alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 23 (Thursday, February 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6031-6032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02024]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4246-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]


Idaho; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for State of Idaho (FEMA-4246-DR), dated December 23, 2015, and related 
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: January 20, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

[[Page 6032]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Dolph A. 
Diemont, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating 
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Thomas J. Dargan as 
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-02024 Filed 2-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### Thomas Tsamasiros et al., Respondents, v Scott E. Hughes et al., Appellants.

[772 NYS2d 525]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J), entered July 18, 2002, which, upon a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff Thomas Tsamasiros $250,000 for past pain and suffering, $75,000 for future pain and suffering, $130,000 for past and future “shock, emotional distress and physical consequences thereof,” $28,500 for past and future medical expenses incurred, and $7,000 for past loss of earnings, and awarding the plaintiff Katherine Tsamasiros $30,000 for loss of consortium, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and facts, by deleting the provisions thereof awarding the plaintiff Thomas Tsamasiros damages in the sum of $130,000 for past and future “shock, emotional distress and physical consequences thereof,” $28,500 for past and future medical expenses incurred, and $7,000 for past loss of earnings; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, with costs to the defendants.

The damages awarded to the plaintiff Thomas Tsamasiros for past pain and suffering do not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation for the injuries he sustained (see *White v Gasparrini,*295 AD2d 422 [2002]; *Rowe v New York City Tr. Auth.,*295 AD2d 333 [2002]; *Zavurov v City of New York,*241 AD2d 491 [1997]).

The awards to the plaintiff Thomas Tsamasiros for past and future “shock, emotional distress and physical consequences thereof,” are unsupported by the credible evidence because the plaintiff failed to adduce any medical evidence in support thereof (see *Goldsmith v Fight for Sight,*251 AD2d 120 [1998]; *Kelly v Tarnowski,*213 AD2d 1054 [1995]; *Erani v Flax,*193 AD2d 777 [1993]).

As a matter of law, the jury award for loss of earnings and medical expenses must be deleted because the first $50,000 in *378medical expenses and lost earnings constitutes basic economic loss, which is not recoverable *(see*Insurance Law § 5104 [a]; *Acerra v Gutmann,*294 AD2d 384 [2002]; *Ellis v Johnson Motor Lines,*198 AD2d 258 [1993]).

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Rivera, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23.1** Consent of    Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm     Board of    Directors        CMP Susquehanna Radio Holdings Corp.:     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-143558) on form S-4 of    CMP Susquehanna Radio Holdings Corp. and subsidiaries of our report dated March 31, 2008 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of CMP Susquehanna Radio Holdings Corp. and subsidiaries as of    December 31, 2007 and 2006 and the related consolidated    statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and    comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for the year ended    December 31, 2007 and for the period from May 5, 2006    (date of inception) through December 31, 2006, and the    related financial statement schedule, which report appears in    the December 31, 2007 annual report on    Form 10-K    of CMP Susquehanna Radio Holding Corp.     As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial    statements, effective January 1, 2007, the Company adopted    the Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation    No. 48, *Accounting for Uncertainty in Income    Taxes — an interpretation of FASB Statement    No. 109.*     /s/ KPMG LLP     Atlanta, GA    March 31, 2008

 
 Consent of    Independent Auditors     Board of    Directors        CMP Susquehanna Radio Holdings Corp. (formerly Susquehanna    Pfaltzgraff Co., the Predecessor):     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration    statement    (No. 333-143558)    on    Form S-4    of CMP Susquehanna Radio Holdings Corp. of our report dated    February 23, 2007 with respect to the consolidated    statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and    comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows of Susquehanna    Pfaltzgraff Co. and subsidiaries for the period from    January 1, 2006 through May 4, 2006 and for the year    ended December 31, 2005, and the related financial    statement schedule, which report appears in the    December 31, 2007 annual report on    Form 10-K    of CMP Susquehanna Radio Holdings Corp.     /s/ KPMG LLP     Harrisburg, PA    March 31, 2008
#### N. T. BAILEY v. J. D. McCOTTER.

(Filed 27 February, 1946.)

Trial § 49—

A motion to set aside tbe verdict as contrary to tlie weight of the evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Co/rr, J.,*at September Term, 1945, of Nash.

Civil action to recover for repairs or mechanical work done on defendant’s truck.

Upon denial of liability and issue joined, the jury returned the following verdict:

“What amount, if any, is the plaintiff, N. T. Bailey, entitled to recover of the defendant, J. D. McCotter? Answer: None.”

From judgment on the verdict, the plaintiff appeals, assigning error.

*Wilkinson ■& King for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Thorp & Thorp for defendant, appellee.*

Per CuriaM.

In the trial below, the case was made to turn on a controverted issue of fact. This, the jury has resolved in favor of the defendant.

The motion to set aside the verdict as contrary to the weight of the evidence was addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. *Goodman v. Goodman,*201 N. C., 808, 161 S. E., 686. No reversible error has been made to appear. The verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.
#### PATRICK AYSCUE v. A. T. BARNES.

(Filed 7 October, 1925.)

Appeal by defendant from *Devin, J.,*at June Term, 1925, of VaNCe.

Civil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury caused by defendant’s ambulance striking plaintiff, a pedestrian on a public highway, and resulting in serious damage.

Upon denial of liability, and issues joined, tbe jury returned tbe following verdict:

“1. Was tbe plaintiff injured by tbe negligence of tbe defendant or bis agent? Answer: Yes.

*“2.*Did tbe plaintiff by bis' own negligence cause or contribute to bis injury? Answer: No.

“3. What damages, if any, is tbe plaintiff entitled to recover ? Answer: $2,000.”

From a judgment on tbe verdict in favor of plaintiff, tbe defendant appeals, assigning errors.

*Perry & Kittrell, T. T. Kicks & Son and A. A. Bunn for plaintiff.*

*Thomas M. Pittman and Kittrell & Kittfell for defendant.*

Pee CueiaM.

Tbe appeal presents no new question of law, or one not heretofore settled by our decisions. Tbe evidence was conflicting on tbe issues of negligence and contributory negligence, resulting in a controversy which tbe jury alone could determine. They have resolved tbe disputed questions of fact against tbe defendant and in favor of tbe plaintiff. There is no reversible error appearing on tbe record. Tbe exception relating to tbe judge’s refusal to accept tbe verdict, as first *860tendered by tbe jury, cannot be sustained. *Willoughby v. Threadgill,*72 N. C., 438. Tbe modification of defendant’s special instructions was not only without prejudice, but- entirely proper under tbe evidence in tbe case. Tbe verdict and judgment must be upheld.

No error.
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 21

- 50 618 Summary Calendar

Candella M. Ledet ,
Plaintiff

— Appell ant ,

versus

Perry Homes ,
Defendant

— Appell ee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:19

- CV

- 712

Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes , Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *

Candella Ledet , acting pro se, sued her former employer, Perry

Homes , under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging that her firing was based upon
discrimination. Perry Homes served her requests for admissions to which

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 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 cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 21, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-50618 Document: 00516246576 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2022No. 21

- 50562

2 she failed to respond. 1 The district court entered an order requiring her to respond by a certain date and warning of the repercussions if she failed to do so, yet she failed to respond. Perry Homes ultimately filed a motion for summary judgment on the deemed admissions, which the district court granted. Ledet appealed.

While pro se litigants are given liberal construction in their briefing, they are still required to follow the rules of procedure and to brief relevant points. Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Ledet wholly fails to show any error in the distri ct court’s ruling (which adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation opinion) on this point.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Ledet’s motion to appoint counsel is DENIED . Her motion to allow
attachment is also DENIED

.

1 Ledet sent an email referencing the interrogatories sent but not specifically ref erencing the requests for admissions. In the email she stated that the “Interrogatories and Discovery” “mostly consist of information that will be in violation of my 5 amendment rights.” Such an email is not a proper response and, in any event, requests for admissions responses cannot be used against defendants in criminal proceedings , so the Fifth Amendment is not a defense to the requests

. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 36(b) (“An admission under this rule is not an admission for any other purpose and cannot be use d against the party in an y other proceeding.”). A dditionally , this email predated the district court’s order to respond. Case: 21-50618 Document: 00516246576 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2022
#### J. G. McCUE v. THE TIMES-NEWS COMPANY, Inc.

(Filed 10 December, 1930.)

Venue B a — Venue of action for libel by nonresident against newspaper is in county where paper’s principal office is situate.

The proper venue of an action by a nonresident plaintiff against a newspaper corporation with its principal office or place of business in this State is in that county, and an action brought in a different county in this State is removable thereto on defendant’s motion duly made, and the facts so found by the lower court are not reviewable on appeal.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Sinlc, Special Judge,*at July Term, 1930, of BUNCOMBE.

*Joseph W. IÁttle and Wm. F. Toms for plaintiff.*

*Thomas H. Franlcs and Shipman & Arledge for defendant.*

Pee Oueiam.

The plaintiff brought suit in Buncombe County to recover damages for alleged libel. The defendant is a domestic corporation having its principal office and place of business in Hendersonville, Henderson County, and in apt time made a motion to remove the cause to the county of Henderson. The motion was granted-, the plaintiff excepted and appealed.

*803For the purpose of suing and being sued the principal place of business of a domestic corporation is its residence. C. S., 466. If the plaintiff is a nonresident of the State, the residence of the defendant is the proper venue in actions of this kind. C. S., 469; *Southern Cotton, Oil Company v. Grimes,*183 N. C., 97.

The trial court found as a fact from the evidence that the plaintiff is not a resident of Buncombe County and is a nonresident of the State. The appellate court is bound by this finding. Judgment

Affirmed.
#### Lake Erie *&*Western Railroad Company v. Phillip H. Faught.

*Railroads—Construction Contracts—Agency—Authority of Chief Engineer—Evidence—Instruction.*

In a controversy touching the authority of the chief engineer of a railroad company to bind it for work to be done on its right of way, this court declines to interfere with a verdict for the plaintiff.

[Opinion filed January 21, 1889.]

*111Appeal from the Circuit Court of McLean County; the Hon. O. T. Reeves, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. Stevens, Lee *&*Horton and James S. Ewing, for appellant.

Messrs. Neville & Lindley, for appellee.

Conger, J.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by appellee against appellant, to recover for work done upon appellant’s road-bed, and he recovered a verdict for 8930, upon which judgment was rendered.

Appellee was working upon the grading of appellant’s roadbed for some time, under and by virtue of a written contract made between himself and J. M. Wright & Co., who were the original contractors with the company, and two others made between himself and sub-contractors under said J. M. Wright *&*Co. After thus working for some time, appellee became dissatisfied as to the prospect of being paid by these parties, and refused to proceed with the work under these contracts. He contends that Mr. Perry, the chief engineer, authorized him to proceed with the work, and that he should be paid for it; that Perry had authority to act for the company in the matter, and thereby made a new and independent contract between himself and the company for all work done after that time.

On the other hand, it is insisted by the company that Perry had no express or implied authority to bind it, and that he did not in fact attempt to do so; but that in all that he said to appellee he was merely assuring him that he would be paid by the contractors.

These are all questions of fact, upon which the jury have found against appellant, and, after a careful consideration of the evidence, we think they were justified in so doing.

The testimony is voluminous, and it would serve no good purpose to set forth the facts and circumstances in proof -which led the jury to their conclusion. Nor can we agree with counsel for appellant when they urge that Perry’s authority was assumed by the jury, or by the instructions, *112from the fact alone that he was the chief engineer of the company.

The jury were clearly and fully instructed upon this point; they were told by appellant’s fifth instruction that agency was not to be presumed, but if the agency of the engineer was relied upon, appellee must prove such agency by a preponderance of the evidence, and that such engineer had authority to bind appellant; and in the sixth instruction they were told that it was not sufficient to show simply that Perry was chief engineer for appellant to make it liable for his acts.

Finding no material error in the record, and believing that substantial justice has been done, the judgment of the Circuit Court will be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 28, 2021

NO. 03

- 19

- 00775

- CR

Thomas Ritchie McBride , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BY RNE, JUSTICES BAKE R AND TRIANA

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the judgment entered by the trial court on October 3, 2019

. Having

reviewed t he record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error

in the trial court’s judgment

. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment

. Because

appellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0742

LITTLE BIG WARM RANCH, LLC 

and MARK FRENCH

Plaintiffs/Appellants,

v.

WILFRED L. DOLL 

Defendant/Cross-Appellant.

BRIAN ROBINSON

 Defendant. 

ORDER GRANTING THIRTY 

(30) DAY EXTENSION 

Pursuant to the authority granted under M.R.App.P. 26(1), Appellant is 

given an extension of time until April 5, 2023 to prepare, file and serve Appellant's 

opening brief.

Dated this day of _________, 2023.

 ______________________

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

Cc: Hertha Lund, Ben Stormes, Monica Tranel, Ross Miller and Philip 

McCreedy 

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

February 24 2023

02/24/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0742
|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                   |   |                                                   |
|------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: October 18, 2011 |   | /s/ MICHELLE K. BAIRD                                  |
|                   |   | Michelle K. Baird                                      |
|                   |   | Chief Financial Officer,                               |
|                   |   | III to I International Maritime Solutions Cayman, Inc. |

----
Exhibit 10.2





Exhibit 10.2




Schedule Identifying Material Details of

Executive Agreements Substantially Similar to Exhibit 99.2 to Huntington’s

Current Report on Form 8-K dated November 21, 2005

As Amended by Exhibit 10.1 to Huntington’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Period

Ended September 30, 2008




	 	 	 	 	 
	Name	 	Effective Date
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Daniel B. Benhase
	 	January 1, 2006
	Richard A. Cheap
	 	January 1, 2006
	James E. Dunlap
	 	January 1, 2006
	Shirley L. Graham
	 	April 22, 2009
	Donald R. Kimble
	 	January 1, 2006
	Mary W. Navarro
	 	January 1, 2006
	Nicholas G. Stanutz
	 	January 1, 2006
	Randall G. Stickler
	 	April 16, 2009
	Mark E. Thompson
	 	April 20, 2009






Schedule Identifying Material Details of

Executive Agreements Substantially Similar to Exhibit 99.3 to Huntington’s

Current Report on Form 8-K dated November 21, 2005

As Amended by Exhibit 10.1 to Huntington’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Period

Ended September 30, 2008




	 	 	 	 	 
	Name	 	Effective Date
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Zahid Afzal
	 	July 17, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND
AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>       0001058549
<NAME> MEDITECNIC, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         2,409,899
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,409,899
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,047,159
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1
<COMMON>                                       7,528
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,039,630)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,409,899
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  45
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               35,396
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,832
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (35,396)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (35,396)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (35,396)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.00)


</TABLE>