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

ANNUAL AVERAGES

28. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, race, and Hispanic origin

(Numbers in thousands)

Reason for unemployment

Total White Black Hispanic origin

1997 1998 1997 1998 1997 1998 1997 1998

NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED

 Total, 16 years and over ........................................................ 6,739 6,210 4,836 4,484 1,560 1,426 1,069 1,026

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs .......... 3,037 2,822 2,284 2,116 616 585 500 471

 On temporary layoff ................................................................ 931 866 778 716 121 116 158 146

 Not on temporary layoff .......................................................... 2,106 1,957 1,506 1,399 495 469 343 325

 Permanent job losers ............................................................ 1,436 1,353 1,063 988 298 300 207 206

 Persons who completed temporary jobs .............................. 670 603 443 412 197 170 135 119

Job leavers ............................................................................... 795 734 623 568 138 133 96 95

Reentrants ................................................................................ 2,338 2,132 1,576 1,467 634 558 350 346

New entrants ............................................................................ 569 520 354 333 172 151 122 113

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION

 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs ......... 45.1 45.5 47.2 47.2 39.5 41.0 46.8 46.0

 On temporary layoff ............................................................... 13.8 13.9 16.1 16.0 7.8 8.1 14.8 14.3

 Not on temporary layoff ......................................................... 31.3 31.5 31.1 31.2 31.7 32.9 32.0 31.7

 Job leavers .............................................................................. 11.8 11.8 12.9 12.7 8.8 9.3 9.0 9.3

 Reentrants ............................................................................... 34.7 34.3 32.6 32.7 40.7 39.1 32.7 33.7

 New entrants ........................................................................... 8.4 8.4 7.3 7.4 11.0 10.6 11.4 11.0

UNEMPLOYED AS A PERCENT OF THE

 CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE

 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs ......... 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.8 4.0 3.7 3.6 3.3

 Job leavers .............................................................................. .6 .5 .5 .5 .9 .8 .7 .7

 Reentrants ............................................................................... 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 4.1 3.5 2.5 2.4

 New entrants ........................................................................... .4 .4 .3 .3 1.1 .9 .9 .8

 NOTE: Detail for the above race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to

totals because data for the "other races" group are not presented and

Hispanics are included in both the white and black population groups. 

Beginning in January 1998, data reflect new composite estimation procedures

and revised population controls used in the household survey.

204
1 Worthy v. Widnall, 900 F.Supp. 475 (M.D.Ga.1995), aff'd, 86 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir.1996)(unpublished table decision); Worthy v. Widnall, No. 5:95-CV-76-1 (DF)(M.D.Ga.1996), aff'd, 108 F.3d 344 (11th Cir.1997)(unpublished table decision); Worthy v. Widnall, No. 5:95-CV-412-4(WDO)(M.D.Ga.1996), aff'd, 134 F.3d 386 (11th Cir.1997)(unpublished table decision). United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
No. 97-8581 Non-Argument Calendar. Roosevelt WORTHY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. Sheila E. WIDNALL, Secretary, Departmentof the Air Force, Defendant-Appellee. April 7, 1998. Appeal from the United States Di strict Court for the Middle Distri ct of Georgia. (No. 5:96-CV-418- 1(HL), Hugh Lawson, District Judge. Before EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge, and RONEY and HILL, Senior Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: This appeal arises out of the fourth Title VII action filed by Appellant Roosevelt Worthy against his employer, the Secretary of the Air Force, in the space of two years. All four of these actions were found by the district court to be meritless and dismi ssed on motion for summary judgment. This court affirmed the first three appeals summarily without publication. 1 This fourth time we publish our opinion. Two orders are involved here: first, the di strict court order dismissing Worthy's action on summary judgment, and, second, the district c ourt order imposing sanctions upon Worthy's lawyer in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00) under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(2). We affirm thesummary judgment order without discussion. See11th Cir. R. 36-1. We discuss only the order imposing sanctions. The same lawyer brought all four of Worthy's meritless actions. In the third suit, at the conclusion of his order granting summary judgment against Worthy's claims, the district judge issued the following warning: The complaint presently before the court is sufficiently without merit and potentially frivolous as to subject both pl aintiff and his counsel to th e imposition of sanctions. FRCP 11(b). In declining to impose sanctions at this time, the court gives plaintiff's counsel the benefit of the doubt by assuming that the present claims arise out of a profound and fundamental misunderstanding of the scope and purpos e of Title VII, rather than from a total lack of respect for this court and for his role as an officer of it. Worthy v. Widnall, No. 5:95-cv-412-4 (WDO)(M.D.Ga., Oct. 15, 1996). Three weeks after receiving this stern admoniti on from the court, Worthy's lawyer filed the present lawsuit and the court's sanction warni ng became reality. Instead of imposing the $500.00 sanction against Worthy's lawyer, the district judge in this case might have ordered him to reimburse the Air Force for all attorneys fees required for defense. There is no question that this relatively mild sanction was reasonable and adequately supported by the record.
AFFIRMED.
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 22, 2020

v No. 348462
Jackson Circuit Court DAISHA MONIQUE COOPER, LC No. 16

- 004527

- FC

Defendant

- Appell ant

.

Before: J ANSEN

, P

. J., and F ORT H OOD and R ONAYNE K RAUSE , JJ.

R ONAYNE K RAUSE

, J

. (concurring in part and dissenting in part)

I respectfully concur with the majority in all respects other than the majority’s determination that resentencing need not occur before a different judge.

The limited explanation given by the trial court in imposing an upward departure sentence include a clear expression of the trial judge’s personal opinions about defendant and her case. The judge stated that “the jury found what they found and from the court’s perspective, my perspective, [defendant] got one hell of a break by the verdict,” he expressed how the jury could have “easily

come back with second

- degree murder in this case,” and then said that defendant’s guidelines did not “take into account the benefit that she got from that jury verdict.” The trial judge’s personal views about what the jury sh ould have done and how the sentencing guidelines failed to account

f or t he benefit that defendant received would likely impact his opinion on resentencing. See People v Pillar , 233 Mich App 267, 270

- 271; 590 NW2d 622 (1998)

.

Accordingly, on the basis of the trial judge’s statements, I conclude that it would be unreasonable to expect the judge to be able to put out of his mind previously

- expressed views and findings without substantial difficulty. See People v Walker , 504 Mich 267, 285; 934 NW2d 727 (2019). Even if the original trial judge could view the case again with a clear mind, this Court ordering reassignment to a different trial judge solely for the purpose of resentencing would not “entail waste and duplication out of proportion to any gain in preserving the appearance of
fairness.” See id . at 286 (quotation omitted)

. Finally, because the trial judge seemingly imposed a sentence based on the conviction it believed defendant ought to have received, rather than the- 2

-

con viction defendant did receive, I believe reassignment would best preserve the appearance of justice. See id . at 285

- 286. I would remand to a different judge for resentencing.

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 28, 2013

p1021

Order 

Clerk

October 28, 2013

147035

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147035

COA: 308964

Ingham CC: 11-000849-FC

ADAM RUSSELL WEAVER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 19, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 23


<PAGE>
                                                                 Arthur Andersen
                                                              Luboshitz Kasierer


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements on Form
S-8,  Registration Nos.  333-45422,  333-53814 and 333-55130 of our report dated
February 5, 2001, relating to the consolidated  balance sheets of RADVision Ltd.
and  its  subsidiaries  as of  December  31,  1999  and  2000  and  the  related
consolidated statements of operations,  changes in shareholders' equity and cash
flows for each of the three years ended December 31, 2000,  which report appears
in the  Annual  Report  on Form 20-F for the year  ended  December  31,  2000 of
RADVision Ltd.

                                            /s/Luboshitz Kasierer
                                            Luboshitz Kasierer
                                            Member Firm of Arthur Andersen


Tel Aviv, Israel
June 4, 2001
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
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 of the Company
(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 results of operations of the Company.
 Date: May 11, 2009
    /s/ RYUJI UENORyuji Ueno, M.D., Ph.D., Ph.D.Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
Case 2:11-cr-00290-KM Document 20 Filed 10/26/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 47
Case 2:11-cr-00290-KM Document 20 Filed 10/26/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 48
Case 2:11-cr-00290-KM Document 20 Filed 10/26/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 49
Case 2:11-cr-00160-JLL Document 27 Filed 11/17/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 86
Case 2:11-cr-00160-JLL Document 27 Filed 11/17/11 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 87
Case 2:11-cr-00160-JLL Document 27 Filed 11/17/11 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 88
Case 2:11-cr-00160-JLL Document 27 Filed 11/17/11 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 89
Case 2:11-cr-00160-JLL Document 27 Filed 11/17/11 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 90
Case 2:11-cr-00160-JLL Document 27 Filed 11/17/11 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 91
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. Sections 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certifies as
follows:



| | 1.  |  | I, William Bruce Hicks, am the Group Managing Director of SUNDAY
Communications Limited (the Company).                                                                                                                                                    
| | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | 2.  |  | To the best of my knowledge:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
|
| | (A) |  | The Companys Form 20-F accompanying this Certification, in the
form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act); and
|
| | (B) |  | The information in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.                                                                                                                  

Dated: June 30, 2003

| |  |                                                                                    
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | By: /s/ WILLIAM BRUCE HICKSName: William Bruce Hicks
Title: Group Managing Director

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO SUNDAY COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED AND WILL
BE RETAINED BY SUNDAY COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.

THE FOREGOING CERTIFICATION IS BEING FURNISHED SOLELY PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INTERIM GUIDANCE FOR SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION
ISSUED BY THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ON MARCH 21, 2003 IN RELEASE
NO. 33-8212, THIS CERTIFICATION WILL NOT BE DEEMED FILED FOR PURPOSES OF
SECTION 18 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, OR OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO THE
LIABILITY OF THAT SECTION.

E-2
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To
the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
Sciele Pharma, Inc.
Atlanta, Georgia

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-4 (No. 333-132077), Form S-3
(No.333-142747), and Form S-8 (No. 333-117943, 333-108451, 333-89624, 333-40856, 333-39106,
333-129712 and 333-145033) of Sciele Pharma, Inc. of our reports dated February 29, 2008 relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule and the effectiveness of Sciele Pharma, Inc.'s internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/
BDO Seidman, LLP

Atlanta,
Georgia
February 29, 2008

---



QuickLinks
Case 2:11-cr-00310-JLL Document 23 Filed 09/23/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 175
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-Q of MCA Holdings Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, I, Wai Leung Cheng, Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that: 1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated:  May 18, 2009 MCA HOLDINGS CORPORATION By:  /s/ Wai Leung Cheng Wai Leung Cheng  Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report On Form 10-Q of MCA Holdings Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, I, Michael Yu-Lung Wong, Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that: 1. Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated:  May 18, 2009 MCA HOLDINGS CORPORATION By:  /s/ Michael Yu-Lung Wong Michael Yu-Lung Wong
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 Metals USA Holdings Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the
Periodic Report), I, Robert C. McPherson, III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. To my knowledge, the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                       |  |  |  |                                                                           
|---------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 14, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/    ROBERT C. MCPHERSON,
III                                           
|                       |  |  |  | Robert C. McPherson, III Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure statement.

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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 32**

**CERTIFICATIONOF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT**

Dann H. Bowman andJo Anne Painter hereby certify as follows:

1.  They are the President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, respectively,of Chino Commercial Bank, N.A.

2.  The Form 10-QSB of Chino Commercial Bank,N.A. for the three and six months  endedJune 30, 2006 complies with the requirements pf Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78(m) or 78(d)) and the informationcontained in the report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Chino CommercialBank, N.A.
| Date: August 11, 2006 |   |                                                  |
|-----------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |   |                                                  |
|                  |   |                                                  |
|                  | By:    | /s/ Dann H.  Bowman                                   |   |
|                  |   | Dann H. Bowman                                        |
|                  |   | President and  Chief Executive Officer                |
|                  |   |                                                  |
|                  | By:    | /s/ Jo Anne  Painter                                  |   |
|                  |   | Jo Anne Painter                                       |
|                  |   | Executive Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                       |        |                                                       |  |  |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 136 (Friday, July 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16986]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13493-000]


FFP Project 83, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application 
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and 
Competing Applications

July 10, 2009.
    On May 22, 2009, FFP Project 83, 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 Slough Bend Hydrokinetic 
Project, to be located on the Mississippi River, in Lake County, 
Tennessee; New Madrid County, Missouri; and Fulton County, Kentucky.
    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 Slough Bend Hydrokinetic Project consists of: (1) 
6,019 proposed 40-kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total 
installed capacity of 240.76 megawatts; (2) a 8.5-mile-long, 69-
kilovolt transmission line; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The 
proposed Slough Bend Hydrokinetic Project would have an average annual 
generation of 1,054 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-13493) in the docket number field to access 
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16986 Filed 7-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
ccni_ex101.htm



 


Exhibit 10.1





 




  





  











  









 




  





1











  









 




  





2











  









 




  





3











  









 




  





4











  









 




  





5











  









 




  





6











  









 




  





7











  









 




  





8











  









 




  





9











  









 




  





10











  









11