alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UNITED STA TES ENVIRONMENTA**  **L PROTECTION A GENCY**  NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105 - 2498 OF FICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION June 2015 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Vocational Vehicle Segmentation and Drive C yc le Development FROM: Rafal A. Sobotowski, Engineer, OTAQ/ASD TO: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium - and Heav y - Duty

Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - Docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 201 4 - 0827 The first attempt at segmentation of vocational vehicles and the development of representative drive cy cles for the respective segments was carried out by the National Renewable Energy L aboratory (NREL) using their Fleet DNA database and the DRIVE anal ys is tool. The effort was focused on segmenting vocational vehicles according to the type of operation, namel y t ransient, highway and engine id ling. The most successful approach at this stage consisted of splitting the vocational vehicle fleet into two segments:  Stem and L eaf characterized by 30 - 60% of total distance being driven at highway speeds (defined as >55 mph)  Fixed/L ocal Route distinguished b y 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 classe s and vocations of vehicles with data in NREL’s database are provided in Fi gure 1. The Stem and Leaf and Fixed/L ocal Route segments are shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectivel y.2

Figure 1. Distribution of transient, highway and idling operation acros weight classes and vocations3

Figure 2: Distribution of transient, highway and idling operation acro s s the Stem and Leaf segment4

Figure 3 : Distribution of transient, highway and idling operation acros the Fixed/L ocal Route segment Once the two segments were defined, NREL’s DRIVE tool was used to design the respective transi ent cy cles using vehicle activity data contained in their Fleet DNA database. The resulting Stem and Leaf and Fixed/L ocal Route drive cy cles are illustrated in Figures 4 and 5. They were based on test data collected for 103 and 135 vehicles, respectivel y . The target duration for these cy cles was set at 30 minutes. For comparison, the reference CARB HHDDT Transient cy cle is illustrated in Figure 6. While Figures 4 - 6 illustrate NREL’s capability to design drive cy cles using their DRIVE tool, the underlyi ng vehicle activity datasets were nevertheless deemed insufficient to comprehensivel y 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 voc ational 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 cy cles for the respective segments is expected by the end of 2015.5 Figur e 4 : Candidate Stem and Leaf drive cy cle

Figure 5 : Fixed/L ocal Route drive cy cle6 Figure 6 : CARB HHDDT drive cy cle
#### SCHWARTZ v. SAFETY HARBOR SPA, INC.

No. 36673.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1967.

Certiorari dismissed without opinion. 200 So.2d 277.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LSP-WHITEWATER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AS OF AND FOR THE 3
MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                    
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                  
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999 
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999 
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999 
<CASH>                                          14,039 
<SECURITIES>                                         0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,038 
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0 
<INVENTORY>                                      1,009 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,873 
<PP&E>                                           8,697 
<DEPRECIATION>                                     632 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 306,267 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,913 
<BONDS>                                        177,000 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<COMMON>                                             0 
<OTHER-SE>                                     116,354 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   306,267 
<SALES>                                              0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,760 
<CGS>                                                0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,988 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,533 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0 
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,239 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0 
        

</TABLE>
#### Clarence M. MARKLAND, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-262.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 30, 1972.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Orange County; Warren H. Edwards, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38690-38691]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16819]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-2066-000]


Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing 
Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; Minco Wind IV, 
LLC

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Minco Wind IV, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with 
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is August 16, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

[[Page 38691]]

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3f797a6d7c70515356515a6c4a4f4f504d4b7f595a4d5c11585049"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="793f3c2b3a36171510171c2a0c0909160b0d391f1c0b1a571e160f">[email protected]</span></a>. or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 27, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-16819 Filed 8-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 27, 2019

No. 04-18-00909-CV

REFUND ADVISORY CORP.,

Appellant

v.

Albert URESTI, in his Official Capacity as Bexar County Tax Assessor-Collector, and Bexar 

County,

Appellees

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI08726

Honorable David Peeples, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s second motion for an extension of time to file its brief is GRANTED. 

Appellant’s brief is due on April 22, 2019. No further extensions will be granted absent 

extenuating circumstances.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of March, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDRE ANDREWS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

CLIFFORD SLAWINSKI; ALFRED LIO,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 15

- 56009

D.C. No. 2:10

- cv

- 05850

- MWF

VBK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 13, 2018 **

Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Andre Andrews appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a

bench trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an unreasonable seizure under

the Fourth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

for clear error the district court’s findings of fact and de novo its legal conclusions.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 22 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 56009

Husain v. Olympic Airways , 316 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not clearly err in its factual findings , and, based upon

those findings, the district court properly concluded that defendants had reasonable

suspicion for the traffic stop. See Heien v. North Carolina , 135 S. Ct. 530, 536

(2014) (reasonable suspicion can be based on mistakes of law or fact); Whren v.

United States , 517 U.S. 806, 810, 812

- 13 (1996) ( no Fourth Amendment violation

when officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred ; an

officer’s subjective intent is not relevant to the Fourth Amendment analysis).

AFFIRME D.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. STATE STREET PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION OF UPPER STATE STREET, INC. v. The BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS OF the CITY OF NEW ORLEANS et al. (Consolidated with State of Louisiana ex rel. Time Saver Stores, Inc. v. The Board of Zoning Adjustments of the City of New Orleans, et al., No. 4722).

No. 4721.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

April 18, 1972.

Rehearing Denied May 16, 1972.

Writ Refused June 22, 1972.

Walter M. Barnett, John F. Caraway and Jacob H. Morrison, New Orleans, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Faris, Ellis, Cutrone, Gilmore & Lauten-schlaeger, New Orleans, for intervenors-appellants.

Blake G. Arata, New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.

Before REDMANN, LEMMON and STOULIG, JJ.

LEMMON, Judge.

This suit was consolidated for trial with that of State of Louisiana ex rel.: Time Saver Stores, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Adjustments of the City of New Orleans, et al., 261 So.2d 273, in this court, decided this day.

For the reasons assigned in that case, the judgment of the trial court is reversed.

Reversed.

STOULIG, J., concurring with written reasons.
# C_2011343EN.01001402.xml

| 23.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/14

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6395 — ETEX/Lafarge Gypsum Assets)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 343/04

On 27 October 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6395. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6395. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### James E. THAMES v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50572.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

July 26, 1978.

Roy Pitts, Meridian, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Billy L. Gore, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before ROBERTSON, P. J., and SUGG and COFER, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
#### Claudette L. ROMERO v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPT. OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY and W-K-M Wellhead Systems, Inc.

No. 62431.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1978.

In re: Claudette L. Romero applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Iberia.

Writ denied.
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
                   ------------------------------------------

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, the undersigned, Richard A. Wisot, the chief
financial officer of PROLIANCE INTERNATIONAL, INC. (the "issuer"), does hereby
certify that the report on Form 10-Q accompanying this certification (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 78o(d)) and that information
contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the issuer.

/s/ Richard A. Wisot
--------------------
Richard A. Wisot
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(chief financial officer)
PROLIANCE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
August 12, 2005
```
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-210-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
# C_2011301EN.01000401.xml

| 12.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

11 October 2011

2011/C 301/05

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3607 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 104,26 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4435 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87020 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1202 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2380 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,7810 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,779 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 295,05 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7056 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3284 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3290 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,5075 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3684 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3988 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5882 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7462 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7485 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 593,88 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,8185 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,6758 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4720 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 159,79 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2746 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,111 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 42,9280 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,100 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,4120 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,1467 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 67,1170 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3607

JPY

Japanese yen

104,26

DKK

Danish krone

7,4435

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87020

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1202

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2380

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,7810

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,779

HUF

Hungarian forint

295,05

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7056

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3284

RON

Romanian leu

4,3290

TRY

Turkish lira

2,5075

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3684

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3988

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5882

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7462

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7485

KRW

South Korean won

1 593,88

ZAR

South African rand

10,8185

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,6758

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4720

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 159,79

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2746

PHP

Philippine peso

59,111

RUB

Russian rouble

42,9280

THB

Thai baht

42,100

BRL

Brazilian real

2,4120

MXN

Mexican peso

18,1467

INR

Indian rupee

67,1170

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
#### Ronnie S. LYNN and Barry S. Lynn, her husband, Appellants, v. Dorothy B. FREEDMAN and Government Employees Insurance Company, a foreign corporation, Appellees.

No. 73-92.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 24, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 10, 1973.

*527Carter, Anderson, Anstine, Martin & Barnett, Orlando, for appellants.

Bradford, Williams, McKay, Kimbrell, Hamann & Jennings and Walter S. Holland, Miami, for appellees.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant plaintiff seeks review of an adverse summary judgment against her in an automobile negligence action. We reverse.

The sole testimony in this case regarding the accident in question was that of the ap-pellee defendant, since appellant plaintiff had no recollection of the accident due to a semiamnesia condition. Defendant testified, in deposition, that she was traveling north via I-9S near the 95th Street exit, intending to exit at the 119th Street exit (2 exits away) when she passed appellant’s car and felt a jolt. Looking back appellee then saw appellant’s car leave the ground and the expressway, thereafter striking a signpost. As previously noted, appellant had no remembrance of the accident and upon this basis alone the trial judge entered final summary judgment in favor of appel-lee.

We reverse since we are of the opinion that a jury might logically infer that the accident resulted from an attempt by appel-lee to leave her lane in preparation for an exit from the expressway. Thus, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, we are of the opinion that the trial judge erred in entering final summary judgment in favor of the appel-lee. Accordingly, the summary judgment entered herein is reversed.

Reversed.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                   ------------

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Birner Dental
Management Services, Inc., a Colorado corporation (the "Company"), for the
quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer
and the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby
certify, pursuant to   906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.   1350),
that to his knowledge:


1.     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

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

                            Date:    May  15,  2006


                              By:    /s/  Frederic  W.J.  Birner
                                     ---------------------------
                            Name:    Frederic  W.J.  Birner
                           Title:    Chief  Executive  Officer


                              By:    /s/  Dennis  N.  Genty
                                     ----------------------
                            Name:    Dennis  N.  Genty
                           Title:    Chief Financial Officer