alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Table 10.  Percent Distribution by Type of Unit for the United States and 
                  for Inside and Outside MAs:  First Quarter 2001 and 2000

(Percent distribution may not add to total, due to rounding)



                                                     First quarter 2001
Type of housing unit
                                              United   Inside     Outside
                                              States     MAs        MAs

All housing units.........................       100        100        100

    Year-round vacant.....................       8.9        8.1       11.8
      For rent............................       2.6        2.7        2.3
      For sale only.......................       0.9        0.8        1.3
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy..       0.7        0.7        0.6
      Held off market.....................       4.7        4.0        7.6
        For occasional use................       1.5        1.2        2.8
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere....       1.0        1.0        1.0
        For other reasons.................       2.3        1.8        3.8

    Seasonal vacant.......................       2.9        1.5        8.0

    Occupied..............................      88.2       90.3       80.1



                                                     First Quarter 2000
Type of housing unit
                                              United   Inside     Outside
                                              States     MAs        MAs

All housing units.........................       100        100        100

    Year-round vacant.....................       8.7        7.9       11.3
      For rent............................       2.5        2.6        2.0
      For sale only.......................       1.0        0.9        1.2
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy..       0.6        0.6        0.5
      Held off market.....................       4.5        3.7        7.5
        For occasional use................       1.6        1.1        3.1
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere....       0.8        0.8        0.9
        For other reasons.................       2.2        1.8        3.5

    Seasonal vacant.......................       2.9        1.6        8.0

    Occupied..............................      88.4       90.5       80.7
Table 10.  Percent Distribution by Type of Unit for the United States and for Inside and Outside MA's:
            First Quarter 1995 and 1994
         
 (Percent distribution may not add to total, due to rounding)  
                                                              
        
                                                 First quarter 1995                         
                                                                  
                                            United    Inside    Outside    United   Inside    Outside
                                            States       MAs       MAs     States      MAs       MAs
                                                                                                      
 All housing units.......................     100       100       100        100       NA        NA
                                                                                              
   Year-round vacant.....................     8.4       8.0       9.8        8.4       NA        NA
     For rent............................     2.6       2.8       1.9        2.6       NA        NA
     For sale only.......................     0.9       0.9       0.9        0.8       NA        NA
     Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy..     0.6       0.6       0.6        0.6       NA        NA
     Held off market.....................     4.3       3.7       6.4        4.3       NA        NA
       For occasional use................     1.5       1.1       2.7        1.5       NA        NA
       Temporarily occupied by persons           
       with usual residence elsewhere....     0.8       0.8       0.8        0.9       NA        NA
       For other reasons.................     2.0       1.8       3.0        2.0       NA        NA
                                                                                          
   Seasonal vacant.......................     2.8       1.6       7.4        2.8       NA        NA
                                                                                             
   Occupied..............................    88.8      90.5      82.8       88.9       NA        NA
                                                                   
 NA Not available, see page 2 of the press release for explanation. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Table 4.  Estimates of the Total Housing Inventory for the
                United States:  First Quarter 2005 and 2006

(Estimates are in thousands and may not add to total, due to rounding)


                                    First     First       90-Percent
                                   quarter   quarter Confidence Interval(&plusmn;)<sup>a</sup>   2006
Type                                 2005      2006    of 2006       of       Percent
                                   estimate  estimate  estimate  difference  of total

All housing units.................  123,341   125,373       (X)        (X)       100

  Occupied........................  107,755   109,289       320        293        87
    Owner occupied................   74,488    74,883       630        431        60
    Renter occupied...............   33,267    34,406       539        414        27

  Vacant..........................   15,586    16,084       354        313        13
    Year-round vacant.............   11,984    12,176       347        300        10
      For rent....................    3,765     3,685       170        191         3
      For sale only...............    1,388     1,580        95        117         1
      Rented or sold,
      awaiting occupancy..........      916     1,070        72         97         1
      Held off market.............    5,915     5,841       247        216         5
        For occasional use........    1,974     1,837       141        125         1
        Temporarily occupied
        by persons with
        usual residence elsewhere.    1,247     1,328       120        103         1
        For other reasons.........    2,694     2,676       170        148         2

    Seasonal vacant...............    3,602     3,908       227        195         3
	
	
    aA 90-percent confidence interval is a measure of an estimate's reliability.  The larger 
	the confidence interval is, in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate.
    (X)  Not Applicable.  Since the number of housing units is set equal to an independent national 
	measure, there is no sampling error, and hence no confidence interval.
NOTE:  Since first quarter 2003, the Current Population Survey/Housing Vacancy Survey (CPS/HVS) estimates 
have been controlled to independent housing unit counts.  Doing so should make the CPS/HVS estimate of 
housing units more comparable to other Census Bureau housing surveys.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Mentored Clinical Scientist Research Career Development Award (Parent K08).                    

*Date:*                         August 21, 2018.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Frank S. De Silva, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room #3E72A, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Rockville, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5023,                         *fdesilva@niaid.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: July 25, 2018.

Natasha M. Copeland,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2018-16297 Filed 7-30-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### Joan NUNN, Appellant, v. Donald NUNN, Appellee.

No. 1444.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Sept. 8, 1967.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Brevard County; Roger F. Dykes, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Grady Don POPE, Grady F. Pope, and Delores A. Pope, Appellants, v. Bonnie LUNSETH et al., Appellees.

No. N-581.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 25, 1971.

*752Moore & Crump, Niceville, for appellants.

W. Paul Thompson, DeFuniak Springs, for appellees.

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 appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the orders of the lower court appealed from herein are affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., RAWLS, J., and VANN, HAROLD R., Associate Judge, concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

May 6, 2014

No. 04

- 14

- 0 0312

- CR

IN RE Juan Carlos VALLES

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

On May 1, 2014, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus. This court has

determined that we lack jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. The petition for writ of

mandamus is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. The court’s opinion will issue at a

later date.

It is so ORDERED on May 6th, 2014.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 6 th day of May, 2014

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Caus e No. 12

- 03

- 00119

- CRL, styled The State of Texas v. Juan Carlos Valles

, pending in the 81st Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas, the Honorable Donna S. Rayes presiding.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION



I, Steven M. Caspers, certify that:



1.
        I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Minn Dak Farmers Cooperative;




2.
        Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;




3.
        Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;




4.
        The Companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:




a)
        designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;




b)
        evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation.




c)
        disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registants internal control over financial reporting; and




5.
        The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):




a)
        all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and




b)
        any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting.




Date:
        April 14, 2008
        
        /s/ Steven M. CaspersExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer






---
#### STATE of Louisiana v. David DORSEY.

No. 61704.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 17, 1978.

In re: David Dorsey applying for Writs of Habeas Corpus and Mandamus. Ouachi-ta Parish.

Denied.
#### State of Missouri, to use of John B. Haynes, Respondent, *vs.*Henry A. Webster, *et al.,*Appellants.

1. *Jeofails, S/atute of*— Practice, *civil*— Pleadings—Allegations—Attachment *bond.*— A petition on an attachment bond,which does not allege that the State sues, but sets forth by sufficient averments the title of B., for whose benefit the bond was made, and who is the real party in interest, and all the facts entitling him to recover, must be held good after verdict.

*Appeal from Polla Circuit Court.*

*Waldo*P. *Johnson,*for Appellants.

It is not averred in the body of tbe petition that the State sues. [State vs. Matson, 38 Mo., 489.)

*Reckhow §■ Underwood, and E. L. Edwards,*for Eespoudent.

1. The petition contains an averment tliat defendants executed their bond to the State, which states the fact sufficiently. (Hayden vs. Sample, 10 Mo., 215.)

2. If the petition were originally defective, the deficiency is cured by the verdict and judgment. (Shaler vs. Yanwormer, 33 Mo., 386 ; Eichardson vs. Farmer, 36 Mo., 35 ; Stephens vs. Frampton, 29 Mo., 264.)

3. The objections to the proceedings are purely technical, gnd are not entitled to favorable consideration. (Haygood vs, McKoon, 49 Mo., 77; Newton vs. Miller, 49 Mo., 298.)

Wagner, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The only point raised by the record, or relied on for a reversal, is that the court erred in over-ruling defendants’ motions in arrest of judgment.

The suit was on an attachment bond, and it is objected that it is not stated in the body of the petition that the State sues. But it appears from the pleading, that Haynes for whose benefit the bond was made, and who is the real party in interest, sets forth by sufficient averments his title and all the facts entitling him to recover. This distinguishes the ease from State vs. Matson (38 Mo., 489), and although the petition may have been technically defective, yet it must be *136held good after verdict. (W. S., 1036, § 19; Haygood vs. McKoon, 49 Mo., 77.)

It is farther alleged as error, that two separate and distinct breaches are alleged and there is but one finding of facts. But this allegation is not borne out by the record. However indefinite or inappropriate the pleader may have been in the use of language, there is substantially but one breach assigned.

What purports to be the first breach is simply that a right of action .has accrued for the penalty of the bond, and then in the second assignment the damages are specifically set out, and judgment asked. There is but one prayer for judgment, and in effect but one breach, and although the petition is inartificially drawn, we must now hold it good.

The judgment of the court below was correct on the merits, and nothing but mere technical objections are urged against it.

Judgment affirmed.

The other Judges concur.
Table B-1.  Standard Errors of Vacancy Rates by Area:  2001
                   (Range of 68 chances out of 100)



    Rental                       Rate   Standard   Year-to-   Standard
                                  for   error on year diff-   error on
                                 year       rate     erence difference1

United States..............       8.4        0.1        0.4        0.2
  Inside Metropolitan Areas       8.0        0.1        0.3        0.2
    In central cities......       8.6        0.2        0.5        0.2
    Not in central cities..       7.4        0.2        0.2        0.2
  Outside Metropolitan Area      10.4        0.3        1.0        0.4
  Northeast................       5.3        0.2       -0.3        0.3
  Midwest..................       9.7        0.3        0.9        0.4
  South....................      11.1        0.2        0.6        0.3
  West.....................       6.2        0.2        0.4        0.3

                                   For-rent as a percent of all housing units

United States..............       2.6        (z)        0.1        0.1
  Inside Metropolitan Areas       2.7        (z)        0.1        0.1
  Outside Metropolitan Area       2.4        0.1        0.3        0.1
  Northeast................       1.8        0.1       -0.1        0.1
  Midwest..................       2.6        0.1        0.2        0.1
  South....................       3.3        0.1        0.2        0.1
  West.....................       2.2        0.1        0.1        0.1


     Homeowner
                                 Rate   Standard   Year-to-   Standard
                                  for   error on year diff-   error on
                                 year       rate     erence difference1

United States..............       1.8        (z)        0.2                    (z)
  Inside Metropolitan Areas       1.6        (z)        0.2        0.1
    In central cities......       2.1        0.1        0.3        0.1
    Not in central cities..       1.4        (z)        0.1        0.1
  Outside Metropolitan Area       2.3        0.1        0.2        0.1
  Northeast................       1.2        0.1        (z)        0.1
  Midwest..................       1.7        0.1        0.4        0.1
  South....................       2.1        0.1        0.2        0.1
  West.....................       1.6        0.1        (z)        0.1


                                   For-sale-only as a percent of all housing units

United States..............       1.1        (z)        0.1        (z)
  Inside Metropolitan Areas       1.0        (z)        0.1        (z)
  Outside Metropolitan Area       1.4        0.1        0.1        0.1
  Northeast................       0.7        (z)        (z)        0.1
  Midwest..................       1.1        (z)        0.3        0.1
  South....................       1.3        (z)        0.1        0.1
  West.....................       0.9        (z)        (z)        0.1

  Z less than 0.05 percent.
  1Difference between 2001 rates and 2000 rates.
7 hd iabaded inl

4 sratt Fa lirel oo” © rtresshee 7 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ANO LABOR-BUREAU OF THE CENSUS | “fe
‘ j THIRTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES: 1910 POPULATION 1! {Rmmmtomsne Fn
pike nae or mcowronareo nar Machsieg Gre, Li Wasa oF cry

Enuwenatto by WE on T

‘FEEWNAL BESCRATTION.

ii fi

Tr)

as
=
3
&
&

UREz

if.
Zing Lees
oe

-
owe ms See

best zz

Feveugory
5

FISSSRE Se

hawnyner pant!
wat ma ol Yama ict rh

wet) oly x17 Ah

Bes

Beg

awe” t

=
=~

sbgeeeechs
Res SHhSsu~

REG
co
oo

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

Maree, Lassa Ail i Be Ss Ckplale | Lebra

f ae eae + ¢ NG et ee Farcssnchocah e
Peseeair ot ‘ FG SRW a
poe siege) MR Ale a ae fh ee
Dts —~ s ie He | j\ ;
15 14 Aeathow. é| | Am peafae Corbina Bll ve
a eee. (olf 3 in ele 7 aman me ni

7 a,

=
=