alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 00-776.

#### Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. *v.*Roskind.

Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.

Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHRISINE WAGNER and ROBERT : Civil Action No. 4:14-CV-00576

WAGNER, her husband, :

:

:

Plaintiffs, : (Judge Brann)

:

v. :

:

H.H. KNOEBEL SONS, INC. :

ET AL., :

:

Defendants. :

ORDER

February 17, 2016

AND NOW, in accordance with the Memorandum of this same date, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 

No. 26) is DENIED.

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge 

Case 4:14-cv-00576-MWB Document 44 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AccelPath, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company do hereby certify, to their best knowledge and belief, 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.  Date: March 31, 2014/s/ Gilbert SteedleyGilbert Steedley
Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer
#### Andrew MALLARD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-58.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 26, 1973.

*17John Muldowney, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Peter F. LaPorte, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant defendant was arrested and convicted of carrying a concealed weapon, to-wit: a pistol, allegedly found by police under the seat of the defendant’s foreign car. At trial, defendant attempted to introduce into evidence photographs taken subsequent to arrest and made in his presence showing or attempting to show that the gun could not have fit under the seat of the car under any circumstances. This was contrary to the testimony of the state’s witness and directly in support of appellant’s assertion that the weapon could only have been in plain view and not “concealed” under the seat. The court sustained the state’s objections to the admission of these photographs and defendant was convicted and sentenced to one year in the county jail. Defendant appeals alleging error in the exclusion of the photographs. We agree with appellant’s contention and reverse.

Exclusion of the proffered photographs was erroneous and an abuse of discretion since a sufficient predicate had been laid for their admission and they were relevant both to defendant’s testimony and to rebutting the testimony of the state’s witness, as to whether or not it was even possible for the gun to be concealed under the car seat. This was an abuse of the judge’s discretion. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence appealed is hereby reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
| 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: June 29, 2011 | By:    | /s/ James Kedrowski                                   |
|---------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                |
|                |   | James Kedrowski                                       |
|                |   | Interim Chief Executive Officer and Director          |
|                |
|                |
|                | By:    | /s/ Michael Kalb                                      |
|                |
|                |   | Michael Kalb                                          |
|                |   | Group Vice President, Interim Chief Financial Officer |
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 OFFICERS CERTIFICATE
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302*
             Date: February 13, 2008By:

/s/
Philippe Van AckerName:
    Philippe Van AckerTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer 
 *
    
    The introductory portion of paragraph 4 of the Section 302 certification that refers to the
certifying officers responsibility for establishing and maintaining internal control over
financial reporting for the company, as well as paragraph 4(b), have been omitted in
accordance with Release No. 33-8760 (December 15, 2006) because the compliance period has been
extended for small business issuers until the first fiscal year ending on or after December
15, 2007.
#### Lester JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 78-1140.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 15, 1978.

DANAHY, Judge.

Appellant filed a motion to vacate his sentence under Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. In that motion he alleged that a prior conviction was invalid under *Gideon v. Wainwright*1 and that the trial court had used the prior conviction to enhance his sentence in this case.

The trial court denied appellant’s motion without an evidentiary hearing. We reverse. If the allegations contained in the motion are true,2 appellant is entitled to be resentenced without reference to the prior conviction. *Wolfe v. State,*323 So.2d 680 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). Accordingly, we remand the case so that the trial court may hold an evidentiary hearing to test the truth of appellant’s allegations.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and OTT, J., concur.

1

. 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963).

2

. We have reviewed the transcript of the sentencing hearing, and we can find nothing which refutes appellant’s allegations. In fact, we note that the court made a specific reference to appellant’s prior conviction.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. James DARK.

No. 60424.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 27, 1977.

S. C. Sundbery, Gaidry & Sundbery, Hou-ma, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty., Gen., Norval J. Rho*724des, Dist. Atty., James L. Alcock, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant James Dark was charged by bill of information with the crime of armed robbery, a violation of La.R.S. 14:64. After pleading not guilty, he was tried before a twelve person jury and found guilty as charged. Thereafter, on November 24, 1975, the trial court sentenced him to serve fifteen (15) years at hard labor, “without benefit of parole, probation or dimunition (sic) of sentence." The record has been submitted to us on appeal without formal assignments of error for an inspection of the pleadings and proceedings pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 920(2).

We find no errors which might bear upon the validity of defendant’s conviction.

However, we note, under the authority of La.C.Cr.P. art. 920(2), that the sentence imposed was illegal. See, *State v. Jones,*341 So.2d 3 (La.1976).

La.R.S. 14:64 prescribes the following penalty for the crime of armed robbery:

> “Whoever commits the crime of armed robbery shall be imprisoned at hard labor for not less than five years and for not more than ninety-nine years, without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence.”

This provision does not authorize the imposition of a sentence which renders the defendant ineligible for diminution of sentence.

A recent amendment to La.R.S. 15:571.3 does provide that a convicted armed robber, sentenced as an habitual offender under La.R.S. 15:529.1 before September 9, 1977, shall not be entitled to diminution of sentence for good behavior, if so ordered by the sentencing court. Acts 1977, No. 633, § 1. However, this provision was inapplicable to defendant, who was not sentenced as an habitual offender under La. R.S. 15:529.1

Accordingly, defendant’s conviction is affirmed, but the sentence imposed is vacated and set aside, and the matter is remanded to the district court for resentencing in accordance with law.
#### TALAUEGA LETUMU, POLAPIITASI FIASEU, and FAIAAI F. MATA‘U, Plaintiffs v. SAMOA & JEANETTE MULIPOLA, and AIAVA UA, Defendants

High Court of American Samoa Land and Titles Division

LT No. 23-92

December 2, 1993

Before KRUSE, Chief Justice, and LOGOAI, Associate Judge.

Counsel: For Plaintiff, Togiola T.A.Tulafono

For Defendants, Asaua Fuimaonó

Following an evidentiary hearing on July 6, 1992, this court entered an order on July 10, 1992, granting a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from any further construction on a certain site. Since that hearing and entry of order, the parties attended, pursuant to A.S.C.A. § 43.0302, the requisite reconciliatory meetings before the Office of Samoan Affairs. The Secretary of Samoan Affairs subsequently certified an irreconcilable dispute, and this matter was then set for trial after due notice to the parties. Trial was originally set for October 15, 1993; the defendants failed to appear, although their counsel did appear and represented to the court that his clients had left the island. The matter was then continued, over the objection of plaintiffs, to November 29, 1993, with the admonition to counsel that there would be no further continuances. On November 29, 1993, plaintiffs appeared with counsel, and defendants again did not. Plaintiffs then moved to submit the matter on the record. After inquiring from the defense if they had any further evidence to offer, and there being none, the court took the matter under submission.

Pursuant to T.C.R.C.P. 65, incorporated by T.C.R.L.T. 5, the evidence earlier received becomes part of the record upon trial on the merits. On the record before us, we adopt and incorporate our earlier *75findings contained in our order entered July 10, 1992. We conclude on the evidence that the site in question- lies within the Fiaseu family’s communal land known as "Sopomaleula"; that the site was in the lawful use and occupation by plaintiffs’ side of the family; that defendants’ attempted, forced ouster of plaintiffs’ side of the family was unlawful; and that plaintiffs, as Fiaseu family members, are entitled to be restored to the site.

Therefore, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that defendants, Samoa Mulipola, Jeanette Mulipola, and Aiava Ua, and all those in active concert with them, are hereby permanently enjoined from further construction on the aforementioned site, on which Vai Fiaseu’s house was located until it was burnt, and from further interference with plaintiffs’ customary rights, as Fiaseu family members, to the enjoyment thereof.
#### Charles E. McCREARY v. COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 9350.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Feb. 16, 1978.

Manard & Schoenberger, Robert L. Ma-nard, III, New Orleans, for plaintiff-respondent.

Hammett, Leake, Hammett, Hulse & Nelson, Craig R. Nelson, New Orleans, for defendant-relator.

Before REDMANN, LEMMON and BAILES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This matter came before us on an application for supervisory writs, complaining of an order rendered by the trial court on a pre-trial motion. Defendant had moved to present to the jury an agreement of compromise executed in settlement of plaintiff’s claim arising out of an accident which occurred after the accident here in litigation. The trial court refused to allow evidence of the settlement or the amount thereof. This court granted supervisory writs and issued the following order:

MANDAMUS

IT IS ORDERED that the Honorable Melvin G. Duran, Judge, vacate his ruling of November 22, 1977, on the admissibility of the fact of the settlement between plaintiff and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company.

The fact of a second accident (possibly causing damages similar to those complained of in a first accident) and any medical evidence relating thereto is admissible because relative to quantum of damages caused by the first. That a claim arising *639out of the second accident has been settled is also admissible for the purpose of showing that there is no longer a pending claim against the second tortfeasor (or, as here, a solvent uninsured motorist insurer answerable for him).

Existence of two claims against solvent defendants tends to keep the claimant unbiased in his testimony of complaints relative to either accident. Settlement of one claim so as to exclude one of the solvent defendants might tend to make the claimant, even subconsciously, shade his testimony to attribute complaints to the accident in which the claim is still pending. The fact of the settlement therefore bears on credibility and is admissible.

Unless the remaining solvent defendant is liable to the other for, or is entitled to credit for, some portion of the settlement, the amount of the settlement is irrelevant. The amount represents the judgment of persons who are not the triers of fact in the case being tried.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-21-00115-CR

JANET LISTER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 188th District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 50688-A

Before Morriss, C.J., Stevens and van Cleef, JJ.
2

O R D E R

The appellant’s brief in this matter was originally due March 31, 2022. This Court 

extended that briefing deadline twice, on appellant’s motions, resulting in the most recent due 

date of May 23, 2022. We informed counsel when we granted the last extension request that 

further extension requests would not be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. Counsel 

has nonetheless filed a third motion seeking an additional thirty-day extension of the briefing 

deadline.

We have reviewed the case files and appellate record, as well as counsel’s most recent 

motion to extend time, and find no extraordinary circumstances that would warrant an additional 

thirty-day extension of the filing deadline. Consequently, counsel’s third motion to extend the 

time to file the appellate brief in this matter is denied.

We hereby order counsel to file the appellate brief in this matter on or before June 22, 

2022. This gives counsel the full thirty days she sought in her motion to complete the brief, 

which we are certain will be adequate. The failure to file a brief on or before June 22 will result 

in abatement of this appeal to the trial court for a hearing under Rule 38.8(b) of the Texas Rules 

of Appellate Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

BY THE COURT

Date: May 24, 2022
Efforts at AAA Foundation

C. Y. David Yang, Ph.D.

Executive Director

U.S. DOT Summit on Pedestrian Safety

July 15, 2020
Research

• Forthcoming research brief – contributing factors for 

pedestrian fatalities

Collaboration

• Education via AAA

• Joint research with UTC

• Activities with national 

organizations

Opportunities

• Holistic approach to address 

challenges

• Inclusion of various 

stakeholders, at various levels 

Adapted from Figure 1 of Tefft (2012). Impact speed and pedestrian’s risk of 

severe injury or death. Accident Analysis & Prevention.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 197 (Friday, October 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26963]



[[Page 52982]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-11-000]


Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes 
in FERC Gas Tariff

October 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 1, 1997, Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff 
sheets to become effective November 1, 1997:


Twenty-second Revised Sheet No. 25
Twenty-second Revised Sheet No. 26
Twenty-second Revised Sheet No. 27
Twenty-third Revised Sheet No. 28


    Columbia states that this periodic filing is being submitted in 
accordance with Section 36.2 of the General Terms and Conditions (GTC) 
of its Tariff. GTC Section 36, Transportation Costs Rate Adjustment 
(TCRA), enables Columbia to adjust its current TCRA rate prospectively 
on a periodic and annual basis to take into account prospective change 
in Account No. 858 costs. As explained below, in this filing Columbia 
proposes to adjust its Current Operational TCRA Rate, as defined in GTC 
Section 36.4 to include the payments associated with the lease 
agreement between Columbia and Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation 
(TETCO). Article I, Section G, of the approved Stipulation II in Docket 
No. RP95-408 gives Columbia the authority to include and collect the 
subject lease payments in and through its TCRA mechanism contingent 
upon the approval of the lease agreement in Columbia's Docket No. CP96-
213 (Market Expansion Application).
    Columbia states further that copies of this filing have been mailed 
to all of its customers and affected state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as provided 
in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-26963 Filed 10-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
t 3 

U.S.Eepartment 

of Transpcftatiof 

Federal Highway 

Administrotlon 

AUG 30 19% 

400 Seventh S1~. s,w: 

WashIngton. D.C 20590 

Refer to: HNG-14 

Mr. C. Richard Briden 

Engineering Manager 

P&K Pole Products 

84 ~Foundry Street 

Newark, New Jersey 07105. 

Dear Mr. Briden: 

Thank you for your April 25 letter requesting Federal Highway 

Administration's (FHWA) acceptance of your company's aluminum 

breakaway bases. Your letter was accomp'anied by seven test 

reports by the Southwest Research Institute dated February or 

March 1995, and video documentation on each test. Additional 

information was submitted on June 12 and August 8 in response to 

our requests. 

Pendulum testing was conducted to assess the breakaway 

performance of the bases. Requirements for breakaway supports 

are found in the AASHTQ Standard Specifications for Structural 

Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals. 

Testing guidelines are found in the National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program Report 350, "Recommended Procedures for the 

Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features." Both have 

been adopted by,the FHWA. 

You requested individual acceptance letters for each base. This 

letter is for the hardware tested in PK-103, dated February 1995. 

A summary of the test data is shown below, and d,rawings of the 

cast aluminum shoe base are enclosed. 

ChxupaatImp.Spcedmlr(fps) 

Vehicle Velocity Change m/s (fps) 
2 

The'results of this test and the high-speed extrapolation meet 

the change in velocity and stub height requirements adopted by 

AASHTO and the FHWA. Therefore, the tested aluminum breakaway 

base described above is acceptable for use on Federal-aid highway 

projects, within the range of conditions tested, if proposed by a 

State. 

Our acceptance is limited to the breakaway characteristics of the 

system and.does not cover its structural features. Presumably, 

you will supply potential users with sufficient information on 

structural design and installation requirements to ensure proper 

performance. We anticipate that the States will require 

certification from P&K Pole Products that the hardware furnished 

has essentially the same chemistry, mechanical properties, and 

geometry as those used in the tests, and that they will meet the 

FRWA change in ve~locity requirements. 

Sincerely yours, 

I/ Federal-Aid and Design Division 

Enclosure 

-‘- 

_- 

Geometric and Roadside Design Acceptance Letter LS-39 

i 

2 

NOTE : 

1. - USE 4043 WlLD WIRE. 

2. - 6063 ASSHHY .375 WALL OR LESS’ TO BE MAT-TREATED TO T6 TEWER AFTER WELDING. 

3. - WEIGHlS PCI-E- 386 

ARMS - 59 

LW- 50 

TEST f lo3 (%l4-1

“..,.l.L 

C” 

..oc. .I..
ARS HomeCrop Production and ProtectionCrop ProductionResearch

----

Program Team
- Kevin Hackett
- Joseph Munyaneza
- Jack Okamuro
- Tim Rinehart
- Roy Scott
- Steve Young
2022 Research Highlights
- Controlling Insect Pests
- Protecting Pollinator Health
Program Inputs
-                 How to Manage the Blue Orchard Bee As an Orchard Pollinator Handbook             
-                 2017 USDA-ARS Grape Research Workshop             
Program Planning
-                 Strategic Vision             
-                 Action Plan 2013-2018             
-                 Action Plan 2018-2023             
-                 Action Plan 2024-2029             
Program Reports
-                 Annual Reports             
Project Information
- List of Projects in this Program
- List of Project Annual Reports in this program

**Listed below are the Annual Reports for currently active projects directly assigned to this National Program.**
100 98 96 94 92 90 88 86 84 82 (I)

0 80 c: ro

::::::78 .E (/)

c: 76 ro .... 1-

'#- 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 3500 3000 2500 Wavenumbers 2000 1500 !\ : i lr **-----------~~~--~--~--~~** 1000
SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY CONVERSION

INJURY CODE CONVERSION DEFINITIONS / INSTRUCTIONS / NOTES SOURCE LOCATION

Suspected Serious Injury 2013 - Present RI Uniform Crash Report 2013

Incapacitating A Injury codes found on Report Form pg1,6

PEDESTRIAN AND PEDALCYCLIST (NON-MOTORIZED) CONVERSION

PERSON TYPE CODE STATE DEFINITIONS / INSTRUCTIONS / NOTES SOURCE LOCATION

Pedestrian 2007 - Present RI Uniform Crash Report 2007, 

RI Uniform Crash Report 2013

Pedestrian 03 No definition found. Person Type code found on Report Form pg1,6

Other Ped. (Wheelchair, 

Person in building, skater, ped. 

conveyance, etc.)

07 No definition found. Person Type

Pedalcyclist 2007 - Present

Bicyclist 04 No definition found. Person Type

Other Cyclist 05 No definition found. Person Type

Rhode Island
I ( .. 

20. Mattack, A. pB Mt~ement and Titration. 

MacMillan. 1961. P• ~7. 

Ntv York, 

c 

.... 

I 

0 

U1 

...... 

I 

I
#### Walter Franklin SAULSBERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-942.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 4, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.