alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Kenneth Walters, Appellant, v George Nicklin et al., Respondents.

[814 NYS2d 735]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated November 30, 2004, as, upon renewal, denied his motion, inter alia, to set aside the jury award as inadequate.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

On the afternoon of May 24, 2001 a car owned by the defendant George Nicklin and driven by the defendant Katherine A. Nicklin collided with the plaintiffs unmarked patrol car at an intersection in Garden City. The plaintiff, a police officer, sustained injuries to his neck, knee, back, and hand. Following the liability phase of a bifurcated trial, the jury determined that the defendant driver violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1142 (a) and that such violation had “a practical and reasonable connection to the accident.” In accordance with the strict liability imposed under General Municipal Law § 205-e, the jury was not permitted to reach the issue of the plaintiffs possible negligence. Following the damages phase of the trial, the jury found that the plaintiff had not established that he sustained a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member, although he did sustain a significant limitation of use of a body function or system. The jury awarded the plaintiff the sums of $50,000 for past pain and suffering, $20,500 for past lost earnings, and $25,000 for future pain and suffering over a period of five years, but awarded no damages for future lost earnings.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, the jury award was *783not against the weight of the evidence. The plaintiff’s main physical complaints following the accident were problems with his neck and right knee which eventually necessitated arthroscopic surgery to reconstruct his anterior cruciate ligament. However, all of the testimony, including the plaintiffs own and that of his medical experts, indicated that the plaintiff had sustained neck and knee injuries before the accident, and had undergone two prior arthroscopic surgeries on the menisci in his right knee. Moreover, the plaintiff had been informed, as early as 1994, that his anterior cruciate ligament was almost completely torn and should be reconstructed. Accordingly, the jury could reasonably have concluded that the majority of the plaintiffs injuries resulted from preexisting conditions *(see Lolik v Big V Supermarkets,*86 NY2d 744 [1995]; *Kravitz v City of New York,*300 AD2d 362 [2002]; *cf. Ciatto v Lieberman,*1 AD3d 553 [2003]). Moreover, conflicts in the medical testimony were properly left to the jury to resolve *(see Voiclis v International Assn. of Machinist & Aerospace Workers, Suffolk Lodge No. 1470,*239 AD2d 339 [1997]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Miller, Adams and Skelos, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

GARY LEE SEYMOUR,

Plaintiff,

v. 

RICKY D. DIXON,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:20-cv-214-TKW/MJF

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff Gary Lee Seymour and 

Defendant Ricky D. Dixon, Secretary of the Florida Department of 

Corrections, hereby jointly stipulate to dismissal of this proceeding with 

prejudice with each party to bear its own attorney’s fees and costs. 

Respectfully submitted this 10th day of April 2023. 

/s/ Erik Kverne*

Erik Kverne (FBN 99829)

Office of the Attorney General

The Capitol, PL-01

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

Tel. (850) 414-3300

erik.kverne@myfloridalegal.com

Attorneys for Defendant

/s/ James V. Cook

James V. Cook (FBN 966843)

Law Office of James Cook

314 West Jefferson Street

Tallahassee, FL 32301

Tel. (850) 222-8080

cookjv@gmail.com

-andCase 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 102 Filed 04/10/23 Page 1 of 2
2

/s/ James M. Slater

James M. Slater (FBN 111779)

Slater Legal PLLC

113 S. Monroe Street

Tallahassee, FL 32302

Tel: (305) 523-9023

james@slater.legal

Attorneys for Plaintiff

*Signed by James Slater with Erik Kverne’s permission. 

Case 5:20-cv-00214-TKW-MJF Document 102 Filed 04/10/23 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000796529
<NAME> HANOVER 12/31/97

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           7,139
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,055
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,194
<PP&E>                                       5,032,434
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,032,434
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,194
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          117,826
<BONDS>                                         13,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       25,570,053
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (25,675,685)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,194
<SALES>                                         71,565
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               310,657
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,578
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               184,909
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  72
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                122,098
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            122,098
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   122,098
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-17-00332-CV

KATRINA AHRENS,

Appellant

v.

DALLAS POLICE ASSOCIATION, DPA'S 

ASSIST THE OFFICER FOUNDATION, INC., 

FREDERICK FRAZIER, CITY OF DALLAS, 

AND ZAC PRODUCTS II, LLC,

Appellees

From the 18th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-C201700365

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Katrina Ahrens appealed the trial court’s Order Granting Emergency Motion for 

Protective Order signed on October 3, 2017, regarding sealing or barring the disclosure 

of the depositions of a defendant and a non-party in the underlying case. The trial court 

subsequently recused itself, and the matter was transferred to a new trial court. In orders 

issued August 22, 2018 and October 17, 2018, we abated this appeal for the new trial 

court’s consideration of the issues decided by the former trial court’s October 3, 2017 
Ahrens v. Dallas Police Association, et al. Page 2

order. 

By a Joint Status Report, we have been informed by the parties that they have 

resolved the issues presented in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is reinstated and 

dismissed as moot.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal reinstated and dismissed 

Opinion delivered and filed November 7, 2018

[CV06]
19.1307 Price evaluation preference for HUBZone small business concerns.       (a) 						            The price evaluation preference for HUBZone small business concerns shall be used in acquisitions conducted using full and open competition. The preference shall not be used-                                                         (1) 								                Where price is not a selection factor so that a price evaluation preference would not be considered (*e.g.,* Architect/Engineer acquisitions);                                                            (2) 								                Where all fair and reasonable offers are accepted (*e.g.,* the award of multiple award schedule contracts); or                                                            (3) 								                For the reserved portion of a solicitation for a multiple-award contract (see 19.503).                                                                             (b) 						            The contracting officer shall give offers from HUBZone small business concerns a price evaluation preference by adding a factor of 10 percent to all offers, except-                                                         (1) 								                Offers from HUBZone small business concerns that have not waived the evaluation preference; or                                                            (2) 								                Otherwise successful offers from small business concerns.                                                                             (c) 						            The factor of 10 percent shall be applied on a line item basis or to any group of items on which award may be made. Other evaluation factors, such as transportation costs or rent-free use of Government property, shall be added to the offer to establish the base offer before adding the factor of 10 percent.                                          (d) 						            When the two highest rated offerors are a HUBZone small business concern and a large business, and the evaluated offer of the HUBZone small business concern is equal to the evaluated offer of the large business after considering the price evaluation preference, the contracting officer shall award the contract to the HUBZone small business concern.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 19.13 - Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Program
2004-2031.

#### In re C.R.

Cuyahoga App. No. 82891, 2004-Ohio-4465. Reported at 108 Ohio St.3d 369, 2006-Ohio-1191, 843 N.E.2d 1188. On motion for reconsideration and motion to strike motion for reconsideration. Motion for reconsideration denied.

Resnick, Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

Motion to strike denied as moot.
1 

### Whalen, Marilyn

From: Poentis, Aaron Y CIV NAVFAC HI, EV <aaron.poentis@navy.mil>

Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 6:26 PM

To: Richard Takaba (richard.takaba@doh.haw aii.gov); roxanne.kwan@doh.hawaii.gov

Cc: stuart.yamada@doh.hawaii.gov; Christiansen, Steven H CIV NAVFAC HI, PRP41;

Shimabuku, June T. CIV NAVFAC HI, EV4; Kishaba, Raelynn I CIV NAVFAC HI, EV4;

Tsutsui, Bruce O CIV NAVFAC HI, OPHE3; Nakamura, Peter M CIV NAVFAC HI, EV1;

Mizuno, Arleen M CIV NAVFAC HI, PRJ412; Lovgren, Andrew C LT NAVSUP, 700; Linder,

Steven; Pallarino, Bob

Subject: RED HILL STATUS REPORT - JULY 29, 2014

Importance: High

Hi Richard/Roxanne:

Attached are the updated information for the weekly progress report from Navy Region Hawaii, and the Fleet Logistic

Center Pearl Harbor for the week of July 29, 2014. In a process to ease reading, only sections with changes will be

annotated.

1. Preliminary Work Plan

a. Item 1

‐ Models to estimate downward vertical migration of free product.

b. Item 2

‐ Methods or options for non

‐ invasive scanning of basalt to determine area and volume of contaminant

mass prior to any drilling investigation.

c. Item 3

‐ Methods and locations for borings to most efficiently characterize the extent of contamination.

2. Release Response Action Items (initiate immediately, complete as soon as practicable)

a. Action 1

‐ Provide a schedule for the ventilation of Tank 5 and an estimated date to commence the investigation

of release point(s) within Tank 5.

The contractor's repair Work Plan has been received and is being reviewed.

b. Action 2

‐ The rate of vertical migration for the released JP

‐ 8 free product is unknown. Information from the

previously collected basalt cores could be used for initial modeling of vertical migration. This information is necessary to

protect drinking water resources from petroleum contamination. Prepare models for petroleum JP

‐ 8 releases of 10,000,

20,000 and 30,000 gallons from points at 25% intervals from the bottom to the top of Tank 5. Progress in developing

these models should be included in the preliminary work plan.

c. Action 3

‐ Removal of petroleum free product from the area outside the tank will reduce downward migration of

the released JP

‐ 8 free product. Characterization of the free product plume and recovery of free product with increased

monitoring are required to address this plume.

d. Action 4

‐ Additional studies and procedures are required to address the potential and impact of any future

releases from the USTs within the Complex. This will require new financial and personnel resources to complete.

Funding for the preliminary work plan and all necessary following work is critical.

The Navy received DOH and EPA comments on the Draft Work Plan for Installation of Two Sentinel Wells.2 The Draft Site Characterization Work Plan/ Sampling and Analysis Plan will be submitted to the DOH the week of 28 July

2014.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Vr,

Aaron
§ 4288.111 Biofuel eligibility. To be eligible for this Program, a biofuel must meet the requirements specified in paragraph (a) of this section, and must not be listed in paragraph (b) of this section, and the biofuel's producer must provide additional information as may be requested by the Agency under paragraph (c) of this section. ( a ) *Eligible advanced biofuel.* For an advanced biofuel to be eligible, each of the following conditions must be met, as applicable: ( 1 ) The advanced biofuel must meet the definition of advanced biofuel and be produced in a State;
( 2 ) The advanced biofuel must be a solid, liquid, or gaseous advanced biofuel;
( 3 ) The advanced biofuel must be a Final Product; and
( 4 ) The advanced biofuel must be sold as an advanced biofuel through an arm's length transaction to a third party.
( b ) *Ineligible fuels.* Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, for the purposes of this Program, the following fuels, and as may be supplemented by the Agency through the publication of documents in the Federal Register, are not eligible for payment: ( 1 ) Flared gases;
( 2 ) Fuels derived from paper milling and other processes commonly ascribed to wood products manufacturing and generically referred to as “liquor” (*e.g.,* black liquor, red liquor, brown liquor, white liquor, green liquor, etc.), which typically are blended with diesel and burned as boiler fuel;
( 3 ) Biofuels produced from solid eligible renewable biomass primarily by mechanical means, whether by hand or by machine, such as collecting, baling, bundling, chopping, screening, and chipping of the renewable biomass. Examples of ineligible biofuels that are not eligible advanced biofuels for the purposes of this subpart include, but are not limited to, baled energy grasses, chipped or chunked woody biomass, and chopped or split firewood; and
( 4 ) Any advanced biofuel produced under bailment or third-party production contract and/or any variation thereof.
( c ) *Eligibility determination.* The Agency will determine a biofuel's eligibility for payment under this Program. If an applicant's original submittal is not sufficient to verify a biofuel's eligibility, the Agency will notify the applicant, in writing, as soon as practicable after receipt of the application. This notification will identify, at a minimum, the additional information being requested to enable the Agency to determine the biofuel's eligibility and a timeframe in which to supply the information. ( 1 ) If the applicant provides the requested information to the Agency within the specified timeframe, the Agency will determine the biofuel's eligibility for the upcoming fiscal year.
( 2 ) If the applicant does not provide the requested information to the Agency within the specified timeframe, the biofuel will not be eligible for payment under this Program in the upcoming fiscal year. Applicants may elect to include such biofuels in the application form submitted during the next sign-up period.
[76 FR 7967, Feb. 11, 2011, as amended at 84 FR 71302, Dec. 27, 2019]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 72801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29832]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1722]


Reissuance of the Subzone Grant of Authority for Subzone 70M, 
General Motors Corporation, Lansing, MI

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    The Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board) has considered the 
request submitted by the Greater Detroit Foreign Trade Zone, Inc, 
grantee of FTZ 70 in Detroit, Michigan and current sponsor of Subzone 
70M at the General Motors Corporation (GM) facilities in Lansing, 
Michigan, for reissuance of the grant of authority for subzone status 
at the GM facilities to the Capital Region Airport Authority, grantee 
of FTZ 275 in Lansing, Michigan, which has accepted such reissuance 
subject to approval by the FTZ Board. Upon review, the Board finds that 
the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are 
satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest.
    Therefore, the Board approves the application and recognizes the 
Capital Region Airport Authority as the grantee of the General Motors 
Corporation subzone, which is hereby re-designated as Subzone 275A, 
subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 
400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on November 15, 2010.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29832 Filed 11-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

BRYAN KEITH EDMONDSON,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No: 5:03cv99/MCR/EMT

JAMES V. CROSBY,

Respondent.

______________________________/

O R D E R

This cause is before the court on Petitioner’s notice of appeal (Doc. 38), motion for

certificate of appealability (Doc. 39), and motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal

(Doc. 40). Unless a certificate of appealability is issued, Petitioner may not take an appeal

from the final order denying § 2254 relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Fed.R.App.P.

22(b)(1). Such a certificate may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2).

After review of the file, the court concludes that because Petitioner has not made

a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and for the reasons set forth

in this Court’s April 18, 2005 order (Doc. 36) adopting and incorporating the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation filed on March 11, 2005 (Doc. 32), a certificate of

appealability will be denied. For the same reasons, there is no good faith basis for an

appeal, and Petitioner is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. Fed.R.App.P. 24(a).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Petitioner’s notice of appeal (Doc. 38) and motion for certificate of

appealability (Doc. 39), are DENIED and no certificate shall issue. 

Case 5:03-cv-00099-MCR-EMT Document 42 Filed 05/25/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 5:03cv99/MCR/EMT

2. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Doc. 40) is

DENIED. Petitioner shall pay the $255.00 filing fee within THIRTY (30) DAYS of the date

of docketing of this order.

DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of May, 2005.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:03-cv-00099-MCR-EMT Document 42 Filed 05/25/05 Page 2 of 2
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-18-0000523

17-OCT-2018

08:24 AM
§ 42.141 Obtaining Operating Characteristic (OC) curve information for skip lot sampling and inspection. The Operating Characteristic (OC) curve information (probability of acceptance) for skip lot sampling and inspection procedures described in § 42.121 is easily obtained from the single curve in § 42.142. The procedure for using the curve in § 42.142 is as follows: ( a ) Select any sampling plan for normal condition of container inspection from Table I or Table I-A of § 42.109.
( b ) For a given Quality of Submitted Lots, 100p, find the Percent of Lots Expected to be Accepted, Pa from the respective OC curve in § 42.140.
( c ) Refer to § 42.142 with this Percent of Lots Expected to be Accepted, Pa, and read the new Percent of Lots Expected to be Accepted, Pas, which results when using these skip lot procedures.
For example, let's assume the lot size is 6,001 to 12,000 containers, and we use the single sampling plan of size 168 for normal inspection (Table I of § 42.109) along with an AQL for total defects of 6.5. The OC curve for this sampling plan is curve N and R3. Also, assume that the quality of the lot is 6.5 defects per hundred units. From curve N and R3, then, the Pa is determined to be 95 percent. Then refer to the graph in § 42.142 and locate Pa of 95 percent along the horizontal axis. From this point, proceed vertically to the curve and then horizontally to the left to the vertical axis. From this point on the vertical axis, Pas is determined to be approximately 98[1] percent for skip lot sampling and inspection. [41 FR 42641, Sept. 28, 1976. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977 and 45 FR 69424, Oct. 21, 1980 and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981] Footnotes -
42.141
[1] This slight increase of Pas over Pa results because all the lots offered for inspection are no longer being inspected. Some lots are being “skipped”, and thereby accepted, which would have been rejected if inspected. The largest increase in Pa which will occur using skip lot sampling is approximately 4 percent. It is for this reason that skip lot sampling procedures are applied only in instances where past production quality has been consistently high—as evidenced by the requirement to have 10 consecutively acceptable lots prior to a reduction in sampling rate—and where all requirements in § 42.120 also have been met.