alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
May 8, 2014 www.bls.gov

Data Users Advisory Committee (DUAC) Agenda

Kathy Frederickson-Mele • Mele.Kathy@bls.gov • http://www.bls.gov/bls/duac.htm • 202.691.6102

8:30 a.m. Registration

9:00 a.m. Commissioner’s welcome and review of agency developments (Erica Groshen)

9:30 a.m. BLS Strategic Initiatives

 Emerging Data Needs and Rapid Response – (John Eltinge & team chair)

 Alternative Data Sources – (Mike Horrigan & team chair)

 Standardizing BLS Data Taxonomy - (Michael Levi & team chair)

11:00 a.m. Break

11:30 a.m. Trust in Government Statistics – What we do at BLS – (Polly Phipps, Michael Levi, Ken Simonson)

12:15 p.m. Lunch

1:30 p.m. Changes in 2010 Census areas and the effect of producing estimates for large geographic areas in

 the Employment Cost Index (ECI) and the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC)

 programs – (Phil Doyle, Marie Mora)

2:30 p.m. Should the Current Employment Statistics (CES) publish 12-60 months of revisions every month?

 (Julie Hatch Maxfield, Ray Stone)

3:30 p.m. Break

3:45 p.m. Using customized tables in the Office of Productivity and Technology (OPT) – (Clayton Waring,

 Lisa Fieldhouse, Kathryn Kobe)

4:45 p.m. Future topics and meeting wrap-up
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MICHAEL HUDSON, Petitioner,
vs. THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE, Respondent, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest. No. 83319


# FILED

AUG 2 6 2021

ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT BY < ‘,/ DF_PtilY CLERK

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenges petitioner's conviction. Petitioner asserts that (1) he was sexually assaulted by prison staff; (2) illegally placed in a "sling hoise; (3) subject to a separate "viscous assault"; (4) the State has committed records fraud in his criminal case CR19-3112; and (5) he is innocent of the charges brought against him.

At the outset, we note that petitioner has not provided this court with exhibits or other docurnentation that would support his claims
for relief. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents "essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) C`Petitioned cardies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.").

Moreover, having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that writ relief is warranted because petitioner has a plain, speedy, and

' •oy

• • rJ. Hardesty

Parraguirre

Cadish 

## • adequate remedy available to him by way of an appeal from the district court's denial of such relief in the first instance. See NRAP 22 CAn application for an original writ of habeas corpus should be made to the appropriate district court. If an application is made to the district court and denied, the proper remedy is by appeal from the district court's order denying the writ."); see also Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (writ relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

cc: Michael Hudson Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

((>) i947A Map 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-2271

___________

William George Blomberg, *

*

 Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Cal Greenlaw, M.D., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

 Appellant. *

*

George H. Sobky, M.D., *

*

 Defendant. *

___________

Submitted: February 14, 2000

Filed: March 8, 2000

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, HEANEY and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Cal W. Greenlaw, M.D., appeals the judgment of the district court, entered upon

a jury verdict, holding him liable in William Stephen Blomberg’s medical malpractice

action. After careful consideration of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude
-2-

there is no merit in Greenlaw’s claims of trial-related error, and the district court’s

judgment was correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Stridsberg, Appellant, *v.*GEICO General Insurance Company, Appellee.

[Cite as *Stridsberg v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.,*Ill Ohio St.3d 1212, 2006-Ohio-5855.]

(No. 2005-2128

Submitted October 3, 2006

Decided November 29, 2006.)

Roger C. Stridsberg, for appellant.

Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A., Danny Merril Newman Jr., and Egan Patrick Kilbane, for appellee.

{¶ 1} The cause is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently accepted.

Moyer, C.J., Klatt, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.

William A. Klatt, J., of the Tenth Appellate District, sitting for Resnick, J.
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 Amended Quarterly Report ofAtwood Minerals and Mining Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A-1 for the period ended August 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Walter Brenner, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 11th day of December, 2006.



| | WALTER BRENNER                                     
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | Walter Brenner                                     
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

















---
#### SCOTT TIMBER COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2011-5092.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 22, 2013.

Alan I. Saltman, Ruth G. Tiger, Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP, Washington, DC, James J. White, University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, MI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ellen M. Lynch, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, PROST, MOORE, O’MALLEY, REYNA, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

ON PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

A combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc was filed by Plaintiff-Appellee, and a response thereto was invited by the court and filed by Defendant-Appellant. The petition for panel rehearing was considered by the panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the petition for rehearing en banc, response, and brief of amicus curiae Timber Products Company were referred to the circuit judges who are authorized to request a poll of whether to rehear the appeal en banc. A poll was requested, taken, and failed.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is ORDERED That:

(1) The petition of Plaintiff-Appellee for panel rehearing is denied.

(2) The petition of Plaintiff-Appellee for rehearing en banc is denied.

(3) The mandate of the court will issue on March 1, 2013.

*974WALLACH, Circuit Judge, dissents, without opinion, from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6204

WILLIAM C. BREWSTER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

KEITH E. OLSON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

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

Judge. (CA-97-975-5)

Submitted: April 7, 1998 Decided: June 22, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William C. Brewster, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of

the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Brewster v. Olson,

No. CA-97-975-5 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 1, 1997). Brewster’s motions for

release on bond pending appeal, to expedite appellate review, and

for appellate court review are now moot and therefore denied. 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.

AFFIRMED
# table82_q10.3_naics
#### Lyubomir Bodnarchuk, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

[856 NYS2d 143]

The claimant, an asbestos worker employed by a subcontractor to perform asbestos abatement at the Helen Hayes Hospital, allegedly was injured after he fell 8 to 10 feet through a metal grate into a hole. The grate was located beneath a window which the workers, including the claimant, used to pass equipment and materials into and out of the locker room where the abatement was taking place. There was evidence at trial that the only way that workers and materials were supposed to enter *582and exit the locker room was through a decontamination chamber.

The Court of Claims dismissed the claim after trial, and we affirm. Contrary to the claimant’s contention, he was not entitled to judgment in his favor based upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Res ipsa loquitur permits an inference of negligence to be drawn when the nature of the accident is such that it “would ordinarily not happen without negligence” *(Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth.,*67 NY2d 219, 226 [1986]). “Res ipsa loquitur does not create a presumption in favor of the plaintiff but merely permits the inference of negligence to be drawn from the circumstances of the occurrence” *(id.).*When the doctrine is applicable, it creates a prima facie case of negligence sufficient for submission to the fact finder, who may, but is not required to, draw a permissive inference of negligence *(see Kambat v St. Francis Hosp.,*89 NY2d 489 [1997]).

It is the general rule in New York that res ipsa loquitur applies only when the plaintiff can establish the following three elements: “(1) the event must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; (3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff’ *(Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth.,*67 NY2d at 226 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, the evidence did not support a finding that the defendant had exclusive control over the area where the metal grate was located, as the claimant and other asbestos workers, as well as the public, had access to this area *(see Imhotep v State of New York,*298 AD2d 558 [2002]; *Patrick v Bally’s Total Fitness,*292 AD2d 433 [2002]). In addition, the evidence failed to establish that the accident was due to the defendant’s negligence. Indeed, it is equally, if not more, likely that the accident was due to the actions of the workers, including the claimant, in using the window for access to the locker room, instead of exiting and entering through the decontamination unit. Accordingly, the court properly declined to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

The claimant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Lifson, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Garni, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Kerri Lee M., Respondent, v Stephen A.R., Appellant.

[851 NYS2d 873]

*290Based on the disparity in income between the parties and the shared custody arrangement, there was no basis in the record for the support magistrate to depart from the basic child support obligation (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [c]). In view of the relative circumstances of the parties, it was particularly onerous to compel respondent to pay 60% of petitioner’s child care expenses.

This matter is remanded to recalculate the amounts owed pursuant to the basic child support obligation. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Williams, Buckley and Sweeny, JJ.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Schroeder, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-7858.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of De cisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2017-O HIO -7858
T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLEE , v . S CHROEDER , A PPELLANT . [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it

may be cited as State v. Schroeder, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-7858.] Court of appeals’ judgment r eversed on the authority of State v. Grimes and cause
remanded. (No. 2016-0570

― Submitted June 7, 2017

― Decided September 28, 2017.) Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-14-1228, 2016-Ohio-849.

_________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of
State v. Grimes , ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2017-Ohio-2927, __ N.E.3d ___, and this cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with our
decision in Grimes

. O’C ONNOR , C.J., and O’D ONNELL , O’N EILL , and F ISCHER , JJ., concur.
F RENCH , J., concurs in judgment only.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 K ENNEDY , J., dissents and would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
D E W INE , J., dissents and would affirm the judg ment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in his concurring opinion in State v. Grimes , ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2017-Ohio-2927, __ N.E.3d ___.

_________________ Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Evy M. Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender , and Stephen P. Hardwick, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

_________________
Bureau of Labor Statistics Technical Advisory Committee 

June 21, 2013 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Conference Center, Rooms 1 and 2 

2 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20212 

8:30 Opening remarks and introductions; agency update 

9:00 How to take account of internet job search in measuring unemployment in the CPS 

 Presenter: Anne Polivka 

 Discussants: Frank Stafford, Daniel Sullivan 

 

10:30 Break 

10:45 Estimating actuarial values for the “generosity” of employer provided health insurance plans 

 Presenter: Tom Moehrle 

 Discussants: Philip Cooper (AHRQ), Steven Heeringa 

12:30 Lunch 

1:45 Discussion of future priorities

 

2:15 Estimating non-production and supervisory worker hours for productivity measurement 

 Presenter: Jay Stewart 

3:00 Break 

3:15 Estimating non-production and supervisory worker hours for productivity measurement, continued 

 Discussants: Daniel Hamermesh, Virginia Lesser 

4:00 Approximate conclusion
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000811000
<NAME> 87B.TXT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         186,643
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  164,219
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               350,862
<PP&E>                                      15,255,391
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,152,372
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,453,881
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,627
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,371,254
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,453,881
<SALES>                                      1,606,406
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,608,053
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,687,776
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,079,723)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,079,723)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,079,723)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (53.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15799]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8926-8]


Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of cancellation of a meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Cooperative 
Environmental Management, announces the cancellation of a meeting of 
the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee (FRRCC). This meeting, 
a teleconference on July 13, 2009, was announced in a Federal Register 
Notice published on June 9, 2009 (74 FR 27316). The purpose of this 
meeting was for the FRRCC to discuss and approve various draft advice 
letters for submission to the EPA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alicia Kaiser, Designated Federal 
Officer, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ee5efe7fdebfca0efe2e7ede7efceebfeefa0e9e1f8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a6cdc7cfd5c3d488c7cacfc5cfc7e6c3d6c788c1c9d0">[email protected]</span></a>, 202-564-7273, U.S. EPA, Office of the 
Administrator (1101A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20460, or Christopher Ashcraft, Junior Designated Federal Officer, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6203110a01100304164c010a100b11160d120a0710220712034c050d14"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8decfee5eeffecebf9a3eee5ffe4fef9e2fde5e8ffcde8fdeca3eae2fb">[email protected]</span></a>, 202-564-2432, U.S. EPA, Office of the 
Administrator (1601M), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20460.

    Dated: June 25, 2009.
Alicia Kaiser,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-15799 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15D0467; A15D0472. KEVIN SCOTT ROSE v. THE STATE.

Kevin Scott Rose seeks discretionary review of the trial court’s June 30, 2014,

order revoking his probation and April 9, 2015, order denying his motion to modify

sentence. We lack jurisdiction because the applications are untimely.

An application for discretionary appeal must be filed within 30 days of the

entry of the order or judgment to be appealed. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). The

requirements of OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an

application for appeal not made in compliance therewith. See Boyle v. State, 190 Ga.

App. 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). Here, Rose filed his applications on June 10, 2015,

and June 16, 2015, which were 345 and 68 days, respectively, after the trial court’s

orders were entered. Therefore, the applications are untimely, and they are hereby

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/08/2015

July 08, 2015
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6821
ROBERT LEE REYNOLDS, II, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. J. NEAL, Unit Manager at FCI Edgefield; JOHN J. LAMANNA, Warden at FCI Edgefield; RAY HOLT, Regional Director; HARRELL WATTS, General Counsel, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (4:07-cv-01724-CMC) Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 23, 2008 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Reynolds, II, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.* SeeBivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 2 PER CURIAM: Robert Lee Reynolds, II, appeals from the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing his Bivens * action. Our review of the record discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal on the reasoning of the district court. Reynolds v. Neal , No. 4:07-cv-01724-CMC (D.S.C. May 12, 2008). 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. AFFIRMED
MtAlUnlMftiS Spur 511

OF -TWN1S totttfT, ."fe^ A. ffi.os.Dt«w>«.,o»-A

H-/5

1W ttaV/.

f\^AWc ^tAxleA aAoVAttafA. W^A^C^toA.\^\\c^tex«\ towA A

txW\A t^^ik <&Ad^s .bcv^v«_,io^ <W^<t 3\M\t. 1o\sv"ViM^ UA

f}\<A*AiV\A tV^V\cA\S ^ro be ^e,\iVa>A&< t^C*A^a^^W<l\^ Ws Wfc ^eWi

•?*i\£.brU>fe&.n>fc8.8.

Cauhe W»W<AU\Afe kux\ <A txWoA ^jukrWCouAn/ ,Ti,

tK
#### Ricky D. West et al., Respondents, v Mark Hogan et al., Appellants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Submitted July 9, 2012;

decided September 18, 2012

Motion to dismiss appeal denied.