alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Elton D. Schneider, Respondent, *v.*Richard C. Miecznikowski, Appellant.

Fourth Department,

April 11, 1962.

*Jaechle, Fleischmaom, Kelly, Swart & Aug spurger (Harry J. Kelly*of counsel), for appellant.

*Miles, Cochrane*<£ *Grosse (Raymond T. Miles*of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

This case again illustrates the fact that rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice may not properly be invoked in *178automobile accident cases, except in rare instances. It is clear from the record that, if the facts now presented in affidavit form and in the form of an examination before trial of the parties, were presented to a court and jury in regular course upon a trial, the court would not be justified in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff but would be required to submit the case to the jury for its determination. In such circumstances, summary judgment may not be granted.

It appears that the plaintiff was the owner of a Ford automobile which he allowed the defendant to drive. The plaintiff remained in the automobile as a passenger in the front seat alongside the defendant. The Ford automobile had a standard automatic gear shift. The defendant owned a 1953 Nash automobile in which the “ gears [were] situated differently ” and in which there apparently was an extra forward drive for use on *“*a straight highway”. As the defendant explained upon the examination before trial, while he was traveling between 40 and 50 miles an hour, he had the “ idea that [he] was driving [his] car and [he] was going to put it up in high drive and [he] went into reverse which it shouldn’t have been in ”. When the car went into reverse, the wheels started slipping and the car went off the road.

Momentary forgetfulnes is not negligence as a matter of law *(Rugg*v. *State of New York,*284 App. Div. 179). “ It presents, at most, a question of fact to be determined by the trier of the facts. *(Bassett*v. *Fish,*75 N. Y. 303; *Young*v. *Syracuse, Binghamton & New York R. R. Co.,*45 App. Div. 296, 301, affd. *166*N. Y. 227; *Sommerich*v. *Miller,*291 N. Y. 769.) ” *(Rugg*v. *State, supra,*p. 183.)

The order appealed from granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff should be reversed and the motion for summary judgment denied.

Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and McClusky, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with $25 costs and disbursements and motion for summary judgment denied, with $10 costs.
11/07/2011 HON 11:18 FAX 817 222 5092 regional counsel @001/003 

To. Hearing Docket 

Company; Federal Aviation Administration 

Phone: 

Fax- 202^93-5123 

From- Aileen Ayala for 

Tim L Duff 

Title: 

Attorney 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region 

2601 Meacham Boulevard 

Fort Worth. Texas 76137 

1(817.222.5099) 

F (817.222.5092) 

Facsimile 

Date: Nov 7, 2011 

Pages w/cover: 3 

Subject: Continental Airlines Withdrawal of Complaints 

FAA Case Nos. FDI\/1S No. ^ 

2010SW270066 FAA-2011-0776< 

2010SW27072 FAA-2011 -0777 

2010SW270081 FAA-2011-0778 

2010SW270157 FAA-2011 -0774 

© U.S. Dcpartmoni ot Transportation 
11/07/2011 MON 11:18 FAX 817 222 5092 regional counsel 0002/003 

-rPARTMENTOF 

VRANBPOFITATION 

Or.KETnPERATiONS 

m \ NOV !U P 2^ 0 3 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TIRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Federal.Aviation Administration 

Complainant 

V. 

Continental Airlines Inc. 

Respondent 

CP11SW0000 

CP11SW0000 

CP11SW0000 

CP11SW0000 

FAA 2011-0776 

FAA 2011-0777 

FAA 2011-0778 

FAA 2011-0774 

Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

WITHDRAWAL OF COiVlPLAINT 

The Administrator and Respondent have entered into an agreement to settle the 

above styled matters; therefore the Administrator withdraws inis complaint. 

Respectfully submitted, 

David ponnell 

Southwest Regional Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Tim Duff '^^ 

Attorney 

(817)222-5099 
—-I 

r - o 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVTCE 

I htensby certify ihai on this T^'day o* No^mber, 2011, ihe original and cue copy, 

rcsiKcrlr'j'Gly, of liic- forcgoinii ducuniciic were- icnt vis facslmlc and corlilicij fsluiii receipt 

requested UD: 

Pcderai Ayja(ion.'^dmini&!r£tior ^ 2 

SOO indvpendonco Avenue S.V:. &-^ 

Washington. DC 20^ ^ o o 

Alln: Hc-arrg Dockt; Clerti. AGC -430 '—' 

Wilbur Wricphi Buiiding - SwiG 2W10OIJ\ ~~"^ 

FAX:;[>2^23-L.123 r- = 

c-n 

Jonathan T, lindc <=> 

Senior Counrtei - Regula^jiy ^ ^ 

UnilESi /^'diiiEisGnd 

CcnL'nonlal AiriliL's, lf»c. ^D 

7? W. Wacfctr Drive - 16"' Flocr ^ 

ailcayo, IL606(;-1 O " 

FAX 312-997-8103 g 

Thomas Newtor Briiing, l^spondent's Counsel (—, 

Managing AKcnnty. RL-gulatar,' ^Mlcirs c a 

United i*iiiifnfs aiiJ j ^ 

Continenlal A'riines. inc. ^ 

77 W. VJack^r Drive- Ki* Pioor ^ 

OiicjMjo, ]L eG601 

FA>;-.312-£:'9?^103 

The HDnorabfe Richard C. Goodwin, 

/^^lmiiiis)ralii/i; Law Judge 

U.S. GepartmeritcfTranspartation 

Office of Hearings, M-2a 

120C r-Jcw Jer.tey Avi:nije, S.E. 

EaGtEiilding, GrGund PIIKM., Rocm3ir;-320 

W^.<^^^ni]^CJ^, DC 2OS90 

F/|J(: 202-366-7535 

Alcc n C. AVMIO Frorroin/'incJj'st 

FedoioJ Avialicn /^minislralion 

SnucfiwtJsl Regieli 

P:8l?-222-50e7 

F: 617-222-5002 

Daltxi: Not/emberV 2011
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 13, 2021

No. 04-21-00265-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.M.S. AND J.R.S., CHILDREN

From the 454th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18-11-25367-CV

Honorable Vivian Torres, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The pro se appellant’s motion for access to the appellate record is GRANTED. The 

Clerk of this court is instructed to promptly send appellant a copy of the clerk’s record and 

reporter’s record in this appeal for use in preparing an appellant’s brief. Appellant’s pro se 

motion for an extension of time to file the appellant’s brief is also GRANTED. The pro se 

appellant’s brief is due to be filed in this court no later than twenty (20) days from the date of 

this order.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of December, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
#### 1631.205-77 FEHBP start-up and other nonrecurring costs.

Precontract costs (FAR 31.205-32) shall be allowed only to the extent provided for by advance agreement in accordance with FAR 31.109.
1846.671 Contract quality assurance on shipments between contractors. ( a ) The supplier's commercial shipping document/packing list shall indicate performance of required CQA actions at subcontract level. The following entries shall be made on the document/packing list: Required CQA of items has been performed. (Signature of Authorized Government Representative) (Date) (Typed Name and Office)
( b ) Distribution for Government purposes shall be one copy each— ( 1 ) With shipment;
( 2 ) For the Government representative at consignee (via mail); and
( 3 ) For the Government representative at consignor.
#### Harold Pace et al., Plaintiffs, v. New York City Transit Authority et al., Defendants, and Viola Wallace, Appellant. (Action No. I.) Sydney D. Rosenberg et al., Plaintiffs, v. Viola Wallace, Appellant, and Justice James, Respondent, et al., Defendant. (Action No. II.) Estella Z. Bertrand, Plaintiff, v. Viola Wallace, Appellant, et al., Defendants. (Action No. III.) Willie M. Pope, Respondent, v. New York City Transit Authority et al., Defendants, and Viola Wallace, Appellant. (Action No. IV.) Grace Rice, Plaintiff, v. Viola Wallace, Appellant. (Action No. V.)

—In five negligence actions to recover damages for personal injury, Viola Wallace, a defendant in all five actions, appeals: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 24, 1962, which denied her motion to consolidate such actions for joint trial in the Supreme Court (Civ. Prac. Act, § 96); and (2) from an order of said court, dated June 15, 1962, which denied her motion for “reargument”. Order of June 15, 1962 reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant Wallace payable by the respondents Pope and Justice James; and motion to consolidate the five actions granted. Appeal from the first order of April 24, 1962 dismissed. That order was superseded by the later order of June 15, 1962. While nominally such later order denied a motion for “reargument,” actually it denied a renewed motion for consolidation based on new facts, to wit, the alleged limited liability insurance of the defendants Wallace and Leo James. The later order is treated accordingly. It is, therefore, appealable and supersedes the first order. These several actions arose out of a collision between a private automobile and a New York City Transit Authority bus. At the time of the collision, all the plaintiffs were passengers in one or the other of such vehicles. The private automobile was owned by the defendant Viola Wallace and was operated by the defendant Leo James. The defendant (in Action No. II) named *Justice*James is alleged to have contributed to or to have caused the collision by reason of his “drag-racing” in a *third*vehicle (his own) with the Wallace automobile. In our opinion, under all the circumstances, the denial of consolidation was an improvident exercise of discretion. Since all the actions arose out of the same accident and (except for the question of damages) involve the same issues and presumably the identical witnesses, the motion to consolidate should have been granted *(Batz*v. *Economy Cotton Goods Stores,*263 N. Y. 252, 254; *Kelly*v. *John Vogel, Inc.,*279 App. Div. 797). None of the parties opposing the consolidation has shown any substantial prejudice by reason of the claimed extra delay which may ensue before the consolidated actions are reached for trial. In our opinion, the added delay, if any, will be inconsequential and the benefits to be derived from the consolidation far exceed the burdens which it may impose. Beldoek, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### 1305.404-1 Release procedures.

The designee authorized to release long-range acquisition estimates is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
#### 1833.106-70 Solicitation provision.

The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1852.233-70 in all solicitations.

[62 FR 11108, Mar. 11, 1997, as amended at 80 FR 36722, June 26, 2015]
No. 8186.

#### Jones *v.*Jones.

(Decided September 29, 1903.)

Error .to Circuit Court of Scioto county.

*Mr. Nelson W. Evans*and *Mr. Frank W. Moulton,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. James 8. Thomas*and *Messrs. Bannon & Ban-non,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.
#### Mary Corcoran, Appellant, v. Joseph T. O’Brien, Respondent. Mary Corcoran, Appellant, v. Kaye’s Auto Exchange, Inc., Respondent.

Appeals dismissed as academic, without costs (See *Corcoran*v. *O’Brien,*21 A D 2d 838). No opinion. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
J~,~ED ST,ql,S 

a UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

z •~1~~► 0 _ 44 PROS,G~\ 

P!OV 2 2 2010 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Mr. J. R. Stroble 

Manager, National TRU Program 

Carlsbad Field Office 

U.S. Department of Energy 

P.O. Box 3090 

Carlsbad, NM 88221-3090 

Dear Mr. Stroble: 

On July 29, 2010, the Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) requested, as a Tier l(T 1) change, 

that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approve the addition of 30-gallon 

containers of Fuel Examination Waste (FEW) to the previously approved remote-handled (RH) 

transuranic (TRU) debris waste stream known as AERHDM at Argonne National Laboratory 

(ANL). EPA has reviewed the information provided and approves the addition of these FEW 

containers to the ANL Waste Stream AERHDM. As a result, ANL may dispose of these FEW 

waste containers as the AERHDM waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). This approval 

also allows future addition of waste to this stream with a waste pedigree (radiological and 

physical contents) similar to the waste approved in this letter. Any other additional S3000 waste 

must be approved by EPA using the Tier 1 process. 

The enclosed report (EPA Docket No. A-98-49; II-A4-140) supports EPA's approval 

decision based on the information reviewed. 

If you have any questions regarding this approval, please contact Rajani ,loglekar at (202) 

343-9462 or Ed Feltcorn at (202) 343-9422. 

Sincerely, 

Tom Peake, Director 

Center for Waste Management and Regulations 

Enclosure 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable * Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
cc: Electronic Distribution 

Christine Gelles, DOE EM 

Alton Harris, DOE EM 

Ed Ziemianski, CBFO 

Ava Holland, CBFO QA 

Courtland Fesmire, CBFO 

Martin Navarrete, CBFO QA 

Dennis Miehls, CBFO QA 

D K Ploetz, WTS-CCP 

Mike Sensibaugh, WTS-CCP 

Mark Pearcy, WTS-CCP 

Allison Pangle, CTAC 

Porf Martinez, CTAC 

Steve Zappe, NMED
#### In the Matter of Kenneth Shaw et al., Respondents, v. Paul D. McGinnis, as Commissioner of Correction of the State of *New*York, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act and section 610 of the Correction Law, to direct the Commissioner of Correction of the State of New York to permit the petitioners, while imprisoned, to hold religious services, the Commissioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated December 27, 1961 and entered January 5, 1962, which *inter ulla*directed him to assign a place in the prison where petitioners may worship together at least once a week. Order reversed on the law, without costs, and petition dismissed. No questions of fact were considered. There is no doubt that every prisoner is entitled to the opportunity to engage in religious worship, subject to such reasonable rules and regulations as may be necessary for the proper discipline and management of the prison *(Matter of Brown*v. *McGinnis,*10 N Y 2d 531). The petition here, however, fails to show that petitioners were denied such right; it does not contain any allegations showing that petitioners were members of a religious sect or denomination devoted primarily to worship of a Supreme Being; it does not show that petitioners were in fact seeking to engage in *religious*worship. Under the circumstances, there is no basis for the direction to respondent that he assign to petitioners a place where they may worship together at least once a week; nor is there any basis for granting any other relief with respect to religious worship. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### 1515.404-4 Profit.

This section implements FAR 15.404-4 and prescribes the EPA structured approach for establishing profit or fee prenegotiation objectives.
1480.901 General. ( a ) The CO can accept an offeror's written representation of being an IEE (as defined in 1480.201) only when it is submitted with an offer in response to a solicitation under the Buy Indian Act. Another interested party may challenge the representation of an offeror or contractor by filing a written challenge to the applicable CO in accordance with the procedures in 1480.902.
( b ) After receipt of offers, the CO may question the representation of any offeror in a specific offer by filing a formal objection with the CCO.
1237.7003 Solicitation provision and contract clause. ( a ) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 1252.237-71, Certification of Data, in solicitations and the clause at 1252.237-72, Prohibition on Advertising, in solicitations and contracts for training services when the content and/or presentation of the course is controlled by DOT.
( b ) The contracting officer shall incorporate the successful offeror's certified data into any resultant contract(s). Certified data may be adopted by reference, if the contracting officer determines it contains sufficient descriptive information (*i.e.,* dated material such as resumes, company and/or personnel qualifications) to reliably describe the certified data submitted.
#### 1304.805-70 Storage, handling, and disposal of contract files.

CAM 1304.804 supplements FAR 4.805 with the Department's procedures for storage, handling, and disposal of contract files.
#### 1815.407 Special cost or pricing areas.
#### Charles J. Faller, Respondent, v. Frank Dessarro et al., Defendants, and City of Utica, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party, and motion granted, without costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff having failed to make a proper showing to retain venue in Erie County pursuant to section 187 of the Civil Practice Act, we conclude that section 242 of the Second Class Cities Law is here controlling and the place of trial should be changed to Oneida County. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term denying motion by defendant City of Utica to change the place of trial from Erie County to Oneida County.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 1436

NATALYA HAMPEL , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. STATE OF MARYLAND; UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND; OFFICE ON AGING; RICHARD LEWIS, M.D.; DEBORAH SKILLMAN; UJNAI IMAIA, MD; SAFIYAH ARDAM SALMAN, MD; ASHLEY KIMBER, LCPC; PHIL LEMBO, LCSWC; MISS MONA; BRADLEY STOVER , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. ( 1:22

- cv - 01115

- SAG )

Submitted : January 30, 2024 Decided: February 2, 2024

Before KING , AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by un published per curiam opinion

.
Natalya Tamara Hampel , Appellant Pro Se. Michael Anthony Damiano , SHAW, BARNES & DAMIANO, P.A. , Hunt Valley, Maryland , f or Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1436 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Natalya Hampel seeks to appeal the district court’s order s dismissing her complaint and denying reconsideration. We dismiss in part and affirm in part. In civil cases, pa rties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 2 0 5, 2 1 4 ( 2007 ).
The district court entered its dismissal order on January 5, 2023

. Hampel filed the notice of appeal on April 2 0, 2023

. Because Hampel failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, * we dismiss the appeal as to
the dismissal order

. Turning to the district court’s denial of Hampel’s motion for reconsideration, from which Hampel timely appealed, we have reviewed the record and discern no reversible

error . Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order. Hampel v. Maryland , No. 1:22

- cv 01115

- SAG (D. Md. Apr. 10, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART

* While Hampel filed a letter on February 8, 2023, that the district court construed as a motion for reconsideration, it did not toll the appeal period because it was not filed within 28 days of the entry of the underlying dismissal order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). USCA4 Appeal: 23-1436 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
### §6705. Line item

The President's proposed budget to Congress for the first fiscal year beginning after November 28, 1990, and for each subsequent fiscal year shall specifically identify funds to be spent on Forest Service international cooperation and assistance.

(Pub. L. 101–624, title XXIV, §2406, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4060.)
#### 1852.219-74 [Reserved]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

 

R & A BAILEY & CO., ) 

 ) Civil Action No. 11-cv-07917 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) Judge Elaine E. Bucklo 

v. ) 

 ) Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert 

THE ELI’S CHEESECAKE COMPANY, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

DEFENDANT THE ELI’S CHEESECAKE COMPANY’S RULE 7.1 CERTIFICATION

AND NOTIFICATION AS TO AFFILLIATES UNDER LR 3.2

 In compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 and LR 3.2, Defendant The Eli’s Cheesecake 

Company states that it has no parent corporation and no other corporation owns 5% or more of 

its stock. 

Dated: December 5, 2011 By: /s/Max Shaftal 

Max Shaftal (#6182223) 

Patzik, Frank & Samotny Ltd. 

150 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 1500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

(312) 551-8300 

mshaftal@pfs-law.com 

Attorney for Defendant The Eli’s Cheesecake 

Company 

Case: 1:11-cv-07917 Document #: 16 Filed: 12/05/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:41
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned counsel of record hereby certifies that, on December 5, 2011, a true and 

correct copy of DEFENDANT THE ELI’S CHEESECAKE COMPANY’S RULE 7.1 

CERTIFICATION AND NOTIFICATION AS TO AFFILLIATES UNDER LR 3.2 was filed 

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send e-mail 

notification of such filing to all attorneys of record in this action. 

Dated: December 5, 2011 By: /s/Max Shaftal 

Case: 1:11-cv-07917 Document #: 16 Filed: 12/05/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:42
Order entered February 28, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-11-01594-CR

DAMON ROBERTSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-17405-K

ORDER

Because appellant is not entitled to hybrid representation, we DENY his February 25, 

2013 pro se motion to file supplemental brief. See Rudd v. State, 616 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. Crim. 

App. [Panel Op.] 1981). 

/Douglas S. Lang/

DOUGLAS S. LANG

PRESIDING JUSTICE
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 30, 2013

t0923

Order 

Clerk

September 30, 2013

146999

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF SHELBY,

Plaintiff/Defendant-Appellant,

v SC: 146999

COA: 297190 

Macomb CC: 2007-003964-CK

TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION GROUP 2007-004647-CK

SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant/Plaintiff-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 5, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

VIVIANO, J., did not participate because he presided over this case in the circuit 

court.