alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
7 3

1

 Includes persons who did not provide information on work at

home. 2

 Persons who usually work at home are defined as those who

work at home at least once per week as part of their primary job. 3

 Unpaid family workers and wage and salary workers who did

not report pay status are included in total but not shown separately.

4 Includes the incorporated and unincorporated self-employed.

NOTE: Data refer to employed persons in nonagricultural industries. Own children include sons, daughters, stepchildren, and

adopted children. Not included are nieces, nephews, grandchildren, and other related and unrelated children.

Table 31. Job-related work at home on primary job: All workers by marital status, presence and age of children, 

(Numbers in thousands)

Total, 16 years and over........................ 131,803 19,759 15.0 17.4 52.0 29.7

Married, spouse present.................. 75,248 13,916 18.5 16.9 51.1 30.9

Not married.................................... 56,555 5,843 10.3 18.6 54.2 26.7

Never married......................... 35,196 3,086 8.8 19.8 60.0 19.6

Other marital status.................. 21,358 2,757 12.9 17.2 47.6 34.7

With own children under 18............. 50,744 8,638 17.0 19.6 51.6 27.9

 With own children under 6......... 21,517 3,580 16.6 21.8 49.9 27.2

With no own children under 18......... 81,059 11,121 13.7 15.7 52.3 31.0

Total, 16 years and over........................ 62,144 9,468 15.2 18.9 53.7 26.5

Married, spouse present.................. 33,095 6,300 19.0 18.6 51.2 29.1

Not married................................... 29,049 3,168 10.9 19.7 58.6 21.3

Never married........................... 16,253 1,516 9.3 19.7 67.3 12.6

Other marital status.................. 12,796 1,652 12.9 19.6 50.6 29.3

With own children under 18.............. 24,710 4,111 16.6 21.6 50.0 27.4

 With own children under 6......... 9,699 1,705 17.6 24.8 43.1 30.7

With no own children under 18......... 37,434 5,357 14.3 16.9 56.5 25.8

Total, 16 years and over........................ 69,659 10,291 14.8 16.0 50.5 32.6

Married, spouse present................... 42,153 7,616 18.1 15.5 51.1 32.3

Not married................................... 27,506 2,675 9.7 17.3 48.9 33.2

Never married........................... 18,943 1,571 8.3 19.8 52.9 26.4

Other marital status.................. 8,562 1,104 12.9 13.7 43.2 42.8

With own children under 18............. 26,034 4,527 17.4 17.7 53.1 28.4

 With own children under 6......... 11,818 1,875 15.9 19.1 56.1 23.9

With no own children under 18......... 43,625 5,763 13.2 14.6 48.5 35.8

sex, and pay status, May 2001

Men

Characteristic

Paid

Rate Total employed1 Wage and salary

Unpaid

Total

Self-employed 4

Percent distribution by class of worker 3

Persons who usually worked at home2

Women

Total

1
# Productivity and Costs by Industry: Selected Service-Providing Industries

The Productivity and Costs by Industry: Selected Service-Providing and Mining Industries release has data on labor productivity and unit labor costs for detailed industries in the mining and services sectors. Labor productivity describes the relationship between output and the labor time involved in production. Unit labor costs relate total labor costs to total output. This release is issued annually. For more information, visit the Productivity home page at www.bls.gov/productivity/.

- Productivity increases in 15 of 30 selected service-providing industries in 2022
- Productivity increases in 24 of 30 selected service-providing industries in 2021
- Productivity falls in 13 of 29 selected service-providing industries in 2020
- Productivity rises in 14 of 29 selected service-providing industries in 2019
- Productivity rises in 18 of 28 selected service-providing industries in 2018
- Productivity rises in 20 of 28 selected service-providing industries in 2017
- Productivity rises in 17 of 28 selected service-providing industries in 2016
- Productivity rises in 15 of 28 selected service-providing industries in 2015
- Productivity rose in 60% of detailed service-providing industries covered in 2014
- Productivity rose in 48% of selected service-providing and mining industries in 2012
- Productivity rose in 63% of selected service-providing and mining industries in 2011
- Productivity rose in 69% of detailed service-providing and mining industries in 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000884504
<NAME>                        THERMOENERGY CORP.

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             202,735
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   202,735
<PP&E>                                              19,809
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (19,809)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     223,815
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,124,108
<BONDS>                                          4,139,723
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             3,896
<OTHER-SE>                                      (5,043,912)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       223,815
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      587,704
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 206,463
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (747,646)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (747,646)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.17)



</TABLE>
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1175 KA 12-01266** 
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, FAHEY, CARNI, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TAJENEE J., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (NICHOLAS P. DIFONZO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. HILLERY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an adjudication of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M. William Boller, A.J.), rendered June 8, 2012. The adjudication revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

It is hereby ORDERED that the adjudication so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by directing that all of the sentences shall run concurrently with respect to each other and as modified the adjudication is affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant was adjudicated a youthful offender on January 6, 2012 and was sentenced to, inter alia, concurrent terms of five years of probation with respect to the three crimes of which he was convicted. Defendant subsequently admitted that he had violated the conditions of his probation, and he now appeals from an adjudication that revoked his probation and sentenced him to three terms of incarceration of 1 a to 4 years, two of which were ordered to run consecutively to each other. Defendant’s sentence thus aggregates to a term of incarceration of 2 b to 8 years, and we agree with defendant that the sentence is illegal. “[H]aving adjudicated defendant a youthful offender, [Supreme C]ourt was without authority to impose consecutive sentences in excess of four years” ( People v Jorge N.T. , 70 AD3d 1456, 1458, lv denied 14 NY3d 889 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Cory T. , 59 AD3d 1063, 1064). We therefore modify the adjudication by directing that all of the sentences shall run concurrently with respect to each other ( see People v Christopher T. , 48 AD3d 1131, 1131-1132). The sentence as modified is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: November 15, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ANTHONY BRIDGEFORD,

Petitioner

v.

G. ALLISON, CAPTAIN ABRASHOFF, S. 

ELLENBERGER, A. SHOPE, B. FISHER, 

K. KAUFFMAN, J. DUPONT, E. TICE, 

AND CAPTAIN EICHENLAUB,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 793 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Unpublished Order of the 

Commonwealth Court at No. 1179 CD 

2017 entered on September 26, 2017, 

dismissing the Order of the 

Huntingdon County Court of Common 

Pleas at Nos. CP-31-CV-1026-2017 

and GG2587 entered on August 9, 

2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1

st day of May, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED, the order of the Commonwealth Court is VACATED, and the matter is 

REMANDED for consideration of the merits of Petitioner’s appeal. As the common pleas 

court had not originally granted Petitioner in forma pauperis (IFP) status, the 

Commonwealth Court’s reference to Rule of Appellate Procedure 551 in its defect 

correction notice was in error. Instead, Rule of Appellate Procedure 552, which Petitioner 

followed, controlled. See Pa.R.A.P. 552. Because Petitioner’s post-appeal IFP 

application was pending before the common pleas court, the Commonwealth Court 

should not have dismissed Petitioner’s appeal for failing to comply with the defect 

correction notice. Furthermore, since the Commonwealth Court subsequently granted 

IFP status to Petitioner, no filing fee shall be required for the appeal before that court.

DECIDED: May 1, 2018
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 

July 7, 2017

Order 

Clerk

July 7, 2017

155152(65)

In re HILL, Minors. SC: 155152

COA: 332923

Alger CC Family Division:

 2013-004455-NA

_____________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Legal Services Association of 

Michigan and the Michigan State Planning Body for Legal Services to submit a joint 

amici curiae brief and to extend the deadline for submitting the amicus brief is 

GRANTED. The amicus brief will accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before 

August 31, 2017.
EXHIBIT
      32.1




**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 Quarterly Report of Grace 3, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q for three month period ended August 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas A. Dyer,
      certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and
      belief:





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 results of operations of the
      Company.




Dated:
                October 8, 2008
            /s/ Douglas
                A. DyerDouglas
                A. Dyer
              President
              (Principal
                Executive Officer)
              (Principal
                Financial Officer)
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                   AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Bruce  Caldwell,  certify to the best of my knowledge,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002,  that the Annual Report of ESSXsport Corp. a Nevada  corporation,  on Form
10-KSB for the year ended August 31, 2003 fully  complies with the  requirements
of  Section  13(a)  or  15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 and that
information  contained  in such Annual  Report  fairly  presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of ESSXsport Corp.

The  undersigned  further  certifies that all previous  filings are accurate and
fairly represent the company's financial picture and fully comply.


By: /s/ Bruce Caldwell
---------------------------------
Name:  Bruce Caldwell
Title: President, CEO, and CFO
Case 3:09-cr-00334-PGS Document 21 Filed 12/10/10 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 52
Case 3:09-cr-00334-PGS Document 21 Filed 12/10/10 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 53
Case 3:09-cr-00334-PGS Document 21 Filed 12/10/10 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 54
Exhibit 10.26


 


Chris Spalding


[REDACTED]


 


October 3, 2008


 


Dear Chris


 


Your Employment as Managing Director


 


I write to confirm our agreement to amend your proposed terms
and conditions of employment.


 


Clause 11.1 of your contract shall now read as follows:


 


“The Company will operate a stakeholder non-contributory
pension scheme and will contribute in each year an amount equal to 10% of the Executive’s basic salary into the scheme on
the Executive’s behalf. Payments will be made in monthly instalments in arrears, less any deductions for tax or NI contributions
required by law. The Executive will be eligible to join the pension scheme from the date his employment with the Company commences,
subject to the rules of such scheme in force from time to time.”


 


Please sign and return the last draft of your proposed contract,
as well as one copy of this letter, to indicate your acceptance of these updated terms.


 


Yours sincerely


 


/s/ Jeffrey G. Katz


 


Jeffrey G. Katz


President and CEO


For and on behalf of Leapfrog Toys (UK) Limited


 


I accept the amendments to my terms and conditions of employment
set out above.


 


/s/ Chris Spalding


Chris Spalding


 


11/11/08


Date
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6295

MICHAEL WHITE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PARKER EVATT; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Chief District

Judge. (CA-95-181-2-1AJ)

Submitted: October 3, 1996 Decided: October 17, 1996

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael White, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat.

1214, petition. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. White v. Evatt, No. CA-95-181-2-

1AJ (D.S.C. Jan. 12, 1996). 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
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Chart 2-5. Education pays for everyone, regardless of race or 

Hispanic ethnicity

$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200

Bachelor's degree and

higher

Some college or

associate degree

High school graduates,

no college

Less than a high school

diploma

White

Black or African American

Asian

Hispanic or Latino

2006

Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers 25 years and older

Chart 2-5. Education pays for everyone, regardless of race or 

Hispanic ethnicity

• Regardless of race or Hispanic ethnicity, college graduates earn substantially 

more than do high school graduates and more than twice as much as high 

school dropouts. 

• In 2006, for example, median weekly earnings for black high school dropouts 

were $393, while earnings for black college graduates were $886.

• Among Hispanics, median weekly earnings for high school dropouts were 

$396, while earnings for Hispanic college graduates were $860.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 536

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for 

coverage under that Act of employees of States and political subdivisions 

of States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2003

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

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

to provide for coverage under that Act of employees 

of States and political subdivisions of States, and for 

other purposes.

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 ‘‘Fairness for State and 

5 Local Workers Act’’. 
2

•HR 536 IH 

1 SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF STATE AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISION 

2 EMPLOYEES. 

3 Section 3(5) of the Occupational Safety and Health 

4 Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 652(5)) is amended—

5 (1) by inserting after ‘‘employees,’’ the fol6 lowing: ‘‘including a State or political subdivision of 

7 a State,’’; and 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘or any State or political sub9 division of a State’’.

Æ
Exhibit 10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 
 We consent to the incorporation
by reference in the following Registration Statements: 
  

					
	 	i.	  	  	Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-11092), filed with the SEC on November 4, 1999;
		
	 	ii.	  	  	Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-11388), filed with the SEC on January 24, 2000;
		
	 	iii.	  	  	Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 on Form S-8 to Form F-4 Registration Statement (File No. 333-93127), filed with the SEC on January 24, 2000;
		
	 	iv.	  	  	Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-12516), filed with the SEC on September 12, 2000;
		
	 	v.	  	  	Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-12864), filed with the SEC on November 15, 2000;
		
	 	vi.	  	  	Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-13410), filed with the SEC on April 27, 2001;
		
	 	vii.	  	  	Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-14016), filed with the SEC on October 17, 2001;
		
	 	viii.	  	  	Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-98075), filed with the SEC on August 14, 2002;
		
	 	ix.	  	  	Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-107271), filed with the SEC on July 23, 2003;
		
	 	x.	  	  	Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-108755), filed with the SEC on September 12, 2003;
		
	 	xi.	  	  	Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-119746), filed with the SEC on October 14, 2004;
		
	 	xii.	  	  	Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-121813), filed with the SEC on January 3, 2005;
		
	 	xiii.	  	  	Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-129288), filed with the SEC on October 28, 2005;
		
	 	xiv.	  	  	Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-139009), filed with the SEC on November 29, 2006;









					
		
	 	xv.	  	  	Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-143972), filed with the SEC on June 22, 2007;
		
	 	xvi.	  	  	Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-151348), filed with the SEC on June 2, 2008;
		
	 	xvii.	  	  	Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-160149), filed with the SEC on June 22, 2009;
		
	 	xviii.	  	  	Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-160148), filed with the SEC on June 22, 2009;
		
	 	xix.	  	  	Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-172901), filed with the SEC on March 17, 2011;
		
	 	xx.	  	  	Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-176118), filed with the SEC on August 5, 2011;
		
	 	xxi.	  	  	Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-178696), filed with the SEC on December 22, 2011; and
		
	 	xxii.	  	  	Form S-8 Registration Statement (File No. 333-183016), filed with the SEC on August 2, 2012.

 of our reports dated March 11, 2013 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Alcatel-Lucent and
subsidiaries and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Alcatel-Lucent and subsidiaries, included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Alcatel-Lucent for the year ended December 31, 2012. 

/s/ Ernst & Young et Autres 

represented by Jean-François Ginies 

Paris La-Defense, France 
 March 12, 2013
CARTER LEDYARD & MILBURN
  2 Wall Street
  New York, New York  10005
  (212)732-3200

  December 13, 2000

  Securities and Exchange Commission
  450 Fifth Street, N.W.
  Washington, D.C. 20549

  Re: PaineWebber Pathfinders Trust,
      Treasury and Growth Stock Series 19
      File #333-02813
      Rule 497J Filing

  Dear Sir/Madam:
  On behalf of the Registrant, the undersigned
  certifies that the form of Prospectus that
  would have been filed under Section 497(b)
  would not have differed from that contained
  in the text of the Registrant's most recent
  registration statement that was filed
  electronically via EDGAR with the Securities
  and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2000.

  Very truly yours,
  /s/ Kathleen H. Moriarty, Esq.
      Kathleen H. Moriarty, Esq.
  cc: Patricia Mengiste
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Prentis B. Tomlinson Jr. v. John Khoury

Appellate case number: 01-19-00183-CV

Trial court case number: 2012-61491

Trial court: 281st District Court of Harris County

The Motion for Panel Rehearing filed by appellee John Khoury is denied.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _/s/ Terry Adams___________________________

 Acting for the Court

Panel consist of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Hightower and Adams.

Date: December 8, 2020