Pretty good: but some of the translations aren't really making sense -- which is usually a sign something is wrong. I'll do the first one.
Passage 1 starts correctly. Then text reads
"Quemadmodum," inquis, "in urbe potuisti?" Circenses erant quo genere spectaculi ne levissime quidem teneor. Nihil novum, nihil varium, nihil quod semel spectavisse non sufficiat. Quare miror tot milia virorum tam pueriliter identidem cupere currentes equos videre.
"How," you say, "were you able to in the city?" There were games which I was not even being led to carry on in the most light show. Nothing new , nothing different, nothing because he should suffice to have seen at one time. Therefore, the marvel of som many soldiers of men to such a boyish activiely repeatedly to see running horses.
"How were you able to in the city" is correct, but to my taste you need to modify it a bit to make it sensible English. How were you able to do that
in the city?"
The next sentence doesn't make sense to me. circenses erant
is simple and you have it right. quo genere spectaculi etc
starts to go wrong: quo
is a relative pronoun in the ablative: "by/with/from". genere could be an infinitive (as you have it), but that hardly makes sense. Let's guess it is an ablative from kind
(genus = the root of genitive: the case which tells you what kind of thing something is). That begins to make sense: "by which kind"; spectaculi is then a genitive: "by which kind of spectacle".
"ne ... quidem" is "not even" or "not indeed". "levissime" = "lightly" and "teneor" "I am held/gripped" (including to hold the attention). Put it all together: "by which kind of spectacle I cannot indeed lightly be gripped". This again requires some rephrasing to produce decent English. Maybe something like "There were circuses -- a kind of entertainment which does not readily hold my attention at all". (It is not unusual or wrong to find that a Latin passive needs to turn into an English active construction.)
The next sentence is fine until you hit some rocks with "nihil quod semel spectavisse non sufficiat". Actually that's not all that hard -- a straight literal English translation will get you there: "nothing which once to have seen does not suffice". So again a little reworking: "nothing which it is not enough to have seen once" or, if you were being freer but clearer "nothing you would need to see more than once". (You went wrong because you took quod
as because not as a pronoun, and you were puzzled by sufficiat
which is an impersonal verb "it suffices")
In the next sentence you have missed the fact that miror is a verb (perhaps its position tripped you up): "I marvel" (it's a deponent -- active in meaning, passive in form; happily the English version "to be amazed" is deponent too): "Therefore, I am amazed ..." There is then a rather complex mass of accusative and infinitive constructions. This follows miror because what is marvelled at is treated as a mental process, therefore as if reported speech. Working, as it were, from the outside in : "I am amazed that so many thousands [milia = thousands, not soldiers] of men [=adult males, not just people] should so childishly [pueriliter] desire [cupere] repeatedly..." Then a second accusative infinitive construction describing what they want : "to see running horses". Once again, a bit of rephrasing improves the English: "So I am amazed that there are so many thousands of grown men with such a childish longing to see horses running again and again". This plays a slight liberty with identidem, which seem to go with cupere not videre, but I don't think the sense changes.
Sorry it's so long -- but I take it it is more helpful to have an explanation than a crib.