alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ESTABLISHMENT DATA ESTABLISHMENT DATA

EARNINGS EARNINGS

NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED

B-17. Average hourly earnings, excluding overtime1 of production employees on manufacturing payrolls

Industry Avg.

2011

Jan.

2011

Dec.

2011

Jan.

2012 p

Feb.

2012 p

Manufacturing ............................................................................. $18.04 $18.13 $18.14 $18.25 $18.18

Durable goods .......................................................................... 19.16 19.29 19.22 19.30 19.25

Wood products ........................................................................ 14.25 14.43 14.18 14.18 2 ( )

Nonmetallic mineral products ............................................... 17.15 17.08 17.11 17.10 2 ( )

Primary metals ........................................................................ 18.63 18.85 18.74 19.15 2 ( )

Fabricated metal products ..................................................... 17.24 17.30 17.40 17.34 2 ( )

Machinery ................................................................................. 18.50 18.50 18.68 18.89 2 ( )

Computer and electronic products ....................................... 22.55 22.86 22.50 22.81 2 ( )

Electrical equipment and appliances ................................... 17.10 16.98 17.27 17.17 2 ( )

Transportation equipment ..................................................... 23.95 24.14 23.64 23.65 2 ( )

Furniture and related products ............................................. 14.71 14.70 14.87 14.81 2 ( )

Miscellaneous manufacturing ............................................... 16.28 16.52 16.32 16.50 2 ( )

Nondurable goods ................................................................... 16.27 16.34 16.40 16.55 16.44

Food manufacturing ............................................................... 13.86 13.92 13.99 14.26 2 ( )

Textile mills .............................................................................. 13.19 13.69 12.78 12.71 2 ( )

Textile product mills ................................................................ 11.86 11.51 11.98 11.95 2 ( )

Apparel ..................................................................................... 11.56 11.58 12.24 12.35 2 ( )

Paper and paper products ..................................................... 19.21 19.22 19.24 19.51 2 ( )

Printing and related support activities ................................. 16.80 16.89 16.79 16.77 2 ( )

Petroleum and coal products ................................................ 29.48 29.95 29.08 28.95 2 ( )

Chemicals ................................................................................ 20.49 20.53 20.79 20.80 2 ( )

Plastics and rubber products ................................................ 15.23 15.36 15.38 15.23 2 ( )

154

1 Derived by assuming that overtime hours are paid at the rate of

time and one-half.

2 Data not available.

p = preliminary.

NOTE: Data are currently projected from March 2011 benchmark

levels. When more recent benchmark data are introduced with

the release of January 2013 estimates, all unadjusted data from

April 2011 forward are subject to revision.
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SYMANTEC CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

GLOBAL IMPACT, INC., a Florida No. 07-56758

Corporation doing business as D.C. No.

www.global-impact.com, Global  CV-07-00126-DMS

Impact, Global Impact, Inc. ORDER Distribution, and Global Impact

Corporation; JOSEPH CRISTINA, an

individual,

Defendants-Appellants. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 4, 2009*

Pasadena, California

Filed March 11, 2009

Before: Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Pamela Ann Rymer, and

Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges.

*The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

3117
COUNSEL

Lorne Adam Kaiser, Romanello Professional Association,

Sunrise, Florida, for appellants Joseph Christina and Global

Impact, Inc. 

Mark D. Baute, Patrick M. Maloney, and Henry H. Gonzalez,

Baute & Tidus LLP, Los Angeles, California, for appellee

Symantec Corporation. 

ORDER

Global Impact, Inc. (“Global”) appeals the district court’s

orders denying its motions to set aside the entry of default and

reconsider the same. The clerk entered default against Global

when it failed to plead or otherwise defend the adversary proceeding brought by Symantec Corporation. We dismiss

because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. 

Although neither party raised the issue of our jurisdiction

to entertain this appeal, we have a duty to consider it sua

sponte. See Gupta v. Thai Airways Int’l, Ltd., 487 F.3d 759,

763 (9th Cir. 2007). Contrary to Global’s assertions, the district court has not entered a default judgment against it; it has

entered only a default. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a)-(b) (describing the two-step process of “Entering a Default” and “Entering a Default Judgment”). Whereas we have jurisdiction to

review a district court’s order denying a motion to set aside

the entry of a default judgment, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Jeff D.

v. Kempthorne, 365 F.3d 844, 849-50 (9th Cir. 2004), we lack

jurisdiction over an appeal from an order denying a motion to

set aside the entry of default alone, see Haw. Carpenters’

Trust Funds v. Stone, 794 F.2d 508, 512 (9th Cir. 1986) (entry

of default is not a final appealable order); Baker v. Limber,

3118 SYMANTEC CORP. v. GLOBAL IMPACT
647 F.2d 912, 916 (9th Cir. 1981) (same). Accordingly, we

lack jurisdiction over this appeal.1

DISMISSED.

1Because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, we express no opinion

on the merits of the district court’s orders. 

SYMANTEC CORP. v. GLOBAL IMPACT 3119
PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West.
#### Alexander Kudinov et al., Plaintiffs, v Kel-Tech Construction Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants. Virginia & Ambinder, *LLP,*Nonparty Respondent.

[976 NYS2d 874]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered August 1, 2012, which, after a hearing, granted the application of nonparty respondent Virginia & Ambinder, LLP (class counsel) for attorneys’ fees in the amount of $200,000, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The evidence adduced at the hearing established that class counsel was qualified to represent the class claimants, that the billable rates charged by class counsel were reasonable and customary, and that the class actions had asserted non-frivolous claims which, overall, achieved favorable results. In arriving at its determination, the hearing court properly considered the adequacy of class counsel’s proof of billable time expended, the nature and extent of the legal work attested to, the necessity of the work claimed to have been performed, and the value of such work expended *(see Nager v Teachers’ Retirement Sys. of City of N.Y.,*57 AD3d 389 [1st Dept 2008], *lv denied*13 NY3d 702*497[2009]; *see also Goldberger v Integrated Resources, Inc.,*209 F3d 43 [2d Cir 2000]).

The overall extent of the litigation, including four appeals, 14 motions, lengthy discovery, and many court conferences and settlement discussions, involved appreciable time expended by class counsel that was necessary for accomplishing the goals of the class action, and warranted fees in the “capped” amount of $200,000. Indeed, as observed by the hearing court, the evidence showed that absent the parties’ settlement agreement to, inter alia, cap legal fees, class counsel’s proof actually established entitlement to fees well in excess of $200,000. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.
Labor Employer Reporting Instructions

Part IV – Particular Types of Compensation Payments

Chapter 6: Back Pay

1

Back Pay Defined 

Back pay, as used in these instructions, is a retroactive wage increase. For example, a negotiated 

contract expires December 31st but employees continue to work while a new contract is 

negotiated. A new contract is approved the following August which includes a pay increase 

retroactive to January 1st. The retroactive increase, or back pay, is paid in September, for work 

beginning January 1st. 

Crediting Back Pay 

Like other compensation, back pay may be creditable for the month compensation is paid or for

the period earned. Also, like other compensation, if back pay is reported for the month paid and 

the employee makes a timely request that it be allocated instead to the month(s) earned, the 

employer must submit an adjustment report accordingly. See Part II, Chapter 5 for more 

information about employee protests of service and compensation records. 

No Service Month with Back Pay 

A service month should not be reported for the month that back pay was paid. In the case of a 

retroactive wage increase, it is presumed that service has already been credited based on the 

initial wage payment prior to the increase. 

Distinguishing Between Back Pay and Pay for Time Lost 

Back Pay under the RRA and RUIA is defined differently than pay for time lost. Employers have 

used the term back pay to refer to pay for time lost. For example, an employer may indicate that 

a discharged employee won reinstatement with back pay from the termination date. This would 

be payment for the period of lost wages, not back pay as defined under the RRA and RUIA. The 

name the employer gives to the payment does not govern the rules under which the payment is 

creditable. See the next chapter for instructions on reporting pay for time lost.
Case 2:10-mj-03683-MF Document 5 Filed 11/23/10 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 14
Case 2:10-mj-03683-MF Document 5 Filed 11/23/10 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 15
Case 2:10-mj-03683-MF Document 5 Filed 11/23/10 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 16
#### SORRENS v. CLICK, Inc.

District Court, S. D. New York.

March 28, 1940.

A. Alexander Katz, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Townley, Updike & Carter, of New York City (Stuart N. Updike, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

HULBERT, District Judge.

This is a civil action for damages. Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of this District. The defendant is a Delaware corporation and publishes at Philadelphia, Pa., a monthly magazine known as “Click” which is sold and distributed by defendant throughout the Nation.

The gravamen of the action is an alleged libelous article and photographs used in connection therewith in violation of the provisions of the Civil Rights Law of the State of New York (McKinney’s Consolidated Laws of New York, c. 6, Ann.Book 8).

Defendant has moved pursuant to Rule 12(b), Rules of Civil Procedure for District Courts, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, to dismiss the action, or in lieu thereof, to quash the return of service of summons on the ground: (a) that the defendant is a Delaware corporation not subject to service of process within this District, and (b) if it were, proper service has not been made.

It is not necessary to discuss the facts disclosed by the papers before me on this motion.

They do not, however, present an issue so clearly defined as that which warranted me in denying a similar motion in Winslow v. Domestic Engineering Co., D. C., 20 F.Supp. 576, and yet a much stronger presentation is made out by the plaintiff than in the case of McIntyre v. Atchison Topeka & S. F. Ry. Co., 33 F. Supp. 461, in which similar motions were granted. The Court pointed out in International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 579, 34 S.Ct. 944, 58 L.Ed. 1479, that each case must depend upon its own facts to show that the essential requirements of jurisdiction exist and they cannot be satisfactorily determined in this instance without the attendance and examination and *334cross examination of witnesses under oath. A reference will therefore be had to a Special Master to take testimony and report.

Submit order.
#### Gabriel J. MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 99-5163.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Nov. 6, 2001.

Charles W. Gittins, Law Offices of Charles W. Gittins, P.C., of Middletown, VA, for plaintiff-appellant.

Joseph Trautwein, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were David M. Cohen, Director; James M. Kinsella, Deputy Director; and Aileen M. Bell, Attorney. Of counsel was Opher Shweiki, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, Attorney of Record.

*ORDER*

This case was argued before a panel of this court on July 10, 2000. Thereafter, a poll of the judges in regular active service was conducted to determine whether the appeal should be heard en banc. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

> (1) The court by its own action grants a hearing en banc. The en banc court shall consist of the circuit judges in regular active service and Senior Circuit Judge Plager, who was a member of the panel that heard oral argument.

> (2) An original and 30 copies of new briefs shall be filed with the court and two copies served on opposing counsel. The parties are invited to address the question of whether *Hurick v. Lehman,*782 F.2d 984 (Fed.Cir.1986), should be overruled. Amici curiae may file briefs, due at the time of the brief that supports their position. Gabriel J. Martinez’s brief is due within 60 days. The due dates for the response and reply briefs shall be computed in accordance with the court’s rules.

> (3) Oral argument will be established by later order.
Supreme Court of the United States

Office of the Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

July 20, 2015

Scott S. Harris

Clerk of the Court

(202)479-3011

Clerk

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas ,_^,_^ _,__,„,, „_

p.o. box 12308 Biia^iim

Capitol Station ggwff&eftWAbJ$Pg&S

Austin, TX 78711

Re: Timothy Earl Simmons

v. Texas

No. 14-8732

(Your No. WR-82,149-01)

I0L£3»15

Dear Clerk:

The Court today entered the following order in the above-entitled case:

The petition for rehearing is denied.

Sincerely,

4-2(*

Scott S. Harris, Clerk
EXHIBIT 31.1
 
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, Emil H. Soika, President and Chief Executive Officer of Criticare Systems, Inc., certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Criticare Systems, Inc.;
 
 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 registrants other certifying officer 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; and
 
 (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 (the registrants fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5. The registrants other certifying officer 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 controls 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: September 29, 2003
 
 
 /s/ Emil H. Soika
 ____________________________
 Emil H. Soika
 President and Chief Executive Officer
  
 
 2
**Exhibit 32**

CERTIFICATIONPursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of US Gold CanadianAcquisition Corporation, a Colorado corporation (the “Company”) for the quarterended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),each of the undersigned officers of the Company does hereby certify pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to the best of ourknowledge:

# 1.             The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 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 ofthe Company.

Dated:  August 7, 2007
| US GOLD CANADIAN ACQUISITION CORPORATION |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                     |   |
| /s/ Robert R. McEwen                     |   |
| Robert R. McEwen, Chief                  |   |
| Executive Officer and Chairman of the    |   |
| Board of Directors                       |   |
|                                     |   |
|                                     |   |
| /s/ William F. Pass                      |   |
| William F. Pass, Vice President and      |   |
| Chief Financial Officer                  |   |

 

----
# table124_q14.3_naics
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 Quarterly Report of All American Pet Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Barry Schwartz, CEO and Principal Executive 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/S/ Barry SchwartzBarry SchwartzCEO andPrincipal Executive OfficerAugust 23, 2010
Rail Employer Reporting Instructions 

Part V – Reports of Creditable Service and Compensation 

Chapter 10: Records Retention Requirement 

Retention Requirements 

Employers are required (20 CFR 209.16) to retain payroll records on which service and 

compensation reports are based for five years after the due date of the compensation report or the 

date that the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act contribution to which they relate is paid, 

whichever is later. For example, the payroll records for 2006 (for which compensation was due 

to be reported by the last day of February 2007) are to be retained until March 1, 2012. 

Exception 

In the event of a dispute of the compensation report, the records must be retained as long as the 

dispute is held open. Disputes include any requests from the RRB for reconciliation of report 

data that were made within the five-year period and which remain outstanding. 

1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7461

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ARTHUR PETER PELKEY, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-160-A) Submitted: December 22, 1998 Decided: January 26, 1999 Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arthur Peter Pelkey, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Higgins McQuillan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Arthur Peter Pelkey appeals a district court’s marginal orderdenying his motion for release to home confinement. We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did not err in denying the motion. Because Pelkey was not eligible for release to home confinement until December 1, 1998, months after he filed his motion, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 3624(c) (West Supp. 1998), and he did not exhaust the necessary administrative remedies, see 28 C.F.R. § 542.10 (1998), Pelkey was not entitled to the relief he seeks. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Pelkey’s motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer**


**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 SRKP 10, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport,
      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/
                Richard A. RappaportRichard
                A. Rappaport
              Principal
                Executive Officer
              May
                6, 2008