alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 11.1


                         The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc.
               Computation of Basic and Diluted Earnings Per Share
                      (in millions, except per share data)

                                                              12 Weeks Ended
                                                              --------------
                                                             March      March
                                                            19, 2005   20, 2004
                                                            -------    --------
Number of shares on which basic earnings
  per share is based:

  Average outstanding during period................             248        260
  Add - Incremental shares under stock
    compensation plans.............................               6          9
                                                               ----       ----

Number of shares on which diluted
  earnings per share is based......................             254        269

Net earnings applicable to common
   shareholders ...................................           $  39      $  50

Net earnings on which diluted earnings
   per share is based .............................           $  39      $  50

Basic earnings per share...........................           $0.16      $0.19

Diluted earnings per share.........................           $0.15      $0.19
FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T AUGUST 26, 2009 T HOMAS K . KAHN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 7- 15 65 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 00 02 6- CR-F TM-2 9S PC UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us DANIEL ED WARD BOLYARD, a.k .a. Hil l, a.k .a. Hil lb il ly, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S tate s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st26 , 20 09 ) Befo re BI RCH, HULL andHILL, Circu itJu dg es PER CURI AM: Tho m as Ostran de r, ap po in te d c ou ns el forDani el EdwardBo lyard i n thi s di rectcri m in al ap pe al , has m ov edto withdraw fro m furth er re pr es en ta ti on of t heap pe ll an t an d fi le d abri ef p ur su an t t o An de rs v. Ca li fo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 7 38 , 87 S.Ct
.

13 96 , 18 L.Ed.2d49 3 (1 96 7) . Our i nd ep en de ntrev ie w of the en ti re re co rdrev eal s th atco un se l’s as se ss m en t o f th e rel at iv e m eri t o f th e ap pe al is co rrec t. Bec au se in de pe nd en t ex am in at io n o f th e en ti re rec or d re ve al s n o arg uabl e is su es of m eri t,
co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is GRANTED , andBo lyard’s co nv ic ti on an d
se nt en ce ar e AFFIRMED . Bol y ard ’s m ot io n fo r th e ap po in tm en t o f ne w cou ns el is DENIE D AS MOOT
.

2
Every Day Counts (EDC), a State-based initiative of FHWA’s Center for Accelerating 

Innovation, works with State, local and private sector partners to encourage the adoption of 

proven technologies and innovations aimed at shortening and enhancing project delivery

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

The Federal Highway Administration’s Every Day Counts (EDC) initiative is designed to identify and deploy innovation aimed at 

shortening project delivery, enhancing the safety of our roadways and improving environment sustainability. Building projects 

more quickly depends on the highway community advancing innovative practices to a level of routine use by highway agencies and 

contractors. One focus area of the EDC initiative is a pavement overlay option – High Friction Surface Treatments (HFST).

HFST are pavement surfacing systems with exceptional skid-resistant properties that are not typically provided by conventional 

materials. Through the spot placement of a thin layer of durable high friction aggregates as a topping on specially engineered resin or 

polymer binder, these aggregate systems provide long-lasting skid resistance, while also making the overlay much more resistant to 

wear and polishing. In this way, HFST restores pavement friction surfaces where high traffic volumes have polished existing pavement 

surface aggregates and can also serve to mitigate highway departures where vehicle speeds exceed existing geometric designs for 

sharp curves and superelevations.

Case Study: West Virginia Department of Transportation

PROJECT CASE STUDY

HIGH FRICTION 

SURFACE TREATMENTS

WV 20

West Virginia has a high number of run-off-the-road 

crashes. Their goal of applying HFST at these locations 

is to reduce the number of crashes. They intend 

to look at the total number of accidents 3 years 

after application.

WIRT COUNTY – WV 14 AT MP 15.48 

WV 14 is a typical two-lane road in West Virginia with an ADT of 3400. 

The site is located at a six-degree horizontal curve. Prior to application, this site had four wet weather crashes in a span of 3 years. No skid 

testing reading was available prior to the project, but it had a reading 

higher than 69 after installation. The project was completed in October 

2012. Total linear feet of installation is 420.

MERCER COUNTY – WV 20 AT MP 16.42 BETWEEN 

PRINCETON AND ATHENS, WV

WV 20 is a two-lane road in southern West Virginia with an ADT of 7200 

compromising mostly of commuters. The site is located at a series of 

horizontal curves. Prior to the application, this site had four run-off-theroad crashes in a span of 3 years. No skid testing reading was available 

prior to the project, but it had a reading higher than 69 upon project 

completion. The project was completed in August 2011. Total linear feet 

of installation is 2,200.

W V 14

WV 20

Joseph Cheung, P.E., HFST Lead

FHWA Office of Safety

joseph.cheung@dot.gov

Donna Hardy, P.E., Mobility and Safety Engineer

WV Division of Highways, Traffic Engineering Division WV DOT 

donna.j.hardy@wv.gov

For additional 

information, 

please contact:

www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts
SUSPECTED SERIOUS INJURY CONVERSION

INJURY CODE CONVERSION DEFINITIONS / INSTRUCTIONS / NOTES SOURCE LOCATION

Suspected Serious Injury 2010 - Present AZ Crash Report Forms Instruction Manual 

2010

4. Incapacitating Injury A

Any injury, other than a fatal injury, which prevents the injured person from walking, driving 

or normally continuing the activities the person was capable of performing before the injury 

occurred. Often defined as “needing help from the scene.” Includes: severe lacerations, 

broken or distorted limbs, skull or chest injuries, abdominal injuries, unconsciousness when 

taken from the crash scene. 

4ee - Injury Severity codes & definitions found on pg24.

PEDESTRIAN AND PEDALCYCLIST (NON-MOTORIZED) CONVERSION

PERSON TYPE CODE DEFINITIONS / INSTRUCTIONS / NOTES SOURCE LOCATION

Pedestrian 2010-Present

AZ Fatal Supplement 2011,

AZ Occupant Supplement 2011, 

AZ TruckBus Supplement 2011,

AZ Crash report Supplement 2010,

AZ Report Form Instruction Manual 2010

Pedestrian Check box*

A person who is not an occupant. Includes: Person on foot. Person walking, running, jogging, 

hiking, sitting or lying within the trafficway or on private property. Person in building. Person 

on personal conveyance. Person ejected from a transport vehicle who has come to rest in the 

trafficway during a prior unstabilized situation and struck in a second or subsequent 

unstabilized situation. 

4f Driver, Pedestrian, Pedalcyclist, Driverless 

[Check the block that is applicable to this 

unit]

definition found on Manual pg21.

Pedalcyclist 2010-Present

Pedalcyclist Check box* Any occupant of a pedalcycle in-transport. Note: A pedestrian dismounted and walking with a 

bicycle is not a pedalcyclist. 

4f Driver, Pedestrian, Pedalcyclist, Driverless 

[Check the block that is applicable to this 

unit]

definition found on Manual pg21.

* Police Accident Report includes a check box for Pedestrian/Pedalcyclist - please refer to the State's Data Dictionary for corresponding database value

Arizona
## 

## FOR USE AFTER TARGETS ARE ESTABLISHED

**Moving towards Safer Roadways**

[STATE DOT] has set its [YEAR] annual safety performance targets as part of its long-term goal of reducing fatalities and serious injuries on our roadways. Safety performance targets are focused on making short-term progress toward the ultimate goal of zero roadway deaths, which means families, friends, and co-workers making it home safely every day. 

Last year, [STATE DOT] [achieved/did not achieve] the established targets. As a result, [enter actions here].

For the upcoming year, [STATE DOT] has established the following targets through collaboration with statewide safety partners: 

1. [“Reduce overall” or “Limit the overall rise in the”] number of roadway fatalities from XXX to XXX,

2. [“Reduce the” or “Limit the overall rise in the”] fatality rate (accounts for changes in the number of miles driven) from XXX to XXX,

3. [“Reduce overall” or “Limit the overall rise in the”] overall number of roadway serious injuries from XXX to XXX,

4. [“Reduce the” or “Limit the overall rise in the”] serious injury rate (accounts for changes in the number of miles driven) from XXX to XXX, and 

5. [“Reduce” or “Limit the overall rise in”] the number of pedestrian, bicycle, and other non-motorized roadway fatalities and serious injuries from XXX to XXX. 

Working together, we will meet these targets. One of the most important things you can do is consider safety while driving, walking, and biking by making conscious decisions to obey speed limits; wearing seatbelts; avoiding distracted driving, biking, and walking; and driving sober. Your help is crucial to achieving our safety goals. You also can get involved by [INSERT HERE].

For more information on [STATE DOT'S] safety performance progress or results, go to [LINK] or contact [NAME EMAIL PHONE]. Your voice matters. Find out how you can be involved.
#### Buell McKEEVER and Harriett McKeever v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE.

No. 6068.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Oct. 29, 1936.

Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On motion of counsel for respondent, counsel for petitioner consenting thereto, it is now here ordered, and adjudged that this cause be docketed in this court and that the petition for a review of the decision of the United States Board of Tax Appeals entered on December *28,*1934, be, and the same is hereby, dismissed.
#### George T. DRAYTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-407.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 16, 1970.

Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and Frank H. White, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Warren H. Petersen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PIERCE, Judge.

In this case appellant George T. Dray-ton, having been charged in an information with the offense of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit a felony, first entered plea of not guilty but later withdrew such plea and entered plea of guilty as charged, whereupon he was so adjudicated and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the State Prison. Drayton filed his notice of appeal to this Court in proper person, and later the Public Defender for Pinellas County was appointed to represent him on this appeal.

The Public Defender has filed here what has become known as an “Anders Brief”, wherein he reviews the record and states to this Court in his brief his conclusion that the appeal contains no point or points of merit, that he has served a copy of his said brief upon Drayton, and that he, the Public Defender, should be permitted to withdraw as counsel for Drayton here.

Thereafter, on September 8, 1970, this Court entered order briefly reciting the foregoing pertinent facts, and stating that “Appellant is allowed thirty (30) days after the date of his receipt of a copy of said brief and order as shown on the return receipt aforesaid within which to file in this Court a brief on his own behalf raising any points that he feels the Court should consider in connection with his appeal”. Within said 30 days period appellant Dray-ton, on September 23, 1970, filed his “Memorandum Brief” in his own behalf.

We have scrupulously considered the entire record, including Drayton’s “Memorandum Brief”, and we are constrained to hold that Drayton has failed to carry his burden of clearly demonstrating reversible error to this Court in the trial proceedings below. Accordingly the judgment and sentence appealed from is—

Affirmed.

LILES, Acting C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20549

 

FORM N-CSRS

 

Investment Company Act file number  811-08599

 

DWS Equity Trust

 (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

 

222 South Riverside Plaza

Chicago, IL  60606

(Address of principal executive offices)             (Zip code)

 

Registrant’s Telephone Number, including Area Code: (212) 454-7190

 

Paul Schubert

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10154

(Name and Address of Agent for Service)

 

| Date of fiscal year end: | 4/30 |
|--------------------------|------|

 

| Date of reporting period: | 10/31/07 |
|---------------------------|----------|

 

 

**ITEM 1.**           **REPORT TO STOCKHOLDERS**

 

 

OCTOBER 31, 2007

Semiannual Report
#### M. Fred TOMS, Appellant, v. SENTINEL STAR COMPANY, Delaware Corporation, Appellee.

No. 77-1123.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 12, 1978.

Peter N. Smith, Orlando, for appellant.

Joseph E. Isaac, III, of Mateer, Harbert, Bechtel & Phalin, P. A., Orlando, for appel-lee, Sentinel Star Co.

*491BERANEK, Judge.

The defendant appeals an adverse final summary judgment. Plaintiff sued on a written personal guarantee in which defendant promised to be responsible for advertising expenses incurred by a corporate principal. Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to grant judgment on the pleadings in defendant’s favor and in striking the defendant’s affirmative defense based on the Statute of Limitations. We find error in the striking of the affirmative defense and reverse.

Since both parties agree that the guarantee is governed by a five-year Statute of Limitations, we do not decide this question. The issue litigated below was when the limitation period began to run. Defendant contends the statute began to run at the moment the guarantee was signed without regard to when the principal first defaulted. The trial court correctly rejected this contention and denied defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The limitation period began to run upon the default.

At the time of the striking of the affirmative defense, there was no indication in the record as to when the default in payment first occurred. Although RCP 1.140(b) provides for the striking of defenses for failure to “state a legal defense,” this Rule could not have been a basis for striking this defense since the starting time for computing the period was not yet established. The defense of the Statute of Limitations should have remained in the case. Depending upon the established date of default, the defense may or may not have survived the eventual motion for summary judgment. The summary judgment below is reversed. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

CROSS, MOORE and BERANEK, JJ., concur.
April 24, 2014



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MORRIS E. ROBINSON , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00723

- CV V.

TEXAS CONSTRUCTION S ERVICES CORP ORAT ION AND TOM BLAND

, Appellee s

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee Texas Construction Services Corp oration signed June 1 , 2012, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the recor d and find error in the judgment. We therefore M ODIFY the judgment of the court below to condition the award of appellate attorney’s fees on the success on appeal of appellee Texas Construction Services Corp oration

. As modified, the judgment of the cour t below is ordered AFFIRMED

. We order appellant Morris E. R obinson to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Paul GOODBEIR.

No. 62141.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 12, 1978.

In re: Paul Goodbeir applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of St. Mary.

Writ granted in part. Application transferred to trial court for a ruling.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13** 
**- 1550** 

TALIN A. TASCIYAN ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

MEDICAL NUMERICS; TEXTRON SYSTEMS; O VERWATCH GEOSPATIAL SYSTEMS ,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Charles B. Day , Magistrate Judge. ( 8:11

- cv
- 01467

- CBD )

Submitted : October 28 , 2013 Decided: November 6, 2013

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Talin A. Tasciyan, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Christopher Gauvey, TAYLOR & RYAN, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland; Donald James Walsh, OFFIT KURMAN, PA, Owings Mills, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Talin A. Tasciyan brought suit against Defendants
asserting gender discrimination and retaliation, in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although the

district court ul timately dismissed Tasciyan’s gender

discrimination claim, the case proceeded to trial on Tasciyan’s

retaliation claim. * The jury returned a verdict for the
Defendants. On appeal, Tasciyan contends the magistrate judge

(1) improperly defin ed “adverse act ion” for the jury; (2)
improperly instruct ed the jury regarding damages; and (3)

allow ed impermissible hearsay evidence. Tasciyan also argues
the Defendants’ improper reference to gender discrimination
during closing argument was prejudicial and misled th e jury.
Having reviewed the transcript of the jury trial in
light of the parties’ arguments on appeal, we find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* The parties consented to a trial before a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 363 (2006).
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 55245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28050]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project No. 2663-004]


Minnesota Power & Light Company; Notice of Availability of Draft 
Environmental Assessment

October 17, 1997.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) 
regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office 
of Hydropower Licensing has reviewed the application for a new license 
for the Pillager Hydroelectric Project, located on the Crow Wing River 
in Cass and Morrison Counties, Minnesota, and has prepared a Draft 
Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the project.
    Copies of the DEA are available for inspection at the Public 
Reference Branch, Room 2-A, of the Commission's offices at 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, D.C. 20426.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this 
notice and should be addressed to Lois D. Cashell, Secretary, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, D.C. 
20426. For further information, contact Chris Metcalf at (202) 219-
2810.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-28050 Filed 10-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 24 (Wednesday, February 5, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 5388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2803]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army


Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Disposal & 
Reuse of the Savanna Army Depot Activity, Savanna, IL

agency: Department of the Army, DoD.

action: Notice of availability.

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

summary: The proposed action evaluated by this Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement (DEIS) is the disposal of the Savanna Army Depot 
Activity (SVAD), Savannah, Illinois, in accordance with the Defense 
Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, as 
amended. The DEIS addresses the environmental consequences of the 
disposal and subsequent reuse of the Depot's 13,062 acres. Alternatives 
examined in the DEIS include encumbered disposal of the property, 
unencumbered disposal of the property, and no action. Encumbered 
disposal refers to transfer or conveyance of property having 
restrictions on subsequent use as a result of any army-imposed or legal 
restraint. Under the no action alternative, the Army would not dispose 
of property but would maintain it in caretaker status for an indefinite 
period.
    Disposal of the Depot property is the Army's primary action. Reuse 
of the property is a secondary action that will be taken by others. The 
EIS also analyzes the potential environmental effects of reuse by means 
of evaluating intensity-based probable reuse scenarios. Appropriate to 
the Depot are low, medium-low, and medium intensity reuse scenarios 
reflecting the range of activities that could occur after disposal of 
the property.
     A scoping meeting was held at the SVAD on June 27, 1996. Public 
notices requesting input and comments from the public were issued in 
the regional area surrounding the SVAD.

dates: Written public comments and suggestions received on or before 
March 24, 1997 will be addressed in the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement.

addresses: A copy of the Draft EIS may be obtained by writing to Mr. 
Glen Coffee at the Corps of Engineers, Mobile District (ATTN: CESAM-PD-
E), 109 St. Joseph St, Mobile, AL 36628-001, or by facsimile at (334) 
690-2424.

    Dated: January 30, 1997.
Raymond J. Fatz,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Environment, Safety and 
Occupational Health) OASA (I, L&E).
[FR Doc. 97-2803 Filed 2-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
#### Charles GRADY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1036.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 23, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 25, 1971.

S. George Berkley, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Bruce L. Scheiner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of State v. Weeks, Fla.1964, 166 So.2d 892; and McCall v. State, 135 Fla. 712, 185 So. 608 (1939).