alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Cedric GREENE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ACCESS SERVICES INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-4150

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed January 24, 2018

(D.C. No. 2:16-CV-01272-CW) (D. Utah)

Cedric Greene, Pro Se

Before KELLY, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Paul J. Kelly, Jr., Circuit Judge

Plaintiff-Appellant Cedric Greene, appearing pro se, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Mr. Greene, on behalf of his wife-to-be, Valerie Stephen, sued Access Services Inc. for $50,000, alleging that an Access driver in California knocked Ms. Stephen to the ground. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

The district court dismissed Mr. Greene’s claims because it found that he failed to establish diversity or subject mat*524ter jurisdiction. Greene v. Access Serv. Inc., No. 16-cv-1272-CW-EJF, 2017 WL 3912985, at *2 (D. Utah Sept. 7, 2017). We agree. There is no diversity jurisdiction because the complaint sought under $75,000; moreover, the complaint lacks allegations concerning the citizenship of Mr. Greene, Ms. Stephen, or Access. See 28 U.S.C § 1332(a)(1). Additionally, Mr. Greene failed to establish that his case arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States for purposes of federal question jurisdiction. See id. § 1331. As noted by the district court, Mr. Greene’s claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence are state, not federal, claims. Greene, 2017 WL 3912985, at *2. Finally, we conclude that this appeal is frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). See DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991) (requiring a reasoned and nonfrivolous argument to proceed on appeal IFP). The district court found it unnecessary to address whether Mr. Greene could represent Ms. Stephen; we agree with the magistrate judge that he may not. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (“[Pjarties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel....”).

AFFIRMED. We DENY IFP status.

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32,1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.7 


AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 
TO 
TOLL BROTHERS, INC. 
EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN (2017)




WHEREAS, Toll Brothers, Inc. (the “Company”) adopted the Toll Brothers, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan (2017) (the “ESPP”) to enable Company employees to purchase the Company’s common stock at a discount from market prices.  Capitalized terms and not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the ESPP.


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) desires to amend the ESPP to permit the transfer of shares purchased by a Participant under the ESPP through the 15% Discount Purchase Program by the Participant’s estate prior to the expiration of the three-year holding period imposed by Section 5(a)(v) of the ESPP in the event that the Participant dies prior to the expiration of such holding period.


WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is in the best interests of the Company to approve this Amendment No. 1.
 
NOW, THEREFORE, the ESPP is amended as follows:


		
	1.
	Termination of Holding Period Upon Death of Participant.  Section 5(a)(v) of the ESPP shall be amended and restated in its entirety as follows:




“(v) Restrictions.  Shares purchased by means of participation in the Plan through the 15% Discount Purchase Program under this Paragraph 5(a) shall not be transferable until the third anniversary of the Purchase Date on which such Shares were purchased. If a Participant terminates employment with the Company or an Affiliate for any reason, such Shares shall continue to be subject to the restrictions on transfer imposed under this Paragraph 5(a)(v) until the earlier of (x) the death of Participant and (y) the third anniversary of the Purchase Date on which such Shares were purchased, and shall thereafter be transferable without such restrictions.” 


		
	2.
	Effect of Amendment to Plan.    Except to the extent modified by this Amendment No. 1, the terms and conditions of the Plan will remain unchanged and shall continue in full force and effect.




This Amendment No. 1 to the Toll Brothers, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan (2017) is executed this 13th day of December, 2017 by the officer named below pursuant to due authorization by the Board.




TOLL BROTHERS, INC.








By:    /s/ Martin P. Connor
Name:     Martin P. Connor
Title:      Chief Financial Officer
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Cambria County Transit Authority, :

Appellant :

 :

v. : No. 957 C.D. 2019

 : 

Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1279 :

 :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, April 7, 2021, having considered Appellant Cambria County Transit 

Authority’s (CamTran) “Petition for Reargument” and Amalgamated Transit Union, 

Local 1279’s (Union) response thereto, the Petition for Reargument is DENIED. 

Accordingly, CamTran’s “Petition for Stay of Proceedings and Supersedeas” 

pending disposition of the Petition for Reargument is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**610.1 CA 12-01944**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

JANE DOE AND JOHN DOE, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,

V ORDER

ESTATE OF STEPHEN B GANDERSON, M.D., DECEASED, DEFENDANT, AND NORTH MEDICAL, P.C., DOING BUSINESS AS THE WOMEN’S PLACE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

VENTRE LAW OFFICE, LIVERPOOL (FRANK VENTRE, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
COTE & VAN DYKE, LLP, SYRACUSE (JOSEPH S. COTE OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Deborah H. Karalunas, J.), entered July 26, 2012. The order granted the motion of plaintiffs for leave to file and serve an amended complaint.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: June 7, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 1234

STERLING L. SINGLETON , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. FRANK RICHARDSON; WARDEN JOYNER; WAYNE BOWMAN , Defendants

– Appell ee s,
and SCDC; BRYAN P. STIRLING, Director of SCDC; ASSOCIATE WARDEN SHARP; WARDEN ASSOCIATE TISDALE
Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Beaufort

. Molly Hughes Cherry , Magistrate Judge. ( 9:21

- cv - 00650

- JMC

- MHC )

Submitted : September 8, 2022 Decided: September 12, 2022

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1234 Doc: 24 Filed: 09/12/2022 Pg: 1 of 32 Sterling L. Singleton, Appellant Pro Se. Elloree Ann Ganes, Evan Michael Sobocinski, HOOD LAW FIRM, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1234 Doc: 24 Filed: 09/12/2022 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM: Sterling L. Singleton seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s orders (a) denying Singleton’s motion to appoint counsel; and (b) denying Singleton’s five motions to compel discovery . This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order s that Singleton seeks to appeal are neither final order s, given that litigation on his remaining claims against the remaining Defendants is ongoing , nor a re they appealable interlocutory
or collateral order s . Accordingly, we dismiss th is appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and ar gument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1234 Doc: 24 Filed: 09/12/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S
NO. WR-95,058-01

EX P ARTE LASHA EILEEN SP ACEK , Applicant

ON AP P LICATION F OR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. CR-19-1300-D-WHC IN THE 428 TH DISTRICT COURT

F ROM HAYS COUNTY

K E L L E R , P .J., f

iled a dissenting opinion in w hich Y E A R Y , K E E L and S L A U G

H T E R , JJ., joined.
DISSENTING OP INION The tri al c o u rt s tacked Applicant’s sentences. She claims that her plea w as involuntary b e c au s e s he would have accepted the State’s plea offer if she had known her sentences cou l d b e stacked. Trial counsel acknowledg es that he told Applicant the sentences would run concurrently , and he say s she would have accepted the plea offer if he had correctly advised her. The Court g rants Applicant a new trial.
B u t after Applicant filed this writ application, the trial court entered a nunc pro tunc order ordering that the sentences run concurrently

. I t appears that Applicant has received the sentence sheSPACEK DI SSENT - 2

thoug ht she would r eceive , a n d h e r involuntary -plea c laim now must fail. I would dismiss the application as moot.
I respectfully

dissent. Delivered: October 18, 2023 Publish
#### Terry KERR; Dennis Kerr, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., Individually and as Trustee of SW Reo Trust 2014-1; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-16304

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 16, 2018 *

Filed January 25, 2018

Terry Kerr, Pro Se

Dennis Kerr, Pro Se

Thera A. Cooper, Esquire, Akerman LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Ap-pellee U.S. Bank Trust, N.A.

Melanie Dawn Morgan, Esquire, Attorney, Jesse Allen Ransom, Attorney, Aker-man LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee Bank of America, N.A., Darren Brenner, William Habdas, Richard Aaron Chastain

Richard J. Reynolds, Esquire, Attorney, Burke Williams & Sorensen LLP, Santa Ana, CA, Michael R. Brooks, Esquire, Managing Senior Counsel, Brooks Hubley, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Ap-pellees Micheál Brooks, Ramir Mitchell Hernandez, Harmony Title Agency

Joseph P. Buchman, Attorney, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Richard j. Reynolds, Esquire, Attorney, Burke Williams & Sorensen LLP, Santa Ana, CA, Michael R, Brooks, Esquire, Managing Senior Counsel, Brooks Hubley, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee Richard J. Reynolds

Thera A. Cooper, Esquire, Akerman LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Amici Curiae

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Terry and Dennis Kerr appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. *Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Kerrs’ action because the Kerrs failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. *See id.*at 341-42 (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); *see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, *326173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (“A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action’” will not satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), “[n]or does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertions[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’ ” (citations omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Kerrs’ motions for entry of default judgment because the record does not show that defendants were in default. *See Eitel v. McCool,*782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting forth the standard of review).

The motion for leave to file an amicus brief (Docket Entry No. 18), filed by U.S. Bank, N.A., and U.S. Bank, N.A., as Trustee of SW REO Trust 2014-1, is granted. The Clerk shall file the amicus brief at Docket Entry No. 18.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 19465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06952]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


Submission for OMB Review; Notice of Request for Emergency 
Approval

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (PRA), the Department of Agriculture (USDA) has submitted a 
request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a six-month 
emergency approval of the following information collection: ICR 0578-
NEW, Composting and Food Waste Reduction (CFWR) Cooperative Agreement 
Program. The requested approval would enable NRCS to carry out pilot 
projects under which local units of government, schools, and tribal 
communities enter into cooperative agreements to develop and test 
strategies for planning and implementing municipal composting plans and 
food waste reduction plans.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

    Title: Composting and Food Waste Reduction (CFWR) Cooperative 
Agreements.
    OMB Control Number: 0578-NEW.
    Summary of Collection: The Natural Resources Conservation Service 
(NRCS) is requesting emergency clearance and review through 5 CFR 
1320.13 for a new information collection for the NRCS is using CFWR 
funds provided by the American Rescue Plan of 2021 (Pub. L. 117-2) to 
assist local units of government, schools, and tribal communities in 
implementing projects that help their communities generate compost, 
improve soil quality, and reduce food waste.

    Dated: March 29, 2022.
Ruth Brown,
Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-06952 Filed 4-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
aena_ex103.htm


Exhibit 10.3


 




  





1











  






 


 




  





2











  






 


 




  





3











  






 


 




  





4











  






 


 


5
# Official Journal C 177A/27 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 177A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6327 May 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 177A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6327 May 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Council |
| 2020/C 177 A/01 | Notice of vacancy CONS/AD/165/20 | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Council

2020/C 177 A/01

Notice of vacancy CONS/AD/165/20

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# United States Court **of Appeals** 

**f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 61199

**FELICIA PARKS,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee

**,**

versus

**Deputy Christopher Dean, Individually and in his Official Capacity; Deputy Dustin**  **Wadford, Individually and in his Official Capacity;**  **Deputy Simon Stubblefield, Individually and in his Official Capacity,** 

Defendants

— Appellants

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:19

- CV

- 632

Before **Jones, Southwick,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**.**
**Per Curiam :**  *

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit 

### FILED
August 4, 2021

Lyle W. Cay ce Clerk Case: 20-61199 Document: 00515965875 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2021No. 20

- 61199

2 The court has carefully reviewed this appeal in light of the briefs, oral
argument, and record. Having done so, we find no reversible error of fact or
law and affirm for essentially the reasons stated by the district court.

AFFIRMED. Case: 20-61199 Document: 00515965875 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2021
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7729

ELDON LOWELL YOCUM,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-830-5-BR)

Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 2, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eldon Lowell Yocum, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on

the reasoning of the district court. Yocum v. United States, No.

CA-97-830-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Nov. 4, 1997). Appellant’s “Motion to

Dismiss by Case Law Order” is denied. 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
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8292 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8292

 To amend the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 with 
   respect to the application of the Spill Prevention, Control, and 
     Countermeasure rule to certain farms, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 17, 2020

 Mr. Crawford (for himself and Mr. Newhouse) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 with 
   respect to the application of the Spill Prevention, Control, and 
     Countermeasure rule to certain farms, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Farmers Undertake Environmental Land 
Stewardship Act'' or the ``FUELS Act''.

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY OF SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND COUNTERMEASURE 
              RULE.

    Section 1049 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 
2014 (33 U.S.C. 1361 note) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``20,000'' and 
                inserting ``42,000'';
                    (B) by amending paragraph (2)(A) to read as 
                follows:
                    ``(A) an aggregate aboveground storage capacity 
                greater than 10,000 gallons but less than 42,000 
                gallons; and'';
                    (C) in paragraph (3)--
                            (i) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as 
                        follows:
                    ``(A) with an aggregate aboveground storage 
                capacity of less than or equal to 10,000 gallons; 
                and''; and
                            (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``; 
                        and'' and inserting a period; and
                    (D) by striking paragraph (4);
            (2) in subsection (c)(2)(A)--
                    (A) in clause (i), by striking ``1,000'' and 
                inserting ``1,320''; and
                    (B) in clause (ii), by striking ``2,500'' and 
                inserting ``3,000''; and
            (3) by striking subsection (d).
                                 <all>
```
IA

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 26

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide

that no person born in the United States will be a United States

citizen unless a parent is a United States citizen, is lawfully in the

United States, or has a lawful immigration status at the time of the

birth.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 9, 1997

Mr. FOLEY (for himself, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. DOOLITTLE,

YOUNG of Alaska, Mrs. CHENOWETH, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. CALVERT, Mr.

KLUG, Mr. BAKER of Louisiana, and Mr. METCALF) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to provide that no person born in the United

States will be a United States citizen unless a parent

is a United States citizen, is lawfully in the United

States, or has a lawful immigration status at the time

of the birth.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-
2

•HJ 26 IH

1 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the follow2 ing article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitu3 tion of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents

4 and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by

5 the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States with6 in seven years after the date of its submission for ratifica7 tion:

8 ‘‘ARTICLE —

9 ‘‘SECTION 1. No person born in the United States

10 after the date of the ratification of this article shall be

11 a citizen of the United States, or of any State, on account

12 of birth in the United States unless the mother or father

13 of the person is a citizen of the United States, is lawfully

14 in the United States, or has a lawful status under the im15 migration laws of the United States, at the time of the

16 birth.

17 ‘‘SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to en18 force this article by appropriate legislation.’’.

Æ