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

ANNUAL AVERAGES

35. Persons not in the labor force by desire and availability for work, age, and sex

(In thousands)

Category

Total Age Sex

2004 2005

16 to 24

years

25 to 54

years

55 years

and over Men Women

2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005

Total not in the labor force .................................... 75,956 76,762 14,151 14,383 21,288 21,403 40,517 40,976 28,730 29,119 47,225 47,643

 Do not want a job now 1 ..................................... 71,103 71,777 12,422 12,585 19,136 19,238 39,545 39,954 26,565 26,926 44,538 44,851

 Want a job 1 ........................................................ 4,852 4,985 1,729 1,798 2,152 2,165 971 1,022 2,165 2,193 2,687 2,792

 Did not search for work in previous year .......... 2,715 2,841 886 963 1,145 1,163 684 715 1,126 1,173 1,590 1,668

 Searched for work in previous year 2 ............... 2,137 2,144 843 836 1,006 1,002 288 307 1,040 1,020 1,097 1,124

 Not available to work now ............................... 563 599 279 285 242 260 42 54 230 231 333 368

 Available to work now ..................................... 1,574 1,545 565 551 764 742 245 252 809 789 765 756

 Reason not currently looking:

 Discouragement over job prospects 3 ........ 466 436 142 141 240 217 84 78 288 260 178 176

 Reasons other than discouragement .......... 1,108 1,109 423 410 524 525 161 175 521 529 587 580

 Family responsibilities .............................. 157 159 28 32 104 105 24 22 38 36 119 123

 In school or training .................................. 244 217 199 179 43 35 2 2 131 118 112 99

 Ill health or disability ................................. 123 119 18 16 71 69 35 34 56 64 67 55

 Other 4 ...................................................... 584 614 178 182 306 316 100 116 296 311 288 302

1 Includes some persons who are not asked if they want a job. 2 Persons who had a job in the prior 12 months must have searched

since the end of that job. 3 Includes believes no work available, could not find work, lacks

necessary schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and

other types of discrimination.

4 Includes those who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks

for such reasons as child care and transportation problems, as well as a

small number for which reason for nonparticipation was not ascertained.

 NOTE: Beginning in January 2005, data reflect revised population

controls used in the household survey.

254
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 135 (Thursday, July 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16849]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13484-000]


FFP Project 73, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application 
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and 
Competing Applications

July 9, 2009.
    On May 22, 2009, FFP Project 73, LLC filed an application for a 
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, 
proposing to study the feasibility of the Georgetown Bend Hydrokinetic 
Project, to be located on the Mississippi River, in Desha and Chicot 
Counties, Arkansas and Bolivar and Washington Counties, Mississippi.
    The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant 
the permit holder priority to file a license application during the 
permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder 
to perform any land disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands 
or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed Georgetown Bend Hydrokinetic Project consists of: (1) 
2,915 proposed 40 kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total 
installed capacity of 116.60 megawatts; (2) a 3.6-mile-long, 69 
kilovolt transmission line; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The 
proposed Georgetown Bend Hydrokinetic Project would have an average 
annual generation of 511 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Vice President of 
Development, Free Flow Power Corporation, 33 Commercial Street, 
Gloucester, MA 01930; phone: (978) 226-1531.
    FERC Contact: Kim Carter, 202-502-6486.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project, including a copy of 
the application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of 
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. 
Enter the docket number (P-13484) in the docket number field to access 
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16849 Filed 7-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
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 Mattmar Minerals, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Arnold P. Kling, President
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:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 result of operations of the
      Company.





Dated:
December 23, 2010





/s/
      Arnold P. KlingArnold
      P. KlingPresident(Principal
      Executive Officer)





A signed
original of this certification 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 8.1

PRINCIPAL SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT 

| **Name**                                             | **Jurisdiction**                  |
|------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
| SUNDAY Holdings (Hong    Kong) Corporation           | British Virgin Islands            |
| Mandarin    Communications Limited                   | Hong Kong                         |
| SUNDAY 3G Holdings    (Hong Kong) Corporation        | British Virgin Islands            |
| SUNDAY 3G (Hong Kong)    Limited                     | Hong Kong                         |
| SUNDAY Holdings    (China) Corporation               | British Virgin Islands            |
| SUNDAY Communications    Services (Shenzhen) Limited | The People's Republic    of China |
| SUNDAY IP Holdings    Corporation                    | British Virgin Islands            |
| SUNDAY IP Limited                                    | British Virgin Islands            |

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

N.V.E., INC.,

Plaintiff

 V. SUMMONS IN A CIVIL CASE

K−VA−T FOOD STORES INC.,

Defendant

CASE NUMBER: 2:11−CV−04096−FSH −PS

 TO: (Name and address of Defendant):

 A lawsuit has been filed against you.

 Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) −− or 60 days if

you are the United States or a United States Agency, or an office or employee of the United States described in

Fed. R. civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) −− you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a

motion under rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the

plaintiff or plaintiff`s attorney, whose name and address are:

 If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the

complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

WILLIAM T. WALSH

 CLERK

 DIANNE C. RICHARDS

 (By) DEPUTY CLERK

ISSUED ON 2011−07−19 16:18:35.0, Clerk

USDC NJD

Case 2:11-cv-04096-FSH -PS Document 2 Filed 07/19/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 14
RETURN OF SERVICE

 Service of the Summons and complaint was made by me (1) DATE

 NAME OF SERVER (PRINT) TITLE

 Check one box below to indicate appropriate method of service

Served personally upon the defendant. Place where served: _______________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Left copies thereof at the defendant's dwelling house or usual place of abode with a person of suitable age and

discretion then residing therein.

Name of person with whom the summons and complaint were left:__________________________________

Returned unexecuted:_____________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Other (specify) :_________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF SERVICE FEES

 TRAVEL SERVICES TOTAL

DECLARATION OF SERVER

 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information

contained in the Return of Service and Statement of Service Fees is true and correct.

Executed on ___________________ _______________________________________

Date Signature of Server

_______________________________________

Address of Server

Case 2:11-cv-04096-FSH -PS Document 2 Filed 07/19/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 15
#### Lorenzo RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12-1985.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 18, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 18, 2012.

Lorenzo Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Mark J. Goldenberg, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland, for Ap-pellee.

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lorenzo Richardson appeals the district court’s order denying his request for mandamus relief and affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits. We must uphold the decision to deny benefits if the decision is supported by substantial evidence and the correct law was applied. *See*42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2006); *Johnson v. Barnhart,*434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir.2005) (per curiam). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Richardson v. Soc. Sec. Admin.,*No. 5:11-cv-00257-BO (E.D.N.C. July 26, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### Pierre BOURGEOIS, Plaintiff, v. EL PASO NATURAL GAS COMPANY and Republic Steel Corporation, Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

May 17, 1957.

Rassner & Rassner, New York City, for plaintiff. Jacob Rassner, New York City, of counsel.

Lundgren, Lincoln & McDaniel, New York City, for defendant El Paso Natural Gas Co. Franklin B. Lincoln, Jr., New York City, of counsel.

Richard Brill, New York City, for defendant Republic Steel Corp.

SUGARMAN, District Judge.

On March 21, 1957 Judge Noonan directed the plaintiff to appear at a designated hour and place on March 27, 1957 for the taking of his deposition by each of the defendants “from day to day thereafter at mutually agreeable time until completed, in default of which judgment shall be entered for the defendants dismissing the complaint herein- as to both defendants with prejudice.”

The plaintiff, pursuant thereto, did appear and was examined by the defendants’ counsel on March 27 and March 28. Because the examination was not concluded, and to serve the plaintiff’s convenience, the examination was by mesne adjournments deferred until April 18. On April 18 the plaintiff did not appear for the continuation of his examination and his counsel advised defendants’ counsel by telephone that plaintiff would not appear because in his attorney’s opinion “such depositions were unnecessary-and a waste of time.” Accordingly, the defendants now move for an order dismissing the complaint. All that is submitted in opposition is the affidavit of plaintiff’s attorney, challenging the relevancy of the subject matter of the depositions and .averring that Judge Noonan’s order is being used “for the sole purpose of harassing the said plaintiff in the conduct of this litigation.”

F.R.Civ.P. 30(d), 28 U.S.C.A. provides the vehicle for terminating or limiting an examination being conducted in bad faith or in such manner as to unreasonably annoy, harass or oppress the deponent or party. Instead of resorting to that orderly procedure the plaintiff has undertaken to ignore the order of the court. He has done so at his own peril. In the absence of any compelling rea*359son1 for less than a dismissal with prejudice the defendants’ motion is granted.

It is unnecessary to consider the defendants’ further prayer for relief predicated upon the plaintiff’s failure to comply with a subpoena duces tecum.2

It is so ordered.

1

. Cf. Producers Releasing Corp. de Cuba v. P. R. C. Pictures, 2 Cir., 1949, 176 F.2d 93.

2

. Cf. Joseph L. Lee, Inc., v. Margon Corp., D.C.S.D.N.Y.1956, 18 F.R.D. 390.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8
(No. 333-159560, No. 333-151249, No. 333-147607, No. 333-143376, No. 333-135403,
No. 333-125511, No. 333-117651, No. 333-106503, and No. 333-42996) of OmniVision Technologies, Inc. of our report
dated June 30, 2009 relating to the consolidated financial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this
Form 10-K.

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

San
Jose, California
June 30, 2009

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 10.2


 




	
  

  	
  2013 Incentive
  Compensation Plan Effective January 1, 2013 Employee Joseph W. Kennedy
  Estimated 2013 Salary 136,000 $ Title SVP/CFO Estimated 2013 Target 11%
  14,960 $ Thresholds Maintain CAMELS rating at one of the two highest ratings
  Maintain an Asset Quality Rating of "Satisfactory" or better Goal
  #1: Achieve ROA Annual Payout Target 60% = 8,976 $ Goals Payout 95% of Budget
  2,962 $ At Budget 5,924 $ 106% of Budget 8,976 $ Stretch Goal Every .04% over
  106% of Budget 2,962 $ Goal #2: Achieve Efficiency Ratio Annual Payout Target
  20% = 2,992 $ Goals Payout 102% of Budget 997 $ At Budget 1,995 $ 97% of
  Budget 2,992 $ Stretch Goal Every 2% under 97% of Budget 997 $ Goal #3: Achieve
  Net Interest Margin Percentage Annual Payout Target 20% = 2,992 $ Goals
  Payout 98% of Budget 987 $ At Budget 1,975 $ 102% of Budget 2,992 $ Stretch
  Goal Every 0.07% over 102% of Budget 987 $ NOTES: Bonus targets are based on
  Georgetown Bancorp Inc. 2013 budget. All dollar figures are based on
  estimates of annualized salary. Incentive payments are based on the
  employee's actual base compensation for the fiscal year, which includes
  straight time pay, vacation, holiday, personal, sick and jury duty pay. Overtime
  and other payments including previous year's bonus payout will be excluded
  from the calculation. To be eligible for the Incentive Compensation, the
  employee must be actively employed, performIng at a level of
  "satisfactory" or above, and not be on a written warning at the
  time of the incentive payment. The Bank shall have the right to rescind and
  recoup or "clawback" incentive payments paid under this plan if the
  Compensation Committee concludes that such awards were paid out based on
  information that is later found to be materially incorrect, including
  payments that were determined, in whole or in part, on financial statement
  information that is subsequently restated.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon. Katharine S. Hayden
v. : Crim. No. 11-471 (KSH)
ROD PEREZ H ORDER

This matter having been opened to the Court on the
United States Motion In Limine to Admit Evidence Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) (doc. 24), by Paul J. Fishman,
United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey (David L.
Foster and Rodney C. Villazor, Assistants United States Attorney,
appearing), Carl Herman, Esq., attorney for defendant Rod Perez;
the Court having considered the submissions of counsel at a
hearing on November 15, 2011 (doc. 27), the Court grants, in
part, and denies, in part, the United States Motion In Limine for
the reasons set forth on the record. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that:!?
1. Vizcaino 404(b) Evidence, as specified herein, is
hereby admitted pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b):
a. On one occasion Perez asked Ms. Vizcaino to
transport a sum of money which was narcotics

proceeds to New York using a Red Acura.

* At the hearing, the Government withdrew its motion to
admit the Honda Accord 404(b) Evidence, and the Court found that
Rule 404(b) did not apply to the conduct underlying the December
2010 404(b) Evidence.



2. Martinez 404(b) Evidence, as specified herein, is

hereby admitted pursuant to Fed. R. Evidence 404(b):

a. From October 2009 through November 2009, Martinez
supplied Perez with approximately 1-2 kilograms of
cocaine on 3-4 occasions on consignment. Perez
would then pay Martinez between $31,000 to $36,000
per kilogram several days afterwards;

b. From January 2009 through May 2009, Martinez
supplied Perez with approximately 1-2 kilograms or
6-7 occasions on consignment. Perez would then
pay Martinez between $31,000 to $36,000 per
kilogram several days afterwards;

c. In May 2009, Martinez supplied Perez with
approximately 1 kilogram of heroin with the
agreement that they would split the profits.
Martinez and Perez each profited approximately
$14,000, some of Perez’s share consisted of auto
parts from Martinez’ Ford Expedition.

d. From February 2010 through April 2010, Martinez
supplied Perez with kilograms of cocaine on 4
occasions on consignment. The first supply
consisted of 3-4 kilograms, the second and third

time consisted of 5 kilograms and the fourth



supply consisted of 10 kilograms. Perez would
then pay Martinez between $31,000 to $36,000 per
kilogram several days afterwards.
e. On one occasion, Martinez asked Rod Perez to have
someone bring money to New York. Perez tasked
Vizcaino to bring the money to New York. Vizcaino
utilized Martinez’ red Acura.
3. Tennessee 404(b) Evidence is hereby admitted pursuant
to Fed. R. Evidence 404 (b).
4, Lynn 404(b) Evidence is hereby excluded.

pcecharue Sew yl

HON. KATHARINE S. HAYDEN
United States District Judge

Date: December |) , 2011
#### Cooke and others *v.*Navarro and others.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

December 28, 1886.)

New Trial—Verdict—Evidence Equally Balanced.

Where the testimony of plaintiff contradicts that of defendant, and each is corroborated by other evidence, the court will not disturb the verdict.

The plaintiffs sue to recover for goods sold and delivered. The defense is that the goods were sold to one Pedro Garay, and not to the defendants. The cause was tried at the December circuit, and the plaintiffs had a verdict. The defendants now move for a new trial.

*Preston Stevenson,*for plaintiffs.

*Emmet BR Olcott*and *William Q. Judge,*for defendants.

Coxe, J.

The conclusion is reached, after a full examination of the papers submitted on this motion, that the court will not be justified in disturbing the verdict of the jury. The question now is, not what opinion the court entertains upon the facts, but was there sufficient evidence of a sale to the defendants to require a submission of the cause to the jury? The plaintiff Cooke testified positively to aii agreement by the defendant Munoz, representing the firm, to pay for the goods. This was an original promise. The plaintiffs’ version of the transaction is corroborated by the fact that the bills were uniformly made out to the defendants, and accepted by them without objection. The defendants flatly contradicted the plaintiffs’ testimony as to what took place when the bargain was consummated, and their theory that the sale was made to Garay is sustained by several collateral facts and circumstances. There was, then, a positive assertion by the plaintiffs, and an equally positive denial by the defendants, each being corroborated, to some extent, by presumptions drawn from the undisputed testimony. In such circumstances the jury, and not the court, must determine the controversy. The verdict is not so clearly against the weight of evidence as to warrant the court in setting it aside, and the motion at the close of the testimony to direct a verdict for the defendants was, of course, properly denied. No exception was taken to the charge, and no exception to the admission or rejection of evidence is argued on the briefs.

The motion is denied.
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4968

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postfice’’. Rosine, Kentucky, as the ‘‘Bill Monroe Post Of- al Service located at 25 McHenry Street in

108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4968

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 25 McHenry Street in Rosine, Kentucky, as

the ‘‘Bill Monroe Post Office’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4968 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 25 McHenry Street in Rosine, Kentucky, shall

4 be known and designated as the ‘‘Bill Monroe Post Of5 fice’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

10 to the ‘‘Bill Monroe Post Office’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 6,

2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Minutes of Proceeding

OFFICE: TRENTON

JUDGE DOUGLAS E. ARPERT, USMJ Date: May 17, 2012

DIGITALLY RECORDED

TITLE OF CASE: 

 CIVIL 11-4194(PGS/DEA)

MARY ANN SIVOLELLA

v.

AXA EQUITABLE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

APPEARANCES:

 

Daniel Sweetser & Robert Lakind, Esqs., on behalf of Plaintiff.

Jonathan Korn, Sean Murphy & James Benedict, Esqs., on behalf of

Defendants.

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: 

Hearing held re:[42] Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Demand for a Jury

Trial.

Decision reserved.

Report and Recommendation to follow.

TIME COMMENCED: 11:41 AM s/Charmaine D. Ellington

TIME ADJOURNED: 12:31 PM Deputy Clerk

TOTAL TIME: 50 minutes

Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 58 Filed 05/17/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1116