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* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

OCT 30 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

RUTH E. GILBERT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

STAR BUILDING SYSTEMS,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 97-6021

(D.C. No. 95-CV-1932)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BALDOCK, BARRETT, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.
1 Plaintiff filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion for reconsideration after she filed

her notice of appeal from the district court’s summary judgment decision. 

Because she did not file a separate notice of appeal from the district court’s

denial of her motion for reconsideration, however, this court does not have

jurisdiction to review that decision. See Williams v. Chater, 87 F.3d 702, 705 and

n.1 (5th Cir. 1996). 

-2-

Plaintiff appeals the district court’s decision granting defendant summary

judgment on plaintiff’s claims that defendant violated the Family and Medical

Leave Act (FMLA), see 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654, Title VII, see 42 U.S.C.

§§ 2000e to 2000e-17, and Oklahoma public policy when it terminated plaintiff’s

employment.1 This court reviews a summary judgment decision de novo, viewing

the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Dye v. United

States, 121 F.3d 1399, 1403-04 (10th Cir. 1997). Summary judgment is

appropriate only if there are no genuinely disputed issues of material fact and the

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c). 

We affirm the district court’s decision for substantially the reasons stated in

its order dated November 15, 1996. Although the district court did not

specifically address plaintiff’s claim that defendant had violated its duty to post 

notice of FMLA rights, see 29 U.S.C. § 2619(a), summary judgment was

appropriate on that claim as well. See Blumenthal v. Murray, 946 F. Supp. 623,
-3-

626-27 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (private litigant has no basis to seek relief for employer’s

violation of FMLA’s requirements for posting notice), and cases cited therein. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of

Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s motion to expedite this appeal is DENIED

as moot. Plaintiff’s other pending appellate motions and her request for

appointment of counsel are DENIED. 

Entered for the Court

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge
Brian KABLITZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-670

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 24, 2018]

Brian Kablitz, South Bay, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Warner, Taylor and Levine, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6688
KARIM ABDUL AKBAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SERGEANT MORRIS; OFFICER PRICE, Defendants - Appellees, and SERGEANT DREW; LIEUTENANT SUESS; GENE BARBER; C. B. COOKE; DARLENE WHITE; MRS. THOMPSON; MRS. DIXON, Nurse; CHARLES HILL; OFFICER TAYLOR; J. C. PINION; MS. BROWN; TALMADGE BARNETT; HAZEL KEITH; LYNN C. PHILLIPS; GARY T. DIXON; LARRY DAVIS; LIEUTENANT GRIMES; SERGEANT VANCE; SERGEANT BEALE, Correctional Officer; MS. MILBURNE; OFFICER GREENE; OFFICER KING; LIEUTENANT WATSON, Correctional Officer; OFFICER PLYBON; OFFICER REMBRANT; SERGEANT MONROE; SERGEANT JACKSON; SUPERINTENDENT FRENCH; LIEUTENANT MOORE; LIEUTENANT ASKEW, Defendants.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-95-628-5-H) Submitted: September 9, 1997 Decided: September 24, 19972 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Karim Abdul Akbar, Appellant Pro Se. William Dennis Worley, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Akbar v. Morris , No. CA-95- 628-5-H (E.D.N.C. Apr. 22, 1997). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
David D. LANGMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4924

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 18, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Anthony JONES v. STATE

CR-16-0175

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 21
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S> <C>
                                            GALEY & LORD, INC.
                                      SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


                   Subsidiary                                   Place of Incorporation
                   -----------                                  -----------------------

Galey & Lord Industries, Inc.                                         Delaware

G&L Service Company, North America, Inc.                              Delaware

Dimmit Industries, S.A. de C.V.                                       Mexico

Confecciones Alta Loma S.A. De C.V.                                   Mexico

Swift Textiles, Inc.                                                  Delaware

Swift Denim Services, Inc.                                            Delaware

Drummondville Services, Inc.                                          Canada

Dominion Textile International (Asia) Pte. Limited                    Singapore

Swift Textiles (Far East) Limited                                     Hong Kong

Dominion Textile International B.V.                                   Amsterdam (the Netherlands)

Domtex Industries (Far East) Limited                                  Hong Kong

Klopman International S.p.A.                                          Italy

Klopman GmbH                                                          Germany

Klopman A.G.                                                          Switzerland

Klopman Espana S.A.                                                   Spain

Klopman International Limited                                         Ireland

DT (USA) Exports Inc.                                                 Barbados

</TABLE>
Shawn M. Garvin

Regional Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion III RECEIVED

1650 Arch Street (3RAOO) JAN 2 Philadelphia PA 19103-2023

Dear Mr. Garvin:Thank you for the opportunity to present the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with

recommendations for designation of Maryland’s counties under the revised nitrogen dioxide (NO 2)

air quality standard. In accordance with §107(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act, Maryland’s boundary

recommendations for attainment, nonattainment, and unclassifiable areas under the new 1-hour NO2

standard are provided below in the table.

Maryland recommends that EPA designate all of Maryland as unclassifiable with respect to the new

standard. Maryland does not have any counties that violate the new 1-hour NO2standard at the level

of 100 parts per billion (ppb) according to current NO2 monitoring results from across the United

States mapped on EPA’s NO2standards web page, http://www.epa.gov/air/nitrogenoxides/actions.htnil.

Maryland has a monitoring site that meets the new NO2 monitoring requirements for a communitywide monitoring site. Maryland does not have any near roadway NO2 monitors, but intends to

address the requirements of the new standard and the need for these monitors. Maryland will be

required to have three near-roadway monitors—two in the Baltimore Core Based Statistical Area

(CBSA) and one in the Washington, DC Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA). MDE will propose

locations for near roadway NO2monitors in a future ambient air monitoring network plan in order to

comply with the January 1, 2013 monitoring start date. We realize that after monitoring begins

Maryland’s designation status may change.

The table below summarizes the specific counties that Maryland is recommending be designated as

unclassifiable control region areas.

Maryland’s NO2 Designation Recommendation

Designated Area Designation

Anne Arundel County UnclassifiableBaltimore City UnclassifiableBaltimore County UnclassifiableCarroll County Unclassifiable
Prince Georges County UnclassifiableWashington County UnclassifiableCecil County Unclassifiable

Kent County UnclassifiableQueen Anne’s County Unclassifiable

Allegany County Unclassifiable

Garrett County Unclassifiable

St. Mary’s County Unclassifiable

Caroline County UnclassifiableDorchester County Unclassifiable

Talbot County UnclassifiableWicomico County Unclassifiable

Somerset County Unclassifiable

Worcester County Unclassifiable

Maryland recognizes that this boundary recommendation submittal is only the first step in the NO2designation process, and looks forward to working with EPA and Maryland stakeholders during thefinal steps ofthe designation process.

If you have any questions about this submission, please do not hesitate to contact Robert M.

Summers, Ph.D., Acting Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment at (410) 537-3084 or

George (Tad) Aburn, Director of the Air and Radiation Management Administration at(410) 537-3255.Sincerely,

Governor

cc: Robert M. Summers, Acting Secretary

George (Tad) Aburn, Director, Air and Radiation Management Administration
greatlakes.xls

Author: Abt Associates Inc.

Created: 03/24/11

Worksheet Description

Sheet1

reports baseline impingement and entrainment

mortality losses at baseline and under

regulatory options 1 through 3.

Purpose: This is an output file for the great lakes region including baseline

impingement and entrainment mortality losses at baseline and under

regulatory options 1 through 3.

File Info 1 of 2
Species Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

1 All forage species 38.61662 33.45626 38.19983 38.28653 7.841515 0 6.262487 6.357069 46.45813 33.45626 44.46232 44.64359

2 All harvested species 5.510646 4.774255 5.451169 5.463541 1.528266 0 1.220523 1.238956 7.038912 4.774255 6.671692 6.702497

3 Black bullhead0.000912 0.00079 0.000902 0.000904 0 0 0 0 0.000912 0.00079 0.000902 0.000904

4 Black crappie4.12E-05 3.57E-05 4.07E-05 4.08E-05 0 0 0 0 4.12E-05 3.57E-05 4.07E-05 4.08E-05

5 Bluegill 0.000143 0.000124 0.000141 0.000141 0 0 0 0 0.000143 0.000124 0.000141 0.000141

6 Brown bullhead2.25E-05 1.95E-05 2.22E-05 2.23E-05 0 0 0 0 2.25E-05 1.95E-05 2.22E-05 2.23E-05

7 Bullheads 0.000663 0.000574 0.000656 0.000657 0 0 0 0 0.000663 0.000574 0.000656 0.000657

8 Channel catfish0.00634 0.005493 0.006271 0.006286 0.000483 0 0.000386 0.000392 0.006823 0.005493 0.006657 0.006677

9 Crappie 0.000506 0.000438 0.000501 0.000502 0.0182 0 0.014535 0.014755 0.018706 0.000438 0.015036 0.015257

10 Freshwater drum 0.018385 0.015928 0.018186 0.018228 0.048408 0 0.03866 0.039244 0.066793 0.015928 0.056846 0.057472

11 Muskellunge3.02E-06 2.62E-06 2.99E-06 3E-06 0 0 0 0 3.02E-06 2.62E-06 2.99E-06 3E-06

12 Fish (other) 0.058244 0.050461 0.057615 0.057746 0.001062 0 0.000848 0.000861 0.059306 0.050461 0.058463 0.058607

14 Rainbow smelt0.36808 0.318893 0.364107 0.364934 0.06747 0 0.053884 0.054698 0.435551 0.318893 0.417992 0.419632

15 Salmon 0.005103 0.004421 0.005048 0.00506 0.00145 0 0.001158 0.001176 0.006554 0.004421 0.006207 0.006235

16 Sculpins 0.001317 0.001141 0.001303 0.001306 0.024346 0 0.019443 0.019737 0.025663 0.001141 0.020746 0.021043

17 Smallmouth bass 0.000464 0.000402 0.000459 0.00046 6.24E-06 0 4.98E-06 5.06E-06 0.00047 0.000402 0.000464 0.000465

18 Smelts 4.494551 3.893942 4.446041 4.456132 0.02048 0 0.016356 0.016603 4.515031 3.893942 4.462397 4.472735

19 Sunfish 0.019033 0.016489 0.018827 0.01887 1.184338 0 0.945851 0.960136 1.203371 0.016489 0.964678 0.979006

20 Walleye 0.000881 0.000763 0.000871 0.000873 0 0 0 0 0.000881 0.000763 0.000871 0.000873

21 White bass 0.04849 0.042011 0.047967 0.048076 0.094923 0 0.075809 0.076954 0.143414 0.042011 0.123776 0.12503

22 Whitefish 0.227229 0.196864 0.224776 0.225286 3.56E-05 0 2.84E-05 2.88E-05 0.227264 0.196864 0.224805 0.225315

23 Yellow perch0.260239 0.225463 0.25743 0.258014 0.067063 0 0.053559 0.054368 0.327302 0.225463 0.310988 0.312382

24 Total (all species) 44.12726 38.23052 43.651 43.75007 9.369782 0 7.483009 7.596026 53.49705 38.23052 51.13401 51.34609

Sheet1 2 of 2
NO. 12-24-00093-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

NATHANIEL JONES III, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 3RD 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). 

Appellant, Nathaniel Jones, III, filed a pro se notice of appeal on April 22, 2024. That 

same day, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the notice of appeal failed to contain the 

information specifically required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and 25.1(e).

1 See

TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5 (requiring service on parties); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(e) (service of 

notice of appeal). The notice warned that, unless Appellant filed a proper notice of appeal on or 

before May 2, the appeal would be referred to the Court for dismissal. This deadline passed and 

Appellant has not filed a compliant notice of appeal or otherwise responded to this Court’s 

notice.

2

1 Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all 

applicable rules of procedure; otherwise, pro se litigants would benefit from an unfair advantage over parties 

represented by counsel. Muhammed v. Plains Pipeline, L.P., No. 12-16-00189-CV, 2017 WL 2665180, at *2 n.3 

(Tex. App.—Tyler June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).

2 It appears that Appellant filed another notice of appeal, which likewise fails to comply with appellate 

Rules 9.5 and 21.5(e).
2

Because Appellant failed, after notice, to comply with Rules 9.5 and 25.1(e), the appeal is 

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (on its own initiative after giving ten days’ notice to all 

parties, appellate court may dismiss appeal if appeal is subject to dismissal because appellant 

failed to comply with a requirement of these rules, a court order, or a notice from the clerk 

requiring a response or other action within a specified time).

Opinion delivered May 31, 2024.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT 

MAY 31, 2024 

NO. 12-24-00093-CV

NATHANIEL JONES III, 

Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

Appeal from the 3rd District Court 

of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. DCCV21-2390-3) 

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record, and the same 

being considered, it is the opinion of this Court that the appeal should be dismissed. 

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance. 

By per curiam opinion. 

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
EXHIBIT
32.2


CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 
 PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 The
undersigned, Brion D. Umidi, the Chief Financial Officer of ReGen Biologics,
Inc. (the “Company”), has executed this certification in connection with the
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company’s Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2009 (the
“Report”). The undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge,
that:
 
 (1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 (2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date: May
11, 2009
 
 /s/
      Brion D. UmidiName:
                Brion
      D. UmidiTitle:
                Senior
      Vice President andChief
      Financial Officer
EX PARTE Dennis Michael HUNTLEY

CR-16-0539

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
Luis MATAMOROS, Appellant, v. INFINITY AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 3D17-505

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

 
 



 
 March 7, 2012 
 Dear             : 
 This letter is to
memorialize the agreement between you and Somaxon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Somaxon”) relating to the adjustment to your compensation effected by Somaxon’s compensation committee on March 7, 2012 (the “Salary
Adjustment”). In light of such Salary Adjustment, you and Somaxon hereby agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	The Salary Adjustment does not constitute Good Reason under your Employment Agreement with Somaxon dated as of
            (the “Employment Agreement”); and 

  

	 	2.	Notwithstanding any restricted stock units to be issued to you as a result of the Salary Adjustment, for purposes of Sections 7(d)(ii)(C), 7(d)(iii)(D) and 13 of the
Employment Agreement, the term Base Salary shall mean the greater of (a) your annual base salary in effect prior to the Salary Adjustment, and (b) the amount of your then-current annual base salary that is payable to you in cash.


 Please evidence your agreement to the foregoing by signing below in the space provided. 

 

	
	Sincerely,
	
	  

	


 ACCEPTED AND AGREED: 
  

			
		
	Signed:	 	  

		
	Name:
ex_108319.htm


 


Exhibit 10.14


 


KemPharm, Inc.


Third Amended and Restated Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy


 


Each member of the board of director (the “Board”) of KemPharm, Inc. (the “Company”) who is not also an employee of the Company or any subsidiary of the Company shall be entitled to the following compensation for service on the Board and its committees:


 


Cash Compensation


 


Cash compensation shall be paid in the following annual amounts. Payments shall be made in quarterly installments in arrears on the last day of each calendar quarter in which service occurred, and shall be prorated as appropriated for a director who does not serve for the full quarter.


 


	
			1.

				
			Annual Board Service Retainer:

			



 


	 	
			a.

				
			All non-employee directors: $35,000

			
	 	
			b.

				
			Chairman of the Board, if not an employee, or lead independent director, if any (in addition to the retainer for all non-employee directors): $15,000

			



 


	
			2.

				
			Annual Committee Member Service Retainer:

			



 


	 	
			a.

				
			Member of the Audit Committee: $7,500

			
	 	
			b.

				
			Member of the Compensation Committee: $5,000

			
	 	
			c.

				
			Member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee: $5,000

			



 


	
			3.

				
			Annual Committee Chair Service Retainer (in addition to Committee Member Service Retainer):

			



 


	 	
			a.

				
			Chairman of the Audit Committee: $15,000

			
	 	
			b.

				
			Chairman of the Compensation Committee: $10,000

			
	 	
			c.

				
			Chairman of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee: $7,500

			



 


Equity Compensation


 


The equity compensation set forth below will be granted under the Company’s 2014 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”). All stock options granted under this policy will be nonqualified stock options using the Company’s standard form of Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement under the Plan, with an exercise price per share equal to the last reported sale price of the Company’s common stock on the NASDAQ Capital Market on the date of grant or, if such grant date is not a trading date, on the last trading date prior to the grant date, and with a term of ten years from the date of grant (subject to earlier termination in connection with a termination of service as provided in the Plan).


 


Annual Grant: On the date of each annual stockholders meeting of the Company, each director who continues to serve as a non-employee member of the Board following such stockholders meeting will be automatically, and without further action by the Board or the Compensation Committee of the Board, be granted a stock option for 30,000 shares of common stock. The stock options will vest and become exercisable in full on the earlier of (1) the first anniversary of the grant date, (2) the day before the first annual stockholders meeting occurring after the grant date or (3) immediately prior to a “Change in Control” as defined in the Plan, subject in each case to the director’s continued service on such vesting date.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 36173]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15376]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

U.S. Registration of Aircraft in the Name of Owner Trustees for 
Non-U.S. Citizen Beneficiary

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Documents for Inspection.

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

SUMMARY: Incident to a public meeting held by the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) on Wednesday, June 1, 2011, in Oklahoma City, 
Oklahoma, concerning aircraft registration by owner trustees for non-
U.S. citizen beneficiaries, interested parties have submitted written 
comments to FAA. Those comments as well as the Notice of Public Meeting 
and FAA slide presentation may be viewed at the Office of Chief 
Counsel's FAA Web site located at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/. Additional comments are being accepted by 
the FAA through July 1, 2011, and may be submitted via e-mail to 
ladeana.peden@faa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LaDeana Peden at 405-954-3296, Office 
of Aeronautical Center Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration.

    Issued in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on June 13, 2011.
Joseph R. Standell,
Aeronautical Center Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2011-15376 Filed 6-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```