alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[No. 55160-4-I.

Division One.

October 31, 2005.]

#### The Department of Labor and Industries, *Appellant,*v. William A. Granger, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Skagit County, No. 04-2-00236-5, Michael E. Rickert, J., entered September 29, 2004. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Baker, J., concurred in by Appelwick, A.C.J., and Grosse, J. Now published at 130 Wn. App. 489.
#### Braswell *v.*Albert & Callaway.

Atkinson, J. — The questions both of law and fact, by consent of counsel, having been submitted to the presiding judge withouttbe intervention of a jury, and there being in the bill of exceptions no such specific assignment of error upon the judgment complained of as enables this court to determine whether the plaintiff in error excepts thereto as being contrary to law or contrary to the evidence; and the judgment of the court, upon examination of the record, appearing to be supported by the evidence and based generally upon correct legal principles, it will not be disturbed.

December 21,1894.

Complaint. Before Judge Jones. City court of DeKalb county. January term, 1894.

*Judgment affirmed,.*

*564G. W. Gleaton and W. W. Braswell, for plaintiff.

John S. Candler, for defendants.
Chart 6-5. In 2004, working wives contributed a little more 

than a third of their families’ income

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

37

1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Percent

Chart 6-5. In 2004, working wives contributed a little more 

than a third of their families’ income

• As more wives have entered higher-paying occupations and more wives work 

full time all year, their contribution to family income has increased. By 2004, 

35 cents of every dollar of married-couple family income were earned by the 

wife.

• Among married-couple families where both wives and husbands have 

earnings, 25 percent of wives earned more than their husbands in 2004. This 

was up from 18 percent in 1987.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          44,244
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  113,007
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,645,780
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,803,031
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,803,031
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          280,965
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,522,066
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,803,031
<SALES>                                          2,370
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,370
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,370
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,370
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
HOUSEHOLD DATA

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

2005

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 ......................................................... 134,115 31,717 4,271 8,313 19,134 102,397 39.1 42.8

Wage and salary workers ......................................................... 125,114 28,725 3,773 7,707 17,245 96,389 39.1 42.6

 Mining ..................................................................................... 590 42 4 27 11 548 49.5 50.2

 Construction ........................................................................... 9,091 1,516 437 632 447 7,575 40.7 42.1

 Manufacturing ......................................................................... 15,463 1,609 262 826 521 13,854 42.4 43.3

 Durable goods ...................................................................... 9,849 937 128 531 278 8,912 42.7 43.4

 Nondurable goods ................................................................ 5,614 672 134 295 243 4,942 41.9 43.0

 Wholesale and retail trade ...................................................... 19,532 5,240 701 911 3,628 14,291 38.2 42.9

 Transportation and utilities ..................................................... 6,638 998 165 392 440 5,640 42.5 44.4

 Information .............................................................................. 3,171 609 62 193 354 2,563 39.9 42.9

 Financial activities .................................................................. 9,144 1,612 99 633 879 7,532 40.3 42.5

 Professional and business services ....................................... 11,968 2,426 399 759 1,268 9,542 40.1 42.9

 Education and health services ................................................ 26,429 7,383 642 1,901 4,840 19,046 37.5 41.7

 Leisure and hospitality ............................................................ 11,022 4,482 708 470 3,303 6,541 34.4 42.1

 Other services ........................................................................ 5,778 1,800 247 284 1,268 3,978 36.9 43.0

 Other services, except private households ........................... 4,998 1,373 165 240 968 3,625 38.0 43.2

 Private households ............................................................... 780 427 82 44 301 353 29.5 40.3

 Public administration .............................................................. 6,289 1,009 45 679 285 5,279 40.8 41.9

Self-employed workers ............................................................. 8,908 2,940 493 602 1,844 5,968 38.4 44.8

Unpaid family workers .............................................................. 93 52 5 4 44 40 32.2 43.2

 NOTE: Beginning in January 2005, data reflect revised population controls used in the household survey.

240
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

CARLOS D. WALKER, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-1001 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed March 1, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Collier County; Christine H. Greider, Judge. Carlos D. Walker, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
VILLANTI, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
#### C. Aultman *& Co.*v. R. A. Humphrey and W. H. Humphrey.

No. 370.

1. Practice, District *Court*— Motion *to Set Aside Sale.*On a motion to set aside a sheriff’s sale a trial court may allow or refuse to allow evidence to be introduced.

2. - *Effect on Rights of Parties.*A decision of the court on such motion is not conclusive as to the ultimate rights of either of the parties.

*3Error from Chase district court; Lucien Earle, judge.

Opinion filed July 13, 1898.

Affirmed.

*B: W.*Jaquith, for plaintiff in error.

*Sanders, Grisham & Wood,*for W. H. Humphrey, defendant in error.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Schoonover, J.:

The plaintiff in error complains of the action of the trial court in overruling its motion to confirm a sale and in sustaining the motion of W. H. Humphrey, defendant in error, to set aside the sheriff's sale of certain lands in Chase county. Complaint is made that, on the hearing of the motion, the trial court permitted evidence to be introduced and that it tried and determined the question of title. It is true that certain evidence was introduced in support of the motion, but there was no abuse of discretion such as to require a reversal of this case. Without giving a synopsis of the evidence introduced, it is sufficient to say that it was competent and material.

In tlie case of *Harrison & Willis v. Andrews,*18 Kan. 535, the supreme court says :

> “Where the public records, and all the written evidence applicable.to the subject, apparently show that certain land was subject to be sold on execution, a party moving to set the sale aside may nevertheless show by competent and proper parol evidence, embodied in affidavits, that the land was not in fact subject to be sold on said execution.

> “ The right of the party moving to set aside a judicial sale is subject to an extensive discretion in the-court hearing the motion, and the final decision of the court upon such motion is not conclusive as to the ultimate rights of either of the parties."

*4In our opinion, the facts in the case under consideration should be governed by the rule stated in the case cited. The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00408-CV

IN RE LYNN HOLLAND

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Petition Denied

Opinion delivered and filed December 10, 2015

[OT06]
AMENDMENT NO. 10
                                       TO
                             DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT

Effective July 1, 2000, The AAL Mutual Funds Distribution Agreement (the
"Agreement") dated June 15, 1987, as amended, between The AAL Mutual Funds and
AAL Capital Management Corporation (f/k/a AAL Distributors, Inc.), is further
amended as follows:

     1.   Exhibit A to the  Agreement  is amended  to add The AAL Large  Company
          Index  Fund II, The AAL Mid Cap Index Fund II, The AAL Small Cap Index
          Fund II, The AAL Aggressive  Growth Fund and The AAL Technology  Stock
          Fund.

A  revised  Exhibit  A,  effective  as of the date of this  Amendment  No. 10 is
attached an incorporated herein.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be signed by
the respective officers effective as of July 1, 2000.


ATTEST                                       THE AAL MUTUAL FUNDS

By: /s/Frederick D. Kelsven                  By: /s/Robert G. Same
    --------------------------------             -------------------------------
    Frederick D. Kelsven                         Robert G. Same



ATTEST                                       AAL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

By: /s/Frederick D. Kelsven                  By: /s/Robert G. Same
    --------------------------------             -------------------------------
    Frederick D. Kelsven                         Robert G. Same





                                    EXHIBIT A
                                       TO
                   THE AAL MUTUAL FUNDS DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
                            (EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2000)


1. The AAL Capital Growth Fund

2. The AAL Bond Fund

3. The AAL Municipal Bond Fund

4. The AAL Money Market Fund

5. The AAL U.S Government Zero Coupon Target Fund, Series 2001

6. The AAL U.S Government Zero Coupon Target Fund, Series 2006

7. The AAL Mid Cap Stock Fund (f/k/a The AAL Smaller Company Stock Fund)

8. The AAL Equity Income Fund (f/k/a The AAL Utilities Fund)

9. The AAL International Fund

10. The AAL Small Cap Stock Fund

11. The AAL High Yield Bond Fund

12. The AAL Balanced Fund

13. The AAL Large Company Index Fund

14. The AAL Mid Cap Index Fund

15. The AAL Bond Index Fund

16. The AAL Large Company Index Fund II

17. The AAL Mid Cap Index Fund II

18. The AAL Small Cap Index Fund II

19. The AAL Aggressive Growth Fund

20. The AAL Technology Stock Fund
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

AGUSTIN GARCIA, 

Petitioner,

 v.

GREG BARTKOWSKI,

Respondents.

Civil Action No. 11-3689 (DRD)

OPINION

APPEARANCES:

AGUSTIN GARCIA, #822642B

New Jersey State Prison

P.O. Box 861

Trenton, New Jersey 08625

Petitioner Pro Se

ANNMARIE COZZI, ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR

BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR

10 Main Street

Hackensack, New Jersey 07601

Attorneys for Respondents

Debevoise, Senior U.S. District Judge

On February 27, 2015, the Court denied Agustin Garcia’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas 

Corpus under 28 U.S.C. ' 2254 challenging a judgment of conviction filed in the Superior Court 

of New Jersey, Bergen County, on February 1, 2002, and amended on May 13, 2004, after a jury 

found him guilty of the murder of Gladys Ricart, his former girlfriend, and related charges. The 

Court found that Garcia’s § 2254 Petition was barred by the one-year statute of limitations and 

denied a certificate of appealability. Garcia filed a notice of appeal, as well as a motion for 

reconsideration. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration on April 16, 2015. Garcia now 

Case 2:11-cv-03689-MCA Document 44 Filed 04/23/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 4411
2

seeks leave to file an over length amended petition for a certificate of appealability. The motion 

to file an over length amended petition for a certificate of appealability will be denied.

Section 2253 of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that an appeal may not be 

taken from an order denying a writ of habeas corpus under § 2254 “unless the applicant has made 

a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “When the 

district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner's 

underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists 

of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 

correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Section 2253 

“mandates that both showings be made before the court of appeals may entertain the appeal.” Id. 

In this case, the Court found that Garcia’s § 2254 Petition was barred by the one-year 

statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). The Court denied a certificate of 

appealability because jurists of reason would not conclude that the dismissal of the Petition as time 

barred was debatable or incorrect. This Court sees no reason to disturb this determination or to 

revisit the question. The Court will file an order denying the pending motion.

 s/Dickinson R. Debevoise 

DICKINSON R. DEBEVOISE

 U.S.S.D.J.

Dated: April 23, 2015

Case 2:11-cv-03689-MCA Document 44 Filed 04/23/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 4412
# field_descriptions

# qcew_fdi_data_2012
EXHIBIT 31.01

CERTIFICATION

(Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a))

I, Robert E. Marziano, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of Bank of the Carolinas Corporation;

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 registrants other
certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) 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 entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
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
change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation
of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                        |  |  |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 13, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Robert E. Marziano               
|                        |  |  |  | Robert E. Marziano                   
|                        |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

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

The undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his
capacity as an officer of First Shares Bancorp, Inc. (First Shares), that, to
his knowledge:



|(1) |  | the Annual Report of First Shares on Form 10-KSB for the period ended
December 31, 2002, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(2) |  | the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of First
Shares.                                             

Dated: March 28, 2003

|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Jerry R. EngleJerry R. Engle
Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to First Shares Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by First Shares
Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
# Regional and State Unemployment (Annual)

"The Regional and State Unemployment Annual (SRGUNE) news release provides annual estimates for the labor force, unemployment, and employment-population ratios for census regions and divisions and States. This news release is issued annually. For more information, visit the Local Area Unemployment Statistics home page at www.bls.gov/lau/."

- Jobless rates down in 6 states in 2023; employment-population ratios up in 10 states
- Jobless rates down in 49 states in 2022; employment-population ratios up in 36 states
- Jobless rates down in 49 states in 2021; employment-population ratios up in 38 states
- Unemployment rates up and employment-population ratios down in all states in 2020
- Jobless rates down in 10 states in 2019; employment-population ratios up in 16 states
- Jobless rates down in 25 states in 2018; employment-population ratios up in 9 states
- Jobless rates down in 32 states in 2017; employment-population ratios up in 12 states
- Jobless rates down in 38 states in 2016; employment-population ratios up in 36 states
- Jobless rates down in 47 states in 2015; employment-population ratios up in 35 states
- Jobless rates down in all 50 states in 2014; employment-population ratios up in 35 states
- Jobless rates down in 43 states in 2013; employment-population ratios down in 28 states
- Jobless rates down in 46 states in 2012; employment-population ratios up in 26 states
#### Karolyn Kenedics, Respondent, v Igor Ribolo, Defendant, and Irina Kravis, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 903]

In support of her motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against her, the defendant Irina Kravis made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). However, in opposition to the motion, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact *(see id.; Fontecchio v Esposito,*108 AD2d 780 [1985]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the defendant’s motion. Prudenti, P.J., Skelos, Miller, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.