alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Table 33. Labor force status of 2007 high school graduates and 2006-07 high school dropouts 

16 to 24 years old by school enrollment and sex, October 2007

(Numbers in thousands)

Total, 2007 high school graduates...... 2,955 1,531 51.8 1,307 44.2 224 14.7 1,424

 Women........................................... 1,444 731 50.6 635 44.0 96 13.2 713

 Men................................................. 1,511 800 52.9 672 44.5 128 16.0 711

 Enrolled in college.............................. 1,986 789 39.7 712 35.9 77 9.8 1,197

Percent of total 2007 graduates......... 67.2 51.5 - 54.5 - 34.4 - 84.1

Women......................................... 986 402 40.7 353 35.8 49 12.1 585

Percent of female 2007 graduates... 68.3 55.0 - 55.6 - 51.0 - 82.0

Men.............................................. 999 387 38.8 359 35.9 28 7.3 612

Percent of male 2007 graduates...... 66.1 48.4 - 53.4 - 21.9 - 86.1

 Not enrolled in college....................... 970 742 76.6 595 61.3 147 19.9 227

Percent of total 2007 graduates......... 32.8 48.5 - 45.5 - 65.6 - 15.9

 Women......................................... 458 330 72.0 282 61.6 48 14.5 128

Percent of female 2007 graduates... 31.7 45.1 - 44.4 - 50.0 - 18.0

 Men............................................. 512 413 80.6 313 61.1 100 24.1 99

Percent of male 2007 graduates...... 33.9 51.6 - 46.6 - 78.1 - 13.9

Total, 2006-07 high school dropouts1

... 426 239 56.2 175 41.1 64 26.9 187

 Women......................................... 193 99 51.1 79 40.6 20 20.4 95

 Men.............................................. 233 141 60.4 96 41.4 44 31.5 92

Total

Percent 

of labor 

force

Characteristic

 Civilian 

noninstitutional 

population 

 Civilian labor force 

 Not in 

labor 

Total force 

Percent 

of 

population 

 Employed Unemployed 

 Total 

Percent 

of 

population 

 1 Data refer to persons who dropped out of school between October 2006 and October 2007. 

 

NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. The weights used in estimation were revised

with the release of October 2007 data. As a result, the 2007 October data are not strictly comparable with published

estimates from earlier years. 

 SOURCE: October 2007 Current Population Survey, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

88
#### Callaway *et al. v.*Phillips & Crew.

Where an affidavit to obtain a distress warrant sufficiently states the facts upon which such a warrant may lawfully issue, it is not necessary for the warrant itself to “ set out the reasons why rent was due, as set forth in the affidavit.’’ The failure of the warrant so to do does not render it invalid, if in other respects it contains all that is legally requisite.

May 13, 1895.

Brought forward from the last term. Code, §4271(a-c).

Levy and claim. Before Judge Bartlett. Lee superior court. March term, 1894.

Wooten & Wooten and Long & Son, for plaintiffs.

Fort & Watson, *contra.*

Lumpkin, Justice.

Section 4082 of the code declares, in substance, that any person having rent due him may, on his own oath in writing or that of his agent or attorney, obtain a distress warrant for the sum claimed; and section 2285 provides that a landlord may distrain for rent before it is due, if the tenant is seeking to remove his goods from the premises. If, therefore, when a tenant is thus seeking to remove his goods, the landlord desires to obtain a distress warrant, he can do so by making before the proper officer an affidavit sufficiently stating the facts as required by the two sections of the code above cited. Upon this being done, it becomes the duty of the officer to issue the warrant for the amount claimed. There is no provision of law, of which we have any knowledge, making it necessary for the warrant itself to “set out the reasons why rent was due, as set forth in the affidavit.”

. The affidavit upon which the distress warrant in the present case was issued showed upon its face that the rent claimed was not yet due, and sought to comply with section 2285 by alleging that the tenant was “disposing of and making way with his property.” The warrant *802was levied, and a claim filed. At the trial, the claimants objected to the affidavit on the ground that it did not follow the statute, because it failed to allege that the tenant was “ seeking to remove his goods from the premises.” This defect, over the claimants’ objection, was cured by an amendment, to the allowance of which no exception was taken. The claimants then moved to dismiss the warrant on the ground that it did not follow the affidavit; and upon an intimation from the court that if the warrant was amended the levy would fall, the plaintiff announced he would stand upon the warrant as it was. The court then dismissed the warrant because of its failure to “set out the reasons why rent was due, as set forth in the affidavit.” There was no other objection to the warrant; and the court erred in dismissing it, the-objection taken being without merit.

*Judgment reversed.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0098

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

LIVORIO LOERA,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 8, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 2 2023

08/02/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0098
#### In the Matter of Traci Iorio et al., Respondents, v Joseph Hyler, Appellant. In the Matter of Joseph Hyler, Appellant, v Traci Iorio, Respondent. In the Matter of Joseph Hyler, Appellant, v John Iorio, Respondent. In the Matter of Joseph Hyler, Appellant, v Traci Iorio, Respondent. In the Matter of Joseph Hyler, Appellant, v John Iorio, Respondent. In the Matter of John Iorio et al., Respondents, v Joseph Hyler, Appellant.

[854 NYS2d 732]

By order dated June 17, 2004, the Family Court, Westchester County, inter alia, awarded sole custody of the subject children to Joseph Iorio and Traci Iorio, and granted the appellant unsupervised visitation. In the first order appealed from dated August 7, 2006 the June 17, 2004 order was modified so as to grant the appellant only supervised visitation with the subject children. That order was modified by a subsequent order of the same court entered March 5, 2007 which directed that the ap*739pellant have therapeutic supervised visitation with the subject children. On September 18, 2007 the parties and the attorney for the children consented on the record that the appellant have supervised visitation with the subject children. On the same day, the Family Court issued an order directing that the appellant’s visitation merely be supervised. Therefore, as the first order dated August 7, 2006 and the order entered August 8, 2006, inter alia, dismissing petitions to modify the order dated June 17, 2004 have been superseded by the order dated September 18, 2007, the appeals from these orders have been rendered academic *(see Matter of Baker v*Ratoon, 251 AD2d 921, 922 [1998]; *see also Matter of Paoli v Paoli,*29 AD3d 804 [2006]).

The appellant has raised no issue with respect to the second order dated August 7, 2006 granting an order of protection against him. Accordingly, he has abandoned the appeal from that order *(see*22 NYCRR 670.8 [e]; *Matter of Rebecca O. v Todd P.,*309 AD2d 982, 983 [2003]).

We note that the appellant’s arguments regarding the order of the Family Court, Westchester County, entered March 5, 2007, are not properly before this Court, as he did not appeal from that order *(see Matter of Ashley S.,*129 AD2d 581 [1987]).

Motion by the respondent Traci lorio, inter alia, to dismiss appeals from two orders of the Family Court, Westchester County, both dated August 7, 2006, and an order of the same court entered August 8, 2006. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated November 9, 2007, that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the appeals was held in abeyance and was referred to the Justices hearing the appeals for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers submitted in support of the motion, the papers submitted in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeals, it is

Ordered that the branch of the motion which is to dismiss the appeals is denied as academic in light of our determination of the appeals *[see*decision herein], Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Spolzino and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
[No. 50882-2-I.

Division One.

December 19, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Terry Dale Hartness, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 01-1-01655-0, Joseph A. Thibodeau, J., entered July 25, 2002. *Dismissed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 56 Filed 05/17/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 235
Case 3:11-cv-03788-FLW-LHG Document 56 Filed 05/17/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 236
#### BLANE v. YOUNG.

Civ. No. 27338.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

Aug. 7, 1950.

Marvin L. Gardner, Theodore R. Spiika, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Thomas J. Gray, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.

JONES, Chief Judge.

This an action to set aside and recover a preferential transfer presently before the court for consideration of defendant’s motion for a more definite statement. •

This motion can be sustained only when the complaint is so vague or ambiguous that a' responsive pleading cannot be framed. The complaint in this action does not contain any such defect. If there are any allegations, the truth or falsity of which defendant is unable to determine, he may so state, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 8(b), 28 U. S.C.A., and such statement has the effect of a denial. Any information then desired can be obtained by use of the discovery procedure.

Motion denied.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

March 7, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135137 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

DIMITRIOS ZAVRADINOS, Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellant, Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices v SC: 135137 

 COA: 268570 

Oakland CC: 2004-062158-CK 

JTRB, INC., JTR II, L.L.C., RTI, INC.,

LITTLE DADDY’S OF BLOOMFIELD 

HILLS, MICHIGAN, L.L.C., RICHARD 

ROGOW, ATHANASIOS PERISTERIS, 

and DARREN MCCARTY, 

Defendants, 

and 

ROBERT PROBERT,

Defendant-Appellee,

and 

LIZA DANIELLE PROBERT, 

Intervening Party-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 23, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the application or take other peremptory action. MCR 

7.302(G)(1). The parties shall address the following questions: (1) whether DeYoung v 

Mesler, 373 Mich 499 (1964), correctly construed MCL 557.151 to mean that there is a 

statutory presumption that property held jointly by a husband and wife is held by them as 

tenants by the entirety unless the title or conveyance expressly provides otherwise, (2) if 

so, how the presumption of a tenancy by the entirety may be overcome, and (3) whether a 

provision in the title or conveyance specifically identifying the property owners as 

husband and wife affects the determination whether the presumption of a tenancy by the 

entirety has been overcome. The parties shall submit supplemental briefs within 42 days 

of the date of this order addressing these issues. The parties shall avoid submitting mere 

restatements of their application papers. 

s0304 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

March 7, 2008 

Clerk
Chart 1-1. More than half of the population 16 years and 

over works full time

Employed full time

(119.1 million)

Others not in 

the labor force

(75.9 million) Employed part time for 

economic reasons 

(4.2 million)

Marginally attached workers,

including discouraged workers

(1.4 million)

Unemployed (7.0 million)

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Employed part time for 

noneconomic reasons

(21.2 million)

2006

Chart 1-1. More than half of the population 16 years and 

over works full time

• More than half of the 229 million persons in the civilian noninstitutional 

working-age population in 2006 were employed full time. An additional 11 

percent were working part time, with a large majority of these workers 

preferring a part-time schedule.

• Of the third of the population not in the labor force (neither working nor 

looking for work), a relatively small number (1.4 million) were classified as 

"marginally attached" workers—persons who want to work, are available for 

work, and had looked for a job in the past year but are not currently looking 

either because they are discouraged about job prospects or because certain 

conditions, like family responsibilities, impede their entry into the job market.

• The vast majority of persons not in the labor force do not want to work.
74

Table 33. Labor force status of persons 16 to 24 years old by school enrollment, sex, and educational attainment, October 2005

(Numbers in thousands)

Enrolled in school.............................. 20,905 9,442 45.2 8,528 40.8 914 9.7 11,462

 Enrolled in high school1

........................ 9,905 3,075 31.0 2,552 25.8 523 17.0 6,830

 Women........................................... 4,671 1,547 33.1 1,260 27.0 287 18.6 3,123

 Men................................................. 5,234 1,528 29.2 1,292 24.7 236 15.4 3,706

 Enrolled in college................................ 11,000 6,367 57.9 5,976 54.3 391 6.1 4,633

 Women........................................... 5,965 3,551 59.5 3,356 56.3 195 5.5 2,414

 Men................................................. 5,034 2,816 55.9 2,620 52.0 196 7.0 2,218

Not enrolled in school......................... 15,856 12,896 81.3 11,504 72.6 1,392 10.8 2,960

 Women.............................................. 7,578 5,656 74.6 5,062 66.8 594 10.5 1,921

 Less than a high school diploma .......... 1,449 776 53.5 611 42.2 165 21.2 673

 High school graduates, no college2

 ...... 3,219 2,355 73.2 2,083 64.7 271 11.5 864

 Some college or associate degree ....... 1,861 1,553 83.4 1,430 76.8 123 7.9 308

 Bachelor’s degree and higher ............... 1,049 973 92.8 938 89.4 35 3.6 76

 Men................................................... 8,279 7,240 87.5 6,442 77.8 798 11.0 1,039

 Less than a high school diploma .......... 2,009 1,602 79.8 1,357 67.5 246 15.3 406

 High school graduates, no college2

 ...... 3,849 3,381 87.8 3,018 78.4 363 10.7 468

 Some college or associate degree ....... 1,713 1,576 92.0 1,424 83.1 153 9.7 137

 Bachelor’s degree and higher ............... 708 681 96.1 644 90.9 37 5.4 27

Characteristic

 Civilian 

noninstitutional 

population 

 Civilian labor force 

 Not in 

labor force Total Percent of 

population 

 Employed Unemployed 

 Total Percent of 

population Total Percent of labor force

 1 Includes a small number of persons enrolled in grades below

high school. 2 Includes high school diploma or equivalent.

NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not

equal totals.

SOURCE: October 2005 Current Population Survey, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    ss. 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the Annual Report on Form  10-KSB/A Reliant  Home  Warranty
Corporation (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  Report),  I, Boyd
Soussana, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, herby certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, to the best of his/her 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 fairly  presents,  in all
         material respects,  the financial condition and result of operations of
         the Company.

By:   /s/ Boyd Soussana
      -------------------------------------
            Boyd Soussana
            Chief Executive Officer

     June 18, 2007

This  certification   accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 31

                         RULE 13a-14(a) Certification

I, Eduardo Rodriguez, certify that:

         1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB (Amendment
No. 1) of Headliners Entertainment Group, Inc.;

         2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this report;

         3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other
financial information included in this report fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

         4.  The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I
are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and have:

         a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those enti
ties, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

         b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclu
sions about the effectiveness of ths disclosure controls and procedures, as of
the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         c)  Disclosed in this report any changes in the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

         5.  The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

         a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

         b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting.


Date: March 17, 2005        /s/ Eduardo Rodriguez
                            -------------------------------------------
                            Eduardo Rodriguez, Chief Executive Officer
                            and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-129884, 333-134280, 333-142701, 333-160496 and 333-167925) and Forms S-3 (File Nos. 333-129680, 333-134279, 333-141014, 333-161453, 333-162160, 333-163517 and 333-166444) of ZIOPHARM Oncology, Inc. of our report dated February 28, 2011 relating to our audit of the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of ZIOPHARM Oncology, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010.




/s/McGladrey & Pullen, LLP





Boston, Massachusetts


February 28, 2011
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2 1

- 3835

_____________________________ C.W., the Father of C.P., C.W., S.W., and C.W., Each a Minor Child,

Appellant,

v.

D EPARTMENT OF C HILDREN AND F AMILIES , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Michael Kalil , Judge

. September 16, 2022

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
K ELSEY , W INOKUR , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Guy V. Murray of Guy Victor Murray, P.A., Jacksonville
, and Kevin C. Colbert, Miami
, for Appellant

. Stephanie C. Zimmerman
, Deputy Director & Statewide Director of Appeals
, Children’s Legal Services
, Bradenton , for Appellee ; Sara E. Goldfarb, Statewide Director of Appeals, Appell ate Division, Statewide Guardi an ad Litem Office, Tallahassee
, and Michael S. Roscoe of Woods Trial Law, Tampa , for Guardian ad Litem.