alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 8081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02999]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

Performance Review Board Membership

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Office of the United States Trade 
Representative (USTR) staff members selected to serve on the Senior 
Executive Service (SES) and Senior Level (SL) Performance Review Board 
(PRB). This notice supersedes all previous PRB membership notices.

DATES: The staff members in this notice will begin serving as PRB 
members on February 11, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cassie Ender, Human Capital 
Specialist, Office of Human Capital and Services, at (202) 395-7360 or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: USTR is required (see 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)) to 
establish a PRB to review and make recommendations to the U.S. Trade 
Representative for final approval of the performance rating, 
performance-based pay adjustment, and performance award for each 
incumbent SES and SL. The following staff members have been selected to 
serve on USTR's PRB:

Chair: Bill Jackson, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Textile 
Affairs
Member: Dawn Shackleford, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for 
Southeast Asia and the Pacific
Member: Dan Mullaney, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Europe 
and the Middle East
Member: Julie Callahan, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for 
Agricultural Affairs
Member: Juan Millan, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Monitoring 
and Investment

Fred Ames,
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Administration, Office of the 
United States Trade Representative.
[FR Doc. 2022-02999 Filed 2-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3390-F2-P
```
James D. BOHLEY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2777

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted. Denied.
Estevernico MITCHELL v. Darryl HAMILTON, M.D., et al.

1150758

Supreme Court of Alabama.

January 13, 2017

Affirmed.
Nathaniel O'NEAL, DOC #X78677, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4424

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
J.C.T. v. COFFEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160202

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit



Portions of this Exhibit, indicated by the mark “[***]” have been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to this omitted information.





Exhibit 10.24
SECOND AMENDMENT TO
PRIVATE LABEL BANKING PROGRAM AGREEMENT


This SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE PRIVATE LABEL BANKING PROGRAM AGREEMENT, effective as of September 30, 2017 (the “Second Amendment Effective Date”), is by and between T-MOBILE USA, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with offices located at 12920 SE 38th Street, Bellevue, Washington 98006-1250 (“Company”), and CUSTOMERS BANK, a Pennsylvania state-chartered banking institution with a mailing address of 99 Bridge Street, Phoenixville, Pennsylvania 19460 (“Bank”), and amends the Agreement (as defined below) (this “Second Amendment”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.


RECITALS


WHEREAS, Bank and Company entered into that certain Private Label Banking Program Agreement, effective as of February 24, 2017 (the “Agreement”), as amended by the First Amendment effective September 30, 2017 (“the First Amendment”);


WHEREAS, the Agreement sets forth each Party’s rights and responsibilities with respect to developing, marketing, and offering the Program; and


WHEREAS, Bank and Company desire to enter into this Second Amendment to amend certain terms and conditions of the Agreement as set forth below.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants, and agreements herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:


1.1 AMENDMENTS TO THE AGREEMENT


Section 9.2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to add the following subsection to clarify the nature of the payments to the Bank:


“9.2     (d) The payments made under section 9.2(a), 9.2(b)(i), and 9.2(c) are intended to compensate the Bank for expenses they incur during the preliminary project phase, including but not limited to expenses related to planning activities, conceptual formulation of ideas, and evaluation and selection of alternatives related to the performance and functional requirements of the Program. They are also intended to compensate the Bank for expenses related to training, data migration or conversion activities, and other operating expenses.”


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed by the Parties’ authorized officers or representatives and shall be effective as of the date first above-written.
	
					
	T-MOBILE USA, INC. (COMPANY)
	 
	CUSTOMERS BANK (CUBI)

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ [***]
	 
	By:
	/s/ [***]

	Name:
	[***]
	 
	Name:
	[***]

	Title:
	[***]
	 
	Title:
	[***]

	Date:
	10/24/2017 | 7:51 AM PDT
	 
	Date:
	 






Reviewed and Approved as to Form
/s/ [***]
T-Mobile Legal
K. R., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4842

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
STATE EX REL. Andrew D. WETZEL v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2017-KH-0444

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

Denied. Relator has previously exhausted his right to state collateral review. See State ex rel. Wetzel v. State, 15-1861 (La. 11/29/16), 207 So.3d 394.
Kawayne LAWRENCE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1747

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 31, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Narine N. Austin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Don M. Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Warner, Taylor and Levine, JJ., concur.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133776 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133776 

 COA: 274455 

Kent CC: 04-002925-FC 

WILLIAM FITZGERALD JAMES,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 28, 2007 order 

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. 

t0723 

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. 

July 30, 2007 

 Clerk
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6375

WILLIAM S. V. PATTERSON, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. WARDEN OF POWHATAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent - Appellee, and COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:07-cv-00361-MHL) Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 26, 2008 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William S. V. Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. James Robert Bryden, II, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). 2 PER CURIAM: William S. V. Patterson seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. * The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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. See 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 Patterson 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
#### Rosie Tyler LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOLIET POLICE DEPARTMENT and Lois Barber, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-3005

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted April 13, 2017 *

Decided April 14, 2017

Rehearing Denied May 4, 2017

Rosie Lewis, Pro Se

Before JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge, ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge, ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

*

We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because it would not significantly aid the court. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C). One of the two defendants, the Joliet Police Department, is not a suable entity, *see*Sow v. *Fortville Police Dep't,*636 F.3d 293, 300 (7th Cir. 2011), and it was not served with process in the district court. Neither defendant is participating in this appeal.

ORDER

Rosie Lewis brought this civil rights lawsuit, alleging that on April 17, 2015, she was “arrested” without probable cause and with “excessive force” in a “conspiracy” between the Joliet Police Department and Lois Barber, an acquaintance. After granting Lewis’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, the district court ruled that the complaint was vague, conclusory, and contradicted by an' attachment. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for failing to state a claim on which relief could be granted. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It gave her three weeks to file an amended complaint. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). After Lewis did not do so, the court dismissed her lawsuit with prejudice.

On appeal Lewis does not address the district court’s reasons for its decision. Instead she complains about a different incident not mentioned anywhere in her filings with the district court. She accuses the defendants and a new-group of people of “wrongfully evict[ing]” her from her Joliet Housing Authority unit on May 2015. This transformation of her case from wrongful arrest to wrongful eviction is fatal to her appeal for two reasons. *505First, she may not raise a claim on appeal that she did not present in the district court. *See C & N Corp. v. Gregory Kane & Ill. River Winery, Inc.,*756 F.3d 1024, 1026 (7th Cir. 2014). Second, she has not complied with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8), which requires that an appellate brief contain an argument that engages with the district court’s reasoning. Even pro se litigants- must follow this rule. *See Neitzke v. Williams,*490 U.S. 319, 327-28, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); *Anderson v. Hardman,*241 F.3d 544, 545-46 (7th Cir. 2001). Because she has not complied with this rule, the appeal is DISMISSED.
Edward SEIDNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D16-4321

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 3, 2018

Fred Haddad of Fred Haddad, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessenia J. Concepcion, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed* .

Warner, Gross and Taylor, JJ., concur.
C. D. A., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4179

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-19-00484-CV

In the Estate of Roosevelt Green Sr., Deceased

On Appeal from the

County Court of Matagorda County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR18-0026

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

October 28, 2021
Moses HALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2748

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2018

Moses Hall, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kaitlin Weiss, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Ray, Bilbrey, and Winokur, JJ., concur.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

Case No. 5D 21

- 2728 LT C ase No. 2021

- CA

- 005257 -O ARTHUR WILLIAMS ,

Appellant ,
v. STATE O F F LORIDA ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Decision filed April 26, 2022 Appeal f rom t he Circuit C ourt for Orange County , Paetra T. B rownlee, Jud ge. Arthur Williams, B ris tol, pro se. Ashley Moody, A ttorney G eneral, Tallahas see, an d Nora Hutchinson Hall, Assis tant A ttorney General, Dayt ona Beac h, f or Appellee.

PER CUR IAM.

AFFIRMED.

COH EN , TRAVER and WOZNIAK , JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,712                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,823                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,065                       0
<PP&E>                                           5,088                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,674                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,497                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           114                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,666                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,674                       0
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,072                  88,423
<CGS>                                           17,637                  52,576
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,200                  27,059
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   582                   1,988
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 239                     810
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,318                   5,498
<INCOME-TAX>                                       982                   2,318
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,336                   3,180
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,336                   3,180
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.12                    0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11                    0.27


</TABLE>
TED DARNELL HARVIN

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 17

- 1409

_____ ________________________/

Opinion filed July 6, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Waddell A. Wallace , Judge

.

Ted Darnell Harvin, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CUR IAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, BILBREY, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Josand FARMER, a/k/a Johan Farmer, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7100

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 17, 2017

Decided: October 20, 2017

Josand Farmer, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Seth Morgan Wood, *219Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit,

PER CURIAM:

Josand Farmer seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and construing his additional motions challenging his sentence and seeking dismissal of his federal prosecution as successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions and dismissing them on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Farmer 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Korlis Ray HARRIS, a/k/a Big Bro, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4718

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 29, 2017

Decided: July 18, 2017

Anne M. Hayes, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, First Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Korlis Ray Harris appeals his 120-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. Harris argues that the district court erred in applying a sentencing enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

“In determining whether a district court properly applied the advisory [Sentencing] Guidelines, including application of any sentencing enhancements, we review the district court’s legal conclusions *de novo*and its factual findings for clear error.” *United States v. Layton,*564 F.3d 330, 334 (4th Cir. 2009). Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that sufficient evidence supported the district court’s finding that Harris was accountable for his cocon-spirator’s possession of a firearm in connection with the offense of conviction: *See*U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ lB1.3(a)(l)(B) *&*cmt. n.3, 2Dl.l(b)(l) (2015).

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*
Alexeis PEREZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. David GEE, Sheriff, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3583

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
#### Jennifer Katz, Respondent, v Pro Form Fitness, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[769 NYS2d 903]

*475In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated February 20, 2002, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants, as the parties moving for summary judgment, had the burden of establishing, prima facie, their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). This burden is not met merely by citing gaps in the plaintiffs case (see *Saryian v Ramana,*305 AD2d 400 [2003]; *Kucera v Waldbaums Supermarkets,*304 AD2d 531, 532 [2003]; *Dalton v Educational Testing Serv.,*294 AD2d 462, 463 [2002]). Assuming that the defendants made a prima facie case concerning the identity of the manufacturer and the lack of a specific product defect that caused the plaintiffs injury, the plaintiff carried her burden of raising a triable issue of fact *(cf. Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). She established a reasonable probability that the defendants manufactured the exercise bicycle on which she allegedly was injured *(see Healey v Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.,*87 NY2d 596, 601 [1996]; *cf. Brown v Elm Plumbing Supply,*271 AD2d 469 [2000]; *Escarria v American Gage & Mfg. Co.,*261 AD2d 434 [1999]). Moreover, the particular defect, if any, that caused the injury can be established by circumstantial evidence *(see Otis v Bausch & Bomb,*143 AD2d 649, 650 [1988]; *cf. Klein v Ford Motor Co.,*303 AD2d 376, 378 [2003]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.