alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Stephen Levine et al., Appellants, v GBE Contracting Corp. et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[768 NYS2d 357]

*597In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dollard, J.), dated July 22, 2002, which, inter alia, granted the motion of the defendant GBE Contracting Corp. and the cross motion of the defendant Juarez Berger for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The injured plaintiffs vehicle collided with a truck driven by the defendant Juarez Berger, an employee of the defendant GBE Contracting Corp. (hereinafter GBE) after the truck made a U-turn on the New York State Thruway.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the truck was “actually engaged in work on a highway” pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) *(see Riley v County of Broome,*95 NY2d 455, 461-463 [2000]; *Skolnick v Town of Hempstead,*278 AD2d 481, 482 [2000]). Thus, liability will attach only if the defendants acted in conscious “ ‘disregard of a known or obvious risk that was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow’ ” *(Saarinen v Kerr,*84 NY2d 494, 501 [1994], quoting Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 34, at 213 [5th ed]; *see Riley v County of Broome, supra*at 465-466; *Bliss v State of New York,*95 NY2d 911, 913 [2000]). The defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the truck “was being operated in reckless disregard of others resulting in a risk so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow” *(Farese v Town of Carmel,*296 AD2d 436, 437 [2002]; *see Saarinen v Kerr, supra; Skolnick v Town of Hempstead, supra).*Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted GBE’s motion and Berger’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. Florio, J.P., Friedmann, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.
No. 12-8109.

#### Jackson *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
## NO. 12

- 19

- 00084

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

VICTOR D. DUNN,

APPELLANT

V.

SELECT GENERAL AGENC Y, LLC

AND PROGRESSIVE COUN TY

MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

APPELLEE S §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO

. 2

GREGG COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c).

On March 6, 2019 , the C lerk of this Court notified Appellant that the filing fee in this

appeal is due. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5. Appellant was informed that failure to remit the filing fee

on or before March 18, 2019 , would result in the Court’s taking appropriate action, including

dismissal of the case without further notice. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c). The date for remitting

the filing fee has passed, and Appellant has not complied with the Court’s request.

Because Appellant has fail ed, after notice, to comply with Rule 5, the appeal is dismissed

.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c).

Opinion delivered March 29, 2019.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MARCH 2 9 , 2019

NO. 12

- 19

- 00084

- CV

VICTOR D. DUNN,
Appellant

V.

SELECT GENERAL AGENC Y, LLC AND PROGRESSI VE

COUNTY MUTUAL INSURA NCE COMPANY,

Appellee s

Appeal from the County Court at Law No

. 2

of Gregg County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2018

- 0233

- C)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that this

appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed ; and that this decision be certified to the court below

for observance.

By per curiam opinion

.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. an d Neeley, J.
|                                                                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                    
|View History:                                                                                     
|                                                                                                  
|No chart available.                                                                               
|No chart available.                                                                               
|                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                  
|Price of Freeport, TX Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Singapore (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                  

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2020                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     | W   |     |    
|2021                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |     |     | W   |     |     |     |     |    
|2023                                                                                                                              |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     | W   |     |     |    
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
S. 1764

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three

An Act

To provide for the extension of certain authority for the Marshal of the Supreme

Court and the Supreme Court Police.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section

9(c) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act relating to the policing of the

building and grounds of the Supreme Court of the United States,’’

approved August 18, 1949 (40 U.S.C. 13n(c)), is amended in the

first sentence by striking out ‘‘1993’’ and inserting in lieu thereof

‘‘1996’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
No. 12-7947.

#### Patterson *v.*Illinois.

App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
# Distribution’s Pulgar presented commander’s coin

/ Published March 22, 2019
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Business Development’s Shala Pulgar received a commander’s coin during DLA Distribution Commanding Officer Navy Rear Adm. Kevin M. Jones’ employee recognition event Feb. 26.

Pulgar was the Distribution lead in supporting DLA Headquarters Current Operations in the year-long United States Marine Corps Supply Management Unit Proof of Principle.  

The PoP focused on placing DLA-owned material (approximately 1,200 national item identification numbers) forward at the USMC SMU at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina and utilized Distribution Standard System, Standard Operating Procedures, quality at entry oversight and accountable officer support.  

Business Development Deputy Director Jim McCormack said, “Shala did an exceptional job synchronizing all Distribution-related support ensuring we met all of the requirements in support of this initiative.”
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6435

NICHOLAS WARNER JONES, a/k/a Charles Jones,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PARRIS N. GLENDENING, Governor; BISHOP L.

ROBINSON, Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services; RICHARD A. LANHAM, SR.,

Commissioner of Division of Correction;

WILLIAM L. SMITH, Warden of the Jessup, Maryland House of Correction-Annex,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-96-

620-L)

Submitted: August 15, 1996 Decided: August 20, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Nicholas Warner Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we dismiss Appellant's claims raising allegations concerning: (1) restrictions in using and wearing religious

clothing and the high cost of toiletries, stationery, and health

care; (2) guard assaults on August 27, 1993, and February 19, 1996;

and (3) deprivations of liberty and property occurring between

February 16 and February 21, 1996. The district court's dismissal

without prejudice of these claims is not appealable because Appellant could amend his complaint to cure the defects in his pleadings. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers' Local Union 392, 10

F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).

We affirm the dismissal of the remaining claims on the reasoning of the district court. Jones v. Glendening, No. CA-96-620-L (D.

Md. Mar. 12, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
#### Galopy Corporation International, N.V., Respondent-Appellant, v Deutsche Bank, A.G., Appellant-Respondent.

[51 NYS3d 400]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered August 18, 2016, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the causes of action for promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and money had and received, and denied the motion to dismiss as to the cause of action for breach of contract, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion as to the breach of contract cause of action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

*417The breach of contract claim is barred by the statute of frauds. The alleged oral contract had a settlement date of July 10, 2011, and therefore could not be performed within a year *(see*General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]). The possibility of its being terminated earlier does not remove the contract from the scope of the statute of frauds *(D & N Boening v Kirsch Beverages,*63 NY2d 449, 456-457 [1984]). Unlike the situation in *Financial Structures Ltd. v UBS AG*(77 AD3d 417 [1st Dept 2010]), which involved an oral agreement with “methods of acceleration” that “would . . . advance [ ] the period of fulfillment” *(id.*at 418 [internal quotation marks omitted]), the termination provision in this case unwound and canceled the transaction.

The promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment claims are duplicative of the breach of contract claim *(see Brown v Brown,*12 AD3d 176 [1st Dept 2004]). A claim for money had and received lies only in the absence of an agreement *(Parsa v State of New York,*64 NY2d 143, 148 [1984]).

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Gische, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.
No. 12-8853.

#### Stewart *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Thomas Summer et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Ruckus 85 Corp., Respondent, and Yvette Georges Deeton, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[57 NYS3d 8]

Judgment and order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Kathryn E. Freed, J.), entered September 3, 2015, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granting plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment on their first cause of action, denying defendant Yvette Georges Deeton’s motion to dismiss the first cause of action, denying Deeton’s motion for summary judgment as to her first counterclaim, and dismissing the complaint against defendant Ruckus 85 Corp., unanimously modified, on the law, to deny Ruckus’s motion to dismiss the complaint against it, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Appeals (Grooms defendants) from aforementioned judgment and order and judgment (one paper), unanimously dismissed, without costs, as abandoned.

It is undisputed that the December 16, 1998 amendments to the corporation’s bylaws and certificate of incorporation required a legend on the stock certificates concerning the lack of a board of directors and the supermajority requirements for a quorum and to transact corporate business, which was never included on the stock certificates provided to three of the named plaintiffs, in violation of Business Corporation Law §§ 620 (b) and 616 (c). Accordingly, the court properly refused to apply the amendments *(see Model, Roland & Co. v Industrial Acoustics Co.,*16 NY2d 703, 705 [1965]; *Matter of Rye Psychiatric Hosp. Ctr.,*66 NY2d 333, 337-338 [1985]).

The corporation was a necessary party to the derivative claims since any recovery on those claims is for its benefit *(see Tobias v Tobias,*192 AD2d 438, 440 [1st Dept 1993]).

We have considered Deeton’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Friedman, J.R, Richter, Moskowitz, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.
No. 12-7870.

#### Henderson *v.*Mississippi.

Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-8624.

#### Schmitz *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 3, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 30224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14692]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[DA 98-988; CC Docket No: 90-571]


Notice of Publix Network Corporation's Telecommunications Relay 
Services (TRS) Application for Certification Accepted

Released: May 22, 1998.
    Notice is hereby given that on April 15, 1998, Publix Network 
Corporation filed an application with the Commission for Interstate 
Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Certification. The Commission's 
rules state that TRS providers eligible for receiving payments from the 
Interstate TRS Fund are: (1) TRS facilities operated under contract 
with and/or by certified state TRS programs pursuant to 64.605; or (2) 
TRS facilities owned by or operated under contract with a common 
carrier providing interstate services operated pursuant to 64.604; or 
(3) Interstate common carriers offering TRS pursuant to 64.604. Publix 
Network Corporation must demonstrate that its TRS program complies with 
the Commission's rules for the provision of TRS, pursuant to Title IV 
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 47 U.S.C. 225. These 
rules are codified at 47 CFR 64.601-605.
    Copy of application for certification is available for public 
inspection at the Commission's Common Carrier Bureau, Network Services 
Division, Room 235, 2000 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., Monday 
through Thursday, 8:30 AM to 3:00 PM (closed 12:30 to 1:30 PM) and the 
FCC Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 
daily, from 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM. Interested persons may file comments 
with respect to that application on or before June 22, 1998. Comments 
should reference file number, NSD-L-98-65. One original and five copies 
of all comments must be sent to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. 
Two copies also should be sent to the Network Services Division, Common 
Carrier Bureau, 2000 M Street, N.W., Room 235, Washington, D.C. 20554.
    For further information, contact Al McCloud, (202) 418-2499, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0b6a66686867647e6f4b6d6868256c647d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e0f030d0d02011b0a2e080d0d40090118">[email protected]</span></a>, or Kris Monteith, (202) 418-1098, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#03686e6c6d77666a77436560602d646c75"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a4cfc9cbcad0c1cdd0e4c2c7c78ac3cbd2">[email protected]</span></a>, 
(TTY: 202-418-0484), at the Network Services Division, Common Carrier 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission.

Federal Communications Commission.

    Dated: May 27, 1998.
Kent Nilsson,
Deputy Chief, Network Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau.
[FR Doc. 98-14692 Filed 6-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
|                                                                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                    
|View History:                                                                                     
|                                                                                                  
|Price of Elba Island, GA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Brazil (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                  
|Price of Elba Island, GA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Brazil (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                  

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan | Feb   | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | ----- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2021                                                                                                                              |     |       |     |     |     |     |     |     |     | W   |     |    
|2022                                                                                                                              |     | 13.11 |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |    
|2023                                                                                                                              |     |       | W   | W   |     |     |     |     |     |     |     | W  
|2024                                                                                                                              | W   |       |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |    
|                                                                                                                                 
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
# L_2010096EN.01000802.xml

| 16.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 96/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 96/8

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) No 158/2010 of 25 February 2010 fixing for 2010 the amount of aid in advance for private storage of butter

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 49 of 26 February 2010
  )

On page 15, Article 6(2):

for:

‘2.   Member States may waive the requirements referred to in Article 22(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 862/2008 to mark the contract number provided the store manager undertakes to enter the contract number in the register referred to in Annex I point III of that Regulation.’,

read:

‘2.   Member States may waive the requirements referred to in Article 22(1)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 826/2008 to mark the contract number provided the store manager undertakes to enter the contract number in the register referred to in Annex I point III of that Regulation.’.

---
# :: STATISTICS > Incident Type 2000 - 2009 

# ::

Incident Type 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Fixed 11,813 12,441 11,917 11,975 12,975 13,017 13,621 11,913 10,909 10,123 Unknown Sheen 4,016 4,147 3,426 3,733 3,411 3,934 3,797 4,199 4,278 4,254 Vessel 3,945 4,378 3,919 3,962 4,385 4,611 4,767 4,931 5,030 4,597 Mobile 3,597 3,216 2,942 2,947 3,192 3,215 3,267 3,297 3,238 2,854 Pipeline 1,618 1,841 1,621 1,643 1,574 1,896 1,839 1,580 1,379 1,275 Platform 1,428 1,355 1,233 1,344 1,198 1,395 1,606 1,407 1,362 1,761 Storage Tank 1,379 3,140 3,044 2,808 2,838 2,687 2,577 2,519 2,460 1,973 Railroad Non-Release 1,335 1,235 1,124 1,173 1,476 1,685 1,868 1,913 1,482 1,435 Railroad 1,332 1,241 1,200 1,074 1,276 1,532 1,451 1,390 1,649 1,306 Continuous 938 238 393 462 112 189 150 284 6 2 9 4 Aircraft 248 297 278 262 277 211 217 214 204 175 Drill/Exercise 669 789 908 743 1,073 1,223 1,578 1,584 1,829 2,039 Unknown 8 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Terrorist Non-Release 3 3 4 2 180 105 125 119 117 4 3 0 0 TOTAL INCIDENTS 32,435 34,360 32,185 32,231 33,912 35,714 36,855 35,274 33,882 31,886 Top of Page| NRC Home 

# Page 1 of 1 NRC Statistics - Incident Types

5/18/2010 https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/ContentViewer?ob j ectId=0900006480aef4

...