
    Nadia REGISTE, individually and as mother, next friend and, natural guardian of and on behalf of her minor children N. and N. Toussaint, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LINKAMERICA EXPRESS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Odaat Trucking, Inc., et al., Defendants.
    No. 15-11417
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Date Filed: 09/20/2016
    Terry Dale Jackson, Terry D. Jackson, PC, ATLANTA, GA, Gary M. Cooper, Law Office of Gary M. Cooper, DULUTH, GA, Jay C. Howell, Howell & Associates, JACKSONVILLE, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Adolfo Ruiz Rodriguez, Wilson C. Aur-bach, DALLAS, TX, Terry D. Dixon, Ver-nis & Bowling of Central Florida, PA, DELAND, FL, Alisa W. Ellenburg, Kevin T. Shires, Vernis & Bowling of Atlanta, LLC, ATLANTA, GA, Leonard T. Haek-ett, Vernis & Bowling of North Florida, PA, JACKSONVILLE, FL, for Defendant-Appellee,
    Before TJOFLAT and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges, and CONWAY, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Anne C. Conway, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

A vehicle driven at night on an interstate highway by plaintiff Nadia Registe was struck by a reckless driver, causing her to lose control of the vehicle. The vehicle veered toward the right shoulder of the road, spun back across three lanes of traffic, hit a guardrail, and ended up perpendicular to the flow of traffic, resting across almost three lanes of the roadway. Thereafter, a' truck owned by defendant LinkAmerica Express, Inc. came upon the scene and collided into Registers vehicle, causing injury to her and her minor daughter. Plaintiff suéd Defendant for negligence. Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict for Defendant, and the district judge entered judgment accordingly. , .

In this appeal, Plaintiff raises four arguments. First, Plaintiff disputes the district judge’s decision to exclude evidence of traffic data collected by a device near the collision. Second, Plaintiff challenges the district judge’s refusal to give several of Plaintiffs proposed jury instructions. Third, Plaintiff .challenges Defendant’s closing argument, which included an argument that Defendant’s driver faced an “emergency.” And fourth, Plaintiff, disputes the district judge’s decision to exclude from evidence a trucking manual discussed during trial.

After reviewing the parties’ briefs and the record, and with the benefit of oral argument, we find no reversible error in the district court’s rulings,

AFFIRMED.  