alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY CONVERSION

INJURY CODE CONVERSION DEFINITIONS / INSTRUCTIONS / NOTES SOURCE LOCATION

Suspected Serious Injury 2009 - Present

NE Instructions for Investigator's Motor 

Vehicle Accident Report Forms 2009,

NE Investigator's Motor Vehicle Accident 

Report 2012

2 - Disabling A Cannot leave scene without assistance (broken bones, severe cuts, prolonged 

unconsciousness, etc.). 64. Injury Severity (4) codes found on Manual pg17 (PDF pg20).

PEDESTRIAN AND PEDALCYCLIST (NON-MOTORIZED) CONVERSION

PERSON TYPE CODE STATE DEFINITIONS / INSTRUCTIONS / NOTES SOURCE LOCATION

Pedestrian 2009 - Present

NE Instructions for Investigator’s Motor 

Vehicle Accident Report Forms 2009, 

NE Investigator's Motor Vehicle Accident 

Report 2013

Pedestrian 18

Any person involved in a collision event who is not a vehicle occupant or a pedalcyclist. 

Included are persons on foot or using pedestrian conveyances, such as roller skates, nonpowered wheel chairs, baby carriages, scooters, etc. Seating Position Definitions found on pg28 (PDF 

pg31) 

Pedalcyclist 2009 - Present

Bicycle (pedalcycle) 19 Any non-motorized road vehicle propelled by pedaling, including bicycles, tricycles, unicycles, 

or pedalcars. Seating Position Definitions found on pg28 (PDF pg31) 

Nebraska
#### Mario A. PETACCIA, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 70-1042.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 8, 1971.

Habeas corpus denied.
| 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. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Date:                December 17, 2007 |                                                                                          |
|--------|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                   |                                                                                          |   |
|   | By:                                    | /s/ FRANK                A. MOODY II                                                     |   |
|   |                                   | Frank                A. Moody II, Chairman, President,                Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   |                                   |                                                                                          |   |
#### KENNER MARINE AND MACHINERY, INC. v. William BEZDEK et al.

No. 11724.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Oct. 17, 1977.

Jules A. Carville, III, LaPlace, of counsel for plaintiff-appellant Kenner Marine *&*Machinery, Inc.

Charles Seeman, Jr., New Orleans, of counsel for defendant-appellee Maryland Cas. Co.

Donald Cave, Baton Rouge, of counsel for defendant-appellee, William Bezdek, et al.

Asst. Gen. Counsel Sharon Frazier, Baton Rouge, of counsel for defendant-appellee Dept, of Highways.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

Before LANDRY, SARTAIN and ELLIS, JJ.

LANDRY, Judge.

The Department of Highways, State of Louisiana (Appellee), has moved dismissal of the appeal taken by plaintiff (Appellant) from judgment maintaining Appellee’s exception of no right of action. The motion is predicated on Appellant’s alleged untimely posting of the required appeal bond. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

On May 11, 1977, judgment was rendered in the presence of counsel for Appellant, maintaining Appellee’s said exception and dismissing Appellant’s suit as to Appellee, with prejudice. Judgment was signed that same day. Appellant did not apply for a new trial. On June 7, 1977, Appellant ap*782plied for and was granted a suspensive appeal or, alternatively, a devolutive appeal, on posting bond in the sum of $250.00. Appellant posted bond on August 5, 1977.

A suspensive appeal must be taken and bond posted therefor within 30 days of expiration of the delays for applying for a new trial when no application for new trial has been made. La.C.C.P. Article 2123. The delay for taking a devolutive appeal and posting bond therefor is 60 days within expiration of the delays for applying for a new trial when a new trial has not been requested. La.C.C.P. Article 2087.

A new trial must be applied for within 7 days, excluding holidays, of the signing of judgment when notice of judgment is not required. La.C.C.P. Article 1974.

Notice of judgment is not required when judgment is rendered at the conclusion of trial and the party against whom judgment is rendered does not request notice of judgment when judgment is signed. La.C.C.P. Article 1913.

Notice of judgment was not required in this case. Article 1913, above. Since notice was not required, the delays for applying for new trial herein commenced Wednesday, May 12,1977, and expired Friday, May 20, 1977. The sixty day delay for perfecting a devolutive appeal herein commenced May 21,1977, and expired Tuesday, July 19, 1977. Appellant’s posting of bond on August 5, 1977, was untimely.

Failure of Appellant to timely post the required appeal bond is a jurisdictional defect mandating dismissal of the appeal. *Wright v. Mark C. Smith & Sons Partnership,*264 So.2d 304 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1972); *Something Irish Company v. Rack,*333 So.2d 773 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1976).

The appeal herein taken by Appellant is dismissed as to defendant State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Highways, at Appellant’s cost.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 198 (Tuesday, October 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 53334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27094]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings of the National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis 
Panel:

    Agenda Purpose: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Committee Name: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: October 15, 1997.
    Time: 11 a.m.
    Place: Double Tree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 
20852.
    Contact Person: Gavin T. Wilkom, Parklawn Building, Room 9C-18, 
5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: 301, 443-4868.

    Committee Name: National Institute of Mental Health Special 
Emphasis Panel.
    Date: October 30, 1997.
    Time: 1 p.m.
    Place: Parklawn Building, Room 9C-18, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20857.
    Contact Person: Gavin T. Wilkom, Parklawn Building, Room 9C-18, 
5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: 301, 443-4868.
    The meetings will be closed in accordance with the provisions 
set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    This notice is being published less than fifteen days prior to 
the meetings due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations 
imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers 93.242, 
93.281, 93.282)

    Dated: October 6, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-27094 Filed 10-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

** **

**Section 1350 Certifications**

** **

**In connection with this annualreport of BlackRock Global Horizons I L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Michael L.Pungello, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:**

** **

1. This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and

 

2. The information contained in this Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| By                      | /s/ MICHAEL L. PUNGELLO |   |
|-------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
| Michael L. Pungello     |                    |
| Chief Financial Officer |                    |
|                    |                    |
| March 30, 2009     |                    |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5240-5241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2730]


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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Division 
of Extramural Activities; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting:

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel (Telephone Conference Call).
    Date: February 27, 1997.
    Time: 2:30 p.m.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 7550 Wisconsin Avenue, 
Room 9C10, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.
    Contact Person: Dr. Howard Weinstein, Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Institutes of Health, 7550 Wisconsin Avenue,

[[Page 5241]]

Room 9C10, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-9223.
    Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate 1 SBIR Phase I Topic 027 
Contract Proposal.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.853, Clinical 
Research Related to Neurological Disorders; No. 93.854, Biological 
Basis Research in the Neurosciences).

    Dated: January 29, 1997.
Paula N. Hayes,
Acting Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-2730 Filed 2-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3373 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3373

To require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to extend the time 
period during which licensees are required to commence construction of 
                      certain hydropower projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 30, 2023

Mr. Daines (for himself, Mr. Casey, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, and Mr. Fetterman) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
               Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to extend the time 
period during which licensees are required to commence construction of 
                      certain hydropower projects.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN 
              HYDROPOWER PROJECTS.

    (a) Definition of Covered Project.--In this section, the term 
``covered project'' means a hydropower project with respect to which 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a license before March 
13, 2020.
    (b) Authorization of Extension.--Notwithstanding section 13 of the 
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806), on the request of a licensee of a 
covered project, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may, after 
reasonable notice and for good cause shown, extend in accordance with 
subsection (c) the period during which the licensee is required to 
commence construction of the covered project for an additional 4 years 
beyond the 8 years authorized by that section.
    (c) Period of Extension.--An extension of time to commence 
construction of a covered project under subsection (b) shall--
            (1) begin on the date on which the final extension of the 
        period for commencement of construction granted to the licensee 
        under section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) 
        expires; and
            (2) end on the date that is 4 years after the latest date 
        to which the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is authorized 
        to extend the period for commencement of construction under 
        that section.
                                 <all>
```
#### Arthur M. GOODMAN and Chester Watson v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY.

No. 50169.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 7, 1977.

Jacobs, Griffith & Povall, John Kirkham Povall, Cleveland, for appellant.

Levingston, Jacks, Levingston & Land, Jeffrey A. Levingston, Cleveland, for appel-lee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Bolivar County; William H. Bizzell, Chancellor.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and SUGG and WALKER, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
#### Henry P. ALEXANDER, Jr., an Insane Person by Edith Skinner, Guardian, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. UNITED STATES v. Henry P. ALEXANDER, Jr.

No. 7623.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 9, 1937.

John C. Lehr, U. S. Atty., of Detroit, Mich.

Victor C. Anderson, of Lansing, Mich., and George F. Anderson, of Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.

Before HICKS, SIMONS, and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This cause coming on for hearing upon the certificate of the deputy clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division, Bay City, Mich., and a stipulation entered into by counsel for the respective parties in the above-entitled cause, and the court being fully advised in the premises,

It is ordered and adjudged that the instant case be docketed and dismissed without costs to either party.
# L_2005305EN.01004301.xml

| 24.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 305/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 305/43

---

COUNCIL DECISION 2005/821/CFSP

of 21 November 2005

amending Decision 2004/658/CFSP on the financial provisions applicable to the general budget of the European Defence Agency

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Council Joint Action 2004/551/CFSP of 12 July 2004 on the establishment of a European Defence Agency (1), and in particular Article 18(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 13 September 2004, the Council adopted Decision 2004/658/CFSP (2) laying down the financial provisions applicable to the general budget of the European Defence Agency. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 13 September 2004, the Council adopted Decision 2004/658/CFSP (2) laying down the financial provisions applicable to the general budget of the European Defence Agency.

| (2) | The Steering Board of the European Defence Agency on 23 May 2005 recommended to the Council to extend from one to two years the period within which the Steering Board should review and as necessary amend these financial provisions. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Steering Board of the European Defence Agency on 23 May 2005 recommended to the Council to extend from one to two years the period within which the Steering Board should review and as necessary amend these financial provisions.

| (3) | Decision 2004/658/CFSP should be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Decision 2004/658/CFSP should be amended accordingly,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

In Article 1 of Decision 2004/658/CFSP, the second sentence shall be replaced by the following:

‘The Steering Board shall review or amend as necessary these financial provisions before 31 December 2006.’

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 21 November 2005.

For the Council

The President

J. STRAW

---

(1)  
  OJ L 245, 17.7.2004, p. 17.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 300, 25.9.2004, p. 52.

2

---
| (1)   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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 result of operations of the      Company. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      November 9, 2009 |                                                                              |   |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                        | /s/ SAL      PERISANO           |   |
|                        | Sal      Perisano                                                                 |
|                        | Chief      ExecutiveOfficer                                                       |
**President**

**Section 906 Certification under Sarbanes Oxley Act**

 

 

 

I, Michael G. Clark, certify that: 

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this report, filed on behalf of DWS Micro Cap Fund, a series of DWS Advisor Funds, on Form N-CSRS; |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the periodic report on Form N-CSRS (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of § 13 (a) or §15 (d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

| May 29, 2009 | /s/Michael G. Clark                               |
|--------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|         | Michael G. Clark                                  |
|         | President                                         |
|         | DWS Micro Cap Fund, a series of DWS Advisor Funds |

 

 

 

 

 

**Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer**

**Section 906 Certification under Sarbanes Oxley Act**

 

 

 

I, Paul Schubert, certify that: 

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this report, filed on behalf of DWS Micro Cap Fund, a series of DWS Advisor Funds, on Form N-CSRS; |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the periodic report on Form N-CSRS (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of § 13 (a) or § 15 (d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| May 29, 2009 | /s/Paul Schubert                                  |
|--------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|         | Paul Schubert                                     |
|         | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer             |
|         | DWS Micro Cap Fund, a series of DWS Advisor Funds |
#### PENN CORK AND CLOSURES, INC., a New York corporation, Appellant, v. PIGGYBACK SHIPPERS ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-220.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 31, 1973.

Friedman, Britton & Stettin, Miami, for appellant.

Stephen T. Onuska, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant plaintiff seeks review of an adverse summary judgment in its action for damages to goods in shipment under the Interstate Commerce Act and also sounding in negligence.

Appellant filed its sixth amended complaint1 alleging as the basis for one count of its action a bill of lading attached to the complaint. At deposition, it appeared that the wrong bill had been attached inadvertently. However, the correct bill was available and identified and appellant moved to substitute it for the erroneously attached document. No other changes in the complaint were requested. Appellant’s motion to substitute was denied and final summary judgment entered in favor of the appellee. We reverse.

It is unnecessary to recite the numerous decisions of the courts of this state regarding the liberality in the granting of amendments to pleadings. R.C.P. 1.190, 30 F.S.A., is clear enough when it states that leave to amend should be “given freely when justice so requires”. The mistake herein dealt solely with substitution of an incorrect document prior to trial and did not substantively affect the cause of action or rights of the appellee. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the best interests of justice required the granting of appellant’s motion. To do otherwise was an *47abuse of the trial judge's discretion. The test of finding that point wherein the moving party has abused his privilege to amend is not a mere counting up of the number of chances that he has already been given. The test must go more to the substance of the error and the possible prejudice that might result to the non-moving party. In the case sub judice, the nature of the error was such that the remedy prayed for by appellant would not have changed the cause of action and would not have in any way delayed the proceedings. Nor can we say that the interests of the appellee would have been in any manner prejudiced.

Accordingly, the final summary judgment entered in favor of appellee is reversed and remanded with directions for the trial court to allow the appellant to substitute exhibits.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

1

. The record reveals that counsel for appellant had been changed prior to its filing the sixth amended complaint.