alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Expenditures on Children by Families

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

## The Cost of Raising a Child

Expenditures on Children by Families provides estimates of the cost of raising children from birth through age 17 for major budgetary components.
                      - 2015
                      - **Publication Date****Report**January 2017Parents projected to spend $233,610 to raise a child born in 2015.Expenditures on Children by Families, 2015Graphics, 2015 
                      - 2005-2014
                      - **Publication Date****Report**August 2014Parents projected to spend $245,340 to raise a child born in 2013.Expenditures on Children by Families, 2013August 2013Parents projected to spend $241,080 to raise a child born in 2012.Expenditures on Children by Families, 2012June 2012A child born in 2011 will cost $234,900 to raise.Expenditures on Children by Families, 2011 (604.78 KB)Press Release (48.03 KB)May 2011A child born in 2010 will cost $226,920 to raise.Expenditures on Children by Families, 2010 (791.39 KB)Press release (150.46 KB)June 2010Expenditures on Children by Families, 2009 (608.58 KB)July 2009Expenditures on Children by Families, 2008 (199.56 KB)March 2008Expenditures on Children by Families, 2007 (2.55 MB)Press Release (177.42 KB)April 2007Expenditures on Children by Families, 2006 (1.72 MB)April 2006Expenditures on Children by Families, 2005 (511.78 KB)
                      - 1995-2004
                      - **Publication Date****Report**April 2005Expenditures on Children by Families, 2004 (508.32 KB)April 2004Expenditures on Children by Families, 2003 (133.85 KB)May 2003Expenditures on Children by Families, 2002 (341.49 KB)May 2002Expenditures on Children by Families, 2001 (338.79 KB)May 2001Expenditures on Children by Families, 2000 (136.95 KB)March 2000Expenditures on Children by Families, 1999 (263.59 KB)March 1999Expenditures on Children by Families, 1998 (113.55 KB)March 1998Expenditures on Children by Families, 1997 (111.52 KB)May 1997Expenditures on Children by Families, 1996 (109.92 KB)April 1996Expenditures on Children by Families, 1995 (132.26 KB)

Page updated: August 07, 2024
Exhibit 99.1

                     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 Annual Report of SDC International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2001 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Ronald A. Adams, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results
           of operations of the Company.



/s/Ronald A. Adams
------------------------------
Ronald A. Adams
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
November 22, 2002
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LYNELLE HAMMOND,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 15-11796

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

ORDER AND OPINION ACCEPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S SEPTEMBER 22,

2016 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [19]

Currently before the Court is the magistrate judge’s September 22, 2016 report and

recommendation. The Court is fully advised in the premises and has reviewed the record

and the pleadings. Neither party has filed objections. “[T]he failure to object to the

magistrate judge’s report[] releases the Court from its duty to independently review the

matter.” Hall v. Rawal, 09-10933, 2012 WL 3639070, at *1 (E.D.Mich. Aug. 24, 2012)

(citation omitted). The Court nevertheless agrees with the magistrate judge’s

recommendation. The Court therefore ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s

report and recommendation.

It is further ordered that Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: October 17, 2016

2:15-cv-11796-NGE-PTM Doc # 20 Filed 10/17/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 578
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on October 17, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol J. Bethel 

Case Manager

2

2:15-cv-11796-NGE-PTM Doc # 20 Filed 10/17/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 579
The Kiowa Core, a Continuous

Drill Core Through the Denver

Basin Bedrock Aquifers at Kiowa,

Elbert County, Colorado

by Robert G. H. Raynolds1, Kirk R. Johnson1, L. Rick Arnold2, Timothy

M. Farnham1

, R. Farley Fleming1, Jason F. Hicks1, Shari A. Kelley3,

Laura A. Lapey4

, Douglas J. Nichols2, John D. Obradovich2, and

Michael D. Wilson1

Open-File Report 01-185

2001

This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey

editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of trade, firm, or

product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.

Government.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

1

Denver Museum of Nature and Science

2

U.S. Geological Survey

3

New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

4

Colorado State University
Report prepared in cooperation with:

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,

DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES

OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER

COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

ELBERT COUNTY, COLORADO

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO

NEW MEXICO INSTITUTE OF MINING AND TECHNOLOGY

UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA

SCRIPPS INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY
§ 46.10-10 Marks to indicate subdivision load lines. ( a ) Marks to indicate the maximum mean draft to which a passenger vessel may be lawfully submerged shall be permanently marked on each side of the passenger vessel in the form, manner, and location provided in this part.
( b ) The Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, will determine the position of the subdivision load lines by the application of the requirements contained in this part and parts 170 and 171 of this chapter. The correct marking of subdivision load lines will be certified by the American Bureau of Shipping or a classification society approved by the Commandant for that purpose.
( c ) Certificates certifying to the correctness of subdivision load line marks shall not be furnished until it is determined that the marks have been correctly placed upon the passenger vessel.
( d ) In the case of passenger vessels that are required by the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea to have on board a safety certificate, the certification of subdivision, load line marks shall be made by letter to the cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, U.S. Coast Guard.
[CGFR 65-50, 30 FR 16769, Dec. 30, 1965, as amended by CGFR 68-60, 33 FR 10077, July 12, 1968; CGD 79-023, 48 FR 51007, Nov. 4, 1983; CGD 88-070, 53 FR 34534, Sept. 7, 1988; USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49228, Sept. 25, 2009]
§ 47.630 Restrictions. ( a ) The mark (T) applies only to Great Lakes service from May 1 through September 30.
( b ) Notations are to be placed on the face of the load line certificate to the effect that: ( 1 ) The barge must be operated in compliance with the draft vs. cargo vertical center of gravity tables in the U.S. Coast Guard approved stability letter, and
( 2 ) The mark (T) is applicable only for Great Lakes service from May 1 through September 30 as per 46 CFR 45.9
§ 531.3 Definitions. When used in this part: ( a ) *Act* means the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998;
( b ) *Affiliate* means two or more entities which are under common ownership or control by reason of being parent and subsidiary or entities associated with, under common control with, or otherwise related to each other through common stock ownership or common directors or officers.
( c ) *Amendment* means any change to an NSA which has prospective effect and which is mutually agreed upon by all parties to the NSA.
( d ) Commission or FMC means the Federal Maritime Commission.
( e ) *Common carrier* means a person holding itself out to the general public to provide transportation by water of passengers or cargo between the United States and a foreign country for compensation that: ( 1 ) Assumes responsibility for the transportation from the port or point of receipt to the port or point of destination; and
( 2 ) Utilizes, for all or part of that transportation, a vessel operating on the high seas or the Great Lakes between a port in the United States and a port in a foreign country, except that the term does not include a common carrier engaged in ocean transportation by ferry boat, ocean tramp, or chemical parcel tanker, or by a vessel when primarily engaged in the carriage of perishable agricultural commodities: ( i ) If the common carrier and the owner of those commodities are wholly owned, directly or indirectly, by a person primarily engaged in the marketing and distribution of those commodities and
( ii ) Only with respect to those commodities.
( f ) *Effective date* means the date upon which an NSA or amendment is scheduled to go into effect by the parties to the NSA. An NSA or amendment becomes effective at 12:01 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on the beginning of the effective date. The effective date cannot be prior to the date of the NSA or amendment.
( g ) *Expiration date* means the last day after which the entire NSA is no longer in effect.
( h ) *NSA shipper* means a cargo owner, the person for whose account the ocean transportation is provided, the person to whom delivery is to be made, a shippers' association, or an ocean transportation intermediary, as defined in section 3(17)(B) of the Act (46 U.S.C. 40102(16)), that accepts responsibility for payment of all applicable charges under the NSA.
( i ) *NVOCC Service Arrangement* (“NSA”) means a written contract, other than a bill of lading or receipt, between one or more NSA shippers and an individual NVOCC or two or more affiliated NVOCCs, in which the NSA shipper makes a commitment to provide a certain minimum quantity or portion of its cargo or freight revenue over a fixed time period, and the NVOCC commits to a certain rate or rate schedule and a defined service level. The NSA may also specify provisions in the event of nonperformance on the part of any party.
( j ) *Rules tariff* means a tariff or the portion of a tariff, as defined by 46 CFR 520.2, containing the terms and conditions governing the charges, classifications, rules, regulations and practices of an NVOCC, but does not include a rate.
[83 FR 34791, July 23, 2018]
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 Annual Report of IO World Media, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas Bean, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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 results of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.





Dated: April 15, 2011
By:
/s/ Thomas J. BeanThomas J. Bean

Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer

(principal executive officer & principal financial officer)
Opinion issued September 19, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-19-00567-CV

———————————

IN RE PRESTON MARSHALL AND RUSK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, 

L.L.C., Relators

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators, Preston Marshall and Rusk Capital Management, L.L.C., have filed 

a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s order striking their 

jury demand.

1

 

1 The underlying case is Preston Marshall, Individually, and Rusk Capital 

Management, L.L.C. v. MarOpCo, Inc., E. Pierce Marshall, Jr., Edwin K. Hunter,

and Hunter, Hunter & Sonnier, LLC, Cause No. 2015-35950, pending in the 11th 
2

We deny the petition. All pending motions are dismissed as moot. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss.

 

District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Kristen Brauchle Hawkins 

presiding.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES KLAVER,

 Plaintiff,

 

v. Case No. 2:15-cv-11680

 Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

COUNTY OF WAYNE, ET AL.,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This is a civil rights complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Charles Klaver, who

is incarcerated at the Wayne County Jail, asserts in his pro se complaint that he was subjected to

abuse and mistreatment by twenty-one named Defendants. 

On May 14, 2015, the Court issued two Orders to Correct Deficiency [Dkt. Nos. 3 and 4]

because Plaintiff failed to submit the filing fee or an application to proceed without prepaying fees

or costs, and because he failed to file a sufficient number of copies of his complaint to serve on all

twenty-one Defendants. The Court required Plaintiff to correct the deficiencies within 30 days. The

Court cautioned Plaintiff that if he failed to correct the filing deficiencies, then the complaint would

be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. Plaintiff has filed application to proceed without

prepaying fees or costs, but he has not filed the additional copies of his complaint. The time for

correcting that deficiency has now elapsed.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's complaint [Dkt. No. 1] is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of prosecution.

S/Victoria A. Roberts

Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

United States District Judge

Dated: June 29, 2015

2:15-cv-11680-VAR-DRG Doc # 8 Filed 06/29/15 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 32
#### § 532.6 Notices.

An NVOCC wishing to invoke an exemption pursuant to this part must indicate that intention to the Commission and the public by a prominent notice in its rules tariff.

[77 FR 33972, June 8, 2012]
Exhibit 32

JACKSONVILLE BANCORP, INC.

Certification Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Enacted Pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Jacksonville Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as
filed with the SEC on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company as of and for the
period covered by the Report.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                                                     
|------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 16, 2011 |  | /s/ Price W. Schwenck                               
|                   |  | Price W. Schwenck                                   
|                   |  | Chief Executive Officer                             
|                   | 
|Date: May 16, 2011 |  | /s/ Valerie A. Kendall                              
|                   |  | Valerie A. Kendall                                  
|                   |  | Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer





50.
Exhibit 99.4

                            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 Annual Report of CERBCO,  Inc. (the  "Company") on
Form  10-KSB/A  for the fiscal  year  ending  June 30,  2002,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Robert
F. Hartman, the Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to
Section 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 results of operations of the Company.



/s/Robert F. Hartman
Robert F. Hartman
Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer
October 11, 2002
#### Etta Armstrong, *Respondent, v.*William A. Cummings and others, *Appellant*s

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH UNAUDITED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED IN THE REGISTRANTS REPORT ON FORM 10Q
FOR SEPTEMBER 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          58,492
<SECURITIES>                                     3,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                   48,724
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (2,040)
<INVENTORY>                                     47,325
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               174,496
<PP&E>                                          27,309
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (8,182)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 311,476
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,208
<BONDS>                                        115,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           228
<OTHER-SE>                                     123,117
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   311,476
<SALES>                                        115,970
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               137,099
<CGS>                                           64,031
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   82,088
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                74,366
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,651
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (21,130)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,548
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (35,301)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (35,301)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.74)
        

</TABLE>
#### Bolton Hall, *Respondent, v.*United States Reflector Company, *Appellant.*

Appeal dismissed, without costs.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending February 16, 2008

|Filer             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                          | End of Comment Period                                  
|----------------- | -------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------
|NEEDHAM BANK      | Member         | Application by Needham Bank, Needham, Massachusetts to become a member of the Federal Reserve System pursuant to section 9 of the Federal Reserve Act and section 208.3 of Regulation H. | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | Not applicable
|Federal Register: | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
<PAGE>   1



                   ABLE TELCOM HOLDING CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                       COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

Exhibit 11 - Computation of Per Share Earnings


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                     1995                 1994               1993
                                     ----                 ----               ----
<S>                       <C>                   <C>               <C>
Net (loss) income:        $      (281,166)      $      946,013    $     4,557,792
                          ===============       ==============    ===============
Weighted average shares
  outstanding
  Primary                       8,283,668            7,736,122          6,421,377
                          ===============       ==============    ===============
  Fully diluted                 8,283,668            7,736,122          6,906,915
                          ===============       ==============    ===============

(Loss) income per share:
  Primary                 $          (.03)      $          .12    $           .71
                          ===============       ==============    ===============
  Fully diluted           $          (.03)      $          .12    $           .66
                          ===============       ==============    ===============
</TABLE>