alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-  Aspectos destacados de la inmunización 
-  Lo básico      -  Ingredientes de las vacunas 
  -  Vacunas y seguridad        -  Efectos secundarios de las vacunas 
  -  Tipos de vacunas 
  -  Función de las vacunas        -  Las vacunas lo protegen 
    -  Las vacunas protegen a su comunidad 
-  Vacunas por enfermedad      -  Varicela 
  -  Cólera 
  -  COVID-19 
  -  Difteria 
  -  Gripe (Influenza) 
  -  Hepatitis A 
  -  Hepatitis B 
  -  Hib (Haemophilus influenzae tipo B) 
  -  HPV (virus del papiloma humano) 
  -  Encefalitis japonesa (EJ) 
  -  Sarampión 
  -  Enfermedad meningocócica 
  -  Mpox (Formerly Monkeypox) 
  -  Paperas 
  -  Neumococo 
  -  Poliomielitis 
  -  Rabia 
  -  Rotavirus 
  -  RSV (Respiratory Syncytial Virus) 
  -  Rubéola (sarampión alemán) 
  -  Culebrilla (Herpes Zoster) 
  -  Tétanos (Trismo) 
  -  Fiebre tifoidea 
  -  Tos ferina (tos convulsa) 
  -  Fiebre amarilla 
-  Quién y cuándo      -  Bebés, niños y adolescentes        -  Bebés y niños desde el nacimiento hasta los 6 años 
    -  Preadolescentes y adolescentes desde los 7 hasta los 18 años 
  -  Adultos        -  Adultos desde los 19 hasta los 26 años 
    -  Adultos desde los 27 hasta los 64 años 
    -  Adultos mayores de 65 años 
  -  Embarazadas 
  -  Viajeros 
  -  Personas con afecciones 
  -  Trabajadores de atención médica 
  -  Hombres homosexuales o bisexuales 
  -  Miembros del ejército 
-  Vacunarse      -  Cómo pagar 
  -  Qué esperar - para adultos 
  -  Qué esperar - para padres        -  Cinco razones importantes para vacunar a su hijo 
  -  A dónde ir 
-  Recursos      -  Explore las tasas de vacunación en su comunidad 
  -  Spread the Word!        -  Gráficos 
    -  Widgets and Web Badges 
    -  Toolkits 
  -  Más información sobre las vacunas 
-  Quiénes somos 

                            -  English 
                            -  Español (Spanish) 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# Vacunarse

Vacunarse es una de las acciones más importantes que puede tomar para cuidar su salud y la de su familia.

En esta sección encontrará respuestas a las preguntas comunes sobre cómo vacunarse, tales como:
                          - ¿ Dónde debo ir para vacunarme ?
                          - ¿ Qué puedo esperar cuando llevo a mi hijo a vacunarse ?
                          - ¿ Qué puedo esperar cuando voy a vacunarme ?
                          - ¿ Cómo pago las vacunaciones ?

## ¿Quiere aprender sobre las etapas por las que pasan las vacunas de su hijo?

Conozca cómo se desarrollan, aprueban y controlan las vacunas.

Content last reviewed June 24, 2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                          (2,160)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,434
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     81,027
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                98,026
<PP&E>                                         162,373
<DEPRECIATION>                                (53,372)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 222,999
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           70,188
<BONDS>                                         12,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     18,483
<COMMON>                                           120
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,077
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   222,999
<SALES>                                        101,940
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,287
<CGS>                                           35,790
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,790
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,376
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,584
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,320
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,320
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,320
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
#### LEAR SCHOOL, INC., Appellant, v. Leonard SOLOMON, Appellee.

No. 70-965.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 21, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15421]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may 
submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary by email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6536000617001104171c250308064b020a13"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b5e6d0d6c7d0c1d4c7ccf5d3d8d69bd2dac3">[email protected]</span></a>, or by mail, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, 
DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the 
Federal Register. Copies of the agreements are available through the 
Commission's website (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of 
Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2a5e584b4e4f4b444b46535943596a4c4749044d455c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7b0f091a1f1e1a151a17020812083b1d1618551c140d">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Agreement No.: 010979-064.
    Agreement Name: Caribbean Shipowners Association.
    Parties: Crowley Caribbean Services LLC; Hybur Ltd.; King Ocean 
Services Limited, Inc.; Seaboard Marine Ltd.; Tropical Shipping & 
Construction Co., Ltd.; and Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd.
    Filing Parties: Wayne Rohde, Cozen O'Connor.
    Synopsis: The amendment deletes CMA CGM SA as a party to the 
Agreement.
    Proposed Effective Date: 7/12/2018.
    Location: https://www2.fmc.gov/FMC.Agreements.Web/Public/AgreementHistory/1194.

    Agreement No.: 011426-065.
    Agreement Name: West Coast of South America Discussion Agreement.
    Parties: King Ocean Services Limited, Inc. and Seaboard Marine Ltd.
    Filing Parties: Wayne Rohde, Cozen O'Connor.
    Synopsis: The amendment deletes CMA CGM SA as a party to the 
Agreement.
    Proposed Effective Date: 7/12/2018.
    Location: https://www2.fmc.gov/FMC.Agreements.Web/Public/AgreementHistory/939.

    Dated: July 16, 2018.
Rachel E. Dickon,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15421 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Elizabeth Moster, Plaintiff in Error, *vs.*Abraham Moster, Defendant in Error.

1. *Divorce*— Judgment—^Entries *mmc pro tunc.*— $ 10 of the statute touching Divorces (W. S., B3B) does not prevent *mmc pro tunc*entries, at a subsequent term, of the actual judgment or order that ivas made in the case but incorrectly entered on the records.

*Error to Btichanan Common Pleas Court.*

*Fred T.*Ledergerber, for Plaintiff in Error.

*Vinton*Pike, for Defendant in Error.

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action for divorce.

The defendant filed an answer in the nature of a cross bill, also denying the allegations of plaintiff’s petition.

' At the December term, 1871, the cause was submitted to the court and tried, and resulted in favor of the defendant. A formal entry of judgment was made, giving the defendant a divorce. At the March term, 1872, the defendant applied to have the entry corrected by entering the judgment that had been really rendered, which was to dismiss the plaintiff’s petition and discharge the defendant therefrom without decreeing a divorce in his favor. This entry was accordingly made. The plaintiff moved the court to set aside this action, and this motion was overruled. There is no Bill of Exceptions in the case. There is nothing before us to show upon what data the Common Pleas acted in ordering the entries at the March term, 1872. The entry was no doubt a *nunc pro tunc*entry of the original finding and judgment of the court. The clerk had made a clerical mistake in entering a decree divorcing the defendant, when no such decree had been made.

We must presume in the absence of anything to the contrary, that the minutes of the court or the judge’s docket showed what the real decree was, and justified the *nunc pro tunc*entry in March, 1872.

The tenth section of the Divorce Law (W. S., 535) has no application here. It provides, that no final judgment or order rendered in a divorce shall be reversed, annulled or modified in *327the Supreme or any other court by appeal, or writ of error, unless such appeal shall have been granted during the term of court at which the judgment or order appealed from was rendered, or unless such writ of error shall have been issued within sixty days after the order was made or judgment rendered.

This section does not prevent *nunc pro tunc*entries, at subsequent terms, of the actual judgment or order that was made in a cause.

.Such entries are based upon the presumption, that a proper judgment was rendered and is in existence, but not set out on the record as it really exists.

It is the real judgment or order as it was made, though not properly spread on the record, that cannot be appealed from except during the term, and cannot, be touched by a writ of error after the lapse of sixty days. Judgment affirmed.

Judges Vories and Sherwood concur; Judges Napton and Wagner absent.
263 La. 861

#### STATE of Louisiana v. NEW ORLEANS TERMINAL COMPANY et al.

No. 53017.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 11, 1972.

In re: New Orleans Terminal Company, Illinois Central Railroad Company, Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Company, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, and Southern Pacific Transportation Company applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus and for stay order.

Application denied. Relators have an adequate remedy in the event of their conviction.
#### John MATERA, Appellant, v. E. Wilson PURDY, Sheriff of Dade County, Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-564.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Feb. 21, 1968.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 1 of 21 
Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 2 of 21 
Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 3 of 21 
Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 4 of 21 
Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 5 of 21 
Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 6 of 21 
Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 7 of 21 
Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 8 of 21 
Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 9 of 21 
Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 10 of 21 
Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 11 of 21 
Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 12 of 21 
Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 13 of 21 
Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 14 of 21 
Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 15 of 21 
Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 16 of 21 
Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 17 of 21 
Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 18 of 21 
Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 19 of 21 
Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 20 of 21 
Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 21 of 21
#### Leslie P. DUFF v. STATE.

No. 38531.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
Table B-2.  Standard Errors of Estimated Percentages for Characteristics of
                    of Vacant Rental and Homeowner Housing Units:  2004
 
 
 
                                    Estimated percentage
 
                                1 or     2 or     5 or    10 or    15 or    20 or    25 or
                                 99       98       95       90       85       80       75       50
 
 
Vacant rental units........     0.1      0.1      0.2      0.3      0.4      0.4      0.5      0.5
Vacant homeowner units.....     0.2      0.2      0.4      0.5      0.6      0.7      0.7      0.8
#### Kennedy *v.*Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.

*Public Utilities Commissionr*— Motor *transportation companies —Certificate of convenience and necessity*— Error *proceedings to Supreme Court*— Evidence *to sustain order refusing certificate.*

(No. 18667

Decided December 9, 1924.)

Error to the Public Utilities Commission.

*Mr. Randolph Walton; Mr. W. 8. Pealer; Mr. J. A. Obey,*and *Messrs. Scott & Scott,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. |G. G. Grabbe,*attorney general, and *Mr. John W. Bricker,*for defendant in error.

By the Court.

All counsel in this cause concede that the only question which this case brings to this court is one of fact. From the finding of the commission we quote:

> “Heretofore this party first came before the commission with certain associates in the name of a so-called company, asking that a certificate be issued to them for this route. This application was withdrawn and an individual application filed by Kennedy for the. certificate, which was denied, for the reason that the commission had already granted to one *W.*D. Thomas a certificate for the route. Appeal was taken from this decision to the Supreme Court of Ohio, where it was affirmed. The present affidavit was then filed. At the hearing, which became necessary because of the pro*413test filed, testimony was offered tending to show some operation by the affiant over this route on or prior to April 28, 1923, bnt this testimony is in direct conflict with the testimony of the affiant in the former proceeding. ** * **

> “It is apparent from the affiant’s own statements that any operations beyond Pleasant City to Caldwell, on or prior to April 28, 1923, were purely casual, and that this affiant was not, upon or before such date, actually operating in good faith a regular service over this route. The commission, being fully advised in the premises, therefore finds that the statements contained in said affidavit are untrue. ’ ’

We have carefully read the record, and find that it contains evidence to support the affidavit of plaintiff in error, and also evidence inconsistent therewith; that the evidence of plaintiff in error given in this hearing is inconsistent with evidence given by him in a former hearing. While much of the evidence is inconclusive of the facts sought to be shown, some of it is in sharp conflict, and the actual fact can be ascertained only by determining which witnesses spoke the truth and which witnesses did not.

The commission, with the witnesses before it. found the statements contained in the affidavit of plaintiff in error to be untrue. The record is such that, had the commission arrived at an opposite conclusion, this court probably would not have reversed such finding, and the same process of reasoning that would have prevented us from re*414versing a finding in favor of plaintiff in error prevents ns from reversing a finding against him.

The order of the commission is affirmed.

*Order affirmed.*

Marshall, C. J., Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Allen, and Conn, JJ., concur.
#### Kenneth E. HARRIS, a minor, by Jake E. Harris, his father, and Jake E. Harris, individually, Appellants, v. CITY OF NEPTUNE BEACH, Florida, a municipal corporation, Appellee.

No. J-22.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Aug. 29, 1968.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 4, 1968.

Mahon & Mahon, Jacksonville, for appellant.

S. Thompson Tygart, Jr., of the Of-fices of Charles Cook Howell, Jr., Jacksonville, for appellee,

SPECTOR, Judge.

This appeal questions the correctness of a summary judgment rendered in favor of defendant-appellee in a negligence action.

Appellants’ claim against the defendant city alleged that the latter carelessly and negligently erected and maintained a tower-like structure for lifeguards on a public ocean beach which it maintained as a recreation area. The tower was located in the tidal area so that the depth of the water under it varied with the tide and action of the waves. The appellant, Kenneth Harris, a twelve-year-old boy was injured when he dove from the tower into the water and struck the bottom with his head. The defendant admitted through its agent that it knew that children played on and dove from the tower and that so used it constituted a dangerous condition.

This being a negligence action, the issues should be resolved by a jury unless there is a complete absence of material questions of fact. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966). The summary judgment by which the questions posed by the pleadings in this action were decided recites that it was entered on authority of our decision in Switzer v. Dye, 177 So.2d 539. Our review of that case does not convince us that it is necessarily controlling in the present case. In Switzer, supra, the court ruled as a matter of law that the pier from which the child dove into a lake did not present an unusual element of danger as to unauthorized persons using the pier. In the case at bar, however, the defendant’s agent admitted that the towers did pose a danger to children using them to dive from because of the constantly changing depth of the water. This circumstance alone in the case at bar provides a sufficient factual distinction *26from Switzer to preclude a holding that this case comes within its ambit as a matter of law.

Under the facts presented by the record on appeal, a jury question is posed, and appellee was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Reversed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and JOHNSON, J., concur.
---

Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
William J. Gervais, Chief Executive Officer of Qualstar Corporation (the
“Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





(1)           the
Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
780(d)); and





(2)           the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
October 28, 2009





/s/  WILLIAM J.
      GERVAISWilliam
      J. Gervais,Principal
      Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 23, 2015

Order 

September 23, 2015

152237-9(100)(101)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

CHRISTOPHER LEE JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

SC: 152237-9

COA: 316314; 316983; 320014

Wayne CC: 12-010789-FC; 

12-010595-FC; 13-001600-FC

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motions of defendant-appellant for leave to file 

an application in excess of the page limit restriction and to file a pro per supplemental 

application are GRANTED. The 62-page application and the pro per supplemental 

application submitted on August 31, 2015, are accepted for filing.
The State of New Hampshire 

## Department of Environmental Services

Michael P Nolin Cornrnissioner

September 15, 2004 I Hereby Certify: That, in accordance with the provisions of NH RSA 541-A:11 and section 110(a) of the Clean AirAct, as amended, public notice was given specifying that a public hearing was to be held on September 15, 2004 at 11 :00 a.m . in Room114of the offices of the NHDepartment of Environmental Services, 29 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH . The notice was published at least 30 days prior to the date ofsuch hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The notice stated that copies of documentation regarding revisions to the State Implementation Plan, specifically the proposed readoption with amendment of Env-A 2700 of the NH Code of Administrative Rules, could be examined at the offices of the Department's Air Resources Division. That the public hearing was held on September 15, 2004 at 11 :00a.m . in Room114 of the offices ofthe NH Department of Environmental Services, 29 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH, in accordance with the public notice. That a complete record of the public hearing held on September 15, 2004 is available on tape at the offices ofthe NH Department of Environmental Services, 29 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH . That the above statements are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Craig A . Stationary Source Management Bureau Air Resources Division

P .O . Box 95, 29 Hazen Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03302-0095 Telephone: (603) 271-1370 " Fax: (603) 271-1381 " TDDAccess: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964 DES Web site: www

.des .nh.gov
No. 00-6557.

#### Hieu Pham *v.*California.

Ct. App. Cal., 6th App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
#### George J. ABRAHAM, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, Respondent.

No. 73-1292.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 18, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 21, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
Written Statement of the Chairman of the Board, President and
           Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

     Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, the
undersigned Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Midwest Express Holdings, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the
Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Timothy E. Hoeksema
----------------------------------------
Timothy E. Hoeksema
May 15, 2003



     A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section
     1350 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
     and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
     request.
FireFlyMediaGroupUAVFleetasofOCT15

SpecSheetforUAVMultirotorCraft

DJIS1000+ andCinestarCS8configuredtoX8

DJIS1000+

multirotorUAV

Futaba14sghandheld

lineofsightcontroller

withGPS

Futaba14sghandheld

lineofsightcontroller

withGPS

TBD

DJI4114400KV

brushlessmotors

Tattu6s22.8v

16,000mAh1931g

4.2Kg

11.0Kg

1.26Kg

includedinMTOW

RF2.400GHz

ZenmuseZ15

BMPCCgimbal

noflyzoneshard

programmedinGPS

permanufacturer

20dBm@2.400GHz

updatedasper

manufacturer

15m/sATTIorGPS

RFATTI+GPSbyDJI

A2flightcontrller

18channelradio

controller

2.400GHzto1.2m

BlackMagicPocket

onZenmusez15

489g(1.1lbs)nolens

1045mmx511mmx400mm

TigerMotorsU7v2

brushlessmotors

TBD

CinestarCS8

configuredtoX8

multirotorUAV

Tattu6s22.8v

16,000mAh1931g

5.7Kg

18Kg

1045mmx650mmx525mm

15m/sATTIorGPS

RFATTI+GPSbyDJI

A2glightcontroller

18channelradio

controller

2.400GHzto1.2m

Redcameraon

MoVIM10

1.8Kg(4lbs)nolens

1.5Kg

includedinMTOW

RF2.400GHz

MoVIM10gimbal

noflyzoneshard

programmedinGPS

permanufacturer

updatedasper

manufacturer

20dBm@2.400GHz