alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Joseph Scholl, Appellant, v City of Utica, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied, and new trial granted. Memorandum: In this action for false arrest and false imprisonment, the court erred in granting defendant’s motion for a directed verdict *(see,*CPLR 4401). There was sufficient evidence to establish that (1) defendant intended to confine plaintiff; (2) plaintiff was conscious of his confinement; (3) plaintiff did not consent to the confinement; and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged *(see, Broughton v State of New York,*37 NY2d 451, 456). Actual damages need not be shown *(see, Jacques v Sears, Roebuck & Co.,*30 NY2d 466). "The measure of damages for false imprisonment is such sum that would fairly and reasonably compensate the plaintiff for injuries caused by defendant’s wrongful act, including damages for mental anguish, shame and humiliation, injury to reputation, physical suffering, loss of earnings and legal expenses in defending a prior action so long as the damages are proximately caused by the illegal act” *(Kehrli v City of Utica,*105 AD2d 1085). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J. —dismiss complaint.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
Case 1:05-cv-00178-JD   Document 129   Filed 01/10/07   Page 1 of 2

Case 1:05-cv-00178-JD   Document 129   Filed 01/10/07   Page 2 of 2
PUBLISH

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 95-8111 ________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:91-CV-1107-MHS 

J. JEROME HARRIS, Ph.D.,

Plaintiff-Counter-DefendantAppellee-Cross-Appellant,

versus

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTA; A School District

of the State of Georgia,

Defendant-Counter-Claimant,

JOSEPH G. MARTIN, JR., Individually and in his Official

Capacity as President of the Board of Education of the City of

Atlanta; MARY ANNE BELLINGER, REV., Individually and in her

Official Capacity as Vice-President of the Board of Education

of the City of Atlanta; JOHN F. ELGER, Individually and in his

Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the

City of Atlanta; CAROLYN D. YANCEY, Individually and in her

Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the

City of Atlanta; D.F. GLOVER, Dr., Individually and in his

Official Capacity as a member of the Board of Education of the

City of Atlanta; ROBERT WAYMER, Individually and in his

Official Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the

City of Atlanta; MIDGE SWEET, Individually and in her Official

Capacity as a member of the Board of Education of the City of

Atlanta; INA EVANS, Individually and in her Official Capacity

as a Member of the Board of Education of the City of Atlanta;

PRESTON W. WILLIAMS, Dr., Individually and in his Official

Capacity as a Member of the Board of Education of the City of

Atlanta,

Defendants-Counter-ClaimantsAppellants-Cross-Appellees. ________________________

 Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________

(April 16, 1996)
 1

Honorable Richard Mills, U.S. District Judge for the Central

District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

2

Before HATCHETT, Circuit Judge, HENDERSON, Senior Circuit Judge,

and MILLS1 District Judge.

INTERIM ORDER:

The panel heard oral argument in this case on April 11, 1996.

After hearing oral argument, the panel is of the opinion that this

case can be and should be settled.

The panel hereby refers this appeal to the Eleventh Circuit

Conference Attorney for settlement discussions, pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 33 and Eleventh Circuit Rule 33-1.

The parties and their counsel are directed to contact this

court's Appellate Conference Office not later than fifteen days

from receipt of this order to explore a resolution of their

differences.

Before settlement discussions, counsel for the parties must

consult with their clients and obtain as much authority as feasible

to settle the appeal. Counsel and the parties are expected to

discuss all issues in good faith.

The conference attorney shall issue an order as contemplated

by Eleventh Circuit Rule 33-1(d) or issue a report to the panel not

later than June 14, 1996.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 179 (Monday, September 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21403]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[F-19155-16; AK-964-1410-KC-P]


Alaska Native Claims Selection

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.

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

SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that 
an appealable decision approving the surface and subsurface estates in 
certain lands for conveyance pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act will be issued to Doyon, Limited. The lands are in the 
vicinity of Koyukuk, Alaska, and are located in:

Kateel River Meridian, Alaska

T. 8 S., R. 4 E.,
    Secs. 1 and 2;
    Secs. 11 and 12.

    Containing approximately 2,141 acres.

T. 7 S., R. 5 E.,
    Secs. 24 and 29.

    Containing approximately 71 acres.

T. 6 S., R. 6 E.,
    Secs. 4, 9, 16, 21, 28, and 31.

    Containing approximately 3,747 acres.

T. 7 S., R. 7 E.,
    Sec. 30;
    Secs. 32 and 33.

    Containing approximately 312 acres.
    Aggregating approximately 6,271 acres.

    Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the 
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.

DATES: The time limits for filing an appeal are:
    1. Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely 
affected by the decision shall have until October 15, 2008 to file an 
appeal.
    2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail 
shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
    Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the 
requirements of 43 CFR Part 4, Subpart E, shall be deemed to have 
waived their rights.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land 
Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, <greek-i>13, 
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: The Bureau of Land Management by 
phone at 907-271-5960, or by e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1c7d77327e7071327f73726a79657d727f795c7d77327e7071327b736a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5b3a3075393736753834352d3e223a35383e1b3a3075393736753c342d">[email protected]</span></a>. 
Persons who use a telecommunication device (TTD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8330, 24 hours a day, 7 
days a week, to contact the Bureau of Land Management.

Jenny M. Anderson,
Land Law Examiner, Land Transfer Adjudication I.
[FR Doc. E8-21403 Filed 9-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

          - [Docket 48-2008] 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Elizabeth Whiteman at                         *Elizabeth_Whiteman@ita.doc.gov*                         or (202) 482-0473.                     

Dated: September 3, 2008. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-21231 Filed 9-10-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### Dee VANZANT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mrs. Constance C. EVANS et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 5637.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

April 1, 1938.

Rehearing Denied April 29, 1938.

Robert H. Wimberly, of Arcadia, for appellants.

Goff & Goff, of Arcadia, for appellee.

HAMITER, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in La.App., 181 So. 660, the judgment of the trial court in this suit is affirmed.
[ARTICLE] 5
<TABLE>
<S>                             <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                   9-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          DEC-31-1999
[PERIOD-END]                               SEP-30-1999
[CASH]                                         307,036
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                  165,603
[ALLOWANCES]                                     4,000
[INVENTORY]                                     38,371
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                               600,816
[PP&E]                                      15,538,434
[DEPRECIATION]                              13,844,194
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                               2,295,056
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                          225,779
[BONDS]                                              0
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                     1,071,610
[OTHER-SE]                                           0
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                 2,295,056
[SALES]                                        929,690
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                               965,131
[CGS]                                          767,412
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                1,025,871
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                 9,116
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                               6,116
[INCOME-PRETAX]                               (75,972)
[INCOME-TAX]                                     1,125
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                           (77,097)
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                      0
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                  (77,097)
[EPS-BASIC]                                   (0.03)
[EPS-DILUTED]                                   (0.03)
</TABLE>
174 La. 331

#### BURDETTE v. MAJESTIC BLDG. CO., Limited.

No. 30585.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 29, 1932.

C. B. Prothro and Frank E. Murphy, both of Shreveport, for appellant.

Lee & Gilmer, of Shreveport, for appellee.

BRUNOT, J.

This is a suit for damages resulting from alleged illegal and unwarranted acts of the defendant. The sum claimed is $4,926.50. Liability, in any sum, is denied, and, assuming the attitude of plaintiff in reconvention, the defendant claims and prays for judgment against the plaintiff for $290 for past-due rent.

There was judgment in the trial court in favor of plaintiff on the main demand for $300 and costs, and in favor of defendant on its reconventional demand for $80.

The plaintiff alone appealed. The defendant has answered the appeal and prays that the judgment in favor of plaintiff for $300 and costs be avoided, and that the judgment in favor of defendant on its reconventional demand be amended by awarding it the additional sum of $17.50 per month for 10 months and 11 days, and, as thus amended, that it be affirmed.

The record discloses that the plaintiff, a physician, was a tenant of defendant; that he occupied an office in defendant’s building at a monthly rental of $30; that his rent was in arrears for more than two months; that agents of the defendant made many fruitless efforts to locate plaintiff’s whereabouts, and finally removed his office furniture, fixtures, etc., into another room in the building. In some unexplained way, a fire occurred in the room in which the plaintiff’s property was stored which, to some extent, damaged tho property, and, as a result, this suit was brought.

The plaintiff claims the following items of damage: ‘Property destroyed by fire, $1,426.-50; loss of practice on account of deprivation of books, instruments, etc., $1,500; humiliation, mortification, and embarrassment. $500 ; attorney’s fees, $500; and exemplary damages, $1,000.

We have read the testimony carefully and it convinces us that the plaintiff has very little, if any, cause to complain. Shortly after the fire two physicians, at the request of an agent of the defendant, made an estimate of the damage done to the plaiñtiff’s property by the fire, and they fixed the damage at $144. (Trans, p. 19.) The preponderance of the evidence convinces us that the defendant was more considerate of the plaintiff’s rights than the law actually requires. The evidence also shows that the room in which the plaintiff’s property was stored was' not subject to his use as an office, and that the trial judge correctly ruled that defendant was not entitled tq rent for that room.

For these reasons, it is decreed that the judgment on the main demand, in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for $300, be reduced to $144, and, as thus amended, that the judgment be affirmed; the costs of appeal to be paid by the plaintiff.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

DRE’SHAUN E. BURNS,

Defendant.

8:23CR120

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the motion of Assistant Federal Public Defender Yvonne 

D. Sosa and the Office of the Federal Public Defender to withdraw as counsel for the defendant, 

Dre’Shaun E. Burns. (Filing No. 21). Yvonne D. Sosa represents that the Office of the Federal 

Public Defender has a conflict of interest in this matter. Yvonne D. Sosa and the Office of the 

Federal Public Defender’s motion to withdraw (Filing No. 21) was granted (Filing No. 22). 

Julie A. Frank, 209 South 19th Street, Suite 323c, Omaha, NE 68102, (402) 346-2215, is 

appointed to represent Dre’Shaun E. Burns for the balance of these proceedings pursuant to the 

Criminal Justice Act. Yvonne D. Sosa shall forthwith provide Julie A. Frank with the discovery 

materials provided the defendant by the government and such other materials obtained by Yvonne 

D. Sosa which are material to Dre’Shaun E. Burns’ defense. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 12th day of July, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00120-RFR-MDN Doc # 23 Filed: 07/12/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 37
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Office of National Drug Control Policy

# AGENCY:

Office of National Drug Control Policy.

The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is in the process of renewing without change three data collection instruments. These data collection instruments—qualitative testing of creative advertising concepts (OMB 3201-0011), quantitative testing of near-final advertising before airing (OMB 3201-0006), and a tracking study to measure advertising effectiveness (OMB 3201-0010)—are critical to the continuity of the campaign and are key contributors to the downturn in teen drug abuse.

                        ONDCP was unable to meet the requirements for 60-day and 30-day notices for a regular renewal of existing data collection instruments. As such, emergency renewal is being submitted for a 6-month extension of the data collection instruments. During this extension period, the 60- and 30-day notices will be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

                        Address comments within 10 days to Mark Krawczyk, ONDCP, Room 737, Washington, DC 20503, by e-mail to                         *MKrawczyk@ondcp.eop.gov*, or by telephone at (202) 395-6720.                    

Signed on September 5, 2008.

Daniel R. Petersen,

Assistant General Counsel.

[FR Doc. E8-21053 Filed 9-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3180-02-P
Kathryne VauseAppellant/s Liberty Insurance Corporation

and Justin A. s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 28, 2014

No. 04-13-00614-CV

Kathryne VAUSE,

Appellant

v.

LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION and Justin A. Smith,

Appellees

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 07-2231-CV

William Old, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due to be filed on December 12, 2013. This court granted Appellant’s first

and second motions for extension of time to file the brief until January 24, 2014. On January 27, 2014,

Appellant filed an unopposed third motion for extension of time to file the brief until February 24, 2014,

for a total extension of seventy-four days. 

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief must be filed with this court not later than

February 24, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d). 

NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE

GRANTED. If Appellant fails to file the brief as ordered, the court may dismiss this appeal for want of

prosecution. See id. R. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b).

___________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on

this 28th day of January, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
Denied and Opinion Filed November 21, 2018 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-01373-CV IN RE LOUISE KING, Relator Original Proceeding from the 254th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-08-4995 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Boatright Opinion by Justice Boatright In this original proceeding, rela tor seeks a writ of mandamus d irecting the trial court to vacate its order denying relator’s motion to transfer the case and, alternatively, to vacate the order compelling the case to arbitration and vacate the arbitrator’s pretrial orders. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show both tha t the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellat e remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) ( orig. proceeding). It is ge nerally inappropriate to grant mandamus review of orders compelling arbitration, and parties w ho believe they are being erroneously compelled to arbitrate when they have not agreed to arbitration have an adequate remedy by appeal after final judgment. In re Adelphi Group, Ltd. , No. 05-16-01060-CV, 2016 WL 5266655, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 22, 2016, orig. proceedi ng) (citing In re Gulf Expl., LLC , 289 S.W.3d 836, 842 & n. 33 (Tex. 2009)). The parties in this c ase did not agree to arbitrate. Because the parties have an adequate remedy by appeal, relator is not entitled to mandamus relief.–2– We must deny a petition for mandamus when the relator is not en titled to relief. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a). Accordingly, we deny relat or’s petition for writ of ma ndamus.

181373F.P05 /Jason Boatright/ JASON BOATRIGHT JUSTICE
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clyde T. Brooks, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed, in accordance with the following memorandum: The trial court erred in refusing defendant’s request to charge criminally negligent homicide (Penal Law § 125.10), in addition to manslaughter in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.15), as a lesser included offense of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]). The record indicates that there is a reasonable view of the evidence that the defendant may have been guilty of criminally negligent homicide but not the greater crimes *(see, People v Glover,*57 NY2d 61; *People v Green,*56 NY2d 427, *rearg denied*57 NY2d 775). The testimony indicates that a *833jury could reasonably find that defendant did not intend to fire the weapon, that the weapon discharged when he attempted to demonstrate how to release the hammer, that he was not aware of the risk of harm, and that the weapon may have been accidentally discharged (see, *People v Stanfield,*36 NY2d 467; *People v Davis,*155 AD2d 609). Under the circumstances, it was for the jury to determine whether the defendant intentionally caused the victim’s death (murder in the second degree) *or*perceived the risk of harm and consciously disregarded it (manslaughter in the second degree) *or*negligently failed to perceive the risk (criminally negligent homicide). Therefore, defendant’s conviction for manslaughter in the second degree is reversed and the sentence vacated with leave to the People to re-present appropriate charges to another Grand Jury. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Marshall, J.—manslaughter, second degree.) Present—Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.