alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
52. Certification and licensing status of the employed by industry and class of worker, 2015 annual averages

[Numbers in thousands]

Percent distribution

With a certification or license1

Total

With a 

certification, 

but no 

license

With a 

license2

Total, 16 years and over 148,834 100.0 25.5 3.1 22.4 74.5

Industry

 Agriculture and related industries 2,422 100.0 13.1 1.2 11.9 86.9

 Nonagricultural industries 146,411 100.0 25.7 3.1 22.6 74.3

 Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction 917 100.0 21.6 3.5 18.1 78.4

 Construction 9,935 100.0 23.0 3.0 20.1 77.0

 Manufacturing 15,338 100.0 11.5 2.9 8.5 88.5

 Wholesale trade 3,635 100.0 12.1 2.3 9.7 87.9

 Retail trade 16,686 100.0 10.9 1.9 9.0 89.1

 Transportation and utilities 7,726 100.0 25.3 2.4 22.8 74.7

 Information 2,988 100.0 10.9 3.5 7.4 89.1

 Financial activities 10,087 100.0 32.4 4.4 28.0 67.6

 Professional and business services 17,409 100.0 22.9 4.0 18.9 77.1

 Education and health services 33,678 100.0 47.3 3.4 43.8 52.7

 Leisure and hospitality 13,821 100.0 10.1 2.0 8.1 89.9

 Other services 7,264 100.0 27.2 4.4 22.8 72.8

 Public administration 6,928 100.0 32.9 2.5 30.4 67.1

Class of worker3

 Wage and salary workers4

139,225 100.0 25.2 3.1 22.2 74.8

 Private industries 118,574 100.0 22.6 3.2 19.3 77.4

 Government 20,651 100.0 40.6 2.3 38.3 59.4

 Federal 3,611 100.0 24.7 2.8 22.0 75.3

 State 6,996 100.0 38.9 2.3 36.6 61.1

 Local 10,044 100.0 47.5 2.2 45.4 52.5

 Self-employed workers, unincorporated 9,508 100.0 29.2 2.9 26.3 70.8

1 A person may have more than one certification or license.

2 Persons with a license may also have a certification.

3 Unpaid family workers are included in total employed, but not shown separately.

4 Includes self-employed workers whose businesses are incorporated.

NOTE: Certifications are issued by a non-governmental certification body and convey that an individual has the knowledge 

or skill to perform a specific job. A license is awarded by a government agency and conveys a legal authority to work in an 

occupation. 

Industry and class of worker Total 

employed

Without a 

certification 

or license

Total 

employed
Case 3:11-cv-01612-JAP -TJB Document 1 Filed 03/22/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 1
Case 3:11-cv-01612-JAP -TJB Document 1 Filed 03/22/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 2
Case 3:11-cv-01612-JAP -TJB Document 1 Filed 03/22/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 3
Case 3:11-cv-01612-JAP -TJB Document 1 Filed 03/22/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 4
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 01-4780



# 
K EITH D EMOND I NGRAM ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge.

(CR-00-783) Submitted: August 15, 2002 Decided: August 30, 2002 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Russell D. Ghent, LEATHERWOOD, WALKER, TODD & MANN, P.C., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Preston Strom, Jr., United States Attorney, Marshall Prince, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM: Keith Demond Ingram appeals his convictions for armed robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2000); using, carrying, brandishing, and possessing a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2000); and unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000). Ingram was sentenced as an armed career criminal. He received a 240 month sentence forarmed robbery, an 84 month sentence for possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, and an 18 month sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm. The sentences were imposed consecutively and totaled a 342 month term of imprisonment. Prior to trial, Ingram filed a suppression motion, claiming the police officer who stopped the car in which he was an occupant had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop the vehicle. The district court denied the motion. After careful review of the record, we agree with the district court’s decision. Under the facts of this case, the officer possessed reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle that quickly developed into probable cause. See United States v. Hensley , 469 U.S. 221, 229 (1985); United States v. Moore , 817 F.2d 1105, 1107 (4th Cir. 1987).Ingram also claims the prosecutor’s comment during trial concerning his post-arrest silence warranted a mistrial. We find that thecourt’s curative instruction provided a sufficient remedy for the prosecutor’s isolated remark. See Williams v. Zahradnick , 632 F.2d 353, 361-62 (4th Cir. 1980). Ingram also claims the district court should have considered South Carolina’s constitutional provisions in ruling on his suppressionmotion, attacks the sufficiency of the evidence used to prove he possessed a firearm, and argues he should have been subject to state pros2 U NITED S TATES v. I NGRAMecution only. We reject these claims as meritless. We grant Ingram’s motion to file a supplemental pro se brief but reject the arguments raised therein.Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.
AFFIRMED 3 U NITED S TATES v. I NGRAM
Total, 16 years and over ................................................................... 32,435 9,976 22,460 31,902 9,813 22,089

Economic reasons ................................................................................ 4,401 1,697 2,704 4,317 1,647 2,670

 Slack work or business conditions ...................................................... 2,877 1,436 1,441 2,827 1,403 1,423

 Could only find part-time work ............................................................ 1,210 – 1,210 1,199 – 1,199

 Seasonal work .................................................................................... 175 122 53 154 106 48

 Job started or ended during week ...................................................... 139 139 – 137 137 –

Noneconomic reasons .......................................................................... 28,034 8,278 19,756 27,585 8,166 19,419

 Child-care problems ........................................................................... 728 72 656 723 72 651

 Other family or personal obligations ................................................... 5,739 799 4,940 5,657 787 4,870

 Health or medical limitations ............................................................... 853 – 853 830 – 830

 In school or training ............................................................................ 6,239 89 6,150 6,165 87 6,079

 Retired or Social Security limit on earnings ........................................ 2,200 – 2,200 2,106 – 2,106

 Vacation or personal day .................................................................... 3,579 3,579 – 3,539 3,539 –

 Holiday, legal or religious ................................................................... 582 582 – 579 579 –

 Weather-related curtailment ............................................................... 669 669 – 645 645 –

 All other reasons ................................................................................. 7,443 2,488 4,956 7,340 2,457 4,883

Average hours:

Economic reasons .............................................................................. 23.1 23.8 22.6 23.1 23.8 22.7

 Other reasons ..................................................................................... 21.3 25.0 19.8 21.4 25.0 19.8

 NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data. Dash indicates no data or data that do not meet publication

criteria.

235
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5005 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 5005

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 7, 2004

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
        September 30, 2004, for additional disaster assistance.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums 
are appropriated, out of any

money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2004, to provide emergency supplemental 
appropriations for additional disaster assistance, namely:

  DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

                            Disaster Relief

    For an additional amount for ``Disaster Relief'', $2,000,000,000, 
to remain available until expended, of which up to $30,000,000 may be 
transferred to ``Small Business Administration--Salaries and 
Expenses'', for administrative expenses to carry out the disaster loans 
program authorized by section 7(b) of the Small Business Act: Provided, 
That the amounts provided herein are designated as an emergency 
requirement pursuant to section 402 of S. Con. Res. 95 (108th 
Congress), as made applicable to the House of Representatives by H.Res. 
649 (108th Congress) and applicable to the Senate by section 14007 of 
Public Law 108-287.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act, 2004''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 7, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Case 2:11-cv-02312-SDW-MCA Document 41 Filed 03/29/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 340
Case 2:11-cv-02312-SDW-MCA Document 41 Filed 03/29/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 341
Case 2:11-cv-02312-SDW-MCA Document 41 Filed 03/29/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 342
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6270

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RAYMOND A. HIBBERT, a/k/a Diamonds, a/k/a Steven Fallon, a/k/a Marcus A. 

Wheeler, a/k/a Andre Ray Davis,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Norfolk. Elizabeth W. Hanes, District Judge. (2:13-cr-00124-EWH-DEM-1)

Submitted: October 4, 2023 Decided: December 28, 2023

Before WILKINSON and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond A. Hibbert, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6270 Doc: 5 Filed: 12/28/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Raymond Hibbert appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motions for compassionate release and a reduction in his sentence as moot 

due to his release to home confinement by the Bureau of Prisons. We vacate the district 

court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

“If a change in the law or facts makes it impossible for a court to grant effective 

relief to a prevailing party, the case is moot and must be dismissed.” Johnson v. CharlotteMecklenburg Schs. Bd. of Educ., 20 F.4th 835, 842-43 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). “A claim may be mooted when the claimant receives the relief he or she 

sought to obtain through the claim.” Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 809 (4th Cir. 2013) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). However, “[a] case becomes moot only when it is 

impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.” MOAC 

Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, 598 U.S. 288, 295 (2023) (internal 

quotation marks omitted).

Pursuant to Section 3582(c)(1)(A), the district court has discretion to reduce 

Hibbert’s sentence—even to time served—and to order Hibbert’s immediate release. In 

his motions, Hibbert requested “immediate release” and a sentence reduction to time 

served. Because it is possible for the district court to grant Hibbert effectual relief under 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) by reducing his prison sentence or releasing him from the 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6270 Doc: 5 Filed: 12/28/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
3

custody of the Bureau of Prisons, his motions for a sentence reduction and compassionate 

release were not rendered moot by his release to home confinement.∗

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand for further 

proceedings. We express no opinion on the merits of Hibbert’s motions. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

∗ “An inmate in home confinement remains in the custody of the Bureau” of Prisons. 

United States v. Saunders, 986 F.3d 1076, 1078 (7th Cir. 2021). The Bureau of Prisons’

website confirms that Hibbert is still in custody; his projected release date is July 21, 2027.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6270 Doc: 5 Filed: 12/28/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
---

---

Exhibit 15.1

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-45422, 333-53814, 333-55130,
333-66250, 333-82488, 333-104377, 333-116964, 333-127013 and 333-141654) pertaining to the
employee stock option plans of RADVISION Ltd. of our report dated May 14, 2007, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of RADVISION Ltd. included
in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006.

| |  | /s/ Kost Forer Gabbay and Kasierer

Kost Forer Gabbay & KasiererA Member of Ernst & Young Global
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tel-Aviv, Israel
June 3, 2007



---

---
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM

 

                Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements ofFirst Horizon Pharmaceutical Corporation (the “Company”) No. 333-129712,333-117943, 333-108451, 333-89624, 333-40856 and 333-39106 on Form S-8 and inAmendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-114054 on Form S-3 of ourreport dated March 11, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statementsand financial statement schedule as of December 31, 2004 and for each of thetwo years in the period ended December 31, 2004 of the Company, appearing inthis Annual Report on Form 10-K of First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corporation forthe year ended December 31, 2005.

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

 

 

Atlanta, Georgia

February 27, 2006

 

----
SHW-12.31.2012-EX10d






EXHIBIT 10(d)




Schedule of Executive Officers who are Parties
to the Amended and Restated Severance Agreements in the Forms Filed as
Exhibit 10(e) to the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K
For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2010 








Form A of Severance Agreement


Christopher M. Connor
John G. Morikis
Sean P. Hennessy




Form B of Severance Agreement


Robert J. Davisson
George E. Heath
Thomas E. Hopkins
Timothy A. Knight
Steven J. Oberfeld
Thomas W. Seitz
Robert J. Wells




Form C of Severance Pay Agreement


Catherine M. Kilbane
Allen J. Mistysyn
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
(this “Amendment”) is made and entered into effective as of February 22, 2013 (the “Effective Date”),
by and between Innerworkings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and John Eisel (the “Executive”).


 


WHEREAS, the Company
and the Executive are parties to an agreement dated September 6, 2011, as amended (the “Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the parties
desire to amend the Agreement to eliminate the “modified single trigger” severance provisions, i.e. eliminate
the provisions (i) requiring the Executive to continue his employment for a period of nine (9) months following a change in control
without the ability to resign for “Good Reason” due to a material reduction or change in the Executive’s duties
or authority during such nine (9) month period and (ii) providing that the Executive’s resignation for any reason during
the ninety (90) day period following the aforementioned nine (9) month period after a change in control constituted “Good
Reason” entitling the Executive to severance benefits.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing recitals, the mutual promises and agreements hereinafter set forth, and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties, intending to be legally bound, agree as
follows:


 


		1.	Section 4(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the paragraph immediately following
subsection (3) thereof and immediately preceding Section 4(b) of the Agreement.



 


		2.	Except as expressly amended herein, the terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.



 


* * *


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed
this Amendment as of the Effective Date.


 


 





	 	INNERWORKINGS, INC.	EXECUTIVE	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By: /s/ Joseph Busky        	/s/ John Eisel       	 
	 	Joseph Busky	John Eisel	 
	 	Chief Financial Officer	 	 







 






    	1
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF 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-QSB/A of the Company for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2007 (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 fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
 By:
Name:
    
    /s/ Michael Nole

Michael NoleTitle:
    
    Chief Executive OfficerDate:
    
    February 1, 2008
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

MILAGRO CUNNINGHAM , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 2244

[ August 2, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Charles E. Burton , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2005

- CF

006814

- AXXX

- MB

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Paul Edward Petillo, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendo rf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

G ROSS , C ONNER and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

 .

: 

MERLA LAWRENCE, : Civil Action No. 11-3569 (ES) 

: 

Plaintiff, : ORDER

: 

v. : 

: 

EMIGRANT MORTGAGE COMPANY, : 

PRIME TIME MORTGAGE CORP., : 

RETAINED REALTY, INC., DARNELL : 

DAVIS, and KENNETH P. SAMSON : 

: 

Defendants. : 

 : 

SALAS, DISTRICT JUDGE

For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed herewith, 

 IT IS on this 18th day of October 2012, 

 ORDERED that Plaintiff Merla Lawrence’s motion for reconsideration—(D.E. 28)—is 

hereby DENIED, and Plaintiff has 30 days from receipt of this Order in which to file an amended 

complaint that cures the deficiencies addressed by the Court in its March 30, 2012 Opinion; and 

it is further 

 ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to amend—(D.E. 29)—is hereby DENIED as moot; 

and it is further 

 ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate Docket Entry Nos. 28 and 29. 

s/Esther Salas x 

Esther Salas, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:11-cv-03569-KM-MCA Document 44 Filed 10/18/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 788
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5407 

To require the Secretary of Energy to prepare a strategic plan to ensure 

that the United States is energy self-sufficient by the year 2015. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 19, 2004 

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Science, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Energy to prepare a strategic 

plan to ensure that the United States is energy selfsufficient by the year 2015. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Energy Independence 

5 Act of 2004’’. 
2 

•HR 5407 IH 

1 SEC. 2. DOMESTIC ENERGY SELF-SUFFICIENCY PLAN. 

2 Section 801 of the Department of Energy Organiza3 tion Act (42 U.S.C. 7321) is amended by adding the fol4 lowing new subsection at the end thereof: 

5 ‘‘(e)(1) Each plan submitted under this section after 

6 the date one year after the date of enactment of this sub7 section shall include a strategic plan to ensure that the 

8 United States is energy self-sufficient by the year 2015. 

9 ‘‘(2) The strategic plan under this subsection shall 

10 examine and report on the status of existing energy tech11 nology and domestic resources as well as developing en12 ergy generation and transmission technologies, including, 

13 but not limited to fuel cell technology, and should focus 

14 on their integration into an overall national energy port15 folio to meet the stated goal of achieving energy self-suffi16 ciency within 10 years. 

17 ‘‘(3) The strategic plan shall include recommenda18 tions to Congress for targeted research and development 

19 in promising new energy generation and transmission 

20 technologies, and funding levels necessary for specific pro21 grams and research efforts necessary to implement a plan 

22 providing for the energy self-sufficiency of the United 

23 States within the next 10 years.’’. 

Æ
# 11GPAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

IN RE THE PETITION OF JOSHUA S. MIREL PR 21-0004 

# FILED DEC 0 3 2021 BOVVEKI Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State nf Nfinntana ORDER
Joshua S. Mirel has petitioned this Court for admission to active status in the State Bar ofMontana after having been on inactive status since March 2017. IT IS ORDERED that upon payment of the appropriate fees to the State Bar of Montana, Petitioner shall be admitted to the active practice oflaw in the state ofMontana. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within six months of the date of this Order, Petitioner shall submitto the Board ofContinuingLegal Education, P.O.Box 577, Helena, MT 59624, proofofattendance at thirty hours ofapproved Continuing Legal Education to be credited to the time Petitioner was on inactive status. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis Order to Petitioner and to the State Bar ofMontana. n DATED this day ofDecember, 2021. For the Court, ChiefJustice 12/03/2021
Case Number: PR 21-0004