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

2021 2022

16 to 24

years

25 to 54

years

55 years

and over Men Women

2021 2022 2021 2022 2021 2022 2021 2022 2021 2022

Total not in the labor force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,241 99,686 16,574 16,864 23,241 22,325 60,426 60,497 40,983 41,197 59,259 58,490

Do not want a job now1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93,912 94,047 14,919 15,292 20,272 19,865 58,722 58,891 37,999 38,506 55,913 55,541

Want a job1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,329 5,639 1,656 1,573 2,969 2,460 1,704 1,606 2,984 2,691 3,346 2,948

Did not search for work in previous

year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,925 3,500 1,010 929 1,699 1,405 1,216 1,166 1,774 1,636 2,151 1,864

Searched for work in previous year,

but not in past 4 weeks2. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,404 2,139 646 644 1,270 1,055 488 440 1,209 1,055 1,194 1,084

Not available to work now. . . . . . . . . . . . 622 656 206 239 329 320 87 97 253 273 369 382

Marginally attached (available to

work now)3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,782 1,484 440 405 941 735 401 343 956 782 826 702

Discouraged over job

prospects4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510 407 104 97 279 204 127 106 312 254 198 153

Reasons other than

discouragement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,272 1,077 336 308 662 531 273 237 644 528 628 549

Family responsibilities. . . . . . . . . . . 155 171 20 23 107 112 28 36 54 58 101 114

In school or training. . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 132 108 106 41 23 4 3 76 66 78 66

Ill health or disability. . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 140 18 17 70 67 54 56 79 67 63 73

Other5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 820 633 190 161 444 329 187 143 435 337 385 296

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 Persons ′′marginally attached to the labor force′′ are those who want a job, have searched for work during the prior 12 months, and were available to take a job during

the reference week, but had not looked for work in the past 4 weeks.

4 Discouraged workers are persons marginally attached to the labor force who did not actively look for work in the prior 4 weeks for reasons such as thinks no work

available, could not find work, lacks schooling or training, employer thinks too young or old, and other types of discrimination.

5

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: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

1
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 135 (Thursday, July 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16947]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1838-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]


West Virginia; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-1838-DR), dated May 15, 2009, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: July 1, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of West Virginia is hereby amended to include the 
following area among those areas determined to have been adversely 
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of May 15, 2009.

    Mercer County for Individual Assistance (already designated for 
Public Assistance).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)


W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-16947 Filed 7-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5062 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5062

                    For the relief of Helene Jensen.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 9, 2004

   Mr. Shaw introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                    For the relief of Helene Jensen.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR HELENE JENSEN.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Helene Jensen shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Helene Jensen enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), she 
shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Helene Jensen, the Secretary 
of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the 
current or next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant 
visas that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's 
birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, 
if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
available to natives of the country of the alien's birth under section 
202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Helene Jensen 
shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right, 
privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BONNIE RUTH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-56614 

D.C. No. 5:16-cv-01513-JDE 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

John D. Early, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 25, 2019**

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and TROTT, Circuit Judges. 

Bonnie Ruth appeals the district court’s judgment affirming the 

Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Ruth’s application for disability 

insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the 

Social Security Act. We review de novo, Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1110 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 29 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-56614 

(9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.

The ALJ did not err by failing to mention explicitly a reference to an EMG 

study that was not probative of any functional limitations. See Hiler v. Astrue, 687 

F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that the ALJ is not required to discuss 

evidence that is neither significant nor probative). Substantial evidence supports 

the review by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the medical evidence and 

assessment of the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC), which properly includes all 

limitations consistent with and supported by substantial evidence. See Bray v. 

Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1228 (9th Cir. 2009) (RFC must include 

all limitations supported by the record).

The ALJ did not err by failing to ask the Vocational Expert (VE) about any 

conflict between his testimony and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) 

because there was no apparent conflict between Ruth’s RFC and “the [DOT’s] 

listing of job requirements that are essential, integral, or expected.” Gutierrez v. 

Colvin, 844 F.3d 804, 808 (9th Cir. 2016).

The ALJ properly discredited Ruth’s testimony based on lack of supporting 

medical evidence. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005) 

(explaining that lack of supporting objective evidence may be one reason to 

discredit claimant testimony). Ruth waived any additional arguments by failing to 

adequately raise them before the district court. See Greger v. Barnhart, 464 F.3d 
3 17-56614 

968, 973 (9th Cir. 2006) (concluding that Social Security disability claimant 

waived issues on appeal by failing to raise them before the district court).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to alter 

the judgment. See McQuillion v. Duncan, 342 F.3d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(standard of review).

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6317

WILLIAM JOSEPH HUGHES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HOWARD W. CLARKE, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:20-cv-00034-DJN)

Submitted: August 24, 2021 Decided: August 27, 2021

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Joseph Hughes, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Joseph Hughes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hughes has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
HOUSEHOLD DATA HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES ANNUAL AVERAGES

34. Unemployed jobseekers by sex, reason for unemployment, and active jobsearch methods used

Sex and reason

2007

Thousands of

persons Methods used as a percent of total jobseekers

Average

number

of

methods

used

Total

unemployed

Total

jobseekers

Employer

directly

Sent out

resumes

or filled

out

applications

Placed

or

answered

ads

Friends

or

relatives

Public

employment

agency

Private

employment

agency

Other

 Total, 16 years and over ......................................................... 7,078 6,102 57.4 50.7 16.0 21.7 17.7 7.6 12.9 1.84

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs 1 ........ 3,515 2,539 59.4 49.8 19.3 26.4 23.6 10.6 14.4 2.04

Job leavers ............................................................................... 793 793 61.8 51.8 17.3 20.8 15.8 7.4 12.2 1.88

Reentrants ................................................................................ 2,142 2,142 54.6 50.9 13.2 18.1 13.6 5.4 12.7 1.69

New entrants ............................................................................ 627 627 53.1 52.3 9.8 16.8 9.9 3.3 8.2 1.54

 Men, 16 years and over .......................................................... 3,882 3,266 58.3 48.5 15.7 23.2 17.8 7.8 13.1 1.85

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs 1 ........ 2,175 1,559 60.3 47.5 18.4 27.7 22.8 10.3 14.7 2.02

Job leavers ............................................................................... 408 408 62.9 50.9 15.9 21.0 14.3 7.1 12.4 1.85

Reentrants ................................................................................ 956 956 55.3 47.5 13.4 18.8 13.7 5.4 12.9 1.67

New entrants ............................................................................ 343 343 52.0 52.8 9.9 17.7 10.4 3.7 7.7 1.54

 Women, 16 years and over .................................................... 3,196 2,836 56.3 53.3 16.2 20.0 17.6 7.4 12.6 1.84

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs 1 ........ 1,340 980 58.0 53.4 20.8 24.2 25.0 11.0 13.9 2.07

Job leavers ............................................................................... 385 385 60.5 52.7 18.8 20.7 17.3 7.7 12.0 1.91

Reentrants ................................................................................ 1,186 1,186 54.0 53.7 13.1 17.4 13.6 5.4 12.6 1.70

New entrants ............................................................................ 285 285 54.5 51.7 9.8 15.9 9.3 2.8 8.8 1.53

1 Data on the number of jobseekers and the jobsearch methods used exclude

persons on temporary layoff.

 NOTE: The jobseekers total is less than the total unemployed because it does

not include persons on temporary layoff. The percent using each method will

always total more than 100 because many jobseekers use more than one method.

 Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January

data.

249
#### Derek CURTIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; City of Petersburg, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 12-7511.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 13, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 18, 2012.

*229Derek Curtis, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Derek Curtis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Curtis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Curtis’ motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
- - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

ASTRAZENECA AB, AKTIEBOLAGET 

HÄSSLE, ASTRAZENECA LP, KBI INC., 

and KBI-E INC., 

Plaintiffs and 

Counterclaim-Defendants,

 v. 

HANMI USA, INC., HANMI 

PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD., HANMI 

FINE CHEMICAL CO., LTD, and HANMI 

HOLDINGS CO., LTD., 

 

Defendants and 

Counterclaim-Plaintiffs. 

Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-00760-JAP-TJB 

Judge Joel A. Pisano 

Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni 

DECLARATION OF PATRICK L. CHEN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ BRIEF IN IN 

OPPOSITION TO HANMI’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 (TO PRECLUDE 

ASTRAZENECA FROM ATTEMPTING TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE 

ON ISSUES AND THEORIES NOT IN THE CASE) 

I, Patrick L. Chen, hereby declare as follows, 

1. I am an associate at the law firm of Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, 1290 

Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10104-3800, counsel for Plaintiffs AstraZeneca

AB, Aktiebolaget Hässle, AstraZeneca LP, KBI Inc., and KBI-E Inc. in connection with the 

present action. 

2. I make this Declaration on my personal knowledge in support of Plaintiffs’ Brief 

in Opposition to Hanmi’s Motion in limine No. 6 (To Preclude AstraZeneca from Attempting to 

Introduce Evidence on Issues and Theories Not in the Case). 

3. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the transcript from the parties 

February 1, 2013 telephone conference before the Honorable Tonianne J. Bongiovanni, U.S.M.J. 

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 316 Filed 05/06/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 13527
- - 2

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Dated: May 6, 2013 

Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 316 Filed 05/06/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 13528
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT NO. 99.2

                         ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE


<PAGE>

                           PREMIER AUTO FINANCE, INC.

                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE


     The undersigned certifies that he is Executive Vice President of Premier
Auto Finance, Inc. ("Premier"), and that as such is duly authorized to execute
and deliver this certificate on behalf of Premier, as Servicer, in connection
with the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the "Sale and Servicing Agreement") dated
as of August 24, 2000 by and among Premier, as Servicer, Dealer Auto Receivables
Corp. ("DARC"), The Bank of New York, as Indenture Trustee and Dealer Auto
Receivables Owner Trust 2000-1 ("Issuer"), (all capitalized terms used herein
without definition having the respective meanings set forth in the Sale and
Servicing Agreement), and further certifies as follows:

     (1)  This Certificate is being delivered pursuant to Section 9.05 of the
          Sale and Servicing Agreement.

     (2)  A review of the activities of the Servicer during Calendar year 2000
          and of Premier's performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement
          was made under my supervision.

     (6)  To my knowledge, based on that review, Premier has fully performed all
          its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

     It is understood and acknowledged that the undersigned is executing this
Certificate not in an individual capacity but solely in his capacity as an
officer and is without any personal liability as to the matters contained in
this Certificate.

     In Witness Whereof, I have affixed my signature hereto as of May __, 2001.


                                        PREMIER AUTO FINANCE, INC.


                                        By:  /s/ Gilbert Van Over
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Printed Name: Gilbert Van Over
                                             Title: Executive Vice President
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon Defendants’ motion to

disqualify Diego F. Navas, Esq., as counsel for Plaintiff [CM/ECF No. 7]; and the Court

having considered the papers in support of and in opposition to the motion; and for the

reasons set forth in the Opinion issued on this date; and for good cause shown;

IT IS on this 29 day of November 2011,

th

ORDERED that, Defendants’ motion to disqualify Diego F. Navas, Esq. as Plaintiff’s

counsel [CM/ECF No. 7] is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that, Plaintiff shall have substitute counsel enter an appearance, or shall

himself enter an appearance pro se, on or before January 2, 2012.

s/Mark Falk

MARK FALK

United States Magistrate Judge

 Civil Action No. 11-4042 (WJM)

 

ORDER

MARIO CARRENO, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF NEWARK, CITY OF

NEWARK POLICE DEPARTMENT,

PAUL HAMILTON, JOHN DOES 1-20,

AND ABC CORP 1-20, 

 Defendants.

 

Case 2:11-cv-04042-KM-MAH Document 17 Filed 11/29/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 121