alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted May 3, 2018*

Decided May 7, 2018 

Before 

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge 

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge 

AMY C. BARRETT, Circuit Judge

No. 18-1128 

JILL OTIS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF WISCONSIN, et al., 

 Defendants-Appellees.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 17-C-1767 

Lynn Adelman, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

Jill Otis appeals the dismissal at screening, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), of her 

complaint for lack of jurisdiction. She challenges a Wisconsin state-court decision 

terminating her parental rights and placing her child first with the child’s father and 

later in foster care. She sued the State of Wisconsin, Racine County, the county’s Human 

Services Department, and a department employee. The district judge, adopting a 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, dismissed the case for lack of 

 

*

 The appellees were not served with process in the district court and are not 

participating in this appeal. We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument 

because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral 

argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 
No. 18-1128 Page 2 

subject-matter jurisdiction because the parties are not diverse and Otis alleged an 

amount in controversy less than the jurisdictional minimum, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

After the judgment was entered, Otis filed a motion for reconsideration with the district 

court alleging $80,000 in damages, but the district judge denied the motion because it 

did not “show grounds for setting aside the order or judgment.” 

Otis’s appellate brief is difficult to parse but her complaint was properly 

dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The party asserting jurisdiction bears 

the burden of establishing that it exists. Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 96 (2010). In 

her complaint Otis said that she is a citizen of Wisconsin. She did not allege the 

citizenship of the other parties until she received the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation to the district judge to dismiss the case. At that point she asserted only 

that the state employee whom she sued was a citizen of Wisconsin. Because the plaintiff 

must assert that adverse parties are citizens of different states in order to establish 

jurisdiction under the diversity statute, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), Otis has not cured the 

fatal jurisdictional defect. 

AFFIRMED
ACWA/EPA WQS CONFERENCE CALL

WQS REGULATORY REVISIONS

CALL-IN INFORMATION: 866-299-3188; CONFERENCE CODE 2025660430

OCTOBER 14, 2011, 11 AM – 12:30 PM (ET)

AGENDA

1. Introductions.

2. Review Purpose and Agenda for Today’s Call.

For each regulatory revision area: 

(1) Summarize proposed revisions.

(2) Summarize changes made as a result of state input. 

(3) Answer questions from states. 

3. Regulatory Revision Areas.

a. Antidegradation

b. Variances

c. Designated Uses

d. Triennial Reviews

e. Court Decisions

f. Compliance Schedule Authorizing Provisions

4. Wrap-Up and Next Steps.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4847 

To require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study on active militarycivilian partnerships at trauma centers of military medical treatment 

facilities within the Defense Health Agency. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 30, 2024 

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO (for herself and Mr. CORNYN) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study 

on active military-civilian partnerships at trauma centers 

of military medical treatment facilities within the Defense Health Agency. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Advancing Medical 

5 Readiness Act of 2024’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4847 IS

1 SEC. 2. STUDY ON ACTIVE MILITARY-CIVILIAN PARTNER2 SHIPS AT TRAUMA CENTERS OF MILITARY 

3 MEDICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall 

5 conduct a study on active military-civilian partnerships at 

6 trauma centers of military medical treatment facilities 

7 within the Defense Health Agency. 

8 (b) ELEMENTS.—The study required under sub9 section (a) shall— 

10 (1) identify and define active military-civilian 

11 partnerships through which members of the Armed 

12 Forces participate in the civilian health care system; 

13 (2) assess the costs borne by the Department of 

14 Defense for providing care through such partner15 ships; 

16 (3) identify metrics and best practices for 

17 tracking and evaluating the skills and readiness 

18 gained by clinicians of the Department of Defense 

19 by providing care through such partnerships; and 

20 (4) identify policies, processes, and expertise 

21 needed to bill civilian health insurance and patients. 

22 (c) BRIEFING.—Not later than May 1, 2025, the Sec23 retary shall brief the Committee on Armed Services of the 

24 Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 4847 IS

1 House of Representatives on the results of the study re2 quired under subsection (a). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit






EXHIBIT 10.1


ITT Inc. 
Board of Directors 
Annual Board of Directors Compensation
	
		
	Annual Retainer (cash)
	$100,000 (paid annually)

	 
	 

	Committee Chair Annual Retainer
	 

	•    Audit Committee
	$15,000 (paid annually)

	•    Compensation Committee
	$10,000 (paid annually)

	•    Governance and Nominating Committee
	$10,000 (paid annually) 

	 
	 

	Non-Executive Chairman Annual Retainer
	$125,000 (50% cash; 50% restricted stock units) (paid annually)

	 
	 

	Expenses
	Reimbursed for travel and director education.

	 
	 

	Annual Equity Awards
	Annual grant with a present value of $100,000 made on the date of the Annual Meeting of Shareholders (vests one business day prior to subsequent annual meeting).  The award is in restricted stock units, valued at the fair market value of the underlying stock on the date of grant. This award may be deferred by prior election. Taxable event occurs on vesting date, unless grant is deferred. The number of shares is rounded up to the nearest share.

	 
	 

	New Directors
	All annual compensation is pro-rated for new directors.




Compensation is paid on the date of the Annual Shareholder Meeting (unless deferred by prior election).  
Retainers earned may be paid, at the election of the Director, in cash or deferred cash. Non-Management Directors may irrevocably elect deferral into an interest-bearing account or an account that tracks an index of the Company’s stock.
All other terms of the Company’s non-employee Director compensation remain as disclosed in the Company’s proxy statement. 
Effective as of May 11, 2016
No. 50077.

#### Protests 999088-G, etc., of Anco Import Corp et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the beads in question are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Eitinger Bead Co.*v. *United States*(13 Cust. Ct. 50, C. D. 867), certain of the items were held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 1503 and others at 20 percent under the same paragraph as modified by T. D. 49458. The protests were-sustained to this extent.
Exhibit 10.32

SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS  WITH NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS

The following description of the compensation arrangements between Allos Therapeutics, Inc. (the "Company")
and each of its non-employee directors is provided pursuant to Paragraph 10(iii) to Item 601 of Regulation S-K, which requires a written description of any
compensatory plan or arrangement between a registrant and any of its directors when the compensation information is not set forth in any formal document.

The
type and amount of compensation paid or awarded to the Company's non-employee directors is reviewed from time to time by the Compensation Committee (the
"Compensation Committee") of the Company's Board of Directors (the "Board"). In order to retain the
services of the Company's current non-employee directors, to secure and retain the services of new non-employee directors, and to provide competitive compensation for such
persons' services as directors of the Company, effective as of May 18, 2005, the Compensation Committee recommended and the Board approved the following compensation arrangements for the
Company's non-employee directors:



---





---





QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Luna Innovations Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Kent A. Murphy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ KENT A. MURPHY                   
|Kent A. Murphy, Ph.D.                
|President and Chief Executive Officer

May 15, 2009



41
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 Case No. CIV S-98-1580 LKK JFM P. 1

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN C. MONTUE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2663 LKK JFM P

vs.

TERESA A. SCHWARTZ, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of

this court’s July 20, 2006 dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas corpus as duplicative

of a habeas corpus petition previously filed in this court. Before petitioner can appeal this 1

decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues

satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. 

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

Case 2:04-cv-02663-LKK -JFM Document 31 Filed 09/12/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Where, as here, the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of

appealability “should issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling’; and (2) ‘that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a

constitutional right.’” Morris v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000)).

After careful review of the entire record herein, this court finds that petitioner has

not satisfied the first requirement for issuance of a certificate of appealability in this case.

Specifically, there is no showing that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether this action

is duplicative of petitioner’s earlier filed habeas corpus petition. Accordingly, a certificate of

appealability should not issue in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 11, 2006. 

Case 2:04-cv-02663-LKK -JFM Document 31 Filed 09/12/06 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. JAMES MILAS, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 602 EAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 25th day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4431 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4431

To reinstate the Bull Mountains Mining Plan Modification, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 23, 2024

  Mr. Daines introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reinstate the Bull Mountains Mining Plan Modification, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REINSTATEMENT OF THE BULL MOUNTAINS MINING PLAN 
              MODIFICATION.

    (a) Definition of Bull Mountains Mining Plan Modification.--In this 
Act, the term ``Bull Mountains Mining Plan Modification'' means 
Amendment 3, Bull Mountains Mine No. 1, Mining Plan Modification for 
Federal Coal Lease MTM 97988, that was--
            (1) analyzed by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 
        and Enforcement Environmental Assessment, dated May 11, 2018;
            (2) approved by the Department of the Interior Assistant 
        Secretary for Land and Minerals Management on August 3, 2018;
            (3) further analyzed in the Office of Surface Mining 
        Reclamation and Enforcement Environmental Assessment, dated 
        October 2020; and
            (4) affirmed by Department of the Interior Principal Deputy 
        Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management in a 
        concurrence memorandum, dated November 18, 2020.
    (b) Bull Mountains Mining Plan Modification Reinstatement.--
            (1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
        enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall, 
        without modification or delay, reinstate the Bull Mountains 
        Mining Plan Modification.
            (2) Duration.--On reinstatement under paragraph (1), the 
        Bull Mountains Mining Plan Modification shall remain in effect 
        and operational until mining under the Bull Mountains Mining 
        Plan Modification is complete, as determined by the Montana 
        Department of Environmental Quality.
                                 <all>
```
No. 59600.

protests 253282-K, etc. (New York).

#### Victor B. Handal & Bro., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 14, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

127581 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

DAVID T. SCOTT,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 127581 

 COA: 248458 

WCAC: 02-000404 

ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS 

CORPORATION and TRAVELERS 

INDEMNITY COMPANY, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 28, 2004 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s1010 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 14, 2005 

Clerk
No. 52625.

protests 121206-K, etc. (New York).

#### Heckt-Pick Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of platinum fox fur skins, undressed, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. O. *Brager-Larsen*(36 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 388). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was therefore sustained.
Exhibit 13
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
  /s/ Yeung Chu Kwong, WilliamName:
    Yeung Chu Kwong, WilliamTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer/s/ Lai Ni QuiaqueName:
    Lai Ni QuiaqueTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax Credit Fund VI, L.P., Series 12 (the “Partnership”) for the quarters ended December 31, 2009, September 30, 2009 and June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Melanie R. Wenk, Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership’s general partner, hereby certify that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that such provisions require the audit report of Local Limited Partnership financial statements to refer to the auditing standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board for the Partnership’s annual financial statements and except that the Report is a cumulative report covering each of the quarters ended December 31, September 30 and June 30, 2009 and





2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.











/s/Melanie R. Wenk


Melanie R. Wenk


Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.


Date: August 26, 2011
Cite as 2014 Ark. 424

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CR-14-818

JOHN CHAD GRIFFIN

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered October 9, 2014

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS

ATTORNEY ON DIRECT APPEAL

MOTION GRANTED.

PER CURIAM

Appellant pled guilty to first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

An appeal from the judgment has been lodged in this court. Griffin is represented by Timothy

Beckham, a full-time public defender, who now asks that he be relieved as counsel on the

ground that he is ineligible for compensation for services as appellate counsel. 

Arkansas Code Annotated section 19-4-1604(b)(2)(B) (Repl. 2007) provides that

persons employed as full-time public defenders who are not provided a state-funded secretary

are eligible to seek compensation for appellate work. Counsel affirms that he is a full-time

public defender with a full-time, state-funded secretary. Under these circumstances, he is not

entitled to be paid for services in this appeal, and his request to be relieved is well founded.

See Williamson v. State, 2013 Ark. 1 (per curiam).

We grant Beckham’s motion to be relieved, and we appoint attorney Joseph K. Luebke

to represent Griffin. Our clerk is directed to set a new briefing schedule for the appeal.
64°15'E 64°30°E 64°45'E 65°E 65°15'E 65°30°E

; 3 r, ric . J i] ff 7 ; , If

/ : - > , ’ “J re.
: be 4 f f = : 7? ¥ '
J :

a *
¥

% mii

+
a a y
we
y
34°N
a75 0000
33°45'N
375000 -=3--------5
33°30'N
7°
33°15'N
so
Y
I
I
I
\. I
i
| “ 7 ‘4
je 4 hs MG Ps ay Rts 4A)
hes | F Setp th “ae ‘fee Deel a Lae. APP ?
EXPLANATION 0 10 KILOMETERS
— Road & Peak /——_
—--— Stream, mostly intermittant [__] Image quadrant or tile 0 5 MILES
QO City, town, or village [|] Image subarea

—- Province boundary
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM ELMO TABB, JR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2475 FCD JFM P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this application for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On June 28, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations and respondent has filed a reply to

petitioner’s objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02475-FCD-JFM Document 12 Filed 08/03/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 28, 2005, are adopted in full;

and

2. This action is summarily dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

DATED:August 2, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02475-FCD-JFM Document 12 Filed 08/03/05 Page 2 of 2