alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

KEVIN FENNICK

, ) ) Plaintiff, ) )

v. ) Civil Action No. 2 2

- 1 92 (UNA) ) ) COMMONWEALTH OF ) MASSACHUSETTS et al

. , ) ) Defendant s

. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter , filed pro se , is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s form civil

complaint , ECF No. 1, amended complaint, ECF No. 6, and application to proceed in forma

pauperis , ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.

The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth

generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available

only when a “ federal question ” is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount

in controversy exceeds $75,00 0. “For jurisdiction to exist under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, there must be

complete diversity between the parties, which is to say that the plaintiff may not be a citizen of the

same state as any defendant.” Bush v. Butler , 521 F. Supp. 2d 63, 71 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing Owen

Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger , 437 U.S. 365, 373

- 74 (1978)). A party seeking relief in the

district court must at least plead facts that bring the suit within the court’ s jurisdiction. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to plead such facts warrants dismissal of the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(h)(3).2

Plaintiff is a resident of Boston, Massachusetts, who has sued the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts, the U.S. House of Representatives, and individuals listed as residing or working in

Massachusetts. The handwritten portions of the original complaint are dif ficult to decipher, and

the purported amended complaint consists of nine typewritten paragraphs seemingly pertaining to

matters unrelated to the original complaint. Nevertheless, the complaint identifies “Diversity of

citizenship” as the jurisdictional ba sis. ECF No. 1 at 3. F or an action to proceed in diversity, the

citizenship requirement must be “ assesse d at the time the suit is filed

. ” Freeport

- McMoRan, Inc.

v. K N Energy, Inc. , 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991)

. Thus, “ the citizenship of every party to the action

must be distinctly alleged and cannot be established presumptively or by mere inference

. ” Meng

v. Schwartz , 305 F. Supp. 2d 49, 55 (D.D.C. 2004) ; see Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt , 722

F.2d 779, 792 n.20 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (“an allegation of residence” does not satisfy the citizenship

pleading requirement).

With respect to Massachusetts, t he Supreme Court “ long has held that states are not subject

to diversity jurisdiction ” because a “‘ State is not a citizen .’” Long v. D .C. , 820 F.2d 409, 412

(D.C. Cir. 1987) (quoting Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Alabama , 155 U.S. 482, 487 (1894) )

.

Otherwise, the complaint neither alleges the citizenship of each party nor pleads the statutory

dollar amount

. Consequently, this case will be dismissed by separate order

.

_________ _______________ JIA M. COBB
Date: September 29 , 2022 United States District Judge
#### DOUGLAS v. STATE.

No. 22925.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 21, 1944.

Clark Wills, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of assault to murder without malice, and sentenced to three years in the penitentiary.

The record contains no bills of exception and no exception was filed to the court’s charge. The State’s evidence shows that appellant had become involved with a deputy constable at an eating place west of the City of Fort Worth at a late hour at night, which arose because of a claim by appellant and his companion that the officer owed them some money for farm work. Apparently this claim was several years old and was disputed. The officer told them that they were'drunk and he led them to the car where he testified that the appellant cursed and abused him, for which witness hit appellant with his pistol. At this time, both appellant and his companion were in the car preparing to drive away. They proceeded only a short distance when a shot was fired from the left side of the car, the position occupied by appellant. The bullet went in the direction of the officer but missed him, struck the ground and ricochetted, striking an innocent bystander, upon whom a serious wound was inflicted. Several witnesses testified to facts along this line. Appellant and his companion denied the shooting. However, they went into a side road, hid the pistol, and went to New Mexico. Something like a week later they returned and were arrested. A statement was made which directed officers to the hidden pistol, which was recovered and introduced in evidence.

We are not advised upon what grounds appellant seeks a reversal of his case. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict, and no question of law is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Exhibit 10.22


[VWR Letterhead]


Date:      
June 11, 2004


To:         
Gerard J. Christian


Re:         
Your VWR Employment Contract


Dear
Gerry:


As you
know, VWR has redesigned several aspects of the management compensation
program, including a Management Equity and Option Program (“Equity Program”)
that we believe builds a strong basis to foster a performance-based culture and
generate shareholder wealth, including the potential for individual wealth
creation.  As a senior leader, you are included in all the new management
compensation programs, including the opportunity to participate in the Equity
Program.


At the
same time, VWR’s philosophy regarding employment contracts has changed and VWR
will not be renewing or offering employment contracts to its employees and
leaders in the future, except as may be required by local law.  VWR and
its new owners believe that an individual’s participation in the management
compensation programs, while at the same time having an employment contract, is
inconsistent with our performance-based culture and our overall compensation
philosophy.


To
summarize our discussions regarding employment contracts:


1.                                      
Effective
immediately, you will be included in all new management compensation programs,
including the opportunity to participate in the Equity Program.


2.                                      
As
of June 30, 2005, your current employment contract will be terminated.


3.                                      
For
purposes of your current employment contract termination benefit calculation
only, your salary and target bonus amount will be frozen as of April 6,
2004.


4.                                      
On
June 30, 2005, you will either


i.                                         
elect
to remain with VWR as an “at will” employee in your then current job function,
at your then current compensation level, and will continue to participate in
VWR’s employee benefit programs at then current benefit levels, but without any
employment contract (unless required by local law), or


 












 


ii.                                      
elect
to leave VWR and VWR will pay to you, in accordance with your Employment
Agreement, the contractual termination benefit due, calculated with your frozen
salary and target bonus amount.


5.                                      
If
required by local law, on July 1, 2005, a new “statutory minimum” employment
agreement will be agreed between you and VWR.


We
believe that total management alignment with VWR’s goals, philosophy and
culture will enable VWR to substantially increase our revenues and profits and
that the potential benefits of the new management compensation systems far
outweigh the benefits afforded by your employment contract.  We trust,
after due consideration, that you will conclude the same.


Sincerely,



	
  James W. Rogers

  Chairman of the Board

  	
  Walter W. Zywottek

  President & CEO

  



 


2
#### C. N. ROYALTY, appellant, v. THE WINCHESTER BANK et al., appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 5, 1954.

Rodney Haggard, Redwine & Redwine, M. C. Redwine, Winchester, for appellant.

Beverly White, Winchester, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from a judgment dismissing Royalty’s claim to $992.41 asserted under an alleged landlord’s lien on the 1950 tobacco crop of his tenant, Louis Hagar, and awarding the Winchester Bank, Inc., a first lien asserted under its mortgage on the crop and therefore entitled to recover the above amount. The evidence discloses Royalty did not have a landlord’s lien within the meaning of KRS 383.110(1). Moreover, the misjoinder of causes of action complained of did not deprive Royalty *658of any substantial right nor in any way militate against his claim.

The motion is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
----

|  | (1) | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of STRATA Skin Sciences, Inc.; |
|--|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | (2) | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements                    made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
|--|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                     |                STRATA SKIN SCIENCES, INC. |                                                                                                                            |
|--------|--------------------------|------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Dated: November 20, 2019 |                                           |                                                                                                                            |   |
|   |                     | By:                                            | /s/ Matthew C. Hill                   |   |
|   |                     |                                           | Matthew C. Hill                                                                                                                 |   |
|   |                     |                                           | Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                         |   |

----
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Sleep Disorders Research Advisory Board.

The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

*Name of Committee:*                         Sleep Disorders Research Advisory Board.                    

*Date:*                         December 6, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 am to 3:00 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                         To discuss sleep research and education priorities and programs.                    

*Place:*                         Natcher Building 45, Conference Room D, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Michael J Twery, PhD, Acting Director, National Center on Sleep Disorders Research, NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Center on Sleep Disorders Research, Two Rockledge Center, Suite 10038, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301/435-0199.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 12, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-26872 Filed 10-18-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3086 Received in Senate (RDS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3086

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 16, 2014

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
          To permanently extend the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Permanent Internet Tax Freedom 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PERMANENT MORATORIUM ON INTERNET ACCESS TAXES AND MULTIPLE AND 
              DISCRIMINATORY TAXES ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE.

    (a) In General.--Section 1101(a) of the Internet Tax Freedom Act 
(47 U.S.C. 151 note) is amended by striking `` during the period 
beginning November 1, 2003, and ending November 1, 2014''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxes imposed after the date of the enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 15, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
| Date:                December 8, 2005 |   |                                     |
|---------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|                                  |   |                                     |
|                                  |   | /S/                JAMES D. CARREKER     |
|                                  |   | James                D. Carreker         |
|                                  |   | Chairman                of the Board and |
|                                  |   | Chief                Executive Officer   |
|                                  |   |                                     |
OPPT-2006-0621 

H 

G 

l l 

H 

C 

O 

9 

m 

O 

w 

O O 

N O 

y 

C ° 

~ro 

0 

a 

c 

e ~'~aa°a 

r ~e w c e ~ c" A ~ n e c 

g o 

°a a ry

v p, ~ F 

; 

9 d 

a~a 

° 

e ~ a < 

o,^ " 

° 

'm y~?I ° 

?7 ' '~ ~~~ O 

~1 O 

N 

8S1C Control Numb 

356786 

9 9 

~7 0 

C 

O L 

3 

A 

^ 

l 

°a 

0 

0 

0 

O 

! 

b 

0 

O 

Hy 

V^+l 

^ 

I 

l\ 

O 

w 

O 

C7 

W 

a 

CO 

ca 0 

O::u 

-UM 

~4 n 

n< 

w n-i 

c-> o 

Scanned & Processed in 

- CIS by: PAULA 
y 1~ y1 

w 

Fr 

C 

R 

O 

y 

N N 

N O 

E ., 

o 

y 

b 9 b m ti 

a ° a 

a 

. -- o 0 

A 

ro ~ ~ ro 

o il O ~ ~ O 

y R y 

o ^t ° M 

V 

.°n o 

B o p, o p. 

B 

o 

C o~+ 

M y 

o s 

C 

' ^ ' C 

o . 

9 0 ~ 

o 

- m 

M y y ~4 

A 

O O 

m ` ' 

K 

m 

" 

" 

o 

b ~' 

A 

b 

n 

A 

R 

! 

ar 0 

0 

O 

y 

l 1 

H 

I 

b 

0 

a 

w 

N 
y 

n 

n 

1 

N 

Q+ 

G 

O b A 

R 

C m 

O O 

N O 

tz 

O p 

A ~~( A 

N e 

d 

Vl e 

d 

.-. 

o i 

d 

y" ti d 

d '~1 

ro 

y 

~ o e 

p ~a~o e_ 

K 

N fl e 

a o 

ro 

oil 

=' y o .. 

b m 

o 

d 

N 

C d 

~ o 

N ly~ 

Ky ~, b O 

ro 

o_ ny 

Y 

N 

" 

0 

A 

O 

+] 

0 

O 

O 

O 

Z 

O 

too 

0-l \~~-[!7~ 

Fr 

F+~ 

N 

+ 

b 

a 

w 
y 

n td 

V1 

° 

; 

N 

N N 

N O .. 

^ 

0 

y 

0 ~ y 

W O O 

R ~' CC"~ 

r V A 

ro ro ~ ro ro 

R O ~ ~ O 

0.3 

o "°e o ~°+ 

° o m p, ° o m p, a 

V~l 

F 

N 

Ar}' 

`C 

n 

A ~. 

O 

H 

N F~I 

ro 

0 

C N q e~ 

y 

~,y o 

~° a 

° 

a 

" 

n 

aA 

N 0 

O b 

o b 

,i 

E 

0 

*41 

O 

y 

n 

H 

1 

. ... 

N 

b b
Description of Compensation Arrangements for Non-Employee Directors



 Exhibit 10.38 
  
 Description of Compensation Arrangements for Non-Employee Directors 
  

						
	 Board Service

	  	 	  	 
	 One-time Award upon Election to the Board
	  	$	100,000	  	Shares equal to this value are deposited into the Trust for the Outside Directors Supplemental Compensation Plan and do not vest to direct ownership until the director leaves the
Board
			
	 Retainer
	  	$	52,000	  	Paid in quarterly installments
			
	 Restricted Shares
	  	$	35,000	  	Shares equal to this value are deposited annually into the Trust for the Outside Directors Supplemental Compensation Plan and do not vest to direct ownership until the director leaves the
Board
			
	 Stock Options
	  	 
 	Determined
annually	  	Same terms as employees under the 2002 Omnibus Incentive Plan (vest ratably over three years)
			
	 Meeting Fees
	  	$	1,000	  	Attendance at Board meeting
			
	 Committee Service

	  	 	  	 
	 Meeting Fees
	  	$	1,000	  	Attendance at Committee meeting for Committee members
			
	 	  	$	2,000	  	Attendance at Committee meeting for Committee chairs

  
 Directors also participate in the
American Standard Companies Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan which allows them to defer all or part of their cash retainers and meeting fees into either a fixed interest cash account or an account holding notional shares of company stock. In
addition, Directors are entitled to receive company products at no cost.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7437

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TYNISHA MARTIN KADIRI, a/k/a Martin Kadiri, a/k/a T D Martin, a/k/a Tynisha 

Martin, a/k/a Shug,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cr-00367-JKB-1)

Submitted: April 7, 2021 Decided: April 26, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tynisha Martin Kadiri, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew James Maddox, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tynisha Martin Kadiri appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. Upon review, we discern no 

abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that, under the pertinent 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors, compassionate release was not warranted. See United States 

v. Kibble, __ F.3d __, __, No. 20-7009, 2021 WL 1216543, at *2-4 (4th Cir. Apr. 1, 2021)

(providing standard of review and outlining steps for evaluating compassionate release 

motions). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit ‘L’

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 112-12 Filed 10/27/22 Page 1 of 3
Dr.CantuProd#000029

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 112-12 Filed 10/27/22 Page 2 of 3
Dr.CantuProd#000030

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 112-12 Filed 10/27/22 Page 3 of 3
##### 



EXHIBIT 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

|                                                    |  |              |          | 
|--------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------ | -------- | 
|Name                                                |  | Jurisdiction
|                                                    |  |             
|AmerUs Life Insurance Company                       |  |              | Iowa     | 
|AmerUs Annuity Group Co.                            |  |              | Kansas   | 
|American Investors Life Insurance Company,
    Inc. |  |              | Kansas   | 
|AmerUs Capital Management Group, Inc.               |  |              | Iowa     | 
|ILICO Holdings, Inc.                                |  |              | Indiana  | 
|Indianapolis Life Insurance Company                 |  |              | Indiana  | 
|Bankers Life Insurance Company of New York          |  |              | New York |
# Den Europæiske Unions C 27A/27.

| | ISSN 1977-0871 |
| --- | --- |
| Den Europæiske Unions
  Tidende | C 27A |
| | |
| Dansk udgave | Meddelelser og oplysninger | 58. årgang27. januar 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0871

Den Europæiske Unions

Tidende

C 27A

Dansk udgave

Meddelelser og oplysninger

58. årgang27. januar 2015

---

| Informationsnummer | Indhold | Side |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Berigtigelser |
| 2015/C 027A/01 | Berigtigelse til indkaldelse af interessetilkendegivelser — kontraktansatte administratorer — forskere — (ansættelsesgruppe IV) inden for området parlamentariske undersøgelser — (EUT C 55 A af 26.2.2014 ) | 1 |

Informationsnummer

Indhold

Side

Berigtigelser

2015/C 027A/01

Berigtigelse til indkaldelse af interessetilkendegivelser — kontraktansatte administratorer — forskere — (ansættelsesgruppe IV) inden for området parlamentariske undersøgelser — (EUT C 55 A af 26.2.2014 )

(EUT C 55 A af 26.2.2014 )

1

---

| DA | |
| --- | --- |

DA

---

Berigtigelser

| 27.1.2015 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | CA 27/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2015

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

CA 27/1

---

Berigtigelse til indkaldelse af interessetilkendegivelser — kontraktansatte administratorer — forskere — (ansættelsesgruppe IV) inden for området parlamentariske undersøgelser

(Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
  C 55 A af 26. februar 2014
  )

(2015/C 027 A/01)

Side 4, punkt VIII, sidste punktum:

I stedet for:

»Kontrakten udarbejdes i overensstemmelse med artikel 3a, 84 og 85 i vilkårene for de øvrige ansatte«

læses:

»Kontrakten udarbejdes i overensstemmelse med artikel 3b, 84 og 88 i vilkårene for de øvrige ansatte.«

---