alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Skip to main content An icon that symbolizes the United States Department of Transportation logo. United States Department of Transportation
        Report a Safety Problem

  Toggle navigation
      National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationHomepage

    Ratings
                                Recalls
                                Risky Driving
                                Road Safety
                                Vehicle Safety
      
            More Info

                      Briefing Room
          
                        
            Importing a Vehicle
          
                                      
            
            Data
          
                        
            Research
          
                        
            Laws & Regulations
          
                    
                      Vehicle Manufacturers
                      State Governments
                      Enforcement & Justice Takata Preservation Order Protocols


Download file: Takata Preservation Order Protocols
 NHTSA Information
              
              About NHTSA
          Careers & Internships
          Contact Us
          Recall Information
          Report a Safety ProblemInformation For
              
              Vehicle Manufacturers
          State Governments
          Enforcement & JusticeNHTSA Sites
              
        SaferCar App
          TrafficSafetyMarketing.gov
          EMS.gov
          911.gov
            Website Information
              
        Web Policies & Notices
          Accessibility
          FOIA
          Privacy Policy
          Information Quality
          Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
          No Fear Act Data
          Ethics
          Civil Rights
          Office of Inspector General
          OIG Hotline
          BusinessUSA
          USA.gov
          WhiteHouse.gov

            National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
              1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
                Washington, D.C. 20590
              888-327-4236888-275-9171 (TTY)
              Twitter
                LinkedIn
                Facebook
                Youtube
                Instagram
        Submit Feedback >
## Contact Information

Bethesda MD20892

yinghui.shi@mail.nih.gov

October 2022

Back to Top
#### Latoya Jarvis, Respondent, v Jermaine Sanjose, Appellant.

[963 NYS2d 593]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated September 14, 2012, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

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

The defendant failed to meet his prima facie burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345, 350 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendant’s motion papers failed to adequately address the plaintiffs claim, clearly set forth in the bill of particulars, that she sustained a medically determined injury or impairment of a *1008nonpermanent nature which prevented her from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted her usual and customary daily activities for not less than 90 days during the 180 days immediately following the subject accident *(see Gonzalez v Houmita,*104 AD3d 912 [2013]; *Saldarriaga v Moreno,*101 AD3d 981, 982 [2012]).

Since the defendant failed to meet his prima facie burden, it is unnecessary to determine whether the papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see generally Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Rivera, J.E, Dickerson, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.2

                                  iParty Corp.

                                  June 7, 2007

    Written Summary of Renewed One-Year Part-time Consulting Arrangement with
                                Mr. Vassalluzzo


     iParty Corp. shall renew its engagement of Joseph Vassalluzzo to provide
consulting services on a part-time basis over a one-year period beginning on
June 7, 2007 (the date of termination of the prior year's arrangement) to
iParty's senior management, in particular iParty's Chairman and CEO, Sal
Perisano, with respect to various retail, operational, strategic, real estate
and store location issues, as may from time to time be necessary and
appropriate. Such services shall on occasion require Mr. Vassalluzzo's presence
at iParty's corporate headquarters in Dedham, Massachusetts and/or current or
proposed store location sites, principally in New England and Florida. On or
before the end of the one-year period commencing on June 7, 2007, iParty Corp.
shall pay Mr. Vassalluzzo one or more payments not to exceed $60,000 cash for
services rendered over the one-year period beginning on June 7, 2007, with such
services to be earned at a rate of $5,000 per month.
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1833-DR]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia (FEMA-1833-DR), dated April 23, 2009, and related determinations.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         April 13, 2009.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective April 13, 2009.

(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.)

Nancy Ward,

Acting Administrator,

Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. E9-11509 Filed 5-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 98-20741 Summary Calendar

_______________ In the Matter of: ROY BERT ROBINSON,

Debtor.

RICHARD HENRY PARKER, JR.,

Appellant, VERSUS

DONALD M. LANCON, ROY BERT ROBINSON,

and KATHLEEN ROBINSON,

Appellees.

******************************************

In the Matter of: RICHARD HENRY PARKER, JR.,

Debtor. RICHARD HENRY PARKER, JR.,

Appellant, VERSUS

DONALD M. LANCON, ROY BERT ROBINSON,

and KATHLEEN ROBINSON,

Appellees.* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not prec edent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

2 _________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(H-95-CV-5714)

_________________________ June 14, 1999

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Richard Parker appeals the district court's rejection of all

of his challenges to bankruptcy court orders. The first error

Par ker alleges SS the failure of the bankruptcy court to disqualify

an attorney SS

he waive d by failing to designate the issue in his

statement of issues submitted to the district court pursuant to

F ED

. R. B ANKR

. P. 8006. S ee Zimmermann v. Jenkins (In re GGM, P.C.)

,

165 F.3d 1026, 1031 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding “that, even if an

issue is argued in the bankruptcy court and ruled on by that court,

it is not preserved for appeal under Bankruptcy Rule 8006 unless

the appellant includes the issue in its statement of issues on

appeal.”).

Regarding the remaining issues, there is no reversible error,

and we affirm on the basis of the district court's thorough

opinion, which does a fine job of wading through the convoluted

morass of proceedings to resolve the fairly simple legal arguments.

It is time for this seemingly endless litigation S S over fifteen

years of related cases, involving several courts at both the state

and federal level SS to be brought to conclusion. AFFIRMED.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 5 A1 92 5 . W I LLI E MOSS v . THE STATE.

W i l l i e M o s s was co nv i c t e d o f nu m ero u s o ffen s es , i n cl u d i n g o ne co u n t o f

m u rd er an d o n e co u n t of fel on y m u rd er, an d t h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed hi s m o ti on fo r n ew

t ri al . M o s s t h en fi led a d i rect ap p eal , wh i ch h as b een d ock et ed i n t hi s Co u rt

. U n d er o u r Co n st i t ut io n , t h e Su p rem e Co u rt h as ap p el l at e ju ri s d i ct i o n o v e r

“ [a] l l cas es i n w h i ch a sen ten ce o f d eat h was i m p o s ed o r co u l d b e i m

p o s ed .” See Ga.

Co n s t

. o f 1 9 8 3, Art

. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (8 ). Becau s e a p en al t y of d eat h can b e

i m p o s ed fo r t h e cri m e o f m urd er, ju r i s d i ct i o n i s p ro p er i n t he Su p rem e Co u rt

. See

OCGA § 1 7 -1 0 -3 0 (b ); Nea l v. S t a t e , 29 0 G a. 5 6 3

, 5 7 2 (7 22 SE2 d 7 6 5 ) (2 0 1 2 )
(Hu ns t ei n , C. J., co n cu rri n g ); s ee al s o S t a t e v. Th o r n t o n , 2 5 3 Ga. 5 2 4 (1 ) (3 2 2 SE2 d

7 1 1 ) (1 9 84 ) (d i rect in g t hi s Co u rt t o t ran s fer “ al l cas es i n wh ich ei t h er a s en t en ce o f

d eat h o r o f l ife i m

p ri s o n m e n t h as b een i m p o s ed u po n co n vi ct i o n o f m u rd er”).

Acco rd in g ly

, M o s s ’ s ap p eal i s h ereb y T R A N SFERRED t o t h e Su p rem e Co u rt fo r

d i s p o s i t i on

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 07/02/2015 July 02, 2015
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,470]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 4, 2009 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Fluidmaster, Inc., San Juan Capistrano, California. The workers at the subject facility produce toilet repair products.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC, this 16th day of April 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-10907 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                        5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Equivest
Finance, Inc. and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                    SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                            5,894,664
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   174,215,237
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (6,813,676)
<INVENTORY>                                      60,879,922
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          0
<PP&E>                                           11,223,223
<DEPRECIATION>                                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  285,794,246
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     0
<BONDS>                                         199,579,037
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                30,000
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                            256,884
<OTHER-SE>                                       62,433,485
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    285,794,246
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 65,619,185
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    40,786,652
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  1,449,919
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               11,053,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  12,329,114
<INCOME-TAX>                                      5,075,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               7,254,114
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                      7,254,114
<EPS-BASIC>                                           .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .26



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6737

CLARENCE ELLIOTT HARRIS, as an individual,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, a municipal entity; HON. TERESA N. HAMMON, 

an individual; HON. ELIZABETH S. HODGES, an individual; DAVID M. 

O’DELL, an individual; COLIN STOLLE, an individual; SGT. B. JACKSON, 

VBPD, an individual; OFFICER T. W. LIPSEY, JR., VBPD, an individual; 

OFFICER A. N. MURAWSKI, VBPD, an individual; OFFICER P. E. 

GREENFIELD, VBPD, an individual,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:19-cv-00408-RBS-RJK)

Submitted: October 20, 2020 Decided: October 23, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Elliott Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Gerald Logan Harris, OFFICE OF THE CITY 

ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Jeff W. 

Rosen, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Clarence E. Harris appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action for 

failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Harris v. City of Virginia Beach, No. 2:19-cv-00408-RBS-RJK (E.D. Va. May 11, 

2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Equivest
Finance, Inc. and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          5,537,536
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 270,508,224
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (10,803,946)
<INVENTORY>                                    92,403,761
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        0
<PP&E>                                         17,872,510
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                436,246,245
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   0
<BONDS>                                       298,304,143
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              30,000
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                          280,897
<OTHER-SE>                                     80,186,033
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  436,246,245
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               40,414,305
<CGS>                                           5,644,236
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               22,148,092
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                1,906,471
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              6,472,178
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 4,243,328
<INCOME-TAX>                                    1,775,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             2,468,328
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    2,468,328
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.08



</TABLE>
#### In re: SILICON IMAGE, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, In Re, Landon Curry; William S. Hayman; John Herlihy, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Silicon Image, Inc. Securities Litigation; Steve Tirado; Robert Gargus; David Lee, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-16947.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 14, 2009.

Filed May 1, 2009.

Aaron H. Darsky, Esquire, Robert C. Schubert, Esquire, Schubert Jonckheer Kolbe & Kralowee, LLP, Juden Justice Reed, Esquire, Law Offices, San Francisco, CA, Christopher Lovell, Esquire, Lo-vell Stewart Halebian LLP, Richard Speirs, Esquire, Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Emmett Charles Stanton, Cathleen Do-nohoe, Fenwick & West, LLP, Mountain View, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: T.G. NELSON, KLEINFELD and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their fourth amended complaint in this class action securities lawsuit. We affirm.

Plaintiffs have failed to allege specific facts showing that the statements in the press releases or SEC filings were false or misleading. *See*15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(l); Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). The alleged omissions did not “affirmatively create an impression of a state of affairs that differ[ed] in a material way from the one that actually exist[ed].” *Brody v. Transitional Hosps. Corp.,*280 F.3d 997, 1006 (9th Cir.2002); *see*17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b).

This analysis of the complaint’s falsity allegations makes unnecessary any determination of whether the facts pleaded, considered as a whole, give rise to a strong inference of scienter. *Cf. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.,*551 U.S. 308, 319-25, 127 S.Ct. 2499, 2508-10, 168 L.Ed.2d 179 (2007); *Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp.,*552 F.3d 981, 1006-08 (9th Cir.2009); *S. Ferry LP, # 2 v. Killinger,*542 F.3d 776, 784-85 (9th Cir.2008). Plaintiffs have not alleged facts showing that any statements were false or misleading.

*561The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint without leave to amend. *See In re Vantive Corp. Sec. Litig.,*288 F.3d 1079, 1097 (9th Cir.2002). Plaintiffs have failed to cure the complaint’s deficiencies, despite detailed guidance from the district court and four prior opportunities to do so. Plaintiffs have not pointed to any additional facts that they could allege to cure the deficiencies. *Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc.,*540 F.3d 1049, 1072 (9th Cir.2008). Plaintiffs plead, in substance, bad management rather than false statements.

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.