alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - February 2009 

Benefit payments February 2009 February 2008 

Regular Retirement 

and Survivor Benefits 

Total 

Retired employ

Spouses and d

Widow(er)s - a

Other survivors 

ees 

ivorced spouses 

ged and disabled 

24,044,000 

107,714,000 

159,971,000 

$876,969,000 

585,239,000 

22,915,000 

100,888,000 

157,195,000 

$832,260,000 

551,263,000 

Average under 

Being paid Awarded in Social Security 

Monthly benefits end of month month February 2009 

Number Average1 Number Average1 Being Paid Awarded 

Total 562,200 ......... 3,000 ......... ......... .........

Regular employee annuities, total 274,300 $2,119 1,300 $2,541 ......... .........

 Age 190,500 2,092 2 500 2 3,220 $1,156 3 $1,598

 Disability, Full Retirement Age and Over 34,200 1,884 ......... ......... ......... .........

 Disability, Under Full Retirement Age 49,700 2,384 300 2,624 1,062 1,109 

Spouses and divorced spouses 136,200 782 1,000 888 552 398 

Widow(er)s--aged and disabled 126,200 1,265 600 1,662 1,092 908 

Widowed mothers and fathers 800 1,544 4/ 1,271 826 826 

Widow(er)s--remarried and divorced 13,900 858 100 1,092 5/ 5/ 

Children 10,700 933 4/ 1,349 746 761 

Other survivors 100 491 ......... ......... ......... .........

 Benefit payments 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded 

in month 

Supplemental 

Employee 

Annuities 

February 

2009 

$5,059,000 

February 

2008 

$5,065,000 

Number 

120,700 

Average 

$42 600 

Number 

$42 

Average 

1

Railroad retirement benefits shown are net of reduction for social security benefit entitlement. 

2

For employees retiring directly from the railroad industry with full age annuity (their years of service averaged 35); some 400

 other age annuities were awarded in the month. 

3

For men aged 65 or over insured on regular basis. 

4

Fewer than 50. 

5

Remarried and divorced widow(er)s included with aged and disabled widow(er)s and widowed mothers and fathers. 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Regular retirement and survivor benefit payments total includes hospital insurance benefits for services in Canada. 

(Over) 
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - (Continued) 

February 2009 

Unemployment and Sickness Benefits 

Average payment 

Number of beneficiaries 

during month 

Per 2-week 

registration period

 Per

 full week 

Unemployment 8,800 $508 $303 

Sickness 5,000 

February 2009 

526 303 

Benefit payments 

February 2008 

Unemployment

Total

8,282,000 

$11,881,000 $8,113,000 

4,028,000 

Sickness 3,599,000 4,085,000 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited). Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

Published by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board 

Bureau of the Actuary 

Recycled

 Paper
#### NATIONAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION TRUST, By and Through its duly authorized representative, NATIONAL BENEFIT ADMINISTRATORS, INC., Plaintiff, and National Benefit Administrators, Inc., Intervening Plaintiff, v. Leroy MORGAN, Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Department of Insurance, and Elizabeth P. Wright, Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Kentucky Department of Insurance, Defendants and Intervening Defendants.

Civ. A. No. C89-0917-L(J).

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division.

Feb. 15, 1991.

Scott T. Wendelsdorf, Patricia B. Van-Cleave, Ogden, Sturgill & Welch, and Mark *1169A. Smedal, Louisville, Ky., for plaintiffs and intervening plaintiff.

Patrick Watts, Suetta W. Dickinson, Ky. Dept, of Ins., Frankfort, Ky., for defendant Leroy Morgan.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JOHNSTONE, District Judge.

This matter is before the court on motion of the defendant, Elizabeth P. Wright, Commissioner of the Kentucky Department of Insurance, to hold plaintiff, National Business Association Trust (“NBAT”) and its executive director, and intervening plaintiff, National Benefit Administrators, Inc. (“NBA”) and its officers and shareholders, in contempt of court for failure to comply with the terms of an agreed order.

The court has considered the Commissioner’s motion and finds that the actions complained of do not rise to the level of contempt.

Therefore, the motion of the Commissioner to hold NBAT and its executive director and NBA and its officers and shareholders in contempt is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,547]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 10, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed by workers of Arvin Meritor, Mullins, South Carolina.

The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of May 2009.

Elliott S. Kushner,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-15287 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### ARNOLD v. TRANS-AMERICAN FREIGHT LINES, Inc.

Civ. No. 88.

District Court, W. D. Michigan, S. D.

Sept. 10, 1940.

Elias P. Harmon, of Cassopolis, Mich., and White & White, of Niles, Mich., for plaintiff.

Knappen, Uhl, Bryant & Snow, of Grand Rapids, Mich., for defendant.

RAYMOND, District Judge.

This matter is before the court upon motion under Rule 39(b), Rules of Civil Procedure for District Courts, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, that the court order a trial by jury of all the issues in the case. The case became fully at issue on June 5, 1940, and no demand for jury was made as provided by Rule 38(b). It appears, however, from the record that the cause of action is for damages arising from personal injuries alleged to have resulted from defendant’s negligence. The issues are therefore those which are customarily submitted to juries, and the court is satisfied that the failure to demand jury was due to a misunderstanding between counsel in charge of the 'case, and that as soon as it was learned that a jury had not been demanded plaintiff’s counsel were prompt in filing the motion now before the court. It is the view of the court that its discretion should be exercised by granting the motion. See Peterson v. Southern Pacific Co., D.C., 31 F.Supp. 29; and Rogers v. Montgomery Ward & Co., D.C., 26 F.Supp. 707.

The demand for jury is granted and an order will be entered accordingly.
**Exhibit
      32**





**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 Quarterly Report of Northeast Automotive Holdings, Inc.,
      (the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30,
      2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the "Report"), I, William Solko, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
      Officer of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
            The
                Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32, fully
                complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
                Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Registrant





Dated: May 6, 2009
            /s/ William SolkoWilliam Solko, Chief Executive Officer and
              Chief Financial Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Registrant and will be
      retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.





This
      certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated
      by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of
      1933
      or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date
      of
      the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language
      contained in such filing.
32 Occupational Outlook Quarterly • Fall 2004

More education: 

Lower unemployment,

higher pay

S

taying in school can do more than improve 

your mind. It can also improve your chances of 

being employed and having high earnings.

As the data show, the unemployment rate falls 

and earnings rise for people who have more education. The differences are stark between the highest and lowest educational levels. But completing 

a program, whether it’s finishing high school or 

getting a degree, is important at every level. This 

may be because employers view the ability to earn 

an academic credential as an indicator of assets—

such as organizational skills and aptitude—that a 

potential worker will bring to the job.

Educational attainment is not the only factor 

affecting employment and earnings, though. At 

every educational level, whether jobseekers are 

successfully employed may hinge on issues ranging 

from an occupation’s size to geographic location. 

And workers’ earnings vary by type of training and 

choice of occupation, among other things.

0 210

Unemployment rate Median weekly earnings

Source: Current Population Statistics

Unemployment and earnings for full-time workers aged 25 and over, 

by educational attainment, 2003

$396

554

2.1

1.7

2.9

3.3

4.0

5.2

1,349

1,307

1,064

900

672

622 Some college, no 

degree

Doctoral degree

Less than a high 

school diploma

Professional degree

High school diploma, 

including GED

Master’s degree

Bachelor’s degree

Associate degree

4.8% - National unemployment rate National median weekly earnings - $662

8.8%

5.5

Education
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of CyGene Laboratories, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
SEC on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Martin Munzer, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to my knowledge:

         1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and

         2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.

                                                /s/ Martin Munzer
                                                -----------------
                                                Martin Munzer
                                                Chief Executive Officer and
                                                Chief Financial Officer

Date:    May 31, 2006
#### In the Matter of Loriann Deuel, Appellant, v Frank T. Dalton, Respondent.

[823 NYS2d 266]

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Rensselaer County (Cholakis, J.), entered July 29, 2004, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, to modify a prior order of custody.

On April 20, 2004, respondent (hereinafter the father) was awarded sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ daughter. Thereafter, on May 24, 2004, petitioner (hereinafter the mother) filed a petition in Family Court seeking custody. At the initial return date of the petition, the father served and filed a motion to dismiss asserting that the petition failed to make any factual showing of a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of the prior custody order. On July 29, 2004, without hearing argument, Family Court dismissed the petition without prejudice. At a Family Court hearing held September *115930, 2004, the parties agreed to a consent order which granted the mother supervised visitation. The mother now appeals the July 2004 dismissal of her custody petition.

We affirm. First, the instant matter should not be dismissed as moot since the consent order dealt only with the mother’s rights of visitation, an issue distinct from the custody order in favor of the father *(see Matter of Carella v Ferrara,*9 AD3d 605, 605 [2004]; *Matter of Baker v Ratoon,*251 AD2d 921, 922 [1998]).

Turning to the merits, it is well settled that an existing custody arrangement will not be modified unless changed circumstances have occurred since the entry of the prior custody order impacting the child’s best interests *(see Matter of Oddy v Oddy,*296 AD2d 616, 617 [2002]). Here, the mother’s petition for custody, filed 35 days after the custody order in favor of the father, fails to factually aver any change in circumstances within that 35-day period which would warrant modification, and Family Court properly dismissed the mother’s petition *(see Matter of Mathis v Parkhurst,*23 AD3d 923, 924 [2005]).

Next, the mother’s contentions with respect to the untimely service of the notice of motion to dismiss her petition are not before us as there was no appropriate objection (see *Matter of Borggreen v Borggreen,*13 AD3d 756, 757 [2004]). Notably, she was given adequate time to and did, in fact, respond prior to the issuance of the court’s order. Lastly, issues raised by the mother for the first time in her reply brief are not properly before this Court for review *(see Matter of Lupovici v Sobol,*223 AD2d 753 [1996]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 30, 2022

No. 04-22-00353-CR

EX PARTE Andrez ZUNIGA-GUTIERREZ

From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12108CR

Honorable Roland Andrade, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief is due on July 5, 2022. Before the due date, Appellant filed an 

unopposed first motion for a thirty-day extension of time to file the brief.

Appellant’s motion is granted. Appellant’s brief is due on August 4, 2022. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.6(d). 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 30th day of June, 2022.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS 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 Quarterly Report of DCP Holding Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of the Company, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Anthony A. Cook        
|Principal Executive Officer

August 12, 2009



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ Robert C. Hodgkins, Jr.
|Principal Financial Officer

August 12, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT  AUDITORS'  CONSENT


We  consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form
S-8  (File  Nos. 33-33497, 33-40038, 33-60214 and 33-60644) of our reports dated
November  30,  1999  appearing  in  this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Criticare
Systems,  Inc.  for  the  year  ended  June  30,  1999.



/s/  BDO  Seidman,  LLP
Milwaukee,  Wisconsin
December  6,  1999
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dimas Pedro, Also Known as Pedro Dimas, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 474]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Westchester County (Walker, J.), imposed June 30, 2004, on the ground that the sentence is excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed. No opinion. Prudenti, EJ., Schmidt, Goldstein, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.17

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 2
                                     TO THE
                        NATIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.
                             EXECUTIVE SAVINGS PLAN


         THIS AMENDMENT made as of the 31st day of August, 2001, by National
Service Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("NSI");

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

         WHEREAS, NSI has previously established the National Service
Industries, Inc. Executive Savings Plan (the "Plan") for the benefit of its
eligible employees and their beneficiaries; and

         WHEREAS, effective as of August 31, 2001, NSI will restructure its
business operations and form several new subsidiary corporations; and

         WHEREAS, NSI desires to amend the Plan in connection with the
restructuring; and

         WHEREAS, pursuant to the power of amendment contained in the Plan, the
Plan is hereby amended as follows:

                                       1.

         The Plan is hereby amended by incorporating the following as the new
Schedule 1:

                                   "Schedule 1
                               Adopting Employers

         National Service Industries, Inc. (CA) f/k/a NSI Enterprises, Inc.
         L&C Spinco, Inc.
         The Zep Group, Inc.
         L&C Lighting Group, Inc."

                                       2.

         This Amendment shall be effective August 31, 2001.

                                       3.

         Except as provided herein, the provisions of the Plan shall remain in
full force and effect.


<PAGE>




         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, NSI has caused this Amendment No. 2 to be executed
by its duly authorized corporate officers as of the date and year first written
above.


ATTEST:                             NATIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC.



By: /s/ Carol E. Morgan             By: /s/ Kenyon W. Murphy
   --------------------------          ----------------------------------
FINAL REPORT1

REVISION TO THE COMMENT TO RULE OF EVIDENCE 409

On July 30, 2015, effective October 1, 2015, upon recommendation of the 

Committee on Rules of Evidence, the Court ordered revision of the Comment to 

Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 409 to insert a reference to the Benevolent Gesture 

Medical Professional Liability Act, Act of October 25, 2013, P.L. 665, 35 P.S. §§ 

10228.1-.3. The Committee believes that a signal to the existence of this legislation 

within the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence would be beneficial to the bench and bar. 

 

1

The Committee’s Final Report should not be confused with the official Committee 

Comments to the rules. Also note that the Supreme Court does not adopt the 

Committee’s Comments or the contents of the Committee’s explanatory Final Reports.
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Porter Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) for the annual period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
David B. Pierce, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, in accordance with 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), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                      |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                        |  |  |  | PORTER BANCORP, INC.
|                        |  |  | 
|Dated: November 5, 2009 |  |  |  | By:                  |  | /s/ David B. Pierce    
|                        |  |  |  |                      |  | David B. Pierce        
|                        |  |  |  |                      |  | Chief Financial Officer
Order filed July 21, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00440-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF N.N.F., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 315th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-06707J

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment signed April 21, 2015. The 

notice of appeal was due May 14, 2015. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Appellant, 

however, filed his notice of appeal on May 11, 2015, a date within 15 days of the 

due date for the notice of appeal. A motion for extension of time is necessarily 

implied when the perfecting instrument is filed within 15 days of its due date. 

Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Appellant did not file a 

motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal. While an extension may be 

implied, appellant is still obligated to come forward with a reasonable explanation 
to support the late filing. See Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center Assocs., Ltd.,

974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.). 

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file a proper motion to extend time to 

file the notice of appeal on or before 10 days after the date of this order. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 26.3; 10.5(b). If appellant does not comply with this order, we will 

dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM