alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Chart 6-1. The proportion of all families maintained by men 

or by women with no spouse present has grown substantially

Married-couple

families

75%

Families

maintained 

by men

6%

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Families

maintained 

by women

19%

March 2005

Married-couple

families

87% Families

maintained 

by men

2%

Families

maintained 

by women

11%

March 1970

Chart 6-1. The proportion of all families maintained by men 

or by women with no spouse present has grown substantially

• Families are defined as a group of two or more persons residing together who are 

related by birth, marriage, or adoption. Families are classified either as marriedcouple families or as families maintained by women or men without spouses. 

• Families maintained by women with no spouse present have grown markedly as a 

proportion of all families over time. In March 2005, almost 2 in 10 families were 

maintained by a woman; 35 years earlier, they comprised about 1 in 10. The 

percentage of families maintained by men grew from 2 to 6 percent over the period.

• Not only has the proportion of families maintained by men or women grown 

dramatically over time, but there also have been remarkable changes in the work 

patterns among married-couple families. The share of married-couple families in 

which both the husband and wife had earnings increased from 46 percent in 1970 to 

57 percent in 2004, while the proportion comprised of families with just the 

husband as an earner fell from 33 percent to 19 percent. The proportion of marriedcouple families with no earners was 14 percent in 2004.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6282

KEVIN MICHAEL COOK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-354-2)

Submitted: May 26, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin Michael Cook, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr.,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, though we grant Appellant leave to

proceed in forma pauperis in this court, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. Cook v. Angelone, CA-97-354-2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 12,

1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

____________________________________

:

:

IN RE: : Civil Action No.: 11-3054 (FLW)

PETITION OF LUDMILA A. :

TSYMBAL : ORDER ADOPTING

: REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

___________________________________ :

This matter is before the Court upon a Petition by Petitioner Ludmila A.

Tysmbal (“Petitioner”) to allow the depositions of Raisa Lukin and Tony Lukin

(“Respondents”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27; it appearing that this

matter was referred to the Honorable Douglas E. Arpert, U.S.M.J. for a Report and

Recommendation pursuant to Rule 72 and Local Civil Rule 72.1; and Magistrate Judge

Arpert having considered the moving and opposition papers pursuant to Rule 78; and

for the reasons stated in his Report and Recommendation, finding that Petitioner has

failed to satisfy the elements of Rule 27; it further appearing that Petitioner timely

objected to Magistrate Judge Arpert’s Report and Recommendation; the Court has

reviewed the objection and opposition thereto filed pursuant to Rule 78; accordingly,

for the reasons stated in the Opinion filed on this date; and for good cause shown:

It is on this 16th day of July, 2012,

ORDERED that the Court approves and adopts the December 9, 2011, Report

and Recommendation of the Honorable Douglas E. Arpert, U.S.M.J.;

ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition (Dkt. Nos. 1 and 8) is DENIED; and

ORDERED that this case is CLOSED.

/s/ Freda L. Wolfson 

Freda L. Wolfson, U.S.D.J. 

Case 3:11-cv-03054-FLW-DEA Document 32 Filed 07/16/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 449
Case 3:11-cv-03054-FLW-DEA Document 32 Filed 07/16/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 450
HOUSEHOLD DATA HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES ANNUAL AVERAGES

21. Persons at work in nonagricultural industries by class of worker and usual full- or part-time status

(Numbers in thousands)

Industry and class of worker

2007

Total

at

work

Worked 1 to 34 hours

Worked

35 hours

or more

Average hours

Total

For

economic

reasons

For noneconomic

reasons

Total

at

work

Persons who

usually work

full time

Usually

work

full

time

Usually

work

part

time

 Total, 16 years and over ......................................................... 138,321 31,902 4,317 8,166 19,419 106,419 39.1 42.7

Wage and salary workers ......................................................... 129,266 28,852 3,773 7,573 17,506 100,414 39.2 42.6

 Mining ..................................................................................... 685 52 5 30 17 633 48.9 49.7

 Construction ........................................................................... 9,677 1,542 488 595 459 8,135 40.7 42.1

 Manufacturing ......................................................................... 15,511 1,611 251 850 510 13,900 42.5 43.3

 Durable goods ...................................................................... 9,874 981 137 554 290 8,893 42.6 43.4

 Nondurable goods ................................................................ 5,637 630 114 296 219 5,008 42.3 43.3

 Wholesale and retail trade ...................................................... 19,219 5,135 685 860 3,589 14,084 38.1 42.9

 Transportation and utilities ..................................................... 6,967 1,068 186 379 503 5,899 42.1 44.1

 Information .............................................................................. 3,325 606 61 202 343 2,719 40.1 42.9

 Financial activities .................................................................. 9,351 1,574 122 593 859 7,777 40.2 42.4

 Professional and business services ....................................... 13,206 2,451 367 766 1,317 10,756 40.3 43.0

 Education and health services ................................................ 27,703 7,539 620 1,934 4,986 20,164 37.4 41.6

 Leisure and hospitality ............................................................ 11,347 4,551 721 464 3,365 6,796 34.6 42.2

 Other services ........................................................................ 5,755 1,771 226 284 1,261 3,985 36.9 42.9

 Other services, except private households ........................... 4,972 1,343 147 241 955 3,628 38.1 43.1

 Private households ............................................................... 784 428 79 42 306 356 29.7 40.6

 Public administration .............................................................. 6,519 953 41 615 297 5,566 41.0 42.1

Self-employed workers ............................................................. 8,943 2,993 539 588 1,865 5,950 38.0 44.4

Unpaid family workers .............................................................. 112 57 5 5 47 55 33.4 43.3

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

236
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 accompanying Annual Report of SPEAR & JACKSON,
INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A2 for the year ending September 30, 2002,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, William Fletcher, principal accounting officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                                   /s/  William Fletcher
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                  Name: William Fletcher
                                                 Title: Principal Financial and
                                                        Accounting Officer
                                                 Dated: December 29, 2003
Case 2:11-cr-00271-FSH Document 59 Filed 04/21/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 67
Case 2:11-cr-00271-FSH Document 59 Filed 04/21/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 68
exhibit10-197.htm






  





  





 Exhibit 10.197





  








*** Confidential Portion has been omitted pursuant to a request for confidential treatment by the Company to, and the material has been separately filed with, the SEC.  Each omitted Confidential Portion is marked by three Asterisks.












FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE FULL-TIME-TRANSPONDER CAPACITY AGREEMENT (PRE-LAUNCH)












This Fourteenth Amendment to the Full-Time Transponder Capacity Agreement (Pre-Launch) (the “Fourteenth Amendment”) is made and entered into as of this 7th day of June, 2011 by and between INTELSAT CORPORATION, formerly known as PanAmSat Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“Intelsat”), and GCI COMMUNICATION CORP., an Alaskan corporation (“Customer”).







RECITALS







WHEREAS, pursuant to that certain Full-Time Transponder Capacity Agreement (Pre-Launch) dated as of March 31, 2006, as amended (collectively, the “Agreement”) between Intelsat and Customer, Intelsat is providing Customer with *** transponders on Galaxy 18; *** transponder on Galaxy 18; *** transponders on Horizons 1; and *** Transponder Segment on Horizon-1;







WHEREAS, Customer and Intelsat wish to amend the terms of the Agreement to modify the Capacity Term for certain of  *** Transponder Capacity on Galaxy 18.







AGREEMENT







NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, the sufficiency and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:








	
1.  

	
Except as specifically provided herein, all terms and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.













	
  

	
2.

	
Capacity Term.  The Capacity Term for the Galaxy 18 *** Transponder and the *** Capacity shall be extended for an additional *** period to ***.  The Monthly Fee for this extended Capacity Term shall remain the same.  In addition, the Capacity Term for the *** Transponder Capacity shall be reduced by ***, ending ***.













	
  

	
3.

	
Except as specifically set forth in this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has duly executed and delivered this Twelfth Amendment as of the day and year above written.












INTELSAT CORPORATION                                                                                                           GCI COMMUNICATION CORP.







By:           _/s/ Patricia Casey___                                                                           By:  _/s/ Jimmy R. Sipes_________


Name:           __Patricia Casey_____                                                                           Name:  _Jimmy R. Sipes_________



	
Title:

	
_Senior VP and Deputy General Counsel_

	
Title:  _VP Network Services and Chief Engineer_
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16598]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11804 and <greek-i>11805]


Illinois Disaster <greek-i>IL-00022

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Illinois ( FEMA-
1850-DR) , dated 07/02/2009.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes.
    Incident Period: 05/08/2009 through 05/09/2009.
    Effective Date: 07/02/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 08/31/2009.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 04/02/2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 07/02/2009, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:
Primary Counties:
    Franklin, Gallatin, Jackson, Randolph, Saline, Williamson.
    The Interest Rates are:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit             4.500
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit             4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11804B 
and for economic injury is 11805B.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E9-16598 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for th e 1 Western District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-3016

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Michael Duncan, * Western District of Missouri. * Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________ Submitted: December 31, 1997 Filed: January 12, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, an d MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
After M ichael Duncan pleaded guilty to a drug offense, the district court 1 sentenced him to 235 months imprisonment and ten years supervised release, an d ordered him to pay a

$10,000 fine. For reversal, Duncan argues that the district court erred in imposing a fine, because he has no ability to pay it, and the court failed t o make findin gs on the record demonstrating it had considered the factors set forth i n U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5E1.2(d) (1997) (listing factors court shall-2-

consider in determining amount of fine). He also argues that the court should not have assignedcriminal history points to two 1996 state convictions, because they were on appeal and thus were not yet final. We affirm.

U p on careful review of the record, we agree with the government that Duncan waived his argument concerningthe fine, as he failed to raise any objection to the fine in the dis trict court. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5E1.2(a) (1997 ) (imposition of fine is mandatory unless defendant establishes that he is unable to pay and is not likely to become able to do so in future); United States v. Montanye , 99 6 F.2d 190, 192 (8th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (plain error o ccurs when district court deviates from leg al rule, error is clear under current law, and error affected substantial rights); United States v. Williams , 994 F.2d 1287, 1294 (8th Cir. 1993) (to preserve issue for appeal, defendant must timely object and clearly state grounds for obj ection so that trial court has opportunity to prevent or correct error).

We als o conclude that the district court properly included the 1996 stat e convic tions in Duncan & s criminal history score. See U.S. Sentencing Guideline s Manual § 4A1.2(l) ( 1997) (in computing criminal history score, prior sentences under appe al are counted); United States v. Beddow , 957 F.2d 1330, 1337 (6th Cir. 1992 ) (convic tionis considered final for criminal history purposes at time of trial court & s determination of guilt, and thus Guidelines do not require s entence be upheld on appeal prior t o inclusion in criminal history computation). Although Duncan maintains that counting the convictions denied him due process, we note he did not raise t his argument below and has failed to show that plain error occurred. See Montanye , 996 F.2d a t 192; Williams , 994 F.2d at 1294. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.-3-

A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Estes and others *v.*Leslie and others.1

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

November 20, 1886.

Trade-Mares—Infringement— “Chatter-Book”-—1“Chatter-Box.”

The name “Chatter-book, ’’printed upon the cover of the defendants’ books of the juvenile character of the general appearance of the complainants’ books, being in the opinion of the court an imitation of tho name “Chatterbox,” which, by association, when used upon books of a juvenile character, points “distinctly to the origin or ownership” of the books to which it is applied, an injunction *pendente lite*is granted against its use.

Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

*G. G. Frelinghuynen,*for complainants.

*Fullerton & Rushnore,*for defendants.

1

 See Estes v. Leslie, 27 Fed. Rep. 22.

Shipman, J.

The name “Chatter-book,” as printed upon the cover of tho defendants’ books, is, in my opinion, an imitation of the name “Chatter-box,” which, by association, when used upon books of a juvenile character, points “distinctively to the origin or ownership” of *92the books to which it is applied; and the use by the defendants of the name “Chatter-book” upon the books which are represented by the exhibits in the case, the same being books of a juvenile character, of the general appearance, style, and manner of cover of complainants’' books, should be enjoined *pendente lite.*
Case 2:11-cr-00164-KSH   Document 34   Filed 08/27/12   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 222

Case 2:11-cr-00164-KSH   Document 34   Filed 08/27/12   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 223
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. M IC H A E L D E R R A N W E IR , a. k. a. m i chae l dw m al e, a. k. a. bo ys 4u 2c, D e f

e n d an t - A p p e llan t. N o. 12- 50449 D. C . No . 2 : 1 1 - c r - 0 0 5 3 2 - DD P ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia D e an D . P r e ge r s on, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r24, 2013 ** B efo re: R A W L IN S O N , N . R . S M IT H , an dC H R IS T E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M i c ha e l D e rr an W e i rappe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nta nd c ha l l e nge s hi s gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on and 144- m onth s e nt e nc e f ortw o c ount s of 

# FI LED OC T 03 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 50449 2 di stribu t i on of chi l d p orno graphy, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 2 25 2A (a )( 2)(A ), ( b ) ( 1 ) ; an do n e c o u n t o f r e c e ip t o f

c h ildp o rn o g r ap h y , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 2252A ( a ) ( 5) ( B ) , ( b) ( 2) . P ur s uantt o A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 38 6 U . S . 73 8 (19 67 ), W e i r ’ s c ouns e l ha s f

i l e d abr i e f

s t a t i ng tha tthe r e a r e no gr ounds f orr e l i e f , a l ong w i th am ot i on t o w i thdr aw a s c ouns e l of r e c or d. W e ha ve pr ovi de d W e i rthe opportuni tyt o f

i l e apr o s e s uppl e m e nt a lbr i e f . N o pr o s e s uppl e m e nt a l br i e f or a n s w e r in g b r ie f

h a s b e e n f

ile d . O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o a r g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. C o u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s GR AN T E D. AF F I RME D.
UNITED STATES DIS'I'RIC'l' COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Hon. Katharine S. Hayden 

v. Crim. No. 11-405 

BRIHEEM Nf~RO ORDER cOR CONTINUANCE 

This matter having come before the Court on the joint 

application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the 

District of New Jersey (Fabiana Pierre-Louis, Assistant U.S. 

Attorney, appearing), and defendant Briheem Nero (Chester Keller, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, appearing), for an order 

granting a continuance of the proceedings in the above-captioned 

matter, and the defendant being aware that he has the right to 

have the matter brought to trial within 70 days of the date of 

his appearance before a judicial officer of this court pursuant 

to Title 18, United States Code, Section 316l(c) (1), and as the 

defendant has consented to such a continuance, and for good and 

sufficient cause shown, 

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should 

be continued for the following reasons: 

(1) Plea negotiations are currently in progress, and 

both the United States and the defendant desire additional time 

to negotiate a plea agreement, which would render any grand jury 

proceedings and any subsequent trial of this matter unnecessary; 

and 
(2} l\s l1 result of the foregoin<J, pursuant to Title 18, 

Un:ited States Code~, Section 3161 (h) (7), the t-:nds of justice 

served by granting the continuance outwei the best interest of 

the public and the defendant. in a ::>peedy trial. 

IT IS, therefore,: on this ,:o23.f!day of May, 2012, 

ORDERED that thia action be, and hereby is, continued 

u n t :i 1 ~Jul y 2 5 , 2 0 1 2 ; a n d i tt i s f u r t h vn: 

ORDERED that the period from the date of this order 

through and including .Ju.ly 25, 2012 shall b€: excludable in 

computing time under the 

Form and entry 

consented to: 

Fabiana Pierre-Louis_ 

Assistant u.s. Attorney 

Chester Keller, Esq. 

Trial Act of 1974. 

HAYDEN 

United States District Judge 

Counsel for dr:::fendant Brihee::m Nero 

-2-