alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Virginia Morton et al., Respondents, v Brookhaven Memorial Hospital, Also Known as Brookhaven Memorial Hospital Medical Center, et al., Defendants, and Robert N. Prichep, Appellant.

[820 NYS2d 294]

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant Robert N. Prichep appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated December 21, 2004, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to serve a third amended complaint to add a claim for punitive damages against him.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and that branch of the motion which was for leave to serve a third amended complaint to add a claim for punitive damages is denied.

The plaintiff Virginia Morton allegedly sustained permanent nerve damage in her left arm as a result of an improper venipuncture, an untimely diagnosis of a hematoma, and an improper delay of surgery. Following depositions, the plaintiffs were granted leave to serve a third amended complaint adding a claim for punitive damages against the defendant Dr. Robert N. Prichep.

While leave to amend pleadings should be liberally granted *(see*CPLR 3025 [b]; *Lee v Health Force,*268 AD2d 564 [2000], citing *Zabas v Kard,*194 AD2d 784 [1993]), “it is equally true that the court should examine the sufficiency of the merits of the proposed amendment” (Zabas *v Kard, supra*at 784; *see Intagliata v Peelle Co.,*227 AD2d 450, 451 [1996]). Where, as here, the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient as a matter of law or is totally devoid of merit, leave to amend should be denied *(see Glassman v ProHealth Ambulatory Surgery Ctr., Inc.,*23 AD3d 522 [2005]; *Arnold v Siegel,*296 AD2d 363 [2002]; *Lee v Health Force, supra; Intagliata v Peelle Co., supra; Zabas v Kard, supra).*Punitive damages are recoverable where the conduct in question evidences *“a*high degree of moral culpability,” or “the conduct is so flagrant as to transcend mere carelessness,” or “the conduct constitutes willful or wanton negligence or recklessness” *(Lee v Health Force, supra*at 564 [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Rey v Park View Nursing Home,*262 AD2d 624, 627 [1999]). The record is devoid of any evidence of willful or wanton negligence on the part of Dr. Prichep which would warrant an award of punitive damages *(see e.g. Arnold v Siegel, supra; Lee v Health Force, supra; Intagliata v Peelle Co.,*
      *382
      *supra; Zabas v Kard, supra; Spinosa v Weinstein,*168 AD2d 32, 42 [1991]; *cf. Graham v Columbia Presbyt. Med. Ctr., 185*AD2d 753 [1992]; *Sultan v Kings Highway Hosp. Ctr.,*167 AD2d 534 [1990]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.
#### § 6.111 Notice.

The Commission shall make available to employees, applicants, participants, beneficiaries, and other interested persons such information regarding the provisions of this part and its applicability to the programs or activities conducted by the Commission, and make such information available to them in such manner as the Chairman or his or her designee finds necessary to apprise such persons of the protections against discrimination assured to them by section 504 and this regulation.
#### § 903.1 Access to information.

The rules and procedures regarding public access to the records of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are found at 15 CFR part 4.

[57 FR 35749, Aug. 11, 1992]
Subpart 5311.1 - SELECTING AND

DEVELOPING REQUIREMENT DOCUMENTS

Parent topic: Part 5311 - Describing Agency Needs

5311.103 Market Acceptance

(a) See MP5301.601(a)(i).
### §15023. Payments to the States for planning, administration, and services

#### (a) State plan expenditures

From each State's allotments for a fiscal year under section 15022 of this title, the Secretary shall pay to the State the Federal share of the cost, other than the cost for construction, incurred during such year for activities carried out under the State plan approved under section 15024 of this title. The Secretary shall make such payments from time to time in advance on the basis of estimates by the Secretary of the sums the State will expend for the cost under the State plan. The Secretary shall make such adjustments as may be necessary to the payments on account of previously made underpayments or overpayments under this section.

#### (b) Designated State agency expenditures

The Secretary may make payments to a State for the portion described in section 15024(c)(5)(B)(vi) of this title in advance or by way of reimbursement, and in such installments as the Secretary may determine.

(Pub. L. 106–402, title I, §123, Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1696.)
### §1411c. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act July 31, 1953, ch. 302, title I, §101, 67 Stat. 307, which barred subversives from occupancy of housing units and which provided for enforcement of such prohibition and affect of such prohibition on loans and contributions by the Public Housing Administration, was from the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1954, and was not repeated in subsequent appropriation acts.
ADDENDUM

This is an addendum to the Agreement on Business Rights Transfer between Wimax
EU, Ltd (Wimax) and Eurotech Capital Ventures, Ltd (Eurotech) dated November 10,
2004 and is accordingly attached hereto and made a part hereof.

It is the intent of both parties to clarify that the 100,000 shares of Wimax's
common stock issued pursuant to the original Agreement are subject to the 10-1
forward split undertaken by Wimax in October 2004 and therefore Eurotech
received a total of 1,000,000 shares pursuant to this Agreement.

Agreed this 9th day of January, 2006


Wimax EU, Ltd                                  Eurotech Capital Ventures, Ltd.


/s/ Christopher Miles                          /s/  Janice Hypolite
-----------------------------                  --------------------------------
Christopher Miles                              Janice Hypolite
President                                      Director
### §16106. Ultra-efficient engine technology for aircraft

#### (a) Ultra-efficient engine technology partnership

The Secretary shall enter into a cooperative agreement with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for the development of ultra-efficient engine technology for aircraft.

#### (b) Performance objective

The Secretary shall establish the following performance objectives for the program set forth in subsection (a):

(1) A fuel efficiency increase of at least 10 percent.

(2) A reduction in the impact of landing and takeoff nitrogen oxides emissions on local air quality of 70 percent.

(3) Exploring advanced concepts, alternate propulsion, and power configurations, including hybrid fuel cell powered systems.

(4) Exploring the use of alternate fuel in conventional or nonconventional turbine-based systems.

#### (c) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for carrying out this section $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.

(Pub. L. 109–58, title VII, §758, Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 833.)
§ 18.04 Statement of reporting trader. ( a ) Every trader who owns, holds, or controls a reportable futures and option position shall after a special call upon such trader by the Commission or its designee file with the Commission a “Statement of Reporting Trader” on the Form 40, to be completed in accordance with the instructions thereto, at such time and place as directed in the call.
( b ) Every volume threshold account controller, person who owns a volume threshold account, reportable sub-account controller, and person who owns a reportable sub-account shall after a special call upon such person by the Commission or its designee file with the Commission a “Statement of Reporting Trader” on the Form 40, to be completed in accordance with the instructions thereto, at such time and place as directed in the call.
[78 FR 69259, Nov. 18, 2013
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 70747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26824]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 4919]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Tall Trees at the Jas de Bouffan''

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
[79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459], Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 [112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.], Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999 [64 FR 56014], Delegation of 
Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999 [64 FR 57920], as amended, and 
Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I 
hereby determine that the object to be included in the exhibition, 
``Tall Trees at the Jas de Bouffan,'' imported from abroad for 
temporary exhibition within the United States, is of cultural 
significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan agreement with 
the foreign lender. I also determine that the exhibition or display of 
the exhibit object at the J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, 
California, from on or about January 5, 2005, to on or about April 30, 
2005, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the 
national interest. Public Notice of these determinations is ordered to 
be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, contact Paul 
W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, 202/619-
5997, and the address is United States Department of State, SA-44, Room 
700, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: December 1, 2004.
C. Miller Crouch,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 04-26824 Filed 12-6-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
### §16924. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 16924 was editorially reclassified as section 20926 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### In the Matter of Francesco Figueroa, Respondent, against City of New York, Appellant.

It is only with respect to one judicially declared incompetent that no one has authority to act on his behalf until a committee has been appointed *(Finch*v. *Goldstein,*245 N. Y. 300). There is no proof in this record that the claimant has ever been declared incompetent; therefore under section 50-e of the General Municipal Law, the notice could have been served by claimant himself or by someone “ on behalf of the claimant”. Anybody could have served the notice — a relative or a friend — on behalf of the claimant. The only purpose of the statute is to give the city notice of an accident or occurrence. (Tenth Annual Report of N. Y. Judicial Council, 1944, pp. 265, 277.) A notice served on the city is sufficient even if served by someone not authorized by the claimant, whether or not the claimant is competent. It is not the prerogative of the city to question the authority of the person who served the notice. That authority is a matter which concerns only the claimant and the person who served the notice on his behalf. The one filing the notice, if not authorized, may not be able to obtain payment for his services, but that is no concern of the city. The same rule should apply to the making of the application for leave to file the belated notice, i.e., that the application should be permitted to be made, either by the claimant or by someone on his behalf, and it should make no difference whether the applicant is authorized or not. His action may be adopted by the injured person or by a committee or guardian subsequently legally authorized to act on the claimant’s behalf. Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2011 (the Form 10-Q) of Surrey Bancorp (the Company), we, Edward C. Ashby, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Mark H. Towe, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:

(a)
the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(b) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form
10-Q.



|                                               |  |  |  |                   
|---------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------
|By: /s/ Edward C. Ashby, III                   |  |  |  | Date: May 12, 2011
|Edward C. Ashby, III.                          |  |  |  |                   
|President and Chief Executive Officer          |  |  |  |                   
|(Principal Executive Officer)                  |  |  |  |                   
|                                               |  | 
|By: /s/ Mark H. Towe                           |  |  |  | Date: May 12, 2011
|Mark H. Towe                                   |  |  |  |                   
|Sr. Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer |  |  |  |                   
|(Principal Financial Officer)                  |  |  |  |                   



35
### §17504. Agency statements with respect to motor vehicle use

(a) Contents of Statement.—The head of each executive agency shall include with the appropriation request the agency submits under section 1108 of title 31 for each fiscal year, a statement—

(1) specifying—

(A) the total motor vehicle acquisition, maintenance, leasing, operation, and disposal costs (including obligations and outlays) the agency incurred in the most recently completed fiscal year; and

(B) an estimate of those costs for the fiscal year in which the request is submitted and for the succeeding fiscal year; and

(2) justifying why the existing and any new motor vehicle acquisition, maintenance, leasing, operation, and disposal requirements of the agency cannot be met through the Interagency Fleet Management System the Administrator of General Services operates, a qualified private fleet management firm, or any other method which is less costly to the Federal Government.

(b) Compliance With Requirements.—The head of each executive agency shall comply with the requirements prescribed under section 17503(b) of this title in preparing each statement required under subsection (a).

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 109–284, §6(32), Sept. 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 1214.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 17504 | 40:903. | Pub. L. 99–272, title XV, §15303, Apr. 7, 1986, 100 Stat. 336. |

Section

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2006—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 109–284 substituted "With" for "with" in heading.
### §15206. National Medal of Valor Office

There is established within the Department of Justice a National Medal of Valor Office. The Office shall provide staff support to the Board to establish criteria and procedures for the submission of recommendations of nominees for the Medal of Valor and for the final design of the Medal of Valor.

(Pub. L. 107–12, §7, May 30, 2001, 115 Stat. 22.)
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 1 2

- 00 111

- CV

IN RE Robert STUC Z YN S KI

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 29, 2012

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On February 21, 2012, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for

emergency stay. The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the

opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of

mandamus and the motion for emergency stay are DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(a ).

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2011

- CI

- 18535 , styled Metso Minerals Industries, Inc. v. Smart Recycling

Solutions USA LLC, Cecil Valdez, and Robert Stuczynski

, pending in the 288 th Judicial District Court

, Bexar

County, Texas, the Honorable Solomon J. Casseb, III presiding. However, the order complained of was signed by

the Honorable Richard Price, presiding judge of the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas.
Legend

Natural Resource Areas

Large Block

Medium Block

General Forest

Wildlife Refuge

Wetlands

Administration

Communications

Developed Recreation

Environmental Education

Turkey Bay OHV

Utility Corridor

Subcategories to RX Areas

Research Natural Area

State Natural Area

Administrative Areas

Environmental Education &

Developed Recreation Areas

Deferred Old Growth

Deferred Cut

Ecological Study Areas

Prepared by US Forest Service, Land Between The Lakes

GIS Laboratory, September 2004

Source scales vary, and accuracy of the final land cover has not been assessed. 

Lakes are associated with facilities. Honker and Energy Lakes are also wildlife 

refuges. All Research Natural Areas and State Natural Areas lie within the Core 

areas. Core acreages are based on GIS data, not previously published. Closed 

facilities under administrative areas include Duncan Wildlife Restoration Area, 

Empire Farm, Youth Station, Lookout Tower, and Silo Overlook.

Disclaimer

Alternative Land Prescription Areas

NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

Between Lakes The

SOUTH

W

Other Features

Road Level

Water

1

2

3

4

5

 ̄

012

Miles
### §16535. Discovery science and engineering innovation institutes

#### (a) In general

The Secretary shall establish distributed, multidisciplinary institutes (referred to in this section as "Institutes") centered at National Laboratories to apply fundamental science and engineering discoveries to technological innovations relating to—

(1) the missions of the Department; and

(2) the global competitiveness of the United States.

#### (b) Topical areas

The Institutes shall support scientific and engineering research and education activities on critical emerging technologies determined by the Secretary to be essential to global competitiveness, including activities relating to—

(1) sustainable energy technologies;

(2) multiscale materials and processes;

(3) micro- and nano-engineering;

(4) computational and information engineering; and

(5) genomics and proteomics.

#### (c) Partnerships

In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall establish partnerships between the Institutes and—

(1) institutions of higher education—

(A) to train undergraduate and graduate science and engineering students;

(B) to develop innovative undergraduate and graduate educational curricula; and

(C) to conduct research within the topical areas described in subsection (b); and

(2) private industry to develop innovative technologies within the topical areas described in subsection (b).

#### (d) Grants

#### (1) In general

For each fiscal year, the Secretary may select not more than 3 Institutes to receive a grant under this section.

#### (2) Merit-based selection

The selection of Institutes under paragraph (1) shall be—

(A) merit-based; and

(B) made through an open, competitive selection process.

#### (3) Term

An Institute shall receive a grant under this section for not more than 3 fiscal years.

#### (e) Review

The Secretary shall offer to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences under which the Academy shall, by not later than 3 years after August 9, 2007—

(1) review the performance of the Institutes under this section; and

(2) submit to Congress and the Secretary a report describing the results of the review.

#### (f) Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated to provide grants to each Institute selected under this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2010.

(Pub. L. 110–69, title V, §5008, Aug. 9, 2007, 121 Stat. 618.)
No. 15-084 December 10, 2015

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200

NRC Approves Changes to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant’s

Emergency Planning Requirements

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has granted Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc.’s request to 

alter the emergency preparedness plan for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Vernon, Vt.,

effective April 15, 2016, to reflect the plant’s decommissioning status.

The changes come in the form of exemptions from certain NRC requirements that may not be 

appropriate for a plant that has permanently ceased operations. Once the licensee implements the 

exemptions, state and local governments may rely on comprehensive emergency management (“all 

hazard”) planning for off-site emergency response to events at Vermont Yankee, rather than having a 

dedicated offsite radiological emergency response plan approved by the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. As a result, there will not be a 10-mile emergency planning zone identified in 

Vermont Yankee’s license. The plant will maintain an onsite emergency plan and response capabilities, 

including the continued notification of state government officials of an emergency declaration. 

Entergy provided analyses to show the exemptions are warranted because when compared to an 

operating power reactor, the risk of an offsite radiological release is significantly lower and the types of 

possible accidents significantly fewer at a nuclear power reactor that has permanently ceased operations 

and removed fuel from the reactor vessel. The NRC staff evaluated and confirmed these analyses and, 

based on the NRC staff’s evaluation and recommendation, the Commission approved the exemptions

March 2. The exemption package, including a safety evaluation, was issued Dec. 10. Under the 

exemptions, Entergy may not implement the changes to its emergency preparedness plans until 

April 15, 2016, based on the company’s evaluation of applicable accidents.

Vermont Yankee, a single boiling-water reactor, began operations in 1972. It ceased operations 

Dec. 29, 2014. All spent fuel has been permanently moved from the reactor vessels into the spent fuel 

pools for storage. The exemptions from certain emergency preparedness requirements are part of 

several changes to the plant’s licensing basis and technical specifications the licensee requested to 

reflect Vermont Yankee’s decommissioning status.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 18 ,

2023
.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 22

- 00535

- CV

J. STEVE PURSLEY , Appellant

V.
SHAUN MOONEY AND RECRUITMENT PARTNERS, LP , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 281st District Co urt

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- 28294

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a judgment signed April 21, 2022

. On March 15, 2023 , appellant filed a n agreed motion to dismiss the appeal

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is gra nted. We dismiss the appeal

. PER CURIAM
Panel c onsists of Justices Bourlio t, Hassa n, and Poissant.