alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
___________

No. 95-3600

___________

Crystal Wilcox, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of North Dakota.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant-Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: June 14, 1996

 Filed: July 23, 1996

___________

Before LOKEN, ROSS, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Crystal Wilcox tripped over a metal sleeve that Wal-Mart Stores,

Inc., negligently left protruding from the sidewalk outside its new store

in Minot, North Dakota. Wilcox suffered unusually severe injuries from the

fall, requiring surgeries to fuse three vertebrae in her neck and to repair

an injured knee. She returned to her secretarial job immediately after the

April 1991 accident, worked for some months before and after the neck

surgery, but has not worked since March 1992. After trial of her

negligence claim against Wal-Mart in this diversity action, the jury found

Wal-Mart one hundred percent at fault and awarded Wilcox $56,257.51 in past

economic damages (medical expenses and lost wages), $135,089.50 in future

economic damages (loss of future earning capacity), and $650,000 in noneconomic damages (pain and suffering and permanent
 The HONORABLE PATRICK A. CONMY, United States District Judge 1

for the District of North Dakota.

-2-

physical impairment). The district court denied Wal-Mart's motion for

1

remittitur or a new trial and Wal-Mart appeals.

On appeal, Wal-Mart argues that it is entitled to a new trial on

damages because the jury's award of future economic damages was based on

nothing more than speculation as to the duration of Wilcox's work

impairments, and because the award of $650,000 in non-economic damages is

so excessive as to indicate passion or prejudice on the part of the jury.

These contentions were explicitly considered and rejected by the district

court when it denied Wal-Mart's post-trial motion. After carefully

reviewing the record on appeal, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court in its Memorandum and Order dated September 5, 1995. See

8th Cir. Rule 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 05, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, July 05, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17D0483. EARNEST LINGO v. EARLY COUNTY GIN, INC..
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2017V016
No. 12-7665.

#### Reibel *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
161 A.3d 761

#### NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. E.M., DEFENDANT-PETITIONER, AND V.C., DEFENDANT, AND J.C., AND J.J.G., DEFENDANTS. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF J.M., V.E.C., J.I.C., C.C., AND D.C., MINORS-RESPONDENTS.

March 9, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brian M. Freeman, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 340]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered June 25, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal trespass in the second degree, and sentencing him to a conditional discharge for a period of one year, with 25 days of community service, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge not included in the misdemeanor indictment was not jurisdiction-ally defective. The constitutional restriction preventing the State from indicting a defendant on one felony and then ac*556cepting a plea to a different felony with no common factual or legal basis is inapplicable here, as defendant was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, misdemeanors *(see People v Keizer,*100 NY2d 114, 119 [2003]).

Defendant’s argument that his plea to a class A misdemeanor to satisfy an indictment also charging a class A misdemeanor was invalid under CPL 220.10 (3), which provides that a defendant “may . . . enter a plea of guilty of a lesser included offense,” is unpreserved *(see People v Manuel,*143 AD3d 473 [1st Dept 2016], *lv denied*28 NY3d 1147 [2017]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. Defendant concedes he wanted to avoid the significant stigma of a conviction on the initial class A misdemeanor charge, an animal cruelty charge, and therefore pleaded guilty to second-degree trespass, also a class A misdemeanor, even though there was no common factual or legal predicate for that charge. Hence, “to the extent there was any statutory error [under CPL 220.10 (3)], it was in defendant’s favor” *(People v Manuel,*143 AD3d at 474).

Furthermore, even if we were to conclude that defendant is entitled to vacatur of his plea, he expressly declines that remedy, requesting instead an outright dismissal, which we find unwarranted, given defendant’s conduct in the underlying incident.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Fein-man and Kapnick, JJ.
No. 12-7811.

#### Ramirez-Fernandez *v.*United States.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
2017-0982.

#### State v. Flores-Lopez.

Montgomery App. No. 27108, 2017-Ohio-690. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

O’Neill, J., dissent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE DECEMBER 31, 1997 BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BE REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         129,678
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,486,830
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,000
<INVENTORY>                                 14,595,234
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,977,707
<PP&E>                                       7,620,635
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,614,973
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,480,931
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,856,335
<BONDS>                                     26,011,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,547
<OTHER-SE>                                 (8,404,951)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,480,931
<SALES>                                     44,047,109
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            44,047,109
<CGS>                                       34,691,459
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               40,161,408
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,419,178
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,466,523
<INCOME-TAX>                                   517,186
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            949,337
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   949,337
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.51
        

</TABLE>
|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                      
|View History:                                                       
|                                                                    
|Compressed U.S. Natural Gas Imports from Canada (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                    
|                                                                    
|Compressed U.S. Natural Gas Imports from Canada (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        | 303    | 291    | 299    | 345    | 359    | 377   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 300    | 217    | 377    | 346    |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### Tariq Mundiya et al., Appellants, et al., Plaintiff, v Lars Beattie et al., Respondents.

[768 NYS2d 603]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered July 1, 2002, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their first and second causes of action, granted defendant Andrei Tudoran’s cross motion for summary judgment, and declared that the election for the condominium board of 262 Mott Street held May 31, 2000 was valid, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*318Supreme Court properly interpreted the condominium bylaws to restrict the sponsor to the election of no more than two directors “by reason of’ its vote of unsold shares. The restriction is clearly applicable, and plaintiffs have not identified any contrary bylaw or conflicting regulation *(see Matter of Visutton Assoc. v Anita Terrace Owners,*254 AD2d 295, 296 [1998], *lv denied*93 NY2d 803 [1999]; *Matter of Flagg Ct. Realty Co. v Flagg Ct. Owners Corp.,*230 AD2d 740 [1996]; *cf. Rego Park Gardens Assoc. v Rego Park Gardens Owners,*174 AD2d 337 [1991], *lv denied*78 NY2d 859 [1991]). The bylaws do not prohibit the sponsor from casting all its votes, but merely bar the sponsor from obtaining control of the board under certain circumstances *(see Matter of Visutton*at 296).

We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
# Disposal specialists surge to support Army readiness in NY

/ Published July 10, 2020
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
The U.S. Army 10th Mountain Division and its 2nd Brigade Combat Team got much-needed Defense Logistics Agency assistance from a DLA Disposition Services North-East region surge team in June during a major equipment turnover evolution at Fort Drum in upstate New York.

Rob DeLong, a Fort Drum-based agency property disposal specialist, was joined by fellow region staffers Nick Papciak and Rodney Stubbs, and Area Manager Brandon Meyer, who all leaned in to provide nearly 500 man hours of divestiture support throughout the month. 

Meyer said the request for support originated from U.S. Army Forces Command via DLA agency headquarters, and the division was said to be looking for “immediate relief of property accountability.” Property began trickling in at the start of the year, and DeLong worked with the Army during the winter months to prepare additional yard space adjacent to the agency’s existing scrap lot at Fort Drum. Once pandemic travel and business restrictions took hold throughout Defense Department facilities in late March, the agency worked with the Army to determine a preferred timeframe for closing out the project.

“We essentially transformed the Fort Drum site into a temporary cross-dock to provide relief,” Meyer said, explaining that commands there will typically prepare, pack and ship their turn-in items to a full service property disposal hub like the Susquehanna, Pennsylvania, site with local rep Delong’s guidance. In this case, the personnel surge was approved by DLA leadership to help the Army more quickly remove items from its property accounting books by having its own experts navigate paperwork and processes. “We said ‘come on in, just bring the property in,’ and we took it, packed it and shipped it to our site at Letterkenny.”

DeLong said this is the fifth or sixth time he can recall a “tiger team” coming to Fort Drum to help the 10th Mountain Division’s combat brigade teams prepare for deployment rotations through large-scale property divestiture. 

“It was successful. We brought a lot of stuff in,” DeLong said, noting that the quantity of rolling stock turned in exceeded some of the initial projections. He said six of eight 20-foot containers of potentially reusable property had already shipped to the Letterkenny site for final processing and some property had already been made available for transfer, sale or donation.

Additionally, DeLong said the team made extensive use of the agency’s mobile office, a still-developmental all-in-one portable system with a computer, printer and scanner mean to significantly improve the efficiency of specialists who take responsibility for property turn-overs at field locations. 

“We really put that mobile office through its paces,” DeLong said.

10th Mountain Division elements located at Fort Drum include the headquarters and headquarters elements, the 1st and 2nd Brigade Combat Teams, the 10th Combat Aviation Brigade, division artillery components and a sustainment brigade.
164 A.3d 409

#### A.M.H. AND G.L., PLAINTIFFS, v. NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. (RYAN K. LARSON, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF G.L.—PETITIONER)

March 23, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

*618It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied, with costs.
# Team Hill Frontlines: Shawn Carter

/ Published May 28, 2020

*Note: The “Team Hill Frontlines" series is a recurring feature that puts the spotlight on some of the civilian and military Airmen on the "frontlines" supporting our mission, people and families during the COVID-19 crisis.*Shawn Carter works in the Defense Logistics Agency as a distribution facilities specialist. He is from Morgan, Utah, and his hobbies include hunting, fishing and bowling.Shawn’s experience working on the COVID-19 frontlines:"During the COVID-19, due to personnel shortages, I managed and maintained two DLA shop service centers without any degradation to mission support. I also trained a brand new employee on workload processes and prioritization in the SSC to ensure customer support. My workload doubled and I did not falter in making sure everything was done in a safe and timely matter. I developed a strong camaraderie among my customers to support the warfighter.”Shawn, Team Hill thanks you for your service! We appreciate you!*Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Hill Air Force Base website.*
|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                             
|View History:                                                              
|                                                                           
|Louisiana Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Shale Gas (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           
|                                                                           
|Louisiana Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals from Shale Gas (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0    | Year-1    | Year-2    | Year-3    | Year-4    | Year-5    | Year-6    | Year-7    | Year-8    | Year-9   
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | ---------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |           |           |           |           |           |           |           | 14,986    | 37,499    | 400,594  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1,242,678 | 2,088,306 | 2,130,551 | 1,534,372 | 1,197,480 | 1,079,098 | 1,079,287 | 1,373,093 | 2,126,376 | 2,525,005
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2,572,444 | 2,915,926 | 3,589,614 |           |           |           |           |           |           |          
|- = 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
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.80

      Call Option Agreement-Participation Letter of Shanghai Jiefang Focus Media

                   ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER FOR PARTICIPATION OF
                              CALL OPTION AGREEMENT

SHANGHAI FOCUS MEDIA ADVERTISEMENT CO., LTD., (registered address: Room 1003 F,
No.1027, Changning Road, Changning District, Shanghai) (hereinafter the
"PARTICIPATING SHAREHOLDER"), and SHANGHAI JIEFANG FOCUS MEDIA ADVERTISEMENT
CO., LTD. (hereinafter the "NEW TARGET COMPANY"), as independent party, hereby
agree to participate in the Shareholders' Voting Rights Call Option Agreement
among Focus Media Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "FOCUS MEDIA
TECHNOLOGY"), Shanghai Focus Media Advertisement Co., Ltd. and other relevant
parties (hereinafter the "CALL OPTION AGREEMENT") dated March 28 2005. The
Participating Shareholder hereby grant Focus Media Technology with an
irrevocable equity Call Option (hereinafter "CALL OPTION") in respect to 60% of
the equity share of the New Target Company (hereinafter "NEWLY INCREASED EQUITY
SHARE") held by the Participating Shareholder. Once this Acknowledgement Letter
is executed by the Participating Shareholder and the New Target Company, the New
Target Company and the Newly Increased Equity Share shall be deemed to be the
"Target Company" and "Option Equity" defined under the Call Option Agreement,
and the Participating Shareholder and the New Target Company shall be deemed to
have made the same undertakings and warranties related to the New Target Company
and Option Equity with those of the Shareholders and Target Companies under the
Call Option Agreement have made related to "Target Company" and "Option Equity"
(to the extent that is related and applicable to the Participating Shareholder
and the Participated Target Company), and acknowledged and agreed to
respectively perform the same obligations in the Call Option Agreement (to the
extent that is related and applicable to the Participating Shareholder and the
Participated Target Company).

<PAGE>

      Call Option Agreement-Participation Letter of Shanghai Jiefang Focus Media

                                [EXECUTION PAGE]

SHANGHAI FOCUS MEDIA ADVERISEMENT CO., LTD.
(Company chop)

Signature by:    /s/ Jason Nanchun Jiang
              -----------------------------
Name: Jason Nanchun Jiang
Position: Authorized Representative
Date: May 22, 2006

SHANGHAI JIEFANG FOCUS MEDIA ADVERTISEMENT CO., LTD.
(Company chop)

Signature by:    /s/ Jason Nanchun Jiang
              -----------------------------
Name: Jason Nanchun Jiang
Position: Authorized Representative
Date: May 22, 2006

FOCUS MEDIA TECHNOLOGY (SHANGHAI) CO., LTD.
(Company chop)

Signature by:    /s/ Jason Nanchun Jiang
              -----------------------------
Name: Jason Nanchun Jiang
Position: Authorized Representative
Date: May 22, 2006