alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MRS. F. M. DOBSON, Plaintiff, v. FOSTER JOHNSON, Individually, MRS. RUTH WINSTON and MRS. BERTHA JOHNSON, Individually, and as Co-Partners Doing Business Under the Firm Name of JOHNSON’S FOOD STORE, Defendants.

(Filed 25 February, 1953.)

Appeal and Error § 12—

Tbe requirements of G.S. 1-288 relating to appeal *in forma pauperis*are mandatory and jurisdictional, and failure to comply with tbe statutory requirements necessitates dismissal.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Gwyn, J.,*at August Term, 1952, of Buncombe.

Civil action for damages for slander brought by the plaintiff against the defendants.

*276Prior to the impaneling of the jury the plaintiff took a voluntary non-suit as to the defendants Mrs. Ruth Winston and Mrs. Bertha Johnson.

Upon denial of the allegations of the complaint, and issues joined, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. From judgment thereon, the plaintiff attempted to appeal *in forma pauperis,*assigning errors.

*Geo. M. Pritchard and Glen R. Penland for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Sale, Pennell ■& Pennell for defendant, Poster Johnson, appellee.*

Pee Cueiam.

There is nothing in the record to show that the plaintiff has ever made a request for the appeal to be passed on and granted by the Clerk of Superior Court. Neither the Judge of the Superior Court, nor the Clerk of the Superior Court has signed an order allowing the plaintiff to appeal as a pauper. There is no deposit nor giving of security for cost, no cost bond, no printed record, nor any printed brief in behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed in this Court typewritten copies of the agreed case on appeal and of his brief.

The requirements of G.S. 1-288 relating to appeals *in forma pauperis*to the Supreme Court from the Superior Court in a civil action are mandatory and jurisdictional, and “ ‘unless the statute is complied with, the appeal is not in this Court, and we take no cognizance of the case, except to dismiss it from our docket.’ ” *Clark v. Clark,*225 N.C. 687, 36 S.E. 2d 261. “The requirements of the statute allowing appeals *in forma pau-peris*are mandatory, not directory, and a failure to comply with the requirements deprives this Court of any appellate jurisdiction. G.S. 1-288.” *Williams v. Tillman,*229 N.C. 434, 50 S.E. 2d 33.

Even though we have no appellate jurisdiction, we have carefully examined the typewritten copy of the agreed statement of the ease on the purported appeal, the exceptions filed thereto, and the typewritten brief of the plaintiff. The case seems to have been tried substantially according to law. No prejudicial error appears as would justify a new trial.

Appeal dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

SECTION 1350CERTIFICATIONS

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Northwest AirlinesCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Richard H. Anderson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2) The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  Richard H. Anderson |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
|                          |
| Richard H.  Anderson          |
| Chief  Executive Officer      |
| July 20,  2004                |

 

----
#### Filippo Todaro, Appellant, v. Somerville Realty Company, a Domestic Corporation, and Others, Respondents.

Order affirmed,-with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion.

Jenks, P. J., Hirschberg, Burr, Thomas and Carr, JJ., concurred.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 108 (Monday, June 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 32230]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13546]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>12107 and <greek-i>12108]


New Jersey Disaster Number NJ-00014

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 3.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of New Jersey (FEMA-1897-DR), dated 04/02/
2010.
    Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 03/12/2010 through 04/15/2010.

DATES: Effective Date: 05/18/2010.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 07/01/2010.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 01/03/2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for the State of New Jersey, dated 04/02/2010 is hereby 
amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical 
damages as a result of this disaster to 07/01/2010.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-13546 Filed 6-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Exhibit 99.1

LOGO

LOGO

2950 North Loop West, Suite 700

Houston, TX 77092

Phone: (713) 685-8082 Fax: (713) 683-7841



|                                           
|-------------------------------------------
|NATCO Group Inc. CFO Accepts New Employment

Houston, Texas, USA (August 8, 2006): NATCO Group Inc. (NYSE: NTG) announced today that the Companys Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Richard W. FitzGerald has resigned to accept a similar position with another energy company.

John U. Clarke,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer said, We will miss Ricks significant contributions in our successfully achieving a strategic repositioning of NATCO. To his great credit and our benefit, he has assembled a first class organization
and the appropriate control environment to assure continuity in the future execution of our strategic and financial plans. We wish him every success in his new position.

Mr. FitzGerald said, I have enjoyed my association with NATCO and fully expect that the Company will continue to grow as it pursues its strategic objectives. My decision to leave was a difficult one; but my
new position represents a unique opportunity for me professionally and for my family.

A search will begin immediately to fill the open position. In
the meantime, the chief executive officer will assume the additional duties of the chief financial officer. Assisting in the oversight of those responsibilities will be Bradley P. Farnsworth in his continuing role as financial consultant.
Mr. Clarke said, We are fortunate to have Brad available to us to step in and help on a temporary basis. Brad has been a financial consultant to the Company for the past 18 months and has played a significant role in implementing many of
our business process changes and other initiatives. He is a certified public accountant and brings many years of financial and accounting experience as a senior financial officer for a number of large, publicly traded energy companies.

NATCO Group Inc. is a leading provider of wellhead process equipment, systems and services used in the production of oil and gas. NATCO has designed,
manufactured and marketed production equipment and services for 80 years. NATCO production equipment is used onshore and offshore in most major oil and gas producing regions of the world.

Statements made in this press release that are forward-looking in nature are intended to be forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and may involve risks and uncertainties. These statements may differ materially from actual future events or results. Readers are referred to documents filed by NATCO Group Inc. with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, including its Annual Report on Form 10-K and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, which identify significant risk factors that could cause actual results to differ from those contained in the forward-looking statements.



---
BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

 

5REHUW$-XOLDQ6%1

&HFLO\$'XPDV6%1

%$.(5	+267(7/(5//3

%DWWHU\6WUHHW6XLWH

6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$

7HOHSKRQH 

)DFVLPLOH 

(PDLOUMXOLDQ#EDNHUODZFRP

(PDLOFGXPDV#EDNHUODZFRP

(ULF(6DJHUPDQ6%1

/DXUHQ7$WWDUG6%1

%$.(5	+267(7/(5//3

:LOVKLUH%RXOHYDUG6XLWH

/RV$QJHOHV&$

7HOHSKRQH 

)DFVLPLOH 

(PDLOHVDJHUPDQ#EDNHUODZFRP

(PDLOODWWDUG#EDNHUODZFRP

Counsel for Official Committee of Tort Claimants

81,7('67$7(6%$1.5837&<&2857

1257+(51',675,&72)&$/,)251,$

6$1)5$1&,6&2',9,6,21

,QUH

3*	(&25325$7,21

DQG

3$&,),&*$6$1'(/(&75,&

&203$1<

  'HEWRUV

 &DVH1R'0

&KDSWHU

/HDG&DVH

-RLQWO\$GPLQLVWHUHG

Ƒ$IIHFWV3*	(&RUSRUDWLRQ

Ƒ$IIHFWV3DFLILF*DVDQG(OHFWULF&RPSDQ\

Ŷ$IIHFWVERWK'HEWRUV

*All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case, 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

 

&(57,),&$7(2)6(59,&(

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4938 Filed: 12/02/19 Entered: 12/02/19 14:08:48 Page 1 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4938 Filed: 12/02/19 Entered: 12/02/19 14:08:48 Page 2 of

3
(;+,%,7$

1RWLFH3DUWLHV6HUYLFH/LVW

6HUYHGDVVHWIRUWKEHORZ

^Z/Wd/KE ED EKd/ED Z^^ D/>

Dd,KK&

^Zs/

ŽƵŶƐĞůƚŽĞďƚŽƌƐ tĞŝů͕'ŽƚƐŚĂůΘDĂŶŐĞƐ>>W

ƚƚŶ͗^ƚĞƉŚĞŶ<ĂƌŽƚŬŝŶ͕ZĂĐŚĂĞů&ŽƵƐƚ͕:ĞƐƐŝĐĂ>ŝŽƵ͕DĂƚƚŚĞǁ'ŽƌĞŶ

ϳςϳ&ŝĨƚŚǀĞŶƵĞEĞǁzŽƌŬ͕EzϭϬϭρϯͲϬϭϭε

ƐƚĞƉŚĞŶ͘ŬĂƌŽƚŬŝŶΛǁĞŝů͘ĐŽŵƌĂĐŚĂĞů͘ĨŽƵƐƚΛǁĞŝů͘ĐŽŵũĞƐƐŝĐĂ͘ůŝŽƵΛǁĞŝů͘ĐŽŵŵĂƚƚŚĞǁ͘ŐŽƌĞŶΛǁĞŝů͘ĐŽŵ ŵĂŝů

ŽƵŶƐĞůƚŽĞďƚŽƌƐ <ĞůůĞƌΘĞŶǀĞŶƵƚƚŝ>>W ƚƚŶ͗dŽďŝĂƐ<ĞůůĞƌ͕:ĂŶĞ<ŝŵ

ςρϬĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕^ƵŝƚĞϭεϬϬ

^ĂŶ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽ͕εκϭϬΘ

ƚŬĞůůĞƌΛŬĞůůĞƌďĞŶǀĞŶƵƚƚŝ͘ĐŽŵũŬŝŵΛŬĞůůĞƌďĞŶǀĞŶƵƚƚŝ͘ĐŽŵ ŵĂŝů

ĞďƚŽƌƐ

W'ΘŽƌƉŽƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚWĂĐŝĨŝĐ'ĂƐĂŶĚůĞĐƚƌŝĐŽŵƉĂŶLJ ƚƚŶ͗:ĂŶĞƚ>ŽĚƵĐĂ

ϳϳĞĂůĞ^ƚƌĞĞƚW͘K͘ŽdžϳϳϬϬϬϬ^ĂŶ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽ͕εκϭϬρ &ŝƌƐƚůĂƐƐDĂŝů

KĨĨŝĐĞŽĨƚŚĞhŶŝƚĞĚ^ƚĂƚĞƐdƌƵƐƚĞĞ KĨĨŝĐĞŽĨƚŚĞhŶŝƚĞĚ^ƚĂƚĞƐdƌƵƐƚĞĞ

ƚƚŶ͗:ĂŵĞƐ>͘^ŶLJĚĞƌ͕ƐƋ͘ΘdŝŵŽƚŚLJ>ĂĨƌĞĚĚŝ͕ƐƋ

κρϬ'ŽůĚĞŶ'ĂƚĞǀĞŶƵĞρƚŚ&ůŽŽƌ͕^ƵŝƚĞηϬρͲϬϭρϯ^ĂŶ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽ͕εκϭϬϮ

:ĂŵĞƐ͘>͘^ŶLJĚĞƌΛƵƐĚŽũ͘ŐŽǀƚŝŵŽƚŚLJ͘Ɛ͘ůĂĨĨƌĞĚŝΛƵƐĚŽũ͘ŐŽǀ

ŵĂŝů

ŽƵŶƐĞůĨŽƌƚŚĞKĨĨŝĐŝĂůŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞŽĨhŶƐĞĐƵƌĞĚƌĞĚŝƚŽƌƐ DŝůďĂŶŬ>>W

ƚƚŶ͗ĞŶŶŝƐ&͘ƵŶŶĞ͕^ĂŵƵĞů͘<ŚĂůŝů

ρρ,ƵĚƐŽŶzĂƌĚƐEĞǁzŽƌŬ͕EzϭϬϬϬϭͲϮϭςϯ

ĚĚƵŶŶĞΛŵŝůďĂŶŬ͘ĐŽŵƐŬŚĂůŝůΛŵŝůďĂŶŬ͘ĐŽŵ ŵĂŝů

ŽƵŶƐĞůĨŽƌƚŚĞKĨĨŝĐŝĂůŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĞŽĨhŶƐĞĐƵƌĞĚƌĞĚŝƚŽƌƐ DŝůďĂŶŬ>>W

ƚƚŶ͗WĂƵů^͘ƌŽŶnjŽŶ͕'ƌĞŐŽƌLJ͘ƌĂLJ͕dŚŽŵĂƐZ͘<ƌĞůůĞƌ

ϮϬϮεĞŶƚƵƌLJWĂƌŬ͕ϯϯƌĚ&ůŽŽƌ>ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ͕εϬϬςϳ

WĂƌŽŶnjŽŶΛŵŝůďĂŶŬ͘ĐŽŵ'ďƌĂLJΛŵŝůďĂŶŬ͘ĐŽŵd<ƌĞůůĞƌΛŵŝůďĂŶŬ͘ĐŽŵ ŵĂŝů

&ĞĞdžĂŵŝŶĞƌ ƚƚŶ͗ƌƵĐĞ͘DĂƌŬĞůů

ρκϭE͘&ĂŝƌďĂŶŬƐŽƵƌƚ͕^ƵŝƚĞϮϮϬϬŚŝĐĂŐŽ͕/>ςϬςϭϭͲϯϳϭϬ

ďĂŵĞdžĂŵƉŐĞΛŐŵĂŝů͘ĐŽŵƉŐĞΛůĞŐĂůĚĞĐŽĚĞƌ͘ĐŽŵƚƌĂĐĞLJƌŐĂůůĞŐŽƐΛŐŵĂŝů͘ĐŽŵ ŵĂŝů

ŽƵŶƐĞůƚŽ&ĞĞdžĂŵŝŶĞƌ ^ĐŽƚƚ,͘DĐEƵƚƚ ^ĐŽƚƚ,͘DĐEƵƚƚ

ϯϮκtĂƌƌĞŶZŽĂĚ^ĂŶDĂƚĞŽ͕εκκϬϮ ƐŵĐŶƵƚƚΛŵůͲƐĨ͘ĐŽŵ ŵĂŝů

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4938 Filed: 12/02/19 Entered: 12/02/19 14:08:48 Page 3 of

3
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5162 

To amend the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to allow a certain parcel of land in 

Rockingham County, Virginia, to be used for a child care center’’ to 

remove the use restriction, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2014 

Mr. GOODLATTE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to allow a certain parcel 

of land in Rockingham County, Virginia, to be used 

for a child care center’’ to remove the use restriction, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF USE RESTRICTION. 

4 The Act entitled ‘‘An Act to allow a certain parcel 

5 of land in Rockingham County, Virginia, to be used for 

6 a child care center’’, approved October 31, 1990 (Public 

7 Law 101–479), is amended to read as follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5162 IH

1 ‘‘SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF USE RESTRICTION. 

2 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any restrictions 

3 in the deed, on and after the date of the enactment of 

4 this Act, the parcel comprised of approximately 3.03 acres 

5 of land transferred by the United States on April 11, 

6 1989, to the county of Rockingham, Virginia, in deed book 

7 number 953 at page 600, together with improvements 

8 thereon may be used by the county as if the land had been 

9 transferred in fee simple with no use or other restrictions. 

10 ‘‘(b) DOCUMENTATION.—As soon as practical after 

11 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 

12 the Interior shall take such actions as are necessary to 

13 issue a fee simple deed with no restrictions to the land 

14 described in subsection (a) to the county of Rockingham, 

15 Virginia.’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5417 

To prohibit certain nutrition rules with respect to foods sold at schools 

as a fundraiser. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 

Mr. POE of Texas (for himself, Mrs. NOEM, and Mr. LAMALFA) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 

the Workforce 

A BILL 

To prohibit certain nutrition rules with respect to foods 

sold at schools as a fundraiser. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Bringing Awareness 

5 and Knowledge to Exempt Schools Against Legislative 

6 Encroachment Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN RULES. 

8 The Secretary of Agriculture shall not implement, ad9 minister, or enforce the rule entitled ‘‘National School 

10 Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program: Nutrition 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5417 IH

1 Standards for All Foods Sold in School as Required by 

2 the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010’’ published 

3 by the Department of Agriculture in the Federal Register 

4 on June 28, 2013 (78 Fed. Reg. 39068 et seq.) with re5 spect to food sold as a fundraiser that takes place on the 

6 grounds of a school. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### John W. Alexander and another, Appellants, v. Henry W. Chamberlain, Respondent, Impleaded, etc.

Judgment affirmed.

Opinion by

Bradley, J.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF FORM 10-Q

We, Thomas F. Prisby, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and John T.
Stephens, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of CFS Bancorp,
Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

    (1)  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
         period ended September 30, 2002 (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

    (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.


Date:  November 13, 2002   By:    /s/  THOMAS F. PRISBY
                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                  Thomas F. Prisby, Chairman and
                                  Chief Executive Officer

Date:  November 13, 2002   By:    /s/  JOHN T. STEPHENS
                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                  John T. Stephens, Executive Vice President and
                                  Chief Financial Officer



                                       27
EXHIBIT A 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5091-1 Filed: 12/12/19 Entered: 12/12/19 15:16:50 Page 1

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5091-1 Filed: 12/12/19 Entered: 12/12/19 15:16:50 Page 2

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5091-1 Filed: 12/12/19 Entered: 12/12/19 15:16:50 Page 3

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5091-1 Filed: 12/12/19 Entered: 12/12/19 15:16:50 Page 4

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5091-1 Filed: 12/12/19 Entered: 12/12/19 15:16:50 Page 5

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5091-1 Filed: 12/12/19 Entered: 12/12/19 15:16:50 Page 6

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5091-1 Filed: 12/12/19 Entered: 12/12/19 15:16:50 Page 7

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5091-1 Filed: 12/12/19 Entered: 12/12/19 15:16:50 Page 8

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5091-1 Filed: 12/12/19 Entered: 12/12/19 15:16:50 Page 9

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5091-1 Filed: 12/12/19 Entered: 12/12/19 15:16:50 Page 10

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5091-1 Filed: 12/12/19 Entered: 12/12/19 15:16:50 Page 11

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5091-1 Filed: 12/12/19 Entered: 12/12/19 15:16:50 Page 12

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5091-1 Filed: 12/12/19 Entered: 12/12/19 15:16:50 Page 13

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5091-1 Filed: 12/12/19 Entered: 12/12/19 15:16:50 Page 14

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5091-1 Filed: 12/12/19 Entered: 12/12/19 15:16:50 Page 15

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5091-1 Filed: 12/12/19 Entered: 12/12/19 15:16:50 Page 16

of 16
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Net Talk.com, Inc. a
Florida corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Anastasios Kyriakides, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:



(1) 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 or 78o(d)); and



(2) The information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|/s/ Anastasios Kyriakides     | 
|----------------------------- | 
|Anastasios Kyriakides         | 
|Chief Executive Officer       | 
|(Principal Executive Officer) | 
|                              | 
|Date: May 7, 2014             |
# United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted September 20 , 2018 *

Decided September 21, 201 8

Before

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER , Circuit Judge

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN , Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE , Circuit Judge

No. 18

- 1995

DONNA K. PEARSON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v
.
BARCLAY BANK OF DELAWARE , et al., Defendants

- Appellees

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois

.
No. 13

- 0319

- MJR

- SCW Michael J. Reagan , Chief Judge

.

O R D E R
Donna Pearson in 2014 voluntarily dismissed her suit alleging Barclay Bank (among others) had defrauded her, and the case lay dormant until 2018, when she moved to reopen it

. See F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 60 (b)

. The district judge denied the motion because Pearson had not identified any ground in Rule 60(b) that justified relief , and because reopening would allow her “to gain a windfall of essentially a four year stay .”

* We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the appeal is frivolous

. F ED

. R. C IV

. P . 34(a)(2) (A). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 18

- 1995 Page 2 Pearson appeals, b ut the appeal is frivolous. Pearson asserts that the basis for her Rule 60(b) motion was “shock and surprise , ” a characterization that she does not elaborate upon. Her two

- sentence motion says even less; it neither mentions Rule 60 nor hints at why she is entitled to relief. That second failure justified the court ’s denial of her motion. See Nelson v. Napolitano , 657 F.3d 586, 589

– 90 (7th Cir. 20 11). Even if we assumed that her motion fell under Rule 60(b)(1) (“[T]he court may relieve a party ... from a final judgment ... for ... surprise.”), Pearson would have had to move for relief within the one

- year period specified in Rule 60(c)(1). Nelson , 657 F.3 d at 590. And taking things one step further, even if her motion could be construed under Rule 60(b)(6)’s “catchall” provision, the motion could not have been granted unless she presented “extraordinary circumstances,” Arrieta v. Battaglia , 461 F.3d 861, 8 65 (7th Cir. 2006), an implausible scenario given that she asked to dismiss her own case

. AFFIRMED
#### MARTHA HAWKINS, Administratrix of the Estate of SID HAWKINS, Deceased, v. ROWLAND LUMBER COMPANY.

(Filed 12 March, 1930.)

1. Appeal and Error E lb — Charge of lower court is presumed correct when it is not set out in the record.

The charge of the trial court to the jury is presumed to be correct on appeal when it is not set out in the record.

2. Master and Servant E a — Federal employer’s Liability Act applies to logging roads.

Where the defendant in an action to recover damages for a wrongful death is a logging road, the fellow-servant rule does not apply, and contributory negligence is considered in mitigation of damages by. the jury.

Appeal by defendant from *Midyette, J.,*and a jury, at October Term, 1929, of CraveN. No error.

This is an action for actionable negligence brought by plaintiff, for the death of her intestate, against defendant.

The issues submitted to the jury and their answers thereto were as follows:

“1. Was Walter Lindsay an independent contractor of the Rowland Lumber Company, and was plaintiff’s intestate in the employ of said independent contractor at the time of his injury and death ? Answer: No.

2. Was the plaintiff’s intestate killed by the negligence of the Rowland Lumber Company, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.

3. Did the plaintiff’s intestate by his own negligence contribute to his injury and death, as alleged in the answer? Answer: No.

4. What damage, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant? Answer: $1,000.”

The court below rendered judgment on the verdict. The/defendant made numerous exceptions and assignments of error and appealed to the Supreme Court.

*Ernest M. Green and W. B. R. Guión for plaintiff.*

*Moore & Dunn for defendant.*

Pee Cukiam.

The defendant at the close of plaintiff’s evidence and at the close of all the evidence made motions for judgment as in case of nonsuit, under C. S., 567. The court below overruled the motions, and in this we see no error. Defendant also requested certain prayers for instruction; the court below refused these, and in this we think the court correct.

*476Tbe charge of tbe court below is not in tbe record. Tbe presumption is tbat tbe court below charged tbe law applicable to tbe facts.

As to negligence in not giving signals, see *Farr v. Power Co., ante,*p. 247.

Tbe defendant was a logging road and tbe fellow-servant doctrine has no application — contributory negligence no bar, but mitigates damages. See C. S., 160, 3465, 3467, 3470; *Stewart v. Blackwood Lumber Co.,*193 N. C., 138; *Brooks v. Suncrest Lumber Co.,*194 N. C., 141. We think tbe case in many respects similar to *Lilley v. Cooperage Co.,*194 N. C., 250. We find

No error.