alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 5.1

                                  SHAW PITTMAN
                A LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS


                               September 11, 2000


HotJobs.com, Ltd.
406 West 31st Street, 9th Floor
New York, New York 10001

Ladies and Gentlemen:

      We have acted as counsel to HotJobs.com, Ltd., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), in connection with its Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No.
333-44990) (the "Registration Statement") filed by the Company with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), relating to the offering by certain
selling stockholders (as identified in the Registration Statement) from time to
time of up to 6,382,655 shares of common stock of the Company, par value $.01
per share (the "Shares").

      Based upon our examination of originals and copies of such documents,
corporate records, certificates of officers of the Company and other instruments
as we have deemed necessary and upon the laws as presently in effect, we are of
the opinion that the Shares are validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable.

      We hereby consent to your filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement and to the reference to our firm under the caption "Legal
Matters" in the prospectus included therein, without thereby admitting that we
are "experts" under the Securities Act or the rules and regulations of the
Commission thereunder for the purposes of any part of the Registration
Statement.

                                Very truly yours,

                                /s/ Shaw Pittman




                                    1
# C_2012288EN.01000501.xml

| 25.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

24 September 2012

2012/C 288/04

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2916 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 100,79 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4563 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,79680 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,4928 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2095 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,4370 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,940 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 283,28 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6963 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1540 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5183 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3259 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2415 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,2668 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,0130 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5742 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5871 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 446,53 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,7171 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,1491 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4265 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 351,43 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9691 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,931 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,3205 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,949 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,6175 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,6727 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 69,0680 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2916

JPY

Japanese yen

100,79

DKK

Danish krone

7,4563

GBP

Pound sterling

0,79680

SEK

Swedish krona

8,4928

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2095

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,4370

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,940

HUF

Hungarian forint

283,28

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6963

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1540

RON

Romanian leu

4,5183

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3259

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2415

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,2668

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,0130

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5742

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5871

KRW

South Korean won

1 446,53

ZAR

South African rand

10,7171

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,1491

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4265

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 351,43

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9691

PHP

Philippine peso

53,931

RUB

Russian rouble

40,3205

THB

Thai baht

39,949

BRL

Brazilian real

2,6175

MXN

Mexican peso

16,6727

INR

Indian rupee

69,0680

---

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

1

Source

---
# C_2012234EN.01000302.xml

| 4.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 234/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 234/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6572 — Kemet/NEC/NEC Tokin)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 234/05

On 11 July 2012, 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 32012M6572. 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 32012M6572. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### FRANK C. VOSS CO., Inc. v. RUCKSTUHL & FICK, INC., and the East Jefferson Waterworks District No. 1, of the Parish of Jefferson. RUCKSTUHL & FICK, INC. v. PARISH OF JEFFERSON, Governing Authority of the East Jefferson Waterworks District No. 1.

No. 2892.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Fourth Circuit.

Feb. 5, 1968.

Rehearing Denied March 4, 1968.

Robert D. Edwards, Gretna, for plaintiff-appellee, Frank C. Voss Co., Inc.

H. Gordon Hartman, Many, Hartman & LoCoco, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appel-lee, Ruckstuhl & Fick, Inc.

James O. Manning, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant, Parish of Jefferson.

Before SAMUEL, BARNETTE and JOHNSON, JJ.

JOHNSON, Judge.

This case was consolidated in the District Court for the purpose of trial with the case entitled Ruckstuhl & Fick, Inc., v. Parish of Jefferson, Governing Authority of the East Jefferson Waterworks District No. 1, et al., La.App., 207 So.2d 170, and was consolidated in this Court on the appeal for argument. The issues are exactly the same.

For the same reasons given in the consolidated case, the judgment of the District Court of April 25, 1967, as corrected by the District Court’s consolidated judgment of May 23, 1967, is affirmed. All costs are to be paid by appellant as provided by law.

Affirmed.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7312** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ERIC SMITH, a/k/a Capone, a/k/a Pone , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News . Arenda L. Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 4:08

- cr - 00147

- AWA

- FBS

- 14 ; 4:12

- cv - 00136

- AWA )

Submitted : January 22, 2015 Decided: January 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Eric Smith , Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Howard Jacob Zlotnick , Assistant U nited S tates Attorney s, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee
. Unpublished opin ions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Eric Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). 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) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutio nal right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument beca use the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2027 

To authorize an additional district judgeship for the district of Idaho. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2014 

Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. RISCH) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To authorize an additional district judgeship for the district 

of Idaho. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DISTRICT JUDGESHIP FOR THE DISTRICT OF 

4 IDAHO. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall appoint, by 

6 and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 1 addi7 tional district judge for the district of Idaho. 

8 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.— 

9 The table in section 133(a) of title 28, United States 

10 Code, is amended by striking the item relating to Idaho 

11 and inserting the following: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2027 IS

‘‘Idaho ............................................................................................. 3’’. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Nellie W. TUTEN, Petitioner, v. Evelyn M. BLACK, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent.

No. 41209.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 23, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 247 So.2d 67.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification

of

PSB Holdings, Inc.

under Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





The undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of PSB Holdings, Inc. (the Company) certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that (1) the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 (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 (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



Date:  November 15, 2010



PETER W. KNITT

Peter W. Knitt

President and CEO





SCOTT M. CATTANACH

Scott M. Cattanach

Treasurer

(Chief Financial Officer)
Notes from Site Visit at Omnicare

Attended by:

Omnicare Staff: Paul Baldwin, Bridget Mulvenna

EPA Staff: Kristin Fitzgerald, Lisa Lauer, Jessica Young, Rachel Alford

Date: November 15, 2012

EPA toured an Omincare long-term care pharmacy in Maryland. The facility fills 10,000-13,000 

prescriptions per day (400-600 totes per day) for their customers which include long-term 

assisted care and skilled nursing facilities.

They receive approximately 40 totes of returns per day from their customers, which represents 

approximately 10% of their sales. They do not take back controlled substances. Whether 

Omnicare can provide credit for a return depends on how it was paid for and the type of 

packaging it is in. But even when it’s allowed, sometimes Omnicare does not restock and resell 

returned pharmaceuticals because the labor costs associated with restocking exceed the value 

of the pharmaceutical (especially for generics, which constitute the vast majority of their 

prescriptions).

Omnicare indicated that long-term care facilities are sewering controlled substances, including 

liquids, pills and patches.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Tom MARTIN v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53515.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 11, 1973.

In re: Tom Martin applying for writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ Denied. On the basis of the contemporaneous recording made at the time of the plea of guilty of October 6, 1972, we find no merit to the petitioner’s allegations.
# C_2012281EN.01000102.xml

| 18.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6601 — Voith/IHI/Voith IHI Ecosolutions)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 281/02

On 4 September 2012, 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 32012M6601. 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 32012M6601. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1



                                  SUBSIDIARIES
                                       OF
                                DATASCOPE CORP.


    The following table lists, as of June 30, 2003, the direct and indirect
subsidiaries of Datascope Corp., the jurisdiction of organization and the
percentage of voting securities owned by the immediate parent of each
subsidiary:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           Where                    % of
                                           Incorporated             Voting Stock
                                           -----------              ------------
    <S>                                    <C>                      <C>
    Datascope FSC, Ltd.                    Barbados                 100

    Datascope Investment Corp.             New Jersey               100

    Datascope B.V.                         Netherlands              100
      Datascope Medical Co. Ltd.           United Kingdom           100
      Datascope S.A.R.L.                   France                   100
      Datascope GmbH                       Germany                  100
      InterVascular S.A.S.                 France                   100
      Datascope SL                         Spain                    100
      Datascope Interventional GmbH        Germany                  100

    Bioplex Corp.                          Delaware                 100
      Bioplex Medical B.V.                 Netherlands              100

    Datascope Biomaterials Research B.V.   Netherlands              100

    Genisphere, Inc.                       Delaware                 83

    InterVascular Inc.                     Delaware                 100
      InterVascular S.A.R.L.               France                   100
      InterVascular GmbH                   Germany                  100
      Datascope Italia S.r.l.              Italy                    100
      Datascope SPRL                       Belgium                  100
      Datascope Trademark Corp.            Delaware                 100
</TABLE>
#### Dino Roger SORRENTINO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-204.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 22, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases Education
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB12-TPS.15 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030/763-3762 (fax)
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 2012 Historical Migration of the Young, Single, and College Educated: 1965 to 2000 Analyzes the growth of this group and compares their migration destinations with those of other segments of this age group and with the general population. Specifically examines decennial census results from 1970 to 2000 to determine how likely this group was to have changed residences in the five years preceding each census. Internet addresses: 
<https://www.census.gov/people/publications/popworkingpapers.html> and
 <https://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/migration/index.html>. **No news release associated with this report. Tip Sheet only.**
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2051 

To provide States with greater flexibility in innovative highway financing. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2014 

Mr. KIRK (for himself and Mr. WARNER) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

A BILL 

To provide States with greater flexibility in innovative 

highway financing. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Highway Innovative 

5 Financing Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INNOVATIVE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION FINANC7 ING METHODS. 

8 (a) VALUE PRICING PILOT PROGRAM.—Section 

9 1012(b)(1) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Ef10 ficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 149 note; Public Law 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2051 IS

1 102–240) is amended in the second sentence by striking 

2 ‘‘as many as 15 such State or local governments or public 

3 authorities’’ and inserting ‘‘States, local governments, and 

4 public authorities’’. 

5 (b) INTERSTATE SYSTEM RECONSTRUCTION AND RE6 HABILITATION PILOT PROGRAM.—Section 1216(b)(2) of 

7 the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (23 

8 U.S.C. 129 note; Public Law 105–178) is amended— 

9 (1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘3’’ and 

10 inserting ‘‘10’’; and 

11 (2) by striking the second sentence. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

Census.govNewsroom

# Newsroom Archive

Skip left menu navigation                          - About the Newsroom
                          - Facts for Features
                          - **News Releases**
                          - Press Kits
                          - Tip Sheets

## Tina Norris

### Racial Statistics Branch, U.S. Census Bureau

Tina Norris joined the U.S. Census Bureau in 2010 and is a survey statistician in the Racial Statistics Branch. She is one of the lead analysts on research regarding the American Indian and Alaska Native population.  Norris was the lead author on the 2010 Census brief on the American Indian and Alaska Native population.  Her work includes analysis, review, and training on the coding and data processing operation of race data in the decennial census and American Community Survey. Prior to working at the Census Bureau, she was an adjunct professor at Kent State University.  Norris has a master's and doctorate degree in sociology from Kent State University

CONNECT WITH US**********

                            - Information Quality
                            - Data Linkage Infrastructure
                            - Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                            - Accessibility
                            - FOIA
                            - Inspector General
                            - No FEAR Act
                            - U.S. Department of Commerce
                            - USA.gov

----

Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy

Is this page helpful?
YesNo

NO THANKS

255 characters maximum255 characters maximum reached

Thank you for your feedback.Comments or suggestions? 

PIO@census.gov
Order filed December 18, 2018 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00852-CV

____________

SALVADOR GARCIA AND ALL OCCUPANTS, Appellants

V.

NABEEL HUSSAIN, Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Civil Ct at Law No 3

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1116819

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due December 3, 2018. No brief or motion for 

extension of time has been filed. 

Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before January 2, 2019, 

the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-60403

Summary Calendar

EARLINE JOWERS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

TUPELO POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

(1:96-CV-347-S-D)

December 21, 1998

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Earline Jowers (Jowers) has been employed by the Tupelo Police

Department since 1974. In 1991, she was promoted to the position

of master sergeant. In August 1995, three openings for lieutenant

were posted; but Jowers did not receive a promotion to any of these

positions. Jowers filed suit under Title VII and Age
2

Discrimination and Employment Act alleging that she was

discriminated against on the basis of sex or age when she was not

selected for promotion. After adequate discovery, the defendant,

Tupelo Police Department, moved for summary judgment. The district

court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed

plaintiff’s cause of action. Jowers timely appealed.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply brief, the

record excerpts and relevant portions of the record itself. For

the reasons stated by the district court in its opinion filed

January 22, 1998, we affirm the order granted defendant’s motion

for summary judgment entered on January 22, 1998. 

AFFIRMED.