alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Nellie TURNAGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee.

No. S-193.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 30, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 3, 1973.

J. Ben Watkins, of Watkins & Hill, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Geoffrey B. Dobson and Barbara Ann Dell McPherson, Tallahassee, for appellee.

RAWLS, Chief Judge.

Once again we are confronted with the question of the admissibility of the blood alcohol content of a decedent driver in a civil suit.

Appellant’s husband met his death while driving a motor vehicle on State Road 267 in Gadsden County between 9:00 and 10:00 p. m. on March 7, 1970. At the time of the accident, a bridge had been washed out and appellee was in the process of repairing same. The decedent failed to negotiate the detour, and thereupon met his Maker. A Florida Highway Patrol trooper investigated the accident and filed an accident report which did not mention any finding as to the results of a blood alcohol analysis, Another trooper concurrently conducted a “homicide” investigation and procured a sample of decedent’s blood which upon analysis revealed an alcohol content of .11 percent. Over timely objection, the trial judge admitted the results of the blood alcohol analysis into evidence upon the ground that same was not a part of the accident report, but was procured from the independent “homicide” investigation.

In an analogous factual situation in Seaboard Coast Line R.R. v. Zufelt,1 after discussing in depth the question here being considered, this Court stated:

> “In the case at bar, Trooper Wehrli insisted that he ‘ran the homicide investigation’. Decedent driver was hardly a subject for a subsequent charge of homicide in any form. The trial judge in denying the proffer of the blood alcohol test observed that the sample of blood was developed by a Florida State Highway Trooper, drawn at his direction, and became a part of the Florida State Highway report of this accident. The record supports the exclusion of the blood alcohol results by the trial judge as clearly proscribed by the aforesaid statute.”

As was the case in Seaboard, this decedent driver was hardly a subject for a subsequent charge of homicide in any form. The investigation by the trooper in the instant case was clearly that of accumulating facts pertaining to the accident. The legislature of this State has proscribed the *645use of such information in a civil suit.2 The trial court erred in permitting the introduction into evidence of the results of the blood alcohol test.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

SPECTOR and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.

1

. Seaboard Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Zufelt, 280 So.2d 723, Opinion filed July 12, 1973.

2

. F.S. § 317.171, F.S.A. — “Au such report shall be used as evidence in any trial, civil or criminal, arising out of an accident ...
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 Preferred Voice, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Latif M. Nathani, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



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



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Latif M. Nathani       
|Latif M. Nathani           
|Principal Executive Officer
|August 16, 2004
259 La. 895

#### ASCENSION BUILDERS, INC. v. Wallace C. JUMONVILLE, Jr., et al.

No. 51789.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 21, 1971.

In re: Ascension Builders, Inc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Ascension. 251 So.2d 639.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jermaine McCall, Appellant.

[736 NYS2d 267]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated November 27, 2000 *(People v McCall,*277 AD2d 467), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered May 28, 1998.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see, Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745). Ritter, Acting P.J., Santucci, O’Brien and McGinity, JJ., concur.
#### Diana VINET, Individually and in her Capacity as the Natural Tutrix of her son, Pierre Vinet v. Mr. Alex M. HANO, husband of/and Mrs. Alex M. Hano and State Farm Fire *&*Casualty Company.

No. 53957.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 12, 1973.

In re: State Farm Fire & Casualty Company applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 281 So.2d 183.

Writ denied. The judgment is not final.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         55,661
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  923,693
<ALLOWANCES>                                   5,080
<INVENTORY>                                    2,084,528
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               143,288
<PP&E>                                         155,263
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,367,513
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,037,561
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,329,952
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,367,513
<SALES>                                        529,322
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          425,244
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               380,625
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (44,429)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (232,118)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 477,546
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   245,428
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        

</TABLE>
#### Barton D. FISH v. STATE.

No. 38593.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1969.

Mandamus denied without opinion.
#### The State of Missouri, to the use of *W. W.*Blackman, Respondent, *vs.*Albert G. McCracken, *et al.,*Appellants.

1. *Practice, Supreme Court*— Assignment *of errors.*— Where appellant files no assignment of errors, the appeal will be dismissed.

*Appeal from. Greene Circuit Court.*

*Wm. C. Price and Wright,*for Appellants.

*Dade §• Mitchell,*for Respondent.

Sherwood, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

In this case the appellants having failed to assign errors, the appeal will be dismissed.

Judge Adams absent. The other Judges concur.
#### Alfred WISEMAN and Max L. Wiseman, Appellants, v. McCLASKEY REALTY, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-1307.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 31, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         5454600
<SECURITIES>                                   20623460
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5700857
<ALLOWANCES>                                   628000
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               35091672
<PP&E>                                         3720526
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1704650
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 41327728
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6275732
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       181941
<OTHER-SE>                                     15052946
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   41327728
<SALES>                                        25921256
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               25921256
<CGS>                                          5457265
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  13971122
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               275000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                7398098
<INCOME-TAX>                                   3070216
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            4327882
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   4327882
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.27
        


                                       
<PAGE>

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         142,748
<SECURITIES>                                    51,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  470,042
<ALLOWANCES>                                    69,098
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,065,068
<PP&E>                                         287,820
<DEPRECIATION>                                 155,227
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,324,175
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,219,906
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        93,751
<OTHER-SE>                                     803,239
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,324,175
<SALES>                                        655,149
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               655,149
<CGS>                                          281,231
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  656,357
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,879
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,601
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             37,601
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    37,601
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         492,890
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  408,970
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,360
<INVENTORY>                                  1,315,087
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,569,216
<PP&E>                                      47,305,436
<DEPRECIATION>                              15,540,968
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              45,991,184
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,290,699
<BONDS>                                     11,542,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    24,575,522
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,220,897
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                45,991,184
<SALES>                                     50,718,374
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            50,718,374
<CGS>                                       17,323,660
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,323,660
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            31,248,545
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             828,743
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,275,335
<INCOME-TAX>                                   382,601
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            892,734
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   892,734
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Edgar HOLIDAY v. Ross MAGGIO, Jr., Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 61290.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 20, 1978.

In re: Edgar Holiday applying for writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of Orleans.

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1140 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1140

 To extend the authorization of the Highlands Conservation Act through 
                           fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 11, 2013

Mrs. Gillibrand introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the authorization of the Highlands Conservation Act through 
                           fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF HIGHLANDS CONSERVATION ACT.

    (a) Extension of Land Conservation Projects in the Highlands 
Region.--Section 4(e) of the Highlands Conservation Act (Public Law 
108-421; 118 Stat. 2377) is amended by striking ``2014'' and inserting 
``2024''.
    (b) Extension of Forest Service and USDA Programs in the Highlands 
Region.--Section 5(c) of the Highlands Conservation Act (Public Law 
108-421; 118 Stat. 2378) is amended by striking ``2014'' and inserting 
``2024''.
                                 <all>
```
Argued and submitted June 12,2001,

affirmed May 29, 2002

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of Larry L. Little, Claimant. SAIF CORPORATION and Pope & Talbot, Inc., *Petitioners, v.*Larry L. LITTLE; American Can Co.; and Employers Insurance of Wausau, *Respondents.*

99-05373, 99-01897; A110471

47 P3d 528

Jerome P. Larkin, Appellate Counsel, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioners.

Robert D. Carlson argued the cause for respondent Larry L. Little. With him on the brief was Kryger, Alexander, Egan & Elmer, P.C.

Brad G. Garber argued the cause for respondents American Can Co. and Employers Insurance of Wausau. With him on the brief was Meyers, Radler, Bohy, Replogle & Miller.

Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Wollheim, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. *SAIF v. Webb,*181 Or App 205, 45 P3d 950 (2002).
#### Lum COLEMAN v. STATE.

No. 36080.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1967.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 193 So.2d 699.
251 La. 757

#### GREATER BATON ROUGE PORT COMMISSION v. CARGILL, INCORPORATED.

No. 49053.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 2, 1968.

In re: Cargill, Incorporated applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of West Baton Rouge. 205 So.2d 151.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.

HAMLIN, J., concurs with written reasons.

HAMLIN, Justice

(concurring).

I concur in the granting of the writ herein — not because I believe that the decision of the Court of Appeal, taken as a whole, is vague or erroneous — but because I do not believe that all of the differences between the parties can be resolved without further litigation.

Any decision by this court at this time will be in the nature of an advisory opinion. We have held many times that we do not render advisory opinions.

I do not feel that we can foreclose the trial of a *real*justiciable controversy.

Declaratory proceedings do not appear to me to be the proper remedy at this time.
#### Barbara T. HORTON, as Personal Representative and Executrix of the Estate of Harry H. Horton, Jr., deceased, Petitioner, v. CEDARS OF LEBANON HOSPITAL CORP., Respondent. Barbara T. HORTON, Petitioner, v. CEDARS OF LEBANON HOSPITAL CORP., Respondent.

Nos. 69-884, 69-885.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 22, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 31, 1969,

PER CURIAM.

Petitions dismissed.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. William J. O’HARA, Petitioner, v. Honorable Roy E. DEAN, Circuit Judge, Twelfth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Respondent.

No. 72-568.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 26, 1972.

Rehearing Denied July 17, 1972.

Prohibition denied.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

June 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Vocational Vehicle Segmentation and Drive Cycle Development

FROM: Rafal A. Sobotowski, Engineer, OTAQ/ASD

TO: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and 

Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827

The first attempt at segmentation of vocational vehicles and the development of representative drive 

cycles for the respective segments was carried out by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory

(NREL) using their Fleet DNA database and the DRIVE analysis tool. The effort was focused on 

segmenting vocational vehicles according to the type of operation, namely transient, highway and 

engine idling. The most successful approach at this stage consisted of splitting the vocational vehicle 

fleet into two segments:

 Stem and Leaf characterized by 30-60% of total distance being driven at highway speeds 

(defined as >55 mph)

 Fixed/Local Route distinguished by no more that 15% of total distance being driven at highway

speeds

Plots showing the distribution of transient, highway and idling operation across the weight classes and 

vocations of vehicles with data in NREL’s database are provided in Figure 1. The Stem and Leaf and 

Fixed/Local Route segments are shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively.
2

Figure 1. Distribution of transient, highway and idling operation acros weight classes and vocations
3

Figure 2: Distribution of transient, highway and idling operation across the Stem and Leaf segment
4

Figure 3: Distribution of transient, highway and idling operation acros the Fixed/Local Route segment

Once the two segments were defined, NREL’s DRIVE tool was used to design the respective transient 

cycles using vehicle activity data contained in their Fleet DNA database. The resulting Stem and Leaf 

and Fixed/Local Route drive cycles are illustrated in Figures 4 and 5. They were based on test data 

collected for 103 and 135 vehicles, respectively. The target duration for these cycles was set at 30 

minutes. For comparison, the reference CARB HHDDT Transient cycle is illustrated in Figure 6.

While Figures 4-6 illustrate NREL’s capability to design drive cycles using their DRIVE tool, the 

underlying vehicle activity datasets were nevertheless deemed insufficient to comprehensively 

characterize the US fleet of vocational vehicles.

In order to correct this shortcoming, NREL and the EPA have initiated contacts with chassis 

manufacturers and large vocational vehicle fleets to obtain additional data to fill in the gaps. This effort 

is still underway. The final segmentation of the vocational vehicle fleet and generation of drive cycles 

for the respective segments is expected by the end of 2015.
5

Figure 4: Candidate Stem and Leaf drive cycle

Figure 5: Fixed/Local Route drive cycle
6

Figure 6: CARB HHDDT drive cycle
#### Ray WHALEY, Appellant, v FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN FORT MYERS, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 74-268.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 26, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Henry C. MANNING v. Kenneth Addison DUNCAN et al.

No. 61511.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 17, 1978.

In re: Kenneth A. Duncan applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of Terre-bonne.

Denied.

TATE & CALOGERO, JJ., would grant a writ.