alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bl s.gov

Welcome and CE Redesign Update 

Challenges and Opportunities Facing BLS Household 

Surveys: ATUS, CE, CPS, and NLS

Parvati Krishnamurty

CE Survey Methods Symposium

July 16, 2019
2 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bl s.gov

The CE Survey Methods Symposium

Topic: Challenges and Opportunities Facing BLS Household Surveys

 We will hear about the experiences of four BLS surveys: CPS, ATUS, NLS, 

and the CE

 Sessions on (1) Incentive delivery methods and experiments (2) 

Assessment of data quality and (3) Alternate modes of data collection.

 Each session has a discussant, who will speak for a few minutes after 

which there will be time for questions for the panelists

 There will be short 10 minute breaks between sessions and tea, coffee 

and cookies will be provided in the lobby just outside this room
3 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bl s.gov

The Gemini Project to Redesign the CE
4 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bl s.gov

What is the Gemini Project?

“...aims to redesign the Consumer Expenditure (CE) survey to 

improve data quality through a verifiable reduction in 

measurement error—particularly error caused by underreporting.”
5 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bl s.gov

Current CE Design

Consumer Expenditure Survey 

Estimates

- 4 waves of personal interviews

- 3 month recall

- Large or recurring expenditures

- 2 one-week household paper diaries

- Contemporaneous recall

- Small, frequently purchased items
6 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bl s.gov

Design Elements

 Online diaries

 Personal diaries

 Streamlined CAPI instrument with a records focus

 Incentives

 Two visits per wave

 Two waves per household

 Single sample
7 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bl s.gov

Gemini Redesign Plan

2013: 

Redesign 

Plan 

approved

2015: Proof 

of Concept 

test complete

2016: 

Incentives test 

complete

2017: Large 

Scale 

Feasibility 

Online Diary 

Test Kickoff

2019-20: 

Large 

Scale 

Feasibility 

Online 

Diary Test 

Fielded

2022 onwards 

Phased 

Implementation
8 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bl s.gov

Design Elements

 Online Diary -keep

 Personal diaries -remove

 Streamlined CAPI instrument with a records focus -keep

 Incentives -only keep token and records incentive

 Single sample -pending

 Two visits per wave -pending

 Two waves -pending
9 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bl s.gov

Where we’re going

 Phased implementation of the redesign plan to maintain 

effective design elements and implement them directly into CE’s 

CEQ and CED

 Online diaries, streamlined questionnaire with a record focus, 

and token/records use incentives.

Online diary in the CED in 2022 (pending testing)

Streamlined CAPI instrument in the CEQ in 2023

 Postpone single sample design pending changed requirements 

and/or additional funding and further testing
Contact Information

10 — U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS • bl s.gov

Parvati Krishnamurty

Senior Economist

Division of Consumer Expenditure Surveys

202-691-5727

krishnamurty.parvati@bls.gov
Exhibit 21.1



Subsidiaries of the Registrant



The following table lists, as of December 31, 2004, our subsidiaries, all of which are wholly owned, and indicates the jurisdiction of
organization of each subsidiary.



|                                               |  |                   
|---------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------
|Subsidiary Name                                |  | Where Incorporated
|Sonic Innovations Pty Ltd.                     |  | Australia         
|Hearing Aid Specialists Pty Limited            |  | Australia         
|ME Management Services Pty Ltd.                |  | Australia         
|Sonic Innovations Canada Ltd.                  |  | Canada            
|Sonic Innovations A/S                          |  | Denmark           
|Omni Sonic Innovations ApS                     |  | Denmark           
|Omni OtoPlast ApS                              |  | Denmark           
|Sonic Innovations Hörgeräte GmbH               |  | Austria           
|Sonic Innovations GmbH                         |  | Switzerland       
|Wenger Hörgeräte AG                            |  | Switzerland       
|Sonic Innovations Ltd.                         |  | England           
|StarMedical B.V.                               |  | Netherlands       
|Hoorcomfort B.V.                               |  | Netherlands       
|Hoertoestelcentrum Sneek B.V.                  |  | Netherlands       
|Sanomed Handelsges mbH                         |  | Germany           
|Sonic Innovations GmbH                         |  | Germany           
|Tympany, Inc. (dba The Hearing Health Network) |  | Delaware
905 A.2d 873

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. SHAKA S. ZULU, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

August 4, 2006.

ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted on the issue of defendant’s sentence, and the matter is summarily remanded to the trial court for resentencing in light of the Court’s decision in *State v. Pierce,*188 *N.J.*155, 902 A.2d 1195 (2006).
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of GLG Partners, 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 officers 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    /s/  Noam GottesmanNoam GottesmanChairman of the Board and
Co-Chief Executive Officer
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 145TH DISTRICT COURT OF NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 29th 

day of May, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

JULIO SAUCEDO, Appellant

NO. 12-14-00107-CR; Trial Court No. F10816-2002

Opinion by Greg Neeley, Justice.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

”THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, 

and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the 

court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for 

observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court of 

Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

Tyler, this the 24th day of July, 2015.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By: _______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 09

- 00371

- CV

IN RE TOYOTA MOTOR C ORPORATION AND TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Toyota Motor Corporation and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. seek by

mandamus to va cate the trial court’s order of October 27, 2009 wherein it ordered Toyota to “preserve any and all documents, records, data, electronically stored information, and evidence relevant to Pennie Fay Green’s case, her Motion For

Sanctions, and her Motion For Contempt.” Toyota argues in its Petition for Writ of Mandamus that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the October 27, 2009 order, which it claims is an order in furtherance of sanctions, because the court’s plenary jurisdiction had long sinc e expired. In Green’s response to the Petition, she primarily argues that the trial court may proceed to investigate and punish by contempt a violation of a discovery order in aIn re Toyota Page 2

proceeding over which the trial court lost jurisdiction because its plenary p ower has expired. But in Green’s motions filed in the trial court proceeding, it is clear that she seeks discovery sanctions payable to her for the perceived violation of the discovery order in addition to simply informing the court of the possibility of contemptuous conduct on the part of Toyota. It is not possible to tell, at this juncture, if the order rendered by the trial court is for the trial court to proceed with its investigation of whether Toyota’s alleged failure to comply with a discovery or der justifies a determination of, and punishment for, contempt or whether the trial court is proceeding to consider Green’s request for sanctions payable to Green. Accordingly, we deny the Petition for Writ of Mandamus without prejudice. By denial of the petition based on the record before us, we express no opinion on the trial court’s jurisdiction to render a sanction order against Toyota payable to Green.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Reyna, and Justice Dav is Petition denied Opinion delivered and filed January 20, 2010 [OT06]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DOMINICK GALLUZZO AND ANGELA Civil Action No.: 1 1-cv-1607 (CCC)

GALLUZZO,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ORDER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant,

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant United States ofAmerica’s (“Defendant”)

motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Dominick Galluzzo and Angela Galluzzo’s (“Plaintiffs”) complaint for

lack ofsubject matter jurisdiction (Docket No. 9). On May 15, 2012, Magistrate Judge Joseph A.

Dickson issued a Report and Recommendation that the Defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted.

No objections have been filed thereto. The Court has considered the submissions ofthe parties, and

Judge Dickson’s Report and Recommendation, and forsubstantially the same reasons stated therein,

IT IS on this 30 day of May, 2012

ORDERED that this Court adopts Judge Dickson’s May 15, 2012 Report and Recommendation and

thus grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint.

s/ Claire G. Cecchi

HON. CLAIRE C. CECC11I

United States District Judge

Case 2:11-cv-01607-CCC-JAD Document 15 Filed 05/30/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 72
Motion Granted; Order filed January 14, 2014. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00104-CR

____________

YANTSEY GONZALES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 178th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1303536

ORDER

Appellant filed a motion requesting supplementation of the record with the 

original of State's exhibit 20, a scene video and State's exhibit 56, a CD.
The clerk of the 178th District Court is directed to deliver to the Clerk of this 

court the original of State's exhibit 20, a scene video and State's exhibit 56, a CD, 

on or before February 5, 2014. The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, 

maintain, and keep safe this original exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this 

court for their inspection; and, upon completion of inspection, to return the original 

of State's exhibit 20, a scene video and State's exhibit 56, a CD, to the clerk of the 

178th District Court.

PER CURIAM
[Cite as State v. Jones, 123 Ohio St.3d 146, 2009-Ohio-4689.]

T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLEE , v . J ONES , A PPELLANT . [Cite as State v. Jones, 123 Ohio St.3d 146, 2009-Ohio-4689.] Discretionary appeal accepted, court of appeals’ judgment reversed in part on the authority of State v. Harris, and cause remanded. (No. 2009-0931

— Submitted August 11, 2009

— Decided September 15, 2009.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-07-1292,
2009-Ohio-1742.

__________________ {¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted. {¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of
State v. Harris , 122 Ohio St.3d 373, 2009-Ohio-3323, 911 N.E.2d 882, to the extent that the court of appeals held th at robbery as defined in R.C. 2911.02(A)(2) and aggravated robbery as defined in R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) are not allied offenses of similar import. The cause is remanded to the court of appeals for further consideration of the animus analysis consistent with State v. Harris.
M OYER , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur.

__________________ Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and David F. Cooper, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Deborah Kovac Rump, for appellant.

__________________
July 19, 2012

The Honorable Douglas E. Arpert

United States Magistrate Judge

Clarkson S. Fisher Fed. Building & U.S. Courthouse

402 East State Street

Trenton, NJ 08608

Re: Jacobson v. Synthes, Inc., et al.

Docket No. 11-CV-01160 (AET) (DEA)

Dear Judge Arpert:

Our office represents the plaintiff, Susan Jacobson, in connection with the above 

captioned matter. At this time we write to obtain a brief extension with regard to the 

deadlines for supplying expert reports, the taking of expert depositions and the filing of 

dispositive motions. Counsel for the defendant has consented to this request.

As Your Honor is aware, this matter involves a surgical plate breaking after being 

implanted in the plaintiff. Accordingly, a key element of this case will focus on expert 

reports/testimony regarding the cause of the breakage of the plate. To date, all fact 

discovery has been completed. 

Recently, our office was advised by our experts that additional time was required 

to finalize their reports. Currently the Discovery Order provides the following deadlines:

1. Plaintiff’s expert reports due July 20, 2012.

2. Defendant’s expert reports due August 20, 2012.

3. Phone status conference September 11, 2012.

4. Expert depositions to be conducted before September 20, 2012.

5. Dispositive motions filed before October 15, 2012.

Case 3:11-cv-01160-AET-DEA Document 19 Filed 07/19/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 99
At this time, we are requesting that the Discover Order be modified as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s expert reports due July 31, 2012.

2. Defendant’s expert reports due August 31, 2012.

3. Phone status conference September 11, 2012.

4. Expert depositions to be conducted before September 30, 2012.

5. Dispositive motions filed before October 31, 2012.

As noted above, all parties have consented to this brief extension. As both parties 

will benefit from the additional time, no prejudice will result. 

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Erik Anderson

ERIK ANDERSON

EA:klc

cc: David Covey, Esq.

Case 3:11-cv-01160-AET-DEA Document 19 Filed 07/19/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 100
1 The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-2372

___________ Tandy L. Hairston, * * Appellant, * * Carolyn Beverly, * * Appeal from the United States Plaintiff, * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. v. * * [UNPUBLISHED] United States of America, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: July 6, 2007 Filed: July 23, 2007

___________ Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In March 2005 Tandy Hairst on sought return of a Rolex watch as well as numerous other items seizedby the FBI in November 2001 as part of a criminal investigation. The district court 1 dismissed Hairston’s claim for return of the watch, and Hairston appeals.-2- We conclude we lack jurisdiction to review the March 2006 order. While the district court dismissed some of Hairston’s claims in a January 6 order, the court has not rendered final judgment on Hairston’s cl aim for property on a “List of Items To Be Returned,” which he submitted to the court on January 23. T hus, the March order, which disposed of only the watch claim, did not end the litigation on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (courts of appeals have jurisdiction over district court’s final decisions); Tenkku v. Normandy Bank , 218 F.3d 926, 927 (8th Cir. 2000) (decision is not usually final unless it effectively ends litigation on merits and leaves nothing for district court to do but execute judgm ent). If the court intended the March 2006 order to be a partial final judgment, certification under Fede ral Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) was required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (when action raises more than one claim for relief, court may direct en try of final judgment as to fewer than all claims only upon “an express determination th at there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of j udgment”; in absence of such determination and direction, order which adjudicates fewe r than all claims does not terminate action as to any claim); Stockman’s Water Co. v. Vaca Partners , 425 F.3d 1263, 1266 (10th Cir. 2005) (district court’s certification wa s ineffective to provide jurisdiction over appeal where certification order did not incl ude analysis of relevant factors under Rule 54(b)); cf. Bullock v. Baptist Mem’l Hosp. , 817 F.2d 58, 59 (8th Cir. 1987) (orders directing entry of final judgment as to fewe r than all parties must, either in express words or by unmistakably clear implication, contain findings specifically required by Rule 54).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

______________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 491 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 491

 To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify the adjustments to be made 
       in determining export price and constructed export price.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 29, 2003

   Mr. Pickering (for himself, Mr. Ross, Mr. Goode, Mr. Everett, Mr. 
Turner of Texas, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Cramer, and Mr. Alexander) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
                                 Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify the adjustments to be made 
       in determining export price and constructed export price.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Duty Parity Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. EXPORT PRICE AND CONSTRUCTED EXPORT PRICE.

    (a) In General.--Section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 
U.S.C. 1677a(c)(2)(A)) is amended by inserting ``(including 
countervailing duties imposed under this Act)'' after ``duties''.
    (b) Application to Canada and Mexico.--Pursuant to article 1902 of 
the North American Free Trade Agreement and section 408 of the North 
American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, the amendment made by 
this section shall apply with respect to goods from Canada and Mexico.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
with respect to determinations made under title VII of the Tariff Act 
of 1930 that--
            (1) are made with respect to investigations initiated or 
        petitions filed after the date of enactment of this section; or
            (2) have not become final as of the date of enactment of 
        this section.
                                 <all>
```
t

f, Civ. No. 11

1494 (KM) (MAR)

v. ORDER

REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE

NETWORK, INC., et aL,

Defendants.

KEVIN MCNULTY, U.S.D.J.:

IT APPEARING that the Court flied an Opinion and Order (DE 235, 236)

which, inter alia, denied the Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration; and

IT FURTHER APPEARING that Defendants have filed an appeal of that

ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (DE 239), which

remains pending; and

IT FURTHER APPEARING that Defendants moved before the Hon.

Michael A. Hammer, U.S. Magistrate Judge, to stay all proceedings in the

district court pending appeal (DE 244); and

IT FURTHER APPEARING that Judge Rammer, in a well-reasoned Letter

Opinion and Order (“Op.”, DE 251), granted the motion for a stay; and

IT FURTHER APPEARING that Plaintiff has timely objected to and

appealed Judge Hammer’s stay decision to this Court (DE 254), that

Defendants have filed a response (DE 255), and Plaintiff has filed a Reply (DE

256); and

1
agreement, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 16, because it is a decision as to the forumin which proceedings will take place, serves to deprive the district court of

jurisdiction to proceed, unless the appeal is “frivolous or forfeited”;1 and

IT FURTHER APPEARING that Judge Hammer soundly determined that

Defendants’ arguments, while the Court did not ultimately accept them, are notso “utterly lacking in merit” that the appeal could be termed frivolous;

IT IS, this 15th day of January, 2020,ORDERED that the objection and appeal (DE 254) is DENIED and

Judge Hammer’s stay order (DE 251) is AFFIRMED.

KEVIN MCNULTYUnited States District Judge

Op. at 1—2 (citing, e.g., Ehleiter a Grapetree Shores Inc., 482 F.3d 207, 215 n.6

(3d Cir. 2007); Kim v. Dongbu Tour& Trauel Inc., 529 F. App’x. 229 (3d Cir. 2013)).

2
EXHIBIT 10.21



 

 



 



 

 



 

 



 

 



 

 



 

 



 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 

 



 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 

 



 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 

 



 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 

 



 



 

 

 



 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 

 



 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 



 

 



 

 



 

 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 

 



 

 



 

 

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---