alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 9651.

#### City of Cleveland *v.*Connelly, Doing Business as The Cleveland Steam Boiler Works.

(Decided November 2, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga County.

*Mr. Newton D.*Baker, city solicitor, for plaintiff in error.

*591
      *Messrs. Blandin, Rice & Ginn,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Price, Crew and Summers, JJ., concur-
#### RICH MOTORS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. LOYD COLE, PRODUCE EXPRESS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-409.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 2, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; James R. Knott, Judge.

Appeal dismissed. See Chastain v. Em-bry, Fla.App. 1960, 118 So.2d 33.
EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM

Application 

No. Project/Facility Name Project Type Federal Land Accessed Applicant County

Fiscal 

Year*

DE-02 Pedestrian Safety Analysis Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety 

Study

National Park Service - 

First State National 

Historical Park

DE Department 

of Transportation

New 

Castle 

and 

Delaware

2017

The Programming Decisions Committee (PDC) responsible for the Delaware Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) has selected its multiyear 

Program of Projects. The projects identified for programming for the Delaware FLAP are listed below in no particular order and include:

Delaware Program of Projects for Federal Fiscal Years 2017-2020

* Fiscal Year Programmed/Project Schedule is subject to change

The next step in the process will be to develop project agreements between Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division and the State/Local Agency 

partners. The amount of funds allocated will depend on finalizing these project agreements. The Delaware PDC does not have a firm date for the 

next Call for Projects under the Access Program. Please watch our website for updates in your state. https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/flap/

If you have any questions regarding the Call for Projects, please contact Mr. Lewis Grimm, Planning Team Leader, at 703-404-6289 or 

Lewis.Grimm@dot.gov. For questions regarding project agreements and funding, please contact Ms. Jacinda Russell, Access Program Manager, at 

571-434-1543 or Jacinda.Russell@dot.gov.
Order filed, July 17, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00225-CR

____________

SAMUEL ALEJANDRO GARZA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 338th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1270337

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due April 18, 2014. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. 

The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not 

been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Jill Hamby, the official court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM
September 1, 1998

Refer to: HNG-14

Mr. Ronald F. Beyer

Product Manager

Renco Highway Control Products

Pflugerville, Texas 78691-0730

Dear Mr. Beyer:

In your August 7 letter to me as Chief of the Federal Highway Administration’s Federal-Aid &

Design Division, you requested acceptance of the RENCO Ren-Gard 815 Truck Mounted

Attenuator (TMA) as an NCHRP Report 350 test level 2 (TL-2) device. To support this request,

you sent a copy of a Texas Transportation Institute report dated July 1998 and entitled “Test

Level 2 Evaluation of the RENCO Ren-Gard 815 Truck Mounted Attenuator” and a video tape

of the two tests that were run.

The Ren-Gard 815 TMA is essentially the same device tested earlier under NCHRP Report 230

guidelines. It consists of a 2095-mm long by 2300-mm wide by 580-mm high crash pad

containing honeycomb cardboard sections inside an aluminum shell. This pad is connected to

support frame which is, in turn, mounted to the frame of the support vehicle. The total weight of

the unit is 463 kg. When in use, the Ren-Gard unit is positioned 330 mm above the roadway

surface. Enclosure 1 is a schematic drawing of the unit.

NCHRP Report 350 tests 2-50 and 2-51 were successfully conducted, using a 1981 Ford F600

dump truck ballasted to 8649 kg as the support vehicle. The truck was parked against a rigid

wall for test 2-50 and on dry PCC pavement in second gear with its emergency brake engaged for

test 2-51. Summary results of tests 2-50 and 2-51 are shown in Enclosure 2. Supplementary tests

2-52 (head-on, offset) and 2-53 (10 degree angle, offset) were not run, but we note that a 15

degree angle test with a full-sized sedan was successfully run under your Report 230 test series.

Based on our review of the information you provided, we consider the Ren-Gard 815 TMA to be

acceptable as a TL-2 attenuator for use on the National Highway System (NHS). Because

TMA’s are typically selected by a contractor for temporary use in work zones, the Ren-Gard may

be exempt from the requirements that normally pertain to the use of proprietary products. 

However, if a proprietary product is specified by a highway agency for use on a Federal-aid

highway project, except exempt non-NHS projects, the requirements of 23 CFR 635.411 must be

met. A copy of this section of the Code of Federal Regulations is attached for your ready

reference as Enclosure 3.

Sincerely yours,

(original signed by Dwight A. Horne)
Dwight A. Horne

Chief, Federal-Aid and Design Division

3 Enclosures

Acceptance letter CC-20A
#### CITY OF JACKSONVILLE BEACH, Florida, Appellant, v. The PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 2358 (AFL-CIO), Appellees.

No. JJ-418.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 12, 1978.

John F. Dickinson of Coffman & Coleman, Jacksonville, for petitioner.

H. Wade Gurley, Representative, Rodney W. Smith, William E. Powers, Jr., Tallahassee, for respondent.

ON MOTION TO STAY

PER CURIAM.

On April 6, 1978, Appellee-Florida Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) entered an Order verifying the results of an election and certifying Appellee-International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2358 (AFL-CIO), as the exclusive collective bargaining representative for employees in the unit described in the order, On April 26, 1978, Appellant-City of Jacksonville Beach filed a timely notice of appeal to review Appellee-PERC’s order. Appellant has also filed a motion seeking a stay of the order during the pendency of this appeal, citing Fla.R.App.P. 9.310(b)(2) as authority therefor.

Fla.R.App.P. 9.310(b)(2) provides as follows:

> (2) Public Bodies; Public Officers.

> The timely filing of a notice shall automatically operate as a stay pending review, except in criminal cases, when the State, any public officer in an official capacity, board, commission or other public body seeks review; provided that on motion the lower tribunal or the court may impose any lawful conditions or vacate the stay.

In its motion for stay, appellant alludes to possible conflict between Rule 9.310 and sections of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Public Employees Relations Act (PERA) which speak to judicial review of final agency action. Section 120.68(3) of the APA and section 447.504(5) of the PERA both state, in effect, that the filing of a petition for judicial review of final agency action does not, in itself, operate as a stay of the agency decision or order. This court so held in *Lewis v. Career Service Commission,*332 So.2d 371 (Fla.1st DCA 1976).

The 1977 Advisory Committee and Court’s Commentary following Fla.R.App.P. 9.310 states, with regard to subsec*579tion (b)(2), that the rule supersedes *Lewis,*supra. To the extent that Rule 9.310(b)(2) is in conflict with the statutory provisions discussed above, the rule must prevail, for any legislative attempt to create rules of practice or procedure would be an intrusion upon the power of the Florida Supreme Court as defined in Article V, Sec. 2(a), Florida Constitution, and, thus, in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers as set forth in Article II, Sec. 3, of that Constitution. See *Johnston v. State,*308 So.2d 127 (Fla.1st DCA 1975).

The filing of the notice of appeal by appellant automatically operated as a stay of Appellee-PERC’s order pending review by this court. Fla.R.App.P. 9.310(b)(2). Accordingly, the Motion for Stay filed herein is hereby determined to be moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and SMITH and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>
<ARTICLE> 5
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           5,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      5,000,00
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00




</TABLE>
1

PRELIMINARY AGENDA

FHWA Evaluation of Low-Cost Safety Improvements Pooled Fund Study 

2015 Technical Advisory Committee Meeting

June 2-3, 2015

DAY 1: Tuesday, June 2

Morning Session - 8:30 AM ET

Welcome and Introductions (Monique Evans and Roya Amjadi – FHWA)

Local Initiatives for Safety Programs

Red Light Indicator Lights Evaluation (Scott Himes – VHB)

Township Signage Program (Michael McNeill – ODOT)

Local Roads Safety Improvements (Brian Hurst – TDOT)

FHWA Data Collection Improvement Efforts and Local Data Integration (Stuart Thompson -

FHWA)

BREAK

Speed Management and Safety

Impacts of Raising Speeds on Freeways/Non-Freeways (Mark Bott – MDOT)

Speed Management in Kansas (Steven Buckley – KDOT)

Speed Evaluation Considerations (Frank Gross – VHB)

FHWA Speed Management Efforts (Guan Xu – FHWA)

Lunch – 12:00 PM ET

Afternoon Session - 1:00 PM ET

AASHTO Update on HSM (Kelly Hardy – AASHTO)

Advancing CMF Research

Continuous Green-T Intersection Evaluation (Eric Donnell – Penn State University)

Focus Crash Types and Risk Factors (Frank Gross – VHB)

CMF Short List (Jennene Ring – WSDOT)

FHWA Updates (Karen Scurry – FHWA)

BREAK 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Countermeasures 

Pedestrian Countdown Signals Evaluation (Daniel Carter – UNC-HRSC)

Joint Efforts of MassDOT/DPH (Lisa Schletzbaum –MassDOT)

Safety Action Plan (Rob Limoges – NYSDOT)

Guidelines for Treatment of Uncontrolled Crosswalks (P.D. Kiser – NDOT)

BREAK

Intersection Safety 

South Carolina Signalized and Stop-Controlled Intersection Evaluations (Frank Gross – VHB)

RCUT (Joe Hummer)

Upcoming FHWA Opportunities (Karen Scurry – FHWA)

Marketing and Communicating Results (Patty Hardee – Voice)

Adjourn Day 1 – 5:30 PM ET
2

DAY 2: Wednesday, June 3

Morning Session - 8:30 AM ET

Update on Phases and Looking Forward (Eccles – VHB)

Working with Small Sample Sizes in Safety Data

Phase III Evaluations (Craig Lyon – Persaud & Lyon)

Motorcycle AADT Data in Crash Modeling (Craig Thor – FHWA)

Pedestrian Countermeasure Crash Modification Factor Study (Daniel Carter - HSRC)

Network Screening for Pavement Surface Friction – Four States Approaches (Introduction: 

Richard Meininger – FHWA; Brief discussion from TAC representatives)

BREAK

Systemic Approaches for Roadway Departure Crashes

Wet Reflective Pavement Markings Evaluation (Craig Lyon – Persaud & Lyon)

Combination of Cable Median Barrier and Rumble Strips Evaluation (Raghavan Srinivasan – UNCHRSC)

Louisiana’s Systemic Roadway Departure Project/Statewide Cable Median Barrier (Jose 

Rodriguez – LaDOTD)

Michigan Research on Cable Median Barriers (Mark Bott – MDOT)

Lunch – 12:00 PM ET

Afternoon Session - 1:00 PM ET

ITS

Intersection Conflict Warning Systems Evaluation (Scott Himes – VHB)

Traffic Control Devices Pooled Fund Study (Jim Shurbutt – FHWA)

Missouri Wrong Way Driving Initiative (John Miller – MODOT)

Traffic Incident Management (Paul Jodoin – FHWA)

SHRP 2 (Charles Fay – FWHA)

Future Direction of the Study (All)

Adjourn Meeting and Depart for Airports and Hotel – 3:00 PM ET
13 August 2012 Telephone Conversation with Carlos E. Davis, Certainteed, Kansas City, KS

Susan Fairchild, project lead at EPA, contacted Carlos Davis of Certainteed to get clarification of Mr. 

Davis’ statements in 2011 regarding the chromium content of the K2 furnace refractory versus the 

information submitted by Certainteed in the 114 information response in 2011-12.

Mr Davis reiterated that over 90% of the refractory is chrome bearing, or what EPA may refer to as 

‘chromium compounds’, but that only a percentage of the chromium compounds are actually the 

element chromium. (For instance, Cr2O3 is chromite; the element chromium is 40% of the mineral 

chromite). Thus, when the statement on the 114 response of the chromium-content of the refractory 

was given by the facility, this should be interpreted as the percentage of the element chromium in the 

total chromium bearing constituents of the refractory product. This their interpretation of the 114 

request questions regarding chromium content of the furnace refractory.

Regarding the K2 furnace, if each brick of the furnace is examined, over 90% of the refractories would 

contain chrome. When you look at each piece, however, the chrome content will vary. The varying 

percentage of chrome in the refractory is based upon it’s purpose. Specifically, at the metal / glass linethis area has to be very resistive due to the corrosivity and errosivity of the glass melt in the furnace. 

The metal line is at the top of the ‘cool’ of the glass. The superstructure (entire furnace) will also have 

chromium containing refractories, but the chromium content above the metal/glass line is generally 

lower in chrome content. 

Regarding the K2 furnace, that furnace will not re-start until it is rebuilt. The nature of that 

reconstruction will be identical to the furnace at Chowchilla, which is a different design than the K2 is 

now. The Chowchilla furnace can meet the limits; in fact it emits chromium at about 1% of the proposed 

limit for chromium compounds. 

Regarding the K1 furnace, that furnace meets the proposed limits now.

If a furnace is built using chromium refractories, it will last longer. Therefore it will cost less when

amortized over the life of the furnace; the longer the furnace lasts, the less the total amortized cost. 

High chromium refractories are needed anywhere that contacts glass to achieve this furnace life. This is 

a minimum of a 10-year vs. a 6-year furnace design. 

Regarding the new K2 furnace design, the only way for K2 to meet the proposed limit is to reconstruct. 

The new design will still have high chrome refractories in contact with the glass. Look at the emissions 

of chromium and the Chowchilla furnace: this has an emissions rate at about 1% of the proposed limit.
#### James BROWN, Jr. v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT.

No. 38453.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1969.

Habeas corpus denied without opinion.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-3 Nos. 333-101830 and 333-83552) of Computer Motion, Inc. of our report
dated March 7, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Computer Motion, Inc. included in the Form 10-K/A for the year ended
December 31, 2002.


/s/ Ernst & Young, LLP
-----------------------
Ernst & Young, LLP

Los Angeles, California
May 5, 2003
**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 High Income Fund, a series of DWS High Income Series, 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 30, 2008 | /s/Michael G. Clark                                      |
|--------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|         | Michael G. Clark                                         |
|         | President                                                |
|         | DWS High Income Fund, a series of DWS High Income Series |

 

 

 

 

**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 High Income Fund, a series of DWS High Income Series, 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 30, 2008 | /s/Paul Schubert                                         |
|--------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|         | Paul Schubert                                            |
|         | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer                    |
|         | DWS High Income Fund, a series of DWS High Income Series |
Exhibit 13.1

             CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OR EQUIVALENT
           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The  certification  set forth below is submitted in connection with  Futuremedia
PLC's  Form 20-F  annual  report  for  fiscal  year  ended  April 30,  2005 (the
"Report")  pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of
1934,  as  amended  (the  "Exchange  Act') for  purpose of  complying  with Rule
13a-14(b)  or Rule  15d-14(b) of the Exchange Act and Section 1350 of Chapter 63
of Title 18 of the United States Code.

I, Leonard M. Fertig, Chief Executive Officer of Futuremedia PLC, certify that:

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

2. The information  contained in the Report fairly  represents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Futuremedia PLC.

Date: August 4, 2005



/s/ Leonard M. Fertig
------------------------------------------

Leonard M. Fertig, Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dominos Pizza, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 11, 2005, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David A. Brandon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that based on my knowledge:



| | 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ David A. BrandonDavid A. BrandonChief Executive Officer




Dated: October 25, 2005



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to Dominos Pizza, Inc. and will be retained by Dominos Pizza, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.