alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NTSB/HAB-02/17 

E PLURIBUS UNUM

NATIONAL TRA S PORTAT OI N

BOARD

SAFE T Y

N

National Transportation Safety Board 

Washington, D.C. 20594 

Highway Accident Brief

Accident No.: HWY-98-SH-039 

Accident Type: Loss of control on downgrade 

Location: Dunlap, Tennessee 

Date and Time: August 13, 1998; 7:13 p.m. 

Vehicle 1 (V1): 1994 Peterbilt tractor-semitrailer hauling wood chips 

Vehicles 2–10 (V2–V10): 4 passenger cars, 1 sport utility vehicle, 3 pickup trucks, 

and 1 panel truck 

Fatalities/Injuries: 2 fatalities, 17 minor to moderate injuries 

Accident Description 

The truckdriver was unable to control the vehicle’s speed traveling down a steep, 4-

mile downgrade toward a signalized intersection at State Highway 111 and U.S. Highway 

127. (See figure 1.) She stated that she attempted to downshift into a lower gear. The 

driver failed to put the transmission back into gear, thereby descending the hill with only 

air mechanical brakes to control the speed. She lost control of the truck, traveled into the 

intersection, and struck several parked and moving vehicles and pedestrians. Two 

occupants of a car were killed; four other vehicle occupants and 13 pedestrians were 

injured. 

The truckdriver stated during her interview with the police that her truck was 

overloaded (in excess of 93,000 pounds). A postaccident inspection of the truck revealed 

no mechanical deficiencies. 

State/Federal Oversight 

Tennessee has adopted the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations with some 

variances; none of the variances were pertinent to the carrier or driver at the time of the 

accident. The Commercial Motor Vehicle Division of the Tennessee Department of 

Safety had never reviewed or audited either the owner/carrier of the truck tractor or the 

owner of the semitrailer involved in the accident. 
NTSB/HAB-02/17 

2 

V1 impact

with V2

V1 impact

with V5 V6 & V7

Source: NTSB

(not to scale)

N

Dunlap, Tennessee

U.S. Highway 127

Highway 111

(shoulder)

(shoulder)

Impacts with

V2 V3 & V4

Impacts with

V8 V9 & V10

Figure 1. Accident diagram. 

Probable Cause 

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the 

accident was the truckdriver’s inability to control the truck on a long, steep downgrade. 

Contributing to the cause of the accident may have been excessive load weight. 

Adopted: September 17, 2002
§ 400.97 Reservations of authority. ( a ) Representatives of the Agency may correct all errors in entering data on program contracts and other program documents, and the results of computations or calculations made pursuant to the contract.
( b ) Nothing contained in this subpart precludes the Secretary, the Manager of FCIC, or the Administrator of RMA, or a designee, from determining at any time any question arising under the programs within their respective authority or from reversing or modifying any adverse decision.
#### § 502.4 Conformity with signs and emergency directions.

Persons in and on property of BARC shall comply with official signs of a prohibitory or directory nature, and with the directions of authorized individuals.

[61 FR 51211, Oct. 1, 1996]
Page
                Twenty Two





**Exhibit
      32.2**





**Statement
      of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.**§
**1350**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report
      of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period
      ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      on
      the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, as the chief financial officer
      of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1)           The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.

















/s/
                R. Alan MillerR.
                Alan MillerChief
                Financial OfficerMay
                7, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Consolidated
Capital Properties VI 1999 Third Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000755908
<NAME> CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL PROPERITES VI
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,977
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          10,340
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,244
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,380
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                          4,288
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,746
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,380
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,377
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,339
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 327
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        38
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .21<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>


</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT NICHOLAS ZADRAVEC, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-3954 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed March 7, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco, Judge. Rachael E. Bushey of O'Brien Hatfield, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Linsey Sims-Bohnenstiehl, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and KHOUZAM and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
#### § 51.1866 Soft.

*Soft* means that the tomato yields readily to slight pressure.
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of KCAP Financial, Inc.(the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the Report), I, Edward U. Gilpin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1)

          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: March 31, 2015

          

          By:/s/ Edward U. GilpinEdward U. Gilpin Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6438

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DERRICK LAMONT EVANS, a/k/a Shank, a/k/a Dechee Dan, a/k/a Big Head, a/k/a 

Debo,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00024-JPJ-1)

Submitted: January 9, 2020 Decided: February 25, 2020

Before HARRIS and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Juval O. Scott, Federal Public Defender, Roanoke, Virginia, Brian J. Beck, Assistant 

Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Abingdon, 

Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas T. Cullen, United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, 

Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Lamont Evans appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

relief pursuant to Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 

5194. Evans contends, for the first time on appeal, that the district court erred in 

determining that his sentence was imposed in accordance with the Fair Sentencing Act of 

2010 (FSA), Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, because his term of supervised release 

exceeds the statutory maximum authorized by the FSA. Finding no plain error, we affirm.

“To preserve an argument on appeal, the defendant must object on the same basis 

below as he contends is error on appeal.” United States v. Westbrooks, 780 F.3d 593, 595 

(4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). “To satisfy plain error review, the 

defendant must establish that: (1) there is a sentencing error; (2) the error is plain; and (3) 

the error affects his substantial rights.” United States v. Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d 416, 

422 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). We agree with the Government 

that, even assuming the district court erred by imposing an excessive term of supervised 

release, that error was not plain. See United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir. 

2018) (“At a minimum, courts of appeals cannot correct an error pursuant to plain error 

review unless the error is clear under current law.” (brackets and internal quotation marks 

omitted)).

We therefore affirm the district court’s order. 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
#### § 51.2287 Well dried.

*Well dried* means that the portion of kernel is firm and crisp, not pliable or leathery.
BUILDING TECHNOLOGIE

May 27, 2014

ASRAC Pumps Working Group

PER C‐Value Update ‐ Comparison of DOE and HI 
2

Introduction Using the PER Metric, C‐Values are used to define ea

Efficiency Level for each Equipment Class

 At this time, we have developed PER C‐Values at eac

Efficiency Level from both the HI and DOE data sets

o When the data sets are merged, we will have one set of pr

Values

 The following slides will present and compare the cu

and HI PER C‐Values

 Please note the following:

o End Suction and Inline DOE C‐Values have not change since 

29‐30 meetings

o Based on preliminary feedback, we are not presenting C‐V

the 4‐Pole VT‐S equipment class

o PER C‐Values for RS‐V have been established by shifting th

MEI C‐Values by ‐0.524 points.
3

Summary of C‐Values

Proposed DOE PER C‐Values

Equipment Class PER 10 PER 25 PER 40 PER 50 PER 55 PER 70

ESCC 1800 131.73 128.32 126.66 125.56 125.03 123.63ESCC 3600 133.06 130.03 128.50 127.61 127.17 125.08

ESFM 1800 130.92 127.98 126.36 125.33 124.86 123.33ESFM 3600 132.71 130.40 128.60 127.78 127.50 125.29

IL 1800 133.91 129.05 127.20 126.43 125.76 124.19IL 3600 138.89 133.17 130.52 129.68 129.26 127.17

RSV 1800 133.93 132.16 129.86 129.52 128.11 124.96RSV 3600 137.67 134.63 133.43 132.91 132.13 129.85

VTS 1800VTS 3600 135.78 133.90 130.91 129.49 128.62 127.21

Proposed HI PER C‐Values

PER 10 PER 25 PER 40 PER 50 PER 55 PER 70

ESCC 1800 131.53 128.86 126.97 125.81 125.32 123.95ESCC 3600 134.45 130.70 128.97 128.20 127.72 125.39

ESFM 1800 133.22 129.33 127.52 126.29 125.74 124.04ESFM 3600 134.90 131.19 129.34 128.26 127.96 126.12

IL 1800 134.78 129.63 127.09 126.21 125.49 124.14IL 3600 138.90 134.06 131.40 130.00 129.45 127.10

RSV 1800 133.93 132.16 129.86 129.52 128.11 124.96RSV 3600 137.67 134.63 133.43 132.91 132.13 129.85

VTS 1800VTS 3600 134.78 131.88 129.93 128.88 128.03 126.84
4

Results: ESCC 1800
5

Results: ESCC 3600
6

Results: ESFM 1800
7

Results: ESFM 3600
8

Results: IL 1800
9

Results: IL 3600
10

Results: VT‐S 3600
11

Summary: HI (Navigant Calc) vs. DOE C‐Values ESCC

o DOE C‐Values are consistently more efficient, by an average of 0.5 efficie

each cut‐off level

• MEI C‐Values varied by the same delta.

 ESFM

o DOE C‐Values are consistently more efficient, by an average of 1.1 efficie

each cut‐off level

• MEI C‐Values varied by the same delta

 IL

o DOE C‐Values are consistently more efficient, by an average of 0.25 effici

each cut‐off level

• MEI C‐Values varied by 0.5 efficiency points

 VT‐S

o DOE C‐Values are consistently less efficient, by an average of 0.7 efficienc

each cut‐off level

• MEI C‐Values varied by 0.7 efficiency points
12

ConclusionsComments on variation among US C‐Value data  Variation between the HI and DOE C‐Values was exp

DOE and HI data sets contain a number of non‐overl

models.

 The presented PER variation was found be consistent with 

variation presented previously

 Calculation of PER C‐Values from the merged data set shou

the issue
# L_2016330DE.01001201.xml

| 3.12.2016 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 330/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2016

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 330/12

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1301/2013 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 17. Dezember 2013 über den Europäischen Fonds für regionale Entwicklung und mit besonderen Bestimmungen hinsichtlich des Ziels „Investitionen in Wachstum und Beschäftigung“ und zur Aufhebung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1080/2006

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 347 vom 20. Dezember 2013
  )

Auf Seite 296, Artikel 6 Absätze 2 und 3:

Anstatt:

„(2)   Für gemeinsame und programmspezifische Outputindikatoren werden die Ausgangswerte auf Null gesetzt. Für das Jahr 2023 werden kumulative quantifizierte Zielwerte für diese Indikatoren festgelegt.

(3)   Bei den programmspezifischen Ergebnisindikatoren mit Bezug auf die Investitionsprioritäten werden die Ausgangswerte aufgrund der neuesten verfügbaren Daten und Ziele für das Jahr 2023 festgelegt. Die Zielvorgaben können quantitativ oder qualitativ formuliert sein.“

muss es heißen:

„(2)   Für gemeinsame und programmspezifische Outputindikatoren werden die Ausgangswerte auf Null gesetzt. Für das Jahr 2023 werden kumulative quantifizierte Sollvorgaben für diese Indikatoren festgelegt.

(3)   Bei den programmspezifischen Ergebnisindikatoren mit Bezug auf die Investitionsprioritäten werden für die Ausgangswerte die neuesten verfügbaren Daten verwendet und die Sollvorgaben werden für das Jahr 2023 festgelegt. Die Sollvorgaben können quantitativ oder qualitativ formuliert sein.“

Auf Seite 296, Artikel 7 Absatz 2:

Anstatt:

„(2)   Nachhaltige Stadtentwicklung sollte durch integrierte territoriale Investitionen gemäß Artikel 36 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1303/2013 oder mit einem spezifischen operationellen Programm oder mittels eines speziellen Schwerpunkts im Sinne von Artikel 96 Absatz 1 Unterabsatz 1 Buchstabe c der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1303/2013 durchgeführt werden.“

muss es heißen:

„(2)   Nachhaltige Stadtentwicklung sollte durch integrierte territoriale Investitionen gemäß Artikel 36 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1303/2013 oder mit einem spezifischen operationellen Programm oder mittels einer speziellen Prioritätsachse im Sinne von Artikel 96 Absatz 1 Unterabsatz 1 Buchstabe c der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1303/2013 durchgeführt werden.“

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet and Condensed Consolidated Statement of
Income filed as part of Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-02-1999
<CASH>                                          22,057
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  516,451
<ALLOWANCES>                                    28,009
<INVENTORY>                                    367,041
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,010,006
<PP&E>                                       1,806,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                 919,525
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,805,289
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          914,972
<BONDS>                                      1,686,544
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           691
<OTHER-SE>                                     (9,875)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,805,289
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,185,920
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,898,059
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                94,530
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,777
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              69,465
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 81,535
<INCOME-TAX>                                    32,025
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             49,510
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    49,510
<EPS-PRIMARY> <F1>                                 .53
<EPS-DILUTED> <F1>                                 .49
        

<FN>

<F1> Earnings per share has been prepared in accordance with SFAS No. 128,
     "Earnings Per Share" and therefore basic and diluted earnings per share 
     have been entered in place of primary and fully diluted EPS, respectively. 

</FN>






</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350 AS ADOPTED
 
 PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of The Furia Organization,
Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 1. The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.
 
 Dated: June 9, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Michael
      D. AlexanderMichael
      D. AlexanderPresident
      and Chief Financial Officer
AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO


TO THE


1993 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN


OF


FOSSIL, INC.


 
The following Amendment to the 1993 Long-Term Incentive Plan of Fossil, Inc. (The “Incentive Plan”), as authorized by the Board of Directors of Fossil, Inc. (the “Company”), is adopted as of the effective date specified herein:
 
The first sentence of paragraph 4 of the Incentive Plan is amended to read as follows:
 
“Common Stock Available for Award.  There shall be available for Awards granted wholly or partly in Common Stock  (including rights or options which may be exercised for or settled in Common Stock) during the term of this Plan an aggregate of 3,525,000 shares of Common Stock.”
 
This amendment shall become effective immediately upon the approval of the Amendment by the Stockholders of the Company at the 1998 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.


 


	 
	Adopted this 3rd day of March 1998.

	 
	 

	 
	 

	 
	Fossil, Inc.

	 
	 

	 
	 

	 
	By:
	               /s/ T.R. Tunnell
	 

	 
	 
	               T.R. Tunnell

	 
	 
	        Senior Vice President, Development,

       Chief Legal Officer & Secretary
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE 3:20-cv-05503-RV-HTC

ESCAMBIA COUNTY

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Vinson on 02/10/2021

Type of Motion/Pleading United States of America’s Notice of Election

to Decline Intervention

Filed by: Plaintiff on 02/09/2021 Doc. No. 6

( ) Stipulated/Consented/Joint Pleading

RESPONSES:

on Doc. No.

on Doc. No.

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS

CLERK OF COURT

/s/ UtÜutÜt eÉzxÜá

Deputy Clerk: Barbara Rogers

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 11th day of

 February , 2021, that:

(a)The requested relief is GRANTED. The United States has asked (1)

that it be given notice and opportunity to consent before this cause is

dismissed, and (2) that all pleadings, orders, and notices of appeal

filed in the case be served upon the United States. It shall have the

retained right to do so.

(b) The seal in this case is hereby LIFTED.

/s/ Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05503-RV-HTC Document 7 Filed 02/11/21 Page 1 of 1
3/21/2006

 

ADDENDUM to $250,000.00 Bridge Note Agreement between EntreMetrix and Infinity Capital Partners dated May 20th, 2005, payable on December 15th, 2005. 

 

As a result of unfulfilled payment on December 15th, 2005 of the initial $114,000.00 loaned to EntreMetrix a $10,000.00 penalty has been incurred. The loan amount has been increased to $124,000.00 as of January 1st, 2006. This note continues to bear interest at 12% on $124,000.00 through December 31st, 2006. If the note is not paid in full on December 31st  , 2006, an additional 10% penalty will be applied, and interest at 12% will be paid monthly on the new amount. All additional interest that has occurred on the note but not paid will be paid to Infinity Capital Partners on the March interest payment. 

 

All terms listed on this addendum will be in addition to the Bridge Note and Promissory Note.

 

| EntreMetrix | Infinity Capital Partners |
|-------------|---------------------------|

 

 

 

| /s/ Scott W.  Absher                          | /s/ Michael Isco                                      |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Scott W. Absher                                                                                                                                                                 | date                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           | Michael Isco | date |   |