alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
68

 1 Contingent workers are those who do not have an implicit or explicit contract for ongoing employment. Persons

who do not expect to continue in their jobs for personal

reasons, such as retirement or returning to school, are not

considered contingent workers, provided that they would

have the option of continuing in the job were it not for these

personal reasons. Estimate 1 includes wage and salary workers who expect their jobs will last for an additional year or

less and who had worked at their jobs for 1 year or less.

Estimate 2 includes wage and salary workers, the self-employed, and independent contractors who expect their employment to last for an additional year or less and who had

worked at their jobs (or been self-employed) for 1 year or

less. Estimate 3 includes all workers who do not expect their

jobs to last. This is the broadest definition of contingency and

estimates 1 and 2 of contingency are included in estimate 3.

Noncontingent workers are those workers who do not fall into

any of the three definitions of contingency.

SOURCE: Contingent and alternative work arrangements

supplement to the Current Population Survey, February 2005,

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Table 27. Percent distribution of employed persons by age, sex, and contingent and noncontingent 

status, February 2005

(Numbers in thousands)

Total, 16 years and over............ 138,952 1.8 2.3 4.1 95.9

 16 to 19 years......................... 5,510 5.6 6.1 8.6 91.4

 20 to 24 years........................ 13,114 4.6 5.2 8.2 91.8

 25 to 34 years........................ 30,103 2.3 2.9 4.8 95.2

 35 to 44 years......................... 34,481 1.2 1.7 3.0 97.0

 45 to 54 years........................ 32,947 0.8 1.2 2.7 97.3

 55 to 64 years........................ 17,980 0.8 1.1 3.0 97.0

 65 years and over................... 4,817 1.6 2.3 5.2 94.8

Women, 16 years and over......... 65,006 1.8 2.4 4.3 95.7

 16 to 19 years........................ 2,931 5.6 6.2 8.4 91.6

 20 to 24 years........................ 6,186 4.0 4.8 7.8 92.2

 25 to 34 years........................ 13,480 2.2 2.7 4.6 95.4

 35 to 44 years........................ 15,958 1.1 1.7 3.2 96.8

 45 to 54 years......................... 15,754 1.1 1.6 3.2 96.8

 55 to 64 years......................... 8,495 0.9 1.1 3.2 96.8

 65 years and over..................... 2,202 2.6 3.5 7.2 92.8

Men, 16 years and over............... 73,946 1.8 2.2 3.9 96.1

 16 to 19 years........................ 2,579 5.6 6.1 8.9 91.2

 20 to 24 years........................ 6,928 5.2 5.7 8.6 91.4

 25 to 34 years......................... 16,624 2.4 3.1 5.0 95.0

 35 to 44 years........................ 18,523 1.3 1.6 2.9 97.1

 45 to 54 years........................ 17,193 0.6 0.8 2.1 97.9

 55 to 64 years........................ 9,485 0.7 1.1 2.8 97.2

 65 years and over..................... 2,615 0.7 1.3 3.5 96.5

Estimate 1 Estimate 2 Estimate 3 Age and sex Total employed

Contingent workers1

Noncontingent 

workers1
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 702

To amend title 23, United States Code, to increase the Federal share for 

certain safety and other projects on energy impacted highways. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2003

Mr. RAHALL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To amend title 23, United States Code, to increase the 

Federal share for certain safety and other projects on 

energy impacted highways.

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 Impacted Road 

5 Relief Act of 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCREASED FEDERAL SHARE FOR CERTAIN 

7 PROJECTS ON ENERGY IMPACTED ROADS. 

8 Section 120(c) of title 23, United States Code, is 

9 amended—
2

•HR 702 IH 

1 (1) by striking in the subsection heading 

2 ‘‘SAFETY’’; 

3 (2) by striking ‘‘The Federal share’’ and insert4 ing the following: 

5 ‘‘(1) SAFETY PROJECTS.—The Federal share 

6 payable’’; 

7 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(2) PROJECTS ON ENERGY IMPACTED

9 ROADS.—The Federal share payable on account of 

10 any project to reconstruct, resurface, restore, and 

11 rehabilitate any highway which the Secretary deter12 mines, at the request of a State, is incurring a sub13 stantial use as a result of transportation activities to 

14 meet national energy requirements and will continue 

15 to incur such use may amount to 95 percent of the 

16 cost of such project.’’; and 

17 (4) by aligning paragraph (1), as designated by 

18 paragraph (2) of this subsection, with paragraph 

19 (2), as added by paragraph (3) of this subsection.

Æ
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO RULE 13a  14(a) UNDER THE  SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Home Diagnostics, 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 periods 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)):
 (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 (the
registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in
the case of an
annual report) 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.
  By:
    /s/ Ronald L. RubinRonald L. RubinVice President
and Chief Financial Officer(principal financial and accounting
officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Santos, Appellant.

[854 NYS2d 382]

*471Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved *(see People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10 [1995]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. We further find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There was overwhelming proof of defendant’s guilt, including identification testimony and extensive circumstantial evidence.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations *(see People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]), including its rejection of defendant’s testimony that he told the police he was represented by counsel on an unrelated charge and requested the presence of his attorney at a lineup. Defendant’s other arguments concerning the lineup are without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Buckley and Catterson, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Education

# AGENCY:

Department of Education.

# ACTION:

Correction Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        On July 9, 2009, the Department of Education published a comment period notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         (Page 32896, Column 3) for the information collection, “Requests for Title I, Part A Waivers”. Written comments regarding the emergency review should be electronically mailed to                         *oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.*                         The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management, hereby issues a correction notice as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.                    

Dated: July 13, 2009.

Angela C. Arrington,

IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of Management.

[FR Doc. E9-17037 Filed 7-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128989 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Maura D. Corrigan 

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

 Justices v SC: 128989 

 COA: 253443 
 Wayne CC: 03-009818-01 

TAWANDA SWAIZER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 16, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

KELLY, J., would hold this case in abeyance for People v Drohan, lv gtd 472 Mich 

881 (2005). 

p1024 

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. 

October 31, 2005 

Clerk
ex10_3.htm




Exhibit 10.3







EXHIBIT “B-1”







Legal Description:







(THE DESCRIPTION BELOW IS A TRACT OF LAND TO BE KNOWN AS LOT 2 IN A FUTURE REPLAT OF MARIAH CENTER)




A TRACT OF LAND OVER A PORTION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MARIAH CENTER, A SUBDIVISION OF LAND IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 26 SOUTH, RANGE 25 WEST AND SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 26 SOUTH, RANGE 25 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, DODGE CITY, FORD COUNTY, KANSAS, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;


 

 


COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 26 SOUTH, RANGE 25 WEST;  THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 52 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 21, A DISTANCE OF 1050.07 FEET;  THENCE SOUTH 88 DEGREES 43 MINUTES 40 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1984.592 FEET;  THENCE SOUTH 30 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 25 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 715.35 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF A TRACT OF LAND TO BE KNOWN AS LOT 2 OF THE FUTURE REPLAT OF MARIAH CENTER;




(THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED COURSES ARE ALONG THE OUT BOUNDARY OF THE DESCRIBED TRACT OF LAND TO BE KNOWN AS LOT 2 OF THE FUTURE REPLAT OF MARIAH CENTER).




THENCE SOUTH 30 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 25 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 929.00 FEET;  THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG A NON TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 1290.00 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF SOUTH 14 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 28 SECONDS EAST, A CHORD DISTANCE OF 247.63 FEET, FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 248.01 FEET;  THENCE SOUTH 8 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 762.53 FEET;  THENCE NORTH 81 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 453.14 FEET;  THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 50 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 14 SECONDS EAST, A RADIUS OF 700.00 FEET, FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 611.72 FEET TO A POINT OF TANGENTCY; THENCE NORTH 31 DEGREES 25 MINUTES 46 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 210.26 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19 DETREES 25 MINUTES 20 SECONDS EAST, A RADIUS OF 710.00 FEET, FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 240.68 FEET; THENCE NORTH 35 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 18 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 573.33 FEET; THENCE NORTH 07 DEGREES 54 MINUTES 04 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 143.62 FEET; THENCE NORTH 54 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 17 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE 733.78 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED TRACT OF LAND TO BE KNOWN AS LOT 2 IN A FUTURE REPLAT OF MARIAH CENTER.







CONTAINS 1,593,374 SQUARE FEET OR 36.58 ACRES MORE OR LESS.   SUBJECT TO ANY AND ALL EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND OR COVENANTS RECORDED OR UNRECORDED.
EXHIBIT 13**CEO AND CFO CERTIFICATION**     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Infineon Technologies AG (the “Company”)for the annual period ended September 30, 2007, as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Wolfgang Ziebart, asMember of the Management Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Peter J. Fischl, asMember of the Management Board and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,to the best of his knowledge:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     This certification will not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certificationwill not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that the Company specificallyincorporates it by reference.Date: March 31, 2008                                                         /s/ Wolfgang Ziebart   Dr. Wolfgang Ziebart   Member of the Management Board and
# 2021 - 2022
i 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

I 

AUSTIN 

OROVER SELLERS 

mToRNEr GENERIL 

Honorable Leonard Carlton, ComzIsaIoner 

Bureau or Labor Statiatios 

Austin 11, Te xa a 

Dear Sir: 

Your reoent request ror 

mnt has been reoelved and reads 

"I would like your 

seed 011 Ml11 Boilers. 

would these boiler8 be o 

Annotated Civil 

as follow8: 

0 lnrlts to Tour 

e 62210, Velnon'a 

ioh raatla, in part, 

d a aeertlfioata of operereinafter prorided~for, 

rovialons pbrtlnent to our Inquiry appear 

Bollare used exoluelrely ror 

agrioulturs purposes 

Y3ubseo. 6. Boilers used for cotton gin~.~ 

To ooma under the exemption provided In Subseotion 4, 

the Cotton Seed Oil Ml1 Boiler rmst be used exolusivslj for 

*agriculture purposes." “AgriCult~o~ is defined In the oaae 

of Gordon vs. Buster, 257 3. 1%. 220, 113 Tex. %32, In the iollowing lanpuage: 
Honorable Leonard Carlton - page 2 

mqA$Tioultureq, Is ti.a art or aolenoe of 

oultlvating the ,?round, lnoludlng harvesting the 

crops and rearing and management of live ntock; 

husbandry; farming; In a broader ambe, the fmlence 

and art of the produotlon or planta amI animals 

userul to min.” 

In the light of the above deflnltlon, it la our opinion 

that a boiler used ln oonneotlon with a ootton seed 011 mill is 

not exempt under the etatute as one Weed ercluslvely ror agrloulture purposea.” It la claar to us that a ootton seed 011 

IILIU 1s engaged In a manuraoturlnE, prooess, 

For additional authorities 6ee Keeeeny VI. Beaeman, 

169 Md. 582, 102 A. 666; ?Wndell vi Swedlund, 59 Idrr 29, 

80 P. 2d 13. 

Our views on the quelrtion are rtrengtheneb by the 

Legielature'a lnoluslon in the statute, a speoltlo emmptlon 

in ravor or ootton gin boilers. If ootton eeed otlaill 

boilers were within the purview 0r the exemption in ravor 

of boilers ured for Waq$loulture purposeen, certsiuly 4 

cotton gin boiler would also be lnoluded and there would 

have been no reason or neoeesity for the speoifio exemption 

for gln8. 

It is therrf'ore our oonolwion that neither under 

the ooznxon deflnltlon and understanding of the term “agri.Oul.- 

ture purposesn or under the speoiilo intent evidenced by the 

Iaplsletuse in the enaotment of this statute doe8 the cotton 

seed oil till boiler fall within the exemption inquired about. 

Ywrs very truly 

I 

4 Benjamin ?:oodall Assistant
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2

                            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 Annual Report of PetroChina Company Limited (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Wang Guoliang, hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:

          1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 operations of the
Company.

Date: June 20, 2006


                                        /s/ Wang Guoliang
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name: Wang Guoliang
                                        Title: Chief Financial Offer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-51057

JOSE VASQUEZ, As Personal Representative 

of the Estate of Sergio Vasquez, Deceased; 

HEATHER LAUREL, also known as Helen 

Vasquez, Guardian of V.A.V., a minor, 

Heir of the Estate of Sergio Vasquez; 

RICK STONE, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

THE BOILER ROOM; 

FT AVILA & IV ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED; 

RL WORTH & ASSOCIATES; 

DEPUTY ARNOLD MENCHACA; 

SHERIFF AMADEO ORTIZ; BEXAR COUNTY, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:11-CV-920

Before JONES, SMITH and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The court, having heard oral argument and reviewed the parties’ briefs and the

record on appeal, holds that there is no reversible error of fact or law. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 9, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-51057 Document: 00512337160 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2013
No. 12-51057

1. Stone’s claim is time barred because he filed it after the two-year statute of

limitations had expired. The limitation period began to run on the date Stone

was shot, even though he did not know the true identity of the wrongdoer. 

Childs v. Haussecker, 974 S.W.2d 31, 36, 40 (Tex. 1998). Stone’s fraudulent

concealment argument is waived because it was not pursued in the district

court. LeMarie v. La. Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 480 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2007). 

2. Menchaca was entitled to qualified immunity under well-settled Circuit

precedent. Ontiveros v. City of Rosenberg, Tex., 564 F.3d 379, 380. Vasquez’

actions posed a serious threat to those around him, and it was reasonable for

Menchaca to use deadly force. See Id. at 385.

3. The district court properly dismissed Vasquez’ premises liability and negligent

hiring, supervision, and training claims against RL Worth because Vasquez did

not point the court to any evidence supporting these claims. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

2

 Case: 12-51057 Document: 00512337160 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/09/2013