See
In re Tex. Dep ’ t of Transp ., 583 S.W.3d 794, 79 8 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2019, orig. proceeding). Moreover, Relator has failed to demonstrate our jurisdiction is implicated here or that any pending appe al exists before us. In re Olson , 252 S.W.3d 747, 747

– 48 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, orig. p ro ceeding ); see also Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221(a). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of injunction for want of jurisdiction.

____________ ______________________________ Darlene Byrne , Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices T ri ana and Smith Filed: August 9 , 2022
Exhibit 10.21

                           1997 Compensation Plans

Mark Battaglia            Focus on world/wide new sales revenue growth,
                          world/wide SYSTAT and Prentice Hall indirect sales.

Ian Durrell               Focus on sales contribution growth outside of North
                          and south America and world/wide profitability

Ed Hamburg                Focus on world/wide profitability and the
                          effectiveness of the reporting and control systems.

Jack Noonan               Focus on world/wide profitability and the
                          effectiveness of the reporting and control systems.

Susan Phelan              Focus on North and South  American sales contribution
                          growth and world/wide profitability.

Louise  Rehling           Focus on key product deliverables, quality improvement
                          and world/wide profitability.

                                          1996               1997
                                    ----------------   ----------------
Mark Battaglia
                 Base              $         110,000  $         110,000
                 Bonus                        85,000             95,000
                                    ----------------   ----------------
                                   $         195,000  $         205,000     5.4%

Ian Durrell
                 Base              $         150,000  $         150,000
                 Benefits                     40,000             40,000
                 Commission                   95,000            105,000
                                    ----------------   ----------------
                                   $         285,000  $         295,000     3.6%

Edward Hamburg
                 Base              $         156,000  $         156,000
                 Bonus                        85,000             95,000
                                    ----------------   ----------------
                                   $         241,000  $         251,000     4.3%

Jack Noonan
                 Base              $         235,000  $         235,000
                 Bonus                       180,000            220,000
                                    ----------------   ----------------
                                   $         415,000  $         455,000     5.0%

Susan Phelan
                 Base              $         100,000  $         110,000
                 Commission                  105,000            110,000
                                    ----------------   ----------------
                                   $         205,000  $         220,000    10.8%

Louise Rehling
                 Base              $         135,000  $         135,000
                 Bonus                        80,000             90,000
                                    ----------------   ----------------
                                   $         215,000  $         225,000     4.8%
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

pREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF EMERY L. FRAZIER, SECRETARY OF nm RJ•:NATJ•. 

BY LARRY M. WHEELER, EXECUTIVE CLERK 

Tuesday, July 12, 1966 

TREATIES 

Date of Calendar Treaty No. Subject Action or corrunlttco report No. 

-

1965 

June 29 2 Ex. H (86th Cong., Hague Protocol to Warsaw Convention ____ ReporLed favorably i>.Y 

1st sess.). Mr. Fulbright from 

the Committee on 

Foreign Relations, 

with a priuted report. 

(See Ex. Hcpt. No. 3, 

89th Cong., 1st sess.) 

AuK. 3 3 Ex. D (88th Cong., Consular Convention With the Soviet lteported favorably i>y 

2d sess.). Union. Mr. Fulbright from 

the Committee on 

Foreign Rt'latioos, 

with a printed rcpmt. 

(Sec Ex. Rept. No. 4, 

89th Collg., 1st sesa.) 

Minority views filed 

Aug. 5, 1965. (See 

ITx. TI.ept. No. 4, p. 2, 

I 

I 

89th Con g., 1st sess.) 

65- 022--66--No.235 !J . S QOVERNMEHT PRINTING OFFI~E. 19U
#### § 91.23 Scoring criteria for contest.

Entries will be judged on the basis of anatomical accuracy, artistic composition, and suitability for reduction in the production of a stamp.

[86 FR 47596, Aug. 26, 2021]
&ruatr nf tqr luitt~ itutts 

NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS 

F S {Convened January 3, 1969 

IRST ESSION Adjourned December 23, 1969 

S S {Convened January 19, 1970 

ECOND ESSION 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Prepared under the direction of FRANCIS R. V .ALEo, Secretary of the Senate 

By GERALD A. HACKETT, Exerutive Clerk 

Thursday, April 2, 1970 

PENDING EXECUTIVE BUSINESS 

Calendar No. 21. The nomination of George Harrold Carswell, of Florida, to be an Associate Justice of the 

Supreme Court of the United States. The pending question is the motion of the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bay h) 

to recommit the nommation. 

UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT 

Ordered. That effective on Monday, Apr 6, 1970 (with the Senate conwning in executive ses~1on at 10 am.), 

further debate on the nommat10n of G. Harrold Carswell to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, 

with the pending quest10n on the motion of the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), to recomllllt the nomination 

to the Committee on the Judicrary, be limited to 3 hours to be equally divided and controlled by the Senator 

from Indiana (Mr. Bayh) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hruska), or whomever they may designate, 

with the vote coming at 1 o'clock, or following a vote on a mot10n to table the motion to recommit if such a 

motion should first be offered Followmg the above vote or votes the Senate will proceed to vote on the confirmatiOn of the nomination at 1 o'clock on Apr. 8, 1970, or followmg the vote on a motion to table the nomination 

should such motion be made, and if the nomination is still before the Senate. 

(Wednesday, Mar. 25, 197U) 

NOMINATIONS 

_~_a;_~J_r_l CBIN~?ar ~-M-~-_a·g_e_ 1 ____ N_a_m_e_or_n_om_in_ee ___ ------0-fli-ce-----I·---P-re-dec:esso--r --

; I 

1970 

Feb. 27 

I I 

i 21 I 

I I 

J7-022--70--No.160 

SUPREME COURT OF 

THE UNITED STATES 

George Harrold Carswell, 

of Florida. 

An Associate Justice of 

the Supreme Court of 

the United States 

Abe Fortas, resigned. 

[Reported favorably 

by Mr. Eastland, 

from the Committee 

on the Judiciary, 

together with individual views. (See 

Ex. Rept. 91-14, 

91st Cong., 2d 

sess.)] 
1910 

Apr. 1 

1 

39 

39 

39 

fNEW REPORTS] 

DJSTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA COUNCIL 

82 Stanley J. A.nderson, of 

the District of Columbia. 

2 

Office 

Member of the District of 

Columbia Council for a 

term expiring Feb. 1, 

1972. 

Reappointment. 

82 Henr:r S. Rt>binson, Jr., of _____ do ___ ·--------------- Do. 

the District of Columbia. 

Carliton Vlf. Veazey, of the 

District of Columbia. 

____ -do ____ - _________ .,. _ _ _ Polly Shackleton, 

I term expired. 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1970
Order filed, December 05, 2018.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-01040-CV

____________

ERICA STEELE, Appellant

V.

GREATER HOUSTON TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, ET AL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 270th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-54117

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due December 03, 2018. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the 

record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record 

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Karen deShetler, the official court reporter, to file the record in 

this appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
#### § 51.77 Will a concession contract provide a concessioner an exclusive right to provide visitor services?

Concession contracts will not provide in any manner an exclusive right to provide all or certain types of visitor services in a park area. The Director may limit the number of concession contracts to be awarded for the conduct of visitor services in a particular park area in furtherance of the purposes described in this part.
#### § 262.1 Definitions.

The following definitions apply to subparts A and B:

*Camping equipment.* Personal property used in or suitable for camping, including any vehicle used for transportation and all equipment in possession of a person camping, other than food and beverages.

*Damage.* To injure, mutilate, deface, destroy, cut, chop, girdle, dig, excavate, kill, or in any way harm or disturb.

*Forest officer.* An employee of the Forest Service.

*Law enforcement personnel.* An employee of the Forest Service who is a special agent, law enforcement officer, or reserve law enforcement officer.

*National Forest System.* As defined in the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, the “National Forest System” includes all National Forest lands reserved or withdrawn from the public domain of the United States, all National Forest lands acquired through purchase, exchange, donation, or other means, the National Grasslands and land utilization projects administered under Title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (50 Stat. 525, 7 U.S.C. 1010-1012), and other lands, waters or interests therein which are administered by the Forest Service or are designated for administration by the Forest Service as a part of that system.

*Vehicle.* Any device in, upon, or by which any person or property may be transported, including any frame, chassis, or body of any motor vehicle, except devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

[79 FR 44295, July 31, 2014]
## 2001 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

12-27-2001 

# C a mde n C t y B d v

. B e r ett a U S A C or p
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : D ock e t 01-1051

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2001

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2001 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. 

## R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" C a mde n C t y Bd v

. Be r e tt a U SA C or p " (2001). 2001 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 300. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2001/300

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 01-1051

CAMDEN COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDER S, App ellant v. *BERETTA, U.S.A. CORP.; PIETRO BERETTA; BROWNING ARMS CO.; BRYCO ARMS, INC.; COLT'S MFG CO., INC.; DAVIS INDUS TRIES, INC.; GLOCK, INC.; HI-POINT FIREARMS; H&R 1871 INC.; CARL WALTHER GMBH; LORCIN ENGINEERING CO., INC.; NAVEGAR, INC.; PHO ENIX ARMS; RAVEN ARMS, INC.; SMITH & WESSON CORP.; STURM, RUGE R AND CO., INC.; FORJAS TAURUS, S.A.; REPUBLIC ARMS; JOHN DOE MAN UFACTURERS (1-100); JOHN DOE DEALERS (1-100); JOHN DOE DISTRIB UTORS (1-100) (*Amended in accordance with Clerk's Orde r dated 1/26/01)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (Dist. Court No. 99-CV-2518 (JBS)) District Court Judge: Jerome B. Simandl e

Argued September 5, 2001 Before: SCIRICA, ALITO, and BARRY, Circuit J udges.

__________________ ORDER AMENDING OPINION

__________________
Per the direction of the Court, IT IS HER EBY ORDERED that the slip opinion in the above case, filed November 16, 2001, be amended as follows: 1. On page 3, line 1, substitute the name "ANNE M. PATTERSON" for the name "ALAN E. KRAUS". 2. On page 3, line 20, replace ampersand between "Firearms" and "H&R"

### with a comma and add "& Browning Arms Co." after "H&R 1871, Inc.".

FOR THE COURT,

Clerk

DATED: December 27, 2001
#### Beverwick Brewing Co. *vs.*John N. Oliver.

January Term, 1897.

Present: Ross, C. J., Taft, Tyler, Munson and Start, JJ.

*Liquor Contract Made Partly within this State*— V. *S. 4460, 4464.*

The plaintiff’s manager, while in Vermont, arranged with the defendant to send him in a particular manner such intoxicating liquor as he might order, such arrangement constituting a material part of the contract when the order was sent to and accepted by the plaintiff in New York, where the liquor was delivered. Held, that the contract was unenforceable as having been made partly within this State.

Assumpsit for the price of lager beer. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury at the March Term, 1896, Chittenden County, *Rowell,*J., presiding.

Verdict directed and judgment rendered for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted.

The deposition of the plaintiffs manager was, in part, to the effect that he understood from the defendant that the lager was to be used by the latter only for legitimate purposes, in the manufacture of a light hop beer, and that the arrangement was that it should be shipped under the *324direction (L. W.) to save the defendant “the necessity of going into court and satisfying it that such lager was intended for a legal use.”

*D.*/. *Foster*for the plaintiff.

Each order constituted a separate sale and the case is controlled by *Backman*v. Mussey, 31 Yt. 547.

*R. E. Brown*for the defendant.

The contract was made partly within this State and is illegal. Y. S. 4464; *Backman*v. Wright, 27Yt. 187; *lerntt*v. Bartlett, 21 Yt. 184.

The plaintiff having knowingly done something to shield the defendant from investigation by the authorities, cannot recover. *Gaylord*v. *Soragen,*32 Vt. 110; *Aiken*v. *Blaisdell,*41 Yt. 655.

Munson, J.

The manager of the plaintiff corporation deposes that the lager beer for which recovery is sought was sold and delivered to the defendant in Albany, New York, on orders received there from time to time by letter or telegram. But it further appears from his deposition that before any order was sent he had a conversation with the defendant at Burlington, in this State, in regard to orders which might thereafter be given; and the deposition seems fairly to mean, and is construed by counsel to mean, that the orders in question were sent pursuant to what was then said. In that conversation, although no order was given or promised, the defendant arranged to have whatever he might order shipped in a particular manner. This distinguishes the case from *Backman*v. Mussey, 31 Vt. 547. It is apparent that the orders afterwards sent and accepted did not embrace the whole agreement; for if they had been filled in disregard of the understanding had at Burlington, the defendant could have relied upon that as a part of the contract. See *Hobart*v. Young, 63 Vt. 363. It appears then from the plaintiff’s own testimony that the contract was partly made in this State. It was therefore unenforce*325able, and the court properly directed a verdict for the defendant. V. S. 4460, 4464. *Backman*v. *Wright,*27 Vt. 187; *Starace v. Rossi,*69 Vt. 303.

*Judgment affirmed.*