alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 08-118 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DIPLOMATIC AND 

CONSULAR PROPERTY 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and BRAZIL 

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

Brasilia June 1, 2007 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
BRAZIL 

Diplomatic and Consular Property 

 Agreement effected by exchange of notes at 

 Brasilia June 1, 2007; 

 Entered into force January 18, 2008. 
NOTE: At present, we do not have an official translation of this note. Once the official translation is obtained, it will be added to this publication.
12.1

Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Local No. 7 Pension Plan

Checklist Item #12

Does the application include a demonstration that the proposed suspension is not projected to 

materially exceed the level necessary to avoid insolvency, including illustrations regarding the 

plan’s solvency ratio and available resource? See section 4.03.

Document 12.1 provides a demonstration that the proposed suspension is not projected to 

materially exceed the level necessary to avoid insolvency.
12.2

4.03 Demonstration that the Proposed Suspension Is Reasonably Estimated to Not 

Materially Exceed the Level Necessary to Avoid Insolvency

Document 12.1

Proposed Suspension Will Not Materially Exceed

the Level Necessary to Avoid Insolvency

This application filed on behalf of the Pension Plan includes an actuarial certification of 

plan solvency under ERISA § 305(e)(9)(c)(i) and IRC Section 432(e)(9)(C)(i) as of the effective 

date of the proposed benefit suspension, which is May 1, 2017. 

Exhibit V of Checklist Item #7 provides an illustration showing that the proposed 

suspension is reasonably estimated to avoid insolvency, but not to materially exceed the level 

needed to avoid insolvency throughout the extended period. Exhibit V also includes a year-byyear solvency projection with the solvency ratio and separately identifies the market value of 

assets, contributions, investment earnings, plan benefits and expenses. Exhibit V is based on the 

actuary’s interpretation of the requirements under Revenue Procedure 2016-27, Section 4.03.

Exhibit VII of Checklist Item #7 describes each of the assumptions used, as required under 

Revenue Procedure 2016-27, Section 4.02(3).
Exhibit (j)

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
            --------------------------------------------------------



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement of DWS Investment Trust on Form N-1A ("Registration Statement") of our
report dated February 25, 2009, relating to the financial statements and
financial highlights which appears in the December 31, 2008 Annual Report to the
Shareholders of DWS S&P 500 Index Fund, which is also incorporated by reference
into the Registration Statement. We also consent to the references to us under
the headings "Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm", "Financial
Statements" and "Financial Highlights" in such Registration Statement.


/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
April 27, 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7573

JAMAL A. AZEEZ,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JAMES RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner; WILLIAM S.

HAINES, Warden,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. David A. Faber, Chief

District Judge. (CA-03-252-5)

Submitted: April 27, 2005 Decided: May 13, 2005

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamal A. Azeez, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jamal A. Azeez seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An

appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Azeez has not made the

requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 05a0356n.06

Filed: May 5, 2005

03-1338

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JUSTIN C. WILSON

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE WESTERN

DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: MARTIN, COLE, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Justin C. Wilson appeals his sentence imposed following his convictions

via guilty plea for conspiracy to distribute more than 50 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 and conspiracy to launder money in violation of 18.U.S.C. § 1956(h). This

Court has previously held that the district court properly applied a leadership sentencing

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). United States v. Wilson, 112 Fed.Appx. 497, 2004 WL

2367972 (6th Cir. Oct. 20, 2004). On certiorari, that judgment was vacated and remanded to this

Court for proceedings consistent with United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). Wilson v.

United States, 125 S.Ct. 1392 (2005). 

Upon consideration, the sentence is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for

resentencing pursuant to the decisions in United States v. Oliver, 397 F.3d 369 (6th Cir. 2005), and

United States v. Barnett, 398 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2005). On remand, “we encourage the sentencing
judge to explicitly state his reasons for applying particular Guidelines, and sentencing within the

recommended Guidelines range, or in the alternative, for choosing to sentence outside that range.

Such a statement will facilitate appellate review as to whether the sentence was ‘reasonable.’”

United States v. Jones, 399 F.3d 640, 650 (6th Cir. 2005); see also Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 765 (noting

that appellate review of a district court sentence is for reasonableness); United States v. Webb, —

F.3d —, 2005 WL 763367 (6th Cir. 2005) (engaging in reasonableness review, but refusing to

“define rigidly at this time either the meaning of reasonableness or the procedures that a district

judge must employ in sentencing post-Booker”). 

Accordingly, we VACATE the sentence and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this

opinion.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 08-1210 

________________________________________________________________________ 

EDUCATION 

 Memorandum of Understanding 

Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and PANAMA 

Signed at Panama City December 10, 2008 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 PANAMA 

 Education 

 Memorandum of understanding signed at 

 Panama City December 10, 2008; 

 Entered into force December 10, 2008.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7093

MARLON BRAMWELL, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus B.G. COMPTON, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (CA-04-230-7) Submitted: November 4, 2004 Decided: November 9, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marlon Bramwell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Marlon Bramwell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of an order construing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) as a motion to vacate his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and denying it as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); seeReid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bramwell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Bramwell’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Bramwell’s notice of appeal and informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d- 3 - 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Bramwell’s claims do not satisfy either of these conditions. Therefore, we decline to authorize Bramwell to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 21

- 51191 Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff

— Appellee ,

versus

Joseph Rey Campos,

Defendant

— Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:19

- CR

- 218

- 1

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *

The attorney appointed to represent Joseph Rey Campos has moved
for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Campos has not filed a response.

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5, the court has dete rmined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 18, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-51191 Document: 00516398210 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/18/2022No. 21

- 51191

2 We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the
record reflected therein. It is dispositive that the Government has declined
to waive the untimeliness of Campos ’s appeal. See United States v. Pesina

Rodriguez , 825 F.3d 787, 788 (5th Cir. 2016). We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is
GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and
the APPEAL IS DISMISSED

. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2

. Case: 21-51191 Document: 00516398210 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/18/2022
Exhibit 2.2

AGREEMENT TO FURNISH INSTRUMENTS RELATING TO LONG-TERM DEBT



| |  |  |  |                                                                                                                                                                            
| |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |  |  | Andrew Davies Group Chief
Financial Officer VimpelCom Ltd. The
Rock Bld. Claude Debussylaan 88 1082
MD Amsterdam The Netherlands Tel: +
31 20 797 7200 Fax: +31 20 797 7201

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, NE

Washington, DC 20549

United States of America

March 24, 2015

Re: VimpelCom Ltd. Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 File No. 001-468091

Dear Sirs:

Except as filed in exhibits to the
Annual Report on Form 20-F of VimpelCom Ltd. (the Company), neither the Company nor any of its consolidated subsidiaries has outstanding any instrument with respect to its long-term debt under which the total amount of securities
authorized exceeds 10% of the total assets of the Company and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis as of December 31, 2014. In accordance with paragraph 2(b)(i) of the Instructions as to Exhibits on Form 20-F, the Company hereby agrees to
furnish to the Securities and Exchange Commission, upon request, a copy of any instrument that defines the rights of holders of long-term debt issued by the Company or any of its consolidated subsidiaries.



Very truly yours,VimpelCom Ltd.By:

/s/ Andrew DaviesName:

Andrew DaviesTitle:

Group Chief Financial Officer




1
124 STAT. 3056 PUBLIC LAW 111–286—NOV. 30, 2010 

Public Law 111–286 

111th Congress 

An Act 

Entitled The Physician Payment and Therapy Relief Act of 2010. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘The Physician Payment and 

Therapy Relief Act of 2010’’. 

SEC. 2. PHYSICIAN PAYMENT UPDATE. 

Section 1848(d)(11) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w– 

4(d)(11)) is amended— 

(1) in the heading, by striking ‘‘NOVEMBER’’ and inserting 

‘‘DECEMBER’’; 

(2) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘November 30’’ and 

inserting ‘‘December 31’’; and 

(3) in subparagraph (B)— 

(A) in the heading, by striking ‘‘REMAINING PORTION

OF 2010’’ and inserting ‘‘2011’’; and 

(B) by striking ‘‘the period beginning on December 

1, 2010, and ending on December 31, 2010, and for’’. 

SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF MULTIPLE SERVICE PAYMENT POLICIES FOR 

THERAPY SERVICES. 

(a) SMALLER PAYMENT DISCOUNT FOR CERTAIN MULTIPLE

THERAPY SERVICES.—Section 1848(b) of the Social Security Act (42 

U.S.C. 1395w–4(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following 

new paragraph: 

‘‘(7) ADJUSTMENT IN DISCOUNT FOR CERTAIN MULTIPLE

THERAPY SERVICES.—In the case of therapy services furnished 

on or after January 1, 2011, and for which payment is made 

under fee schedules established under this section, instead 

of the 25 percent multiple procedure payment reduction specified in the final rule published by the Secretary in the Federal 

Register on November 29, 2010, the reduction percentage shall 

be 20 percent.’’. 

(b) EXEMPTION OF PAYMENT REDUCTION FROM BUDGET-NEUTRALITY.—Section 1848(c)(2)(B)(v) of the Social Security Act (42 

U.S.C. 1395w–4(c)(2)(B)(v)) is amended by adding at the end the 

following new subclause: 

‘‘(VII) REDUCED EXPENDITURES FOR MULTIPLE

Effective date. THERAPY SERVICES.—Effective for fee schedules 

The Physician 

Payment and 

Therapy Relief 

Act of 2010. 

42 USC 1305 

note. 

Nov. 30, 2010 

[H.R. 5712] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
PUBLIC LAW 111–286—NOV. 30, 2010 124 STAT. 3057 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5712: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010): 

July 14, considered and passed House. 

Nov. 18, considered and passed Senate, amended. 

Nov. 29, House concurred in Senate amendments. 

Æ 

established beginning with 2011, reduced expenditures attributable to the multiple procedure payment reduction for therapy services (as described 

in subsection (b)(7)).’’. 

SEC. 4. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying 

with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined 

by reference to the latest statement titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of 

PAYGO Legislation’’ for this Act, submitted for printing in the 

Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, provided that such statement has been submitted prior 

to the vote on passage. 

Approved November 30, 2010. 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132594 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132594 

 COA: 273285 

St. Joseph CC: 06-013258-FC 

RANDY WAYNE CARUTHERS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 30, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0220 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

February 27, 2007 

 Clerk
#### Donnie DICKERSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. K-108.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Sept. 23, 1969.

Roger Sherman, of Beggs, Lane, Daniel, Gaines & Davis, Pensacola, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Horace A. Knowlton, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
#### ALBRIGHT v. NIESZ.

No. 38307.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. So.2d 606. 217
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 29, 2010 

d0322 

Order 

 

March 29, 2010 

139371(26) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139371 

 COA: 289636 

Saginaw CC: 99-018144-FC 

KEITH ALLAN WINFIELD, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s January 29, 

2010 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 217 (Monday, November 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29642]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies; Correction

    This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 97-29083) published on page 
59707 of the issue for Tuesday, November 4, 1997.
    Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago heading, the entry for 
Wintrust Financial Corporation, Lake Forest, Illinois, is revised to 
read as follows:
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Philip Jackson, Applications 
Officer) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1413:
    1. Wintrust Financial Corporation, Lake Forest, Illinois; to 
acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Crystal Lake Bank & Trust 
Company, National Association, Crystal Lake, Illinois (in 
organization).
    Comments on this application must be received by November 28, 1997.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 5, 
1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-29642 Filed 11-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
```
#### Maxine CURRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. P-304.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 21, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 19, 1972.

W. C. Airth, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K. and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
**Series Id:**

**Compensation Component: Employer/Employee Charac.:**  **Sector: Years:**  **Year Period**  **Cost of compensation (Cost per hour worked) 2010**  **Qtr1** 9.75 **2010 Qtr2**  9.72 **2010 Qtr3**  9.79 **2010 Qtr4**  9.75 **Series Id: Compensation Component:**  **Employer/Employee Charac.: Sector:**  **Years: Year**  **Period Cost of compensation (Cost per hour worked)**  **2010 Qtr1**  3.36 **2010 Qtr2**  3.35 **2010 Qtr3**  3.39 **2010 Qtr4**  3.42

**Full Tim e Average**  **31% Part Tim**  **e Average 22%**  All full-time workers 

### Employ**er Costs for Employ ee Compensation**  **Original Data Value** CMU2030000000610D,CMU2030000000610P Total benefits

2004 to 2010 Private industry 2004 to 2010

CMU2030000000620D,CMU2030000000620P Total benefits All part-time workers Private industry**Percent of total compensation** 30.7 30.6 30.7 30.5

**Percent of total compensation** 21.5 21.6 21.6 22.0