alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gedula 26, LLC, et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Lightstone Acquisitions III LLC et al., Appellants-Respondents.

[57 NYS3d 114]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered September 21, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims for breach of contract, wrongful eviction, reimbursement of legal fees, and punitive damages or, in any event, all claims as against defendant Lightstone Group, and granted the motion as to the fraud claim, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion as to the claim for punitive damages, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The motion court was not precluded by the single motion rule from considering defendants’ motion, because the stipulation entered into by the parties when defendants withdrew their initial motion based on improper service contemplated that defendants might “otherwise move with respect to [the] Complaint.”

Dismissal of the breach of contract claim would be premature, since discovery may reveal documents that support plaintiffs’ allegation that both parties accepted the terms set forth in an internal email by defendants’ counsel, which email was allegedly transmitted to plaintiffs on the date of closing *(see Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP v Duane Reade,*98 AD3d 403, 404 [1st Dept 2012], *affd*20 NY3d 1082 [2013]).

Similarly, with respect to wrongful eviction, discovery may reveal support for plaintiffs’ allegations that defendants agreed to permit them to occupy certain space in the building after the closing.

*584The court correctly declined to find that defendants were the prevailing party for purposes of reimbursement of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the agreement, because the litigation was still ongoing *(see Sykes v RFD Third Ave. I Assoc., LLC,*39 AD3d 279 [1st Dept 2007]).

The fraud claim was correctly dismissed as duplicative of the breach of contract claim, because the only fraud alleged is that defendants did not intend to comply with the agreement *(see Berger v Roosevelt Inv. Group Inc.,*28 AD3d 345 [1st Dept 2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 712 [2006]).

Dismissal of the complaint as against Lightstone Group is not warranted at this stage of the litigation, because the record suggests that Lightstone Group had a legal relationship with the other defendants sufficient to subject it to liability.

The claim for punitive damages should be dismissed, because the complaint does not allege the requisite egregious tortious conduct that is part of a pattern of similar conduct directed at the public generally, and a demand for punitive damages is not a separate cause of action *(see Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S.,*83 NY2d 603, 613, 617 [1994]).

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them unavailing.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Feinman and Kahn, JJ.
JAMES VANCAMP

,

Appellant,

v.

DECISION HR 30, INC.,

FWCIGA/FLORIDA WORKERS'

COMPENSATION GUARANTY

ASSOCIATION, AND USIS

,

Appellee s

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 4325

_____________________________/

Opinion filed March 20, 2015.

An appeal fr om an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims

. Shelley H. Punancy , Judge

.

Date of Accident: July 23, 2007.

Kimberly A . Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L., Fort Lauderdale , for Appellant.

Micheal A. Edwards of Peterson Bernard, West Palm Beach , for Appellee s

.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, MARSTILLER and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
U.S. Department of Transportation Office ofthe Secretary ofTransportation November 13, 2014 Mr. ScottHarris President Harris Aircraft Services, Inc. 400 AirportRoad Sitka, AK 99835 DearMr. Harris: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590

We have completed our review ofthe information submitted to us in the application filed on August 25, 2014 by Harris Aircraft Services, Inc. ("Harris Air") for the determination of its fitness for a certificate ofpublic convenience and necessity. We have determined the need for additional and/or clarifying information before we can complete processing of Harris Air's application. Listedbelow are items where further and/or clarificationinformation is necessary. 1. Inreferenceto Exhibit/Tab 7 ofthe application:
a. Inthe Profit and Loss January through December 2012 statement, page 5, net income is shown as $142,798 on total revenue of $2,454,574 (page 2). However, on the "Income Statement" dated December 31, 2013, the January through December 2012 column shows net income of$46,233. Please explain the discrepancy and submit a revised or corrected version ofthe Profit and Loss statement. b. Onthe December 31,2012,balance sheet, total current assets of$713,766 are shown. However, on the multi-year 2012/2013 balance sheet December 31, 2012 column (page 1 of 2), total current assets for 2012 are $351,396. Please explain the discrepancy and submitarevised orcorrectedversion ofthe balance sheet.
c. Please explain the negative APB checking balance shown on the multi-year 2012/2013 balance sheet as ofDecember 31, 2013. Additionally, please explain the negative $42,142 for APB checking on the multi-year 2013/2014 balance sheet as of May 31,2014. d. Please explain the "Lawsuit Proceeds of $110,000" under "other current assets" on the May 31, 2014 balance sheet.2
2. Please submit a September 30, 2014, balance sheet and income statement ending that same date. Please respond fully to this request within 30 days ofthe date of this letter. Your response should be filed inDocketDOT-OST-2014-0145. As is the Department's practice, further processing ofHarris Air's application will be deferred pending receipt ofthis material. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Ifyou have any questions regarding this letter or the requested information, please feel free to contact Barbara Snoden ofmy staffat (202) 366-9721.

Chief, Air CarrierFitness Division Office ofAviationAnalysis Enclosure
cc: Docket-DOT-OST-2014-0145 Mr. TroyMcClanahan POI for Harris Aircraft Serv}ces, Inc. FAA, JuneauFSDO
# DLA Distribution packs, ships COVID-19 rapid test kits for nursing homes, troops

/ Published Nov. 3, 2020
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Defense Logistics Agency Distribution San Joaquin, California, is packing and distributing 6 million COVID-19 rapid test kits on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services. Test components, which are being produced by a small business in San Diego, will be distributed to nursing homes and Defense Department customers worldwide through March 2021.

“The men and women of Team San Joaquin are honored to have been selected to handle this no-fail mission for DLA,” said DLA Distribution San Joaquin Deputy Commander Jodie Johnson-Micks. “This unprecedented pandemic hits close to home for every American, and we understand the important responsibility we’ll have in getting these critical testing supplies in the hands of health care professionals treating some of our country’s most vulnerable.”

                Active temperature monitoring devices are key components of COVID-19 rapid test kits packaged and distributed to nursing homes and Defense Department customers by Defense Logistics Agency Distribution San Joaquin, California and DLA Distribution Susquehanna, Pennsylvania.                            DLA Distribution packs, ships COVID-19 rapid test kits for nursing homes, troops                            Active temperature monitoring devices are key components of COVID-19 rapid test kits packaged and distributed to nursing homes and Defense Department customers by Defense Logistics Agency Distribution San Joaquin, California and DLA Distribution Susquehanna, Pennsylvania.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: DLA Distribution Public AffairsVIRIN: 201024-D-D0441-0001

HHS’ COVID-19 rapid test kit mission includes receipt, storage, component assembly, issue, transportation and delivery tracking. Components include test swab cartridges, swabs, a reader and an active temperature-monitoring device. The reader analyzes specimens and transmits test results to a mobile application in about 25 minutes.

The first shipment of rapid test kit components arrived in San Joaquin Oct. 27 and will continue every two weeks through March. Although 90% of the components are shipping to DDJC’s refrigerated warehouse for assembly and shipment to nationwide nursing homes, 10% are shipping to DLA Distribution Susquehanna, Pennsylvania, for assembly and shipment to DOD customers worldwide. The mission will help preserve military readiness and prepare nursing homes for the second wave of the virus, Johnson-Micks said.

DLA Distribution is using a mix of transportation modes to reduce costs and speed delivery. Military air assets will fly shipments to locations not served by commercial carriers.

To maintain auditability and customers’ trust, the distribution center employees are also tracking shipments by lot number and destination.

“It is truly humbling to help showcase DLA’s capabilities as a world-class storage and distribution operation,” Johnson-Micks added.
EXHIBIT 99.1

             Statement Furnished Pursuant to Section 906 of the
             Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned, Santo P. Pasqualucci, is the President and Chief Executive
Officer of Falmouth Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company").

This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the
Company of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year
ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

      A)    the Report fully complies with the requirements of
            Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
            (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and

      B)    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of
            operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
            covered by the Report.

      This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the
Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the
Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.  It
is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

December 19, 2002                      /s/ Santo P. Pasqualucci
                                       -------------------------------------
                                       Santo P. Pasqualucci
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer

<PAGE>
WILLIE LANIER

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 618

_____________________________/

Opinion filed February 10, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Gadsden County

. Jonathan E. Sjostrom , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Julian E Markham, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS

, SWANSON

, and WINOKUR

, J J

. , CONCUR.
NO. 07-02-0115-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

APRIL 2, 2002

______________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF ZACKERY HUSEMAN AND

MADELINE HUSEMAN, MINOR CHILDREN

_________________________________

FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

NO. A29348-9708; HONORABLE JACK R. MILLER, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

Appellant Timothy Huseman gave notice of appeal on March 4, 2002, from an order

of the trial court entered on February 15, 2002, dismissing his petition to modify in a suit

affecting the parent-child relationship. We have now received a certified copy of a more

recent trial court order dated March 22, 2002, in which it granted appellant’s motion to

reconsider the February 15 order of dismissal, withdrew that order, and indicated its intent

to proceed in the matter after the respondent has been served. The trial court also

“abated” the appeal and declared it moot.
2

The filing of a notice of appeal invokes the appellate court’s jurisdiction over all

parties to the judgment or order appealed from. Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b). However, the trial

court retains plenary power to grant a new trial or to vacate, modify, correct, or reform the

judgment until 30 days after all such motions are overruled. Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(e) and

(g). The trial court has now reconsidered the order appealed from and vacated it, and we

thus agree that the pending appeal has been rendered moot. Further, there is no

appealable order before this court, and we must therefore dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. Since appellant obtained the relief he requested

by the trial court’s action, the need for ten days notice to the parties prior to dismissal

pursuant to Rule 42.3 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure is obviated, and we suspend

that requirement for purposes of this appeal only pursuant to the authority of Rule 2 of the

Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. 

John T. Boyd

 Chief Justice

Do not publish.
No. 12-332.

#### Chaidy *v.*Holder, Attorney General.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
2017-0179.

#### Cirino v. Bur. of Worker’s Comp.

Cuyahoga App. No. 104102, 2016-Ohio-8323. Cause accepted on proposition of law No. I.

O’Donnell and Kennedy, JJ., would accept the cause on all propositions of law.

O’Connor, C.J., and French and O’Neill, JJ., dissent.
No. 12-8868.

No. 12-8961.

#### Barahona *v.*United States; and Pacheco-Licona *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th

Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 494 Fed. Appx. 354.
|                                                                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                                  
|View History:                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                                
|Price of Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Turkiye (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                
|                                                                                                                
|Price of Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Turkiye (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan   | Feb   | Mar   | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----- | ----- | ----- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | -----
|2022                                                                                                                              |       |       |       |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     | 21.53
|2023                                                                                                                              |       | 13.30 | 22.67 |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      
|2024                                                                                                                              | 12.06 | 11.65 | 10.69 |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |      
|                                                                                                                                 
|- = 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
#### Jacqueline Jackson-Cutler, Respondent, v Steven Long et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[768 NYS2d 360]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants Steven Long and Katherine Long appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Johnson, J.), dated July 31, 2002, which denied their motion to vacate their default in serving an answer to the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

A party seeking to vacate its default must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse and the existence of a meritorious defense *(see*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *Titan Realty Corp. v Schlem,*283 AD2d 568 [2001]; *Poincy v White Bus Co.,*278 AD2d 467 [2000]; *Parker v City of New York,*272 AD2d 310 [2000]). The appellants did not set forth a reasonable excuse for their default since the conclusory affidavit of the defendant Joseph Gillette failed to establish that the appellants’ answer was ever served in accordance with CPLR 2103 (b). The appellants also failed to present any evidentiary facts to establish a meritorious defense. Further, the evidence submitted by the appellants for the first time in their reply was properly disregarded by the Supreme Court *(see Adler v Suffolk County Water Auth.,*306 AD2d 229 [2003]; *Chavez v Bancker Constr. Corp.,*272 AD2d 429 [2000]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants’ motion to vacate their default.

The appellants’ remaining contention is improperly raised for the first time on appeal *(see Mann v All Waste Sys.,*293 AD2d 656 [2002]; *Campanelli v Flushing Ultrasound Servs.,*287 AD2d 428 [2001]; *Matter of ELRAC, Inc. v Edwards,*270 AD2d 414 [2000]). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.
# DLA Distribution Commanding General shares Hispanic Heritage Month message

/ Published Sept. 21, 2020
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
America's diversity has always been one of our nation's greatest strengths. Hispanic Americans have long played an integral role in America's rich culture, proud heritage, and building this great nation. 

From the first Spanish settlers who arrived in America decades before Plymouth Rock or Jamestown, to the more than 54 Million Hispanic Americans living here today, Latinos have helped form our nation's history and culture. 

Hispanic Americans have enhanced and shaped our national character with centuries-old traditions that reflect their multiethnic and multicultural customs. 

Their strong commitment to family, faith, hard work, and public service reflects traditional American values and has helped shape and strengthen every facet of our national identity.

Hispanic and Latino Americans have distinguished themselves in the U.S. military for as long as our country has existed. They are politicians, business owners, lawyers, doctors, nurses, police officers, firefighters, entertainers, teachers, co-workers, friends, and neighbors. 

Hispanic American patriotism is evident in America's history and spirit since the creation of our nation. All our country’s citizens, regardless of distinction, are what make and keep our nation secure. Please join me in celebrating National Hispanic Heritage Month.
* Pursuant to 5 TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 20, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60513
FIRST FEDERAL BANK FOR SAVINGS, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus EDDIE DEAN FORTENBERRY; ET AL, Defendants; EDDIE DEAN FORTENBERRY, Defendant-Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

(2:02-CV-00115-EEF)

-------------------- Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM* : Eddie Dean Fortenberry (“Fortenberry”) appeals the district court’s denial of her petition for pre-judgment interest. Having carefully reviewed the record and briefs, we affirm the district court’s judgment because, although Fortenberry raised five points of error in her notice of appeal, she did not substantively address1 See, e.g. , Geiger v. Jowers , 404 F.3d 371, 373 n.6

(“Although pro se briefs are to be liberally construed, pro se litigants have no general immunity from the rule that issues and arguments not briefed on appeal are abandoned.”) (internal citation omitted); Price v. Digital Equip. Corp. , 846 F.2d 1026, 1028 (5th Cir. 1988) (same); FED . R. APP . P. 28(a)(9)(A) (stating that appellant’s brief must contain “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies”). -2- any of these issues in her appellate brief, provide us with any authority in support of her position, or direct us to any pertinent portions of the record. Generally, issues not briefed are deemed to be abandoned on appeal, even in the case of a pro se litigant like Fortenberry. 1 Fortenberry’s only argument on appeal is that we should reverse the district court’s judgment because First Federal Bank for Savings’s (“First Federal”) attorney obtained it by committing

a fraud on that court. She has not cited to any evidence in support of her claim and we have found none in the record. We thus AFFIRM the district court’s judgment denying Fortenberry prejudgment interest.