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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 34 

To provide that the final rule of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection 

titled ‘‘Home Mortgage Disclosure (Regulation C)’’ shall have no force 

or effect. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2021 

Mr. BIGGS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To provide that the final rule of the Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection titled ‘‘Home Mortgage Disclosure 

(Regulation C)’’ shall have no force or effect. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Let Lenders Lend 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE RULE. 

7 The final rule issued by the Bureau of Consumer Fi8 nancial Protection titled ‘‘Home Mortgage Disclosure 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 34 IH

1 (Regulation C)’’ (October 28, 2015; 80 Fed. Reg. 66128) 

2 shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00299-CV 

IN RE MARIA GARCIA RELATOR

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of 

the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus is denied.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, DAUPHINOT, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DELIVERED: August 29, 2013

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8(d).
#### STATE ex rel. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF REGISTERED DENTISTS v. CHILDS.

No. 33770.

Sept. 26, 1950.

222 *P. 2d 755.*

*410Wheeler & Wheeler, of Tulsa, and Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Fred Hansen, First Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff.

Edwin A. Ellinghausen, of Tulsa, for defendant.

ARNOLD, V. C. J.

By his petition filed herein Dr. Jack Childs seeks a review by this court of the jurisdiction of the Board of Governors of the Registered Dentists of Oklahoma to make and enter its order and judgment of July 25, 1948, suspending his license to practice dentistry in the State of Oklahoma (59 O. S. 1941 §279).

An examination of the record discloses that the question now presented is identical with that presented to and determined by us in the recent case of the Board of Governors, Registered Dentists of Oklahoma, v. C. E. Rifleman, 203 Okla. 294, 220 P. 2d 441. The order and judgment here complained of was entered on the same day as in the Rifleman case and was based upon the findings and report of the same committee reflecting its proceedings herein at the same time and place as in the. above-cited case.

We do not deem it necessary to do more than refer to our opinion in that case for an expression of our views on the question involved.

Judgment reversed.

CORN, GIBSON, LUTTRELL, JOHNSON, and O’NEAL, JJ., concur.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"FMCS Statement on the Passing of Former Director Arthur Rosenfeld - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"wkQ90owRD5\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/fmcs-statement-on-the-passing-of-former-director-arthur-rosenfeld\/\">FMCS Statement on the Passing of Former Director Arthur Rosenfeld<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/fmcs-statement-on-the-passing-of-former-director-arthur-rosenfeld\/embed\/#?secret=wkQ90owRD5\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“FMCS Statement on the Passing of Former Director Arthur Rosenfeld” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"wkQ90owRD5\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","description":"WASHINGTON, D.C. \u2014 The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) was saddened to learn of the passing of former FMCS Director Arthur F. Rosenfeld on May 16. Arthur died peacefully at home surrounded by family. A native of Allentown, Pa., Arthur\u2019s \u201clabor of love\u201d was his \u201clove of labor law,\u201d where he established himself deeply […]","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/05\/Arthur-Rosenfeld-Press-Photo-248x300.jpg"}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"Shared Neutrals Policies and Procedures - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"8FNdIOPj32\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/sharedneutrals\/shared-neutrals-policies-and-procedures\/\">Shared Neutrals Policies and Procedures<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/sharedneutrals\/shared-neutrals-policies-and-procedures\/embed\/#?secret=8FNdIOPj32\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Shared Neutrals Policies and Procedures” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"8FNdIOPj32\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}
* Pursuant to 5th CIR. R. 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. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-31076

Summary Calendar

HOUSTON McMANUS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

MIKE GILLIAM, Warden, Winn Correctional Center

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(97-CV-678)

May 28, 1998

Before JOHNSON, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Houston McManus, Louisiana prisoner #319024, appeals the

district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ

of habeas corpus. The district court granted a certificate of

appealability (COA) on the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence

supporting McManus’s forcible rape conviction.

In his appellate brief, McManus does not address the

sufficiency of the evidence issue. Because he failed to address
2

this issue, McManus has abandoned the only issue before this court.

See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann

v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.

1987). However, after a careful review of the record, we find that

even if McManus had adequately briefed the issue, viewing the

evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational

trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the

forcible rape offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson v.

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).

For the first time on appeal, McManus argues that the

prosecution withheld the results of various tests in violation of

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). McManus contends that

the results of these tests were exculpatory. McManus also contends

that the district court erred in denying his § 2254 petition

without first obtaining the results of the tests. Because the

district court did not grant a COA for either of these issues,

these issues are not reviewable on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. §

2253(c)(1); Lackey v. Johnson, 116 F.3d 149, 151 (5th Cir. 1997).

APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### MICHAEL S. SUTTON LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NOKIA CORPORATION and Nokia Inc., Defendant-Appellees.

No. 2010-1218.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 15, 2010.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Feb. 18, 2011.

Timothy W. Johnson, Matthews, Lawson & Johnson, PLLC, of Houston, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Guy E. Matthews and C. Vernon Lawson. Of counsel was Andy Tindel and Guy G. Fisher, Provost Umphrey Law Firm, of Beaumont, TX; and Jimmy M. Negem, Negem, Bickham *&*Worthington, of Tyler, TX.

Daryl L. Joseffer, King & Spalding, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Paul D. Clement and Adam M. Conrad; and Alexas D. Skucas and Mark H. Francis, of New York, New York.

*487Before NEWMAN, DYK, Circuit Judges and WHYTE, District Judge *.

*

 Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is

Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# ACTION:

Meeting date change of advisory committee meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Systems Technology for the Future U.S. Strategic Posture closed meeting scheduled for February 13-14, 2001, has been changed to February 7-8, 2001. The meeting will be held at Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA.

Dated: February 1, 2001.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 01-3139  Filed 2-6-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

CLARENCE MARTIN

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 3440

[ April 15, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,

Broward County ; Bernard I. Bober , Judge; L.T. Case No. 16

-

008462CF10A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ian Seldin, Assistant Public

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jessenia J.

Concepcion, Assistant Attorne y General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed. See Guzman v. State , 42 So. 3d 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

W ARNER

, D AMOORGIAN and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cesar SIQUEIROS-NUNEZ, also known as Omar Siqueiros, also known as Cesar Laureano Siqueiros-Nunez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-51167

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 8, 2010.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

M. Carolyn Fuentes, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*918Before KING, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Cesar Siqueiros-Nunez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Siqueiros-Nunez has filed a response. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Siqueiros-Nunez’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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. R. 47.5.4.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Statement of Commissioner Louis E. Sola on Lake Carriers\u2019 Association petition and Section 19 Investigation","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"s3Df6UHHxG\"><a href=\"\/statement-commissioner-sola-lake-carriers-association-petition-and-section-19-investigation\/\">Statement of Commissioner Louis E. Sola on Lake Carriers\u2019 Association petition and Section 19 Investigation<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/statement-commissioner-sola-lake-carriers-association-petition-and-section-19-investigation\/embed\/#?secret=s3Df6UHHxG\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Statement of Commissioner Louis E. Sola on Lake Carriers\u2019 Association petition and Section 19 Investigation” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"s3Df6UHHxG\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DERRICK SMITH

,

Defendant Below

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE

,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee. §

§ No. 276 , 2021

§

§

§

§ Court Below

– Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ Cr. ID No. 1101020846 (N)

§

§

Submitted: October 15 , 2021

Decided: November 4 , 2021

ORDER

It appears to the Court that, on September 29, 2021 , the Senior Court Clerk

issued a notice, sent by certified mail, directing the appellant, Derric k Smith , to show

cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to pay the Supreme

Court filing fee or filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis

. The appellant

received the notice, as evidenced by the return receipt filed with this Court on

October 4, 2021 . A timely response to the notice to show cause was due on or before

October 14 , 2021. To date, Smith has not paid the Supreme Court filing fee, filed a

motion to proceed in forma pauperis , or responded to the notice to show cause.

Dis missal of this action is therefore deemed to be unopposed.2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court

Rules 3(b)(2) and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Tamika R. Montgomery

- Reeves

Justice
<PAGE>
                                  
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
We  consent to the incorporation by  reference in the Registration Statement and
related Reoffer Prospectus (Form S-8 No. 33-58146) pertaining to the Amended and
Restated 1988 Employee  Stock Purchase Plan  of The Warnaco  Group, Inc. of  our
report  dated  February 23,  1995, with  respect  to the  consolidated financial
statements and schedule of The Warnaco Group, Inc. included in its Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year  ended January 4, 1997,  filed with the Securities  and
Exchange Commission.
 
                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
New York, New York
April 1, 1997


<PAGE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6034** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. BILLY R. MCCULLERS, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News . Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. ( 4:07

- cr - 00049

- RBS

- JEB

- 1; 4:12

- cv - 00037

- RBS )

Submitted : May 31, 2013 Decided: June 7, 2013

Before NIEMEY ER and KEENAN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Billy R. McCullers, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Billy R. McCullers, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s final order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1 ) (B) (200 6 ). 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) (200 6 ). 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 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the distri ct 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. We hav e independently reviewed the record , including the evidentiary hearing transcript, and conclude that McCullers 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 legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Carolyn BETTON; Cytoys Durham; Colette Howard; Jurlean Johnson; Charlene King, Plaintiffs, Eric T. Tolen, Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, Appellee.

No. 10-2738.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 21, 2010.

Filed: Dec. 30, 2010.

Eric T. Tolen, Jefferson City, MO, pro se.

Michael A. Shuman, Robert H. Grant, County Counselor’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellee.

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Eric Tolen appeals the district court’s1 denial of his request for attorney fees in the matter of *Betton v. St. Louis County,*No. 4:05-cv-01455. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tolen’s request. See *Peter v. Jax,*187 F.3d 829, 833 (8th Cir.1999) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.