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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 825 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 825

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 7401 West 100th Place in Bridgeview, Illinois, as the ``Michael J. 
                     Healy Post Office Building''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 825

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 7401 West 100th Place in Bridgeview, Illinois, as the ``Michael J. 
                     Healy Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 7401 
West 100th Place in Bridgeview, Illinois, and known as the Moraine 
Valley Post Office, shall be known and designated as the ``Michael J. 
Healy Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Michael J. Healy Post Office 
Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 26, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Keiko Ito et al., Respondents, v 324 East 9th Street Corp., Appellant, and Legend Valve et al., Respondents.

[857 NYS2d 578]

*817Motions for reargument are addressed to the sound discretion of the court which decided the original motion and may be granted upon a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or law or for some reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision *(see E.W. Howell Co., Inc. v S.A.F. La Sala Corp.,*36 AD3d 653, 654 [2007]; *Carrillo v PM Realty Group,*16 AD3d 611 [2005]; *Viola v City of New York,*13 AD3d 439, 440 [2004]). Contrary to the contention of the appellant 324 East 9th Street Corp., the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting leave to reargue to the plaintiffs, as it misapprehended several facts, applied the wrong standard on a cross motion for leave to amend the bill of particulars, and incorrectly concluded that prejudice would result were leave granted.

Leave to amend a bill of particulars is ordinarily freely given in the absence of prejudice or surprise *(see Grande v Peteroy,*39 AD3d 590, 591 [2007]; *Dalrymple v Koka,*295 AD2d 469, 469-470 [2002]). Here, there was no evidence that granting the plaintiffs leave to amend the bill of particulars to add a new theory of liability would prejudice or otherwise surprise the appellant. In fact, even on the new theory, the appellant contended that it had tendered sufficient evidence to warrant granting summary judgment in its favor *(see Cherebin v Empress Ambulance Serv., Inc.,*43 AD3d 364, 365 [2007]). In the absence of prejudice or surprise, any delay was insufficient to defeat the amendment *(see id.).*Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs leave to amend the bill of particulars *(see Telsey v County of Nassau,*237 AD2d 428, 429 [1997]; *Becker v City of New York,*106 AD2d 595, 597 [1984]; *cf. Cherebin v Empress Ambulance Serv., Inc.,*43 AD3d at 365).

Contrary to the appellant’s contention, it failed to satisfy its prima facie burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment *818as a matter of law *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). The failure to make such a showing required the denial of the motion regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers *(see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.,*64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Spolzino and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit31.1**

 

**Certification ofChairman and Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to Section302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Allen Chao, Chairman andChief Executive Officer, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;

 

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

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a) designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures 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 withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

b) evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c) disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent function):

 

a) allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b) any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  May 10, 2004

 
|   | By:    | **/s/ Allen Chao**                   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   |   | Allen Chao, Ph.D.                    |
|   |   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   | (Principal Executive Officer)        |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Larry Thomsea SIMIEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-30448

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 17, 2012.

Cristina Walker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*337Rebecca Louise Hudsmith, Esq., Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Larry Thomsea Simien, Coleman, FL, pro se.

Before DAVIS, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Larry Thomsea Simien has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. Cali*fornia, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (6th Cir.2011). Sim-ien has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
# File information

# All data

# Classification

# Appendix 1

# Appendix 2
8

Table 36. Unincorporated self-employed persons in nonagricultural industries by sex, 1976-2006 

annual averages

(Numbers in thousands)

Total

employed

Selfemployed

Selfemployed

as a 

percent of 

total

Total

employed

Selfemployed

Selfemployed

as a 

percent of 

total

Total

employed

Selfemployed

Selfemployed

as a 

percent of 

total

1976...... 85,421 5,782 6.8 35,027 1,549 4.4 50,394 4,233 8.4 26.8 

1977..... 88,734 6,115 6.9 36,677 1,692 4.6 52,057 4,423 8.5 27.7 

1978..... 92,661 6,428 6.9 38,900 1,814 4.7 53,761 4,614 8.6 28.2 

1979..... 95,477 6,792 7.1 40,556 1,982 4.9 54,921 4,810 8.8 29.2 

1980..... 95,938 7,001 7.3 41,461 2,097 5.1 54,477 4,904 9.0 30.0 

1981..... 97,030 7,097 7.3 42,333 2,192 5.2 54,697 4,905 9.0 30.9 

1982..... 96,125 7,263 7.6 42,591 2,309 5.4 53,534 4,954 9.3 31.8 

1983..... 97,450 7,575 7.8 43,367 2,439 5.6 54,083 5,136 9.5 32.2 

1984...... 101,685 7,785 7.7 45,262 2,566 5.7 56,423 5,219 9.2 33.0 

1985..... 103,971 7,810 7.5 46,615 2,603 5.6 57,356 5,207 9.1 33.3 

1986..... 106,435 7,881 7.4 48,054 2,610 5.4 58,381 5,271 9.0 33.1 

1987..... 109,232 8,201 7.5 49,668 2,778 5.6 59,564 5,423 9.1 33.9 

1988...... 111,800 8,519 7.6 51,020 2,955 5.8 60,780 5,564 9.2 34.7 

1989..... 114,143 8,605 7.5 52,341 3,043 5.8 61,802 5,562 9.0 35.4 

1990...... 115,570 8,719 7.5 53,011 3,122 5.9 62,559 5,597 8.9 35.8 

1991..... 114,449 8,850 7.7 52,815 3,150 6.0 61,634 5,700 9.2 35.6 

1992..... 115,246 8,576 7.4 53,380 2,963 5.6 61,866 5,613 9.1 34.5 

1993..... 117,144 8,959 7.6 54,273 3,065 5.6 62,871 5,894 9.4 34.2 

1994..... 119,651 9,003 7.5 55,755 3,443 6.2 63,896 5,560 8.7 38.2 

1995..... 121,460 8,901 7.3 56,642 3,440 6.1 64,818 5,461 8.4 38.6 

1996..... 123,264 8,971 7.3 57,630 3,506 6.1 65,634 5,465 8.3 39.1 

1997..... 126,159 9,056 7.2 59,026 3,550 6.0 67,133 5,506 8.2 39.2 

1998..... 128,085 8,962 7.0 59,945 3,482 5.8 68,140 5,480 8.0 38.9 

1999..... 130,207 8,790 6.8 61,193 3,424 5.6 69,014 5,366 7.8 39.0 

2000..... 134,427 9,205 6.8 62,983 3,631 5.8 71,444 5,573 7.8 39.4 

2001..... 134,635 9,121 6.8 63,147 3,594 5.7 71,488 5,527 7.7 39.4 

2002...... 134,174 8,923 6.7 62,995 3,499 5.6 71,179 5,425 7.6 39.2 

2003..... 135,461 9,344 6.9 63,824 3,609 5.7 71,636 5,736 8.0 38.6 

2004...... 137,020 9,467 6.9 64,182 3,607 5.6 72,838 5,860 8.0 38.1 

2005..... 139,532 9,509 6.8 65,213 3,565 5.5 74,319 5,944 8.0 37.5 

2006...... 142,221 9,685 6.8 66,382 3,681 5.5 75,838 6,004 7.9 38.0 

Selfemployed

women as 

percent of 

total selfemployed

Year

Total Women Men

NOTE: Beginning in 2000, data reflect the introduction of the 2002 Census industry classification system derived from the

2002 North American Industry Classification System into the Current Population Survey (CPS).

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

8
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant

                                                        Jurisdiction of
Name                                                    Incorporation
-------------------------------------------------       -------------------

HTM Holdings, Inc.                                      Delaware

Qualtron, Inc.                                          Massachusetts

SMTC de Chihuahua S.A. de C.V.                          Mexico

SMTC Ireland Company                                    Ireland

SMTC Manufacturing Corporation of California            California

SMTC Manufacturing Corporation of Canada                Ontario, Canada

SMTC Manufacturing Corporation of Colorado              Delaware

SMTC Manufacturing Corporation of Ireland Limited       Ireland

SMTC Manufacturing Corporation of Massachusetts         Massachusetts

SMTC Manufacturing Corporation of North Carolina        North Carolina

SMTC Manufacturing Corporation of Texas                 Texas

SMTC Manufacturing Corporation of Wisconsin             Wisconsin

SMTC MEX Holdings, Inc.                                 Delaware

SMTC Nova Scotia Company                                Nova Scotia, Canada

SMTC R&D Teoranta                                       Ireland

SMTC Teoranta                                           Ireland
NOT FOR PUBLICATION CLOSED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DEBORAH MOULTON, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated, Civil Action No.: 11-4073 (JLL)

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC., et a!.,

Defendants.

LINARES, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court of Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’

complaint in its entirety. For the reasons set forth in this Court’s corresponding Opinion,

IT IS on this,f day of August, 2012

ORDERED that Defendants’ motion is granted and Plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed

with prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk ofthe Court shall close the file in this matter.

SO ORDERED.

E L. LINARES

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:11-cv-04073-JLL-MAH Document 48 Filed 08/21/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 483
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00716-CR

NO. 03-03-00717-CR

NO. 03-03-00718-CR

Norman Watson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 403RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOS. 3013694, 3013749 & 3020811, HONORABLE BRENDA KENNEDY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Norman Watson seeks to appeal from judgments of conviction for theft. The trial

court has certified that these are plea bargain cases and Watson has no right of appeal. See Tex. R.

App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The appeals are dismissed. See id. rule 25.2(d).

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Patterson

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: January 8, 2004

Do Not Publish
2
Chart 6-6. Nine out of 10 children live with an employed 

parent

90

69

83

97

0

20

40

60

80

100

All children In married-couple

families

In families

maintained by

women

In families

maintained by men

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Percent of children

2005

Chart 6-6. Nine out of 10 children live with an employed 

parent

• Children in married-couple families are more likely to live with an employed 

parent (97 percent) than are children in families maintained by women (69 

percent) or men (83 percent) with no spouse present.

• About 62 percent of all children live with mothers who work. Children are 

more likely to have a working mother in families maintained by women (69 

percent) than are children in married-couple families (63 percent).
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the fiscal quarter ended May 2, 2009 of Stein Mart, Inc. (the Form 10-Q), I, David H. Stovall, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |                                      
|------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: June 10, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ David H. Stovall, Jr.            
|                    |  |  |  | David H. Stovall, Jr.                
|                    |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350.

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Curis, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Daniel R. Passeri, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 results of operations of the Company.

Dated: March 2, 2007



/s/ DANIEL R. PASSERIDaniel R. PasseriPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 712

AN ACT

For the relief of Richi James Lesley.

108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 712

AN ACT

For the relief of Richi James Lesley.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 712 EH

1 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR RICHI

2 JAMES LESLEY.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a)

4 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality

5 Act, Richi James Lesley shall be eligible for issuance of

6 an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of

7 an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon

8 filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa

9 under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status

10 to lawful permanent resident.

11 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Richi James Les12 ley enters the United States before the filing deadline

13 specified in subsection (c), he shall be considered to have

14 entered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligi15 ble, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245

16 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of

17 the enactment of this Act.

18 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

19 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap20 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica21 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees

22 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

23 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—

24 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res25 idence to Richi James Lesley, the Secretary of State shall

26 instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the cur-
3

•HR 712 EH

1 rent or next following fiscal year, the total number of im2 migrant visas that are made available to natives of the

3 country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the

4 Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the

5 total number of immigrant visas that are made available

6 to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under section

7 202(e) of such Act.

8 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

9 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural

10 parents, brothers, and sisters of Richi James Lesley shall

11 not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right,

12 privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality

13 Act.

Passed the House of Representatives July 6, 2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
# Persons with a Disability: Labor Force Characteristics

"The Persons with a Disability: Labor Force Characteristics release compares the labor force characteristics of persons with disabilities to those with no disabilities.   Included in this release are national demographic, labor force, unemployment, occupation, and industry data for persons with a disability.  This release is issued annually.  For more information, visit the CPS disability statistics page, www.bls.gov/cps/demographics.htm#disability."

- Unemployment rate for people with a disability changes little, at 7.2%, in 2023
- Unemployment rate for persons with a disability declines to 7.6% in 2022
- Unemployment rate for persons with a disability declines to 10.1% in 2021
- Unemployment rate for persons with a disability increases to 12.6% in 2020
- Unemployment rate for persons with a disability declines to 7.3% in 2019
- Unemployment rate for persons with a disability declines to 8.0% in 2018
- Unemployment rate for persons with a disability declines to 9.2% in 2017
- Unemployment rate for persons with a disability, at 10.5%, changed little in 2016
- Unemployment rate for persons with a disability declines to 10.7% in 2015
- Unemployment rate for persons with a disability, at 12.5%, edges down in 2014
- Unemployment rate for those with a disability, at 13.2%, changed little in 2013
- Unemployment rate for persons with a disability declines to 13.4% in 2012
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

# **Co-Registrant(Commission File Number 000-30761):**

#  

**UbiquiTelInc.**

**OneWest Elm Street**

**Suite 400**

**Conshohocken,Pennsylvania 19428**

 

**Co-Registrant(Commission File Number 333-39950):**

 

**UbiquiTelOperating Company**

**OneWest Elm Street**

**Suite 400**

**Conshohocken,Pennsylvania 19428**

 

# **CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**

## **PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report ofUbiquiTel Inc. and UbiquiTel Operating Company on Form 10-K/A for the yearended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donald A. Harris, ChiefExecutive Officer of UbiquiTel Inc. and UbiquiTel Operating Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of UbiquiTel Inc. and UbiquiTel Operating Company.

 
|   | UBIQUITEL INC.                        |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |                                  |
|   |                                  |
|   | */s/ Donald A. Harris*                |   |
|   | Donald A. Harris                      |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                  |
|   |                                  |
|   | UBIQUITEL OPERATING COMPANY           |
|   |                                  |
|   |                                  |
|   | */s/ Donald A. Harris*                |   |
|   | Donald A. Harris                      |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                  |
|   |                                  |
|   | April 27, 2006                   |

 

----
# Table A

# Table 1

# Table 2

# Table 3

# Table 4

# Table 5

# Table 6

# Table 7

# Table 8