alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Table 30. Labor force status of 2009 high school graduates and 2008–09 high school dropouts 

16 to 24 years old by school enrollment and sex, October 2009

(Numbers in thousands)

Total, 2009 high school graduates1

...... 2,937 1,482 50.5 1,062 36.1 421 28.4 1,455

 Women........................................... 1,531 758 49.5 549 35.8 210 27.7 772

 Men................................................. 1,407 724 51.5 513 36.5 211 29.1 683

 Enrolled in college.............................. 2,058 867 42.1 662 32.1 205 23.7 1,192

Percent of total 2009 graduates...... 70.1 58.5 - 62.3 - 48.7 - 81.9

Women......................................... 1,130 488 43.2 367 32.5 121 24.8 642

Percent of female 2009 graduates... 73.8 64.4 - 66.8 - 57.6 - 83.2

Men.............................................. 928 379 40.8 294 31.7 84 22.2 550

Percent of male 2009 graduates...... 66.0 52.3 - 57.3 - 39.8 - 80.5

 Not enrolled in college....................... 879 616 70.0 400 45.5 216 35.0 263

Percent of total 2009 graduates...... 29.9 41.6 - 37.7 - 51.3 - 18.1

 Women........................................ 401 270 67.4 181 45.2 89 32.9 130

Percent of female 2009 graduates... 26.2 35.6 - 33.0 - 42.4 - 16.8

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 

g

 Men............................................. 478 345 72.2 219 45.7 127 36.7 133

Percent of male 2009 graduates...... 34.0 47.7 - 42.7 - 60.2 - 19.5

Total, 2008–09 high school dropouts2... 383 186 48.5 83 21.8 103 55.1 198

 Women......................................... 179 61 34.2 27 15.2 34 ( 3 ) 117

 Men.............................................. 205 125 60.9 56 27.5 69 54.9 80

1 Data refer to persons who graduated from high school in January through October 2009. 2 Data refer to persons who dropped out of school between October 2008 and October 2009.

3 Data not shown where base is less than 75,000.

NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.

SOURCE: October 2009 School Enrollment Supplement to the Current Population Survey, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics.

85
EXHIBIT 10.8

 

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION POLICY(1)

(effective January 1, 2013)

 

	
ANNUAL CASH RETAINER
    	
·    Annual   retainer
    	
·    $40,000
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
ADDITIONAL CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD/LEAD INDEPENDENT DIRECTOR   CASH COMPENSATION
    	
·    Annual   retainer 
    	
·    $20,000
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE CHAIR    CASH COMPENSATION
    	
·    Annual   retainer (Audit)
    ·    Annual   retainer (Compensation)
    ·    Annual   retainer (Corporate Governance & Nominating)
    	
·    $22,000
    ·    $15,000
    ·    $10,000
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE MEMBER CASH COMPENSATION(2)
    	
·    Annual   retainer (Audit)
    ·    Annual   retainer (Compensation)
    ·    Annual   retainer (Corporate Governance & Nominating)
    	
·    $10,000
    ·    $7,000
    ·    $4,000
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
INITIAL STOCK OPTION AWARD
    	
·    Number   of shares (all directors)
    ·    Additional   shares for Board Chair
    ·    Vesting   period
    ·    Vesting   increment
    	
·    30,000
    ·    15,000(3)
    ·    3   years
    ·    Monthly
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
ANNUAL STOCK OPTION AWARD
    	
·    Number   of shares (all directors)
    ·    Additional   shares for Board Chair
    ·    Vesting   period
    ·    Vesting   increment
    	
·    15,000(4)
    ·    6,000(4)
    ·    1   year
    ·    Monthly
    


 




(1)         All stock option awards shall be made pursuant to the Non-Employee Directors’ Nonstatutory Stock Option Program under the 2004 Plan. All annual retainer payments will be made in advance, in equal quarterly installments during the year based on the individual’s role as of the commencement of the given quarter.

 

(2)         Committee Chair is not also eligible for cash compensation as a member of the same committee for which he/she is paid for service as the committee chair.

 

(3)         To be granted upon his/her initial appointment to the applicable position, in addition to the stock option award granted to all directors upon initial election to the Board.

 

(4)         Awarded at the annual meeting of stockholders following election to the Board and/or appointment as Board Chair, subject to pro-ration for any partial period of service in accordance with the terms of the 2004 Plan.
#### Michael J. Morath et al., Respondents, v New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 757]

*1246Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced the underlying personal injury action against Susan Milliman seeking damages for injuries sustained by Elizabeth G. Morath (plaintiff) when the vehicle driven by Milliman struck the vehicle driven by plaintiff. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was insured under an automobile liability policy issued by defendant, which included supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) coverage. After plaintiffs settled the underlying action for the limit of Milliman’s liability coverage, defendant denied SUM coverage and disclaimed liability based upon plaintiffs’ failure to obtain defendant’s prior written consent to the settlement, as required by the policy. Plaintiffs thereafter commenced this action seeking a declaration that defendant is obligated to provide SUM coverage.

Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs cross motion seeking summary judgment declaring that defendant must provide SUM coverage to plaintiffs for the accident in question. The record establishes that, as soon as defendant learned of the settlement, it possessed all of the information necessary to deny coverage and disclaim liability *(see Squires v Marini Bldrs.,*293 AD2d 808, 810 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 502 [2002]; *cf. Ace Packing Co., Inc. v Campbell Solberg Assoc., Inc.,*41 AD3d 12, 15 [2007]). In view of the failure of defendant to justify its 36-day delay in notifying plaintiffs of its disclaimer, the court properly concluded that the delay was unreasonable as a matter of law *(see First Fin. Ins. Co. v Jetco Contr. Corp., 1*NY3d 64, 70 [2003]; *Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc. v Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co.,*27 AD3d 84, 88-90 [2005]; *West 16th St. Tenants Corp. v Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co.,*290 AD2d 278, 279 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 605 [2002]). Present—Smith, J.P., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Green, JJ. *[See*13 Misc 3d 1241(A), 2006 NY Slip Op 52211(17) (2006).]
Ex 10.33 Hanson Amendment 4


Exhibit 10.33


FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Fourth Amendment”), is made as of May15, 2012, by and between Apex Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) and Theodore S. Hanson (the “Employee”).  Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Employment Agreement (as defined below).


RECITALS


		
	A.
	The Company and the Employee entered into an employment agreement, dated January 15, 2008, as amended on December 31, 2008, as further amended on February 12, 2011, and as further amended on May 15, 2012 (the “Employment Agreement”).




		
	B.
	Effective May 15, 2012, the Company established “Apex Systems, Inc. Senior Management PTO Plan” (“PTO Plan”).  The Employment Agreement is hereby amended to clarify Employee’s participation in the PTO Plan.




AMENDMENT


		
	1.
	Section 5.  Section 5 of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the PTO Plan, which is incorporated herein by reference.




		
	2.
	This Fourth Amendment is hereby incorporated in and forms a part of the Employment Agreement.




		
	3.
	Except as expressly provided herein, all terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.  


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Fourth Amendment as of the date first written above.
 APEX SYSTEMS, INC.




By:     /s/ Buddy Carl Omohundro
Buddy Carol Omohundro
General Counsel




ON ASSIGNMENT, INC.




By:      ______________________________
Peter Dameris
Chief Executive Officer


                        


EMPLOYEE


/s/ Theodore S. Hanson            
Theodore S. Hanson
EXHIBIT 32.2

                          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 Quarterly Report of First Federal Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004, dated the
date of this Certification (the "Report"), I, Connie Ayres LaPlante, the
Treasurer 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 Report 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.


Date:  May 13, 2004                    By: /s/ Connie Ayres LaPlante
                                           --------------------------------
                                           Connie Ayres LaPlante
                                           Treasurer
                                           (Chief Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to First Federal Bancorp, Inc., and will be retained by First
Federal Bancorp, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


<PAGE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 856 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.856

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

                                 An Act

 
    To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to revise a repayment 
    contract with the Tom Green County Water Control and Improvement 
   District No. 1, San Angelo project, Texas, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. TOM GREEN COUNTY WATER CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 
              1; REPAYMENT PERIOD EXTENDED.

    The Secretary of the Interior may revise the repayment contract 
with the Tom Green County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1 
numbered 14-06-500-369, by extending the period authorized for 
repayment of reimbursable constructions costs of the San Angelo project 
from 40 years to 50 years.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 40153 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
OMAR ALEJANDRO MILLAN

- ARTEAGA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:14

- CR

- 1702

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Omar Alejandro
Millan

- Arteaga has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Millan

- Arteaga h a s 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

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 22 , 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-40153 Document: 00513243229 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/22/2015No. 15

- 40153

2 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 15-40153 Document: 00513243229 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/22/2015
# 19SNR07_00
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 552

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain textile machinery. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 5, 2003

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain textile 

machinery.

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN TEXTILE MACHINERY. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading:
2

•HR 552 IH 

‘‘ 9902.03.88 Weaving machines (looms), 

shuttleless type, 

for weaving fabrics of a width 

exceeding 30 cm 

but not exceeding 

4.9 m, entered 

without off-loom 

or large loom 

take-ups, drop 

wires, heddles, 

reeds, harness 

frames, or beams 

(provided for in 

subheading 

8446.30.50) ....... 2.7% No change No change On or before 

12/31/2005 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
### FOR PUBLICATION 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  K AI K I K ON , Petitioner, No. 03-71121

v. Agency No.



#  A71-651-400 A LBERTO G ONZALES ,* Attorney General, OPINION

Respondent. 

# 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted February 7, 2005—Pasadena, California
Filed March 18, 2005

Before: Warren J. Ferguson, John T. Noonan, and Michael Daly Hawkins, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam Opinion

*Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

3361COUNSEL
David Gardner (argued) and Louis A. Gordon (briefed), Law Offices of David Gardner, Los Angeles, California, for the petitioner-appellant. 3362 K ON v. G ONZALESPaul Fiorino (argued) and Hillel R. Smith (briefed), Office ofImmigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the respondent-appellee.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:
Kai Ki Kon ( “Kon ”), a native and citizen of Hong Kong, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”) decision summarily affirming an immigration judge’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. As aninitial matter, we must decide whether Kon’s voluntary departure from the United States deprives this Court of jurisdiction. We find that it does and, accordingly, dismiss Kon’s claims for lack of jurisdiction.
[1] The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act’s ( “IIRIRA ”) transitional rules apply in cases where deportation or exclusion proceedings commenced before April 1, 1997, and the final deportation or exclusion order was issued after October 20, 1996. See Kalon v. INS
, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 1997). The Government issued a charging document on January 23, 1997 alleging that Kon was excludable from the United States, and the BIA issued itsfinal order on October 8, 1997. Thus, the IIRIRA’s transitional rules apply here.
[2] The IIRIRA’s transitional rules incorporate 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c), which provided in relevant part:
An order of deportation or of exclusion shall not be reviewed by any court if the alien has not exhausted the administrative remedies available to him as of right under the immigration laws and regulations or if he has departed from the United States after the issuance of the order. 3363

K ON v. G ONZALES8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c) (emphasis added).
[3] Because Kon voluntarily departed the United States to Hong Kong after issuance of the exclusion order, we lack jurisdiction to entertain his petition for review under the plain reading of the statute. See Thorsteinsson v. INS , 724 F.2d1365, 1367 (9th Cir. 1984) (interpreting the jurisdictional limits of 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c)); Hose v. INS , 180 F.3d 992, 996 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting that 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(c) strips our jurisdiction over an alien’s petition for review once the alien leaves the United States).

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. 3364 K ON v. G ONZALES
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





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 quarterly report of Infinite Group, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, James Witzel, Chief Financial Officer
      of
      the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      ss.
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
                and





(2)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
                Company.





Dated:
      August 12, 2008





/s/
                James WitzelJames
                WitzelChief
                Financial Officer(Principal
                Financial and Accounting Officer)





A
      signed
      original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be
      retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.
Chart 3-6. Displacement rates rise during recessions

3.9

3.1 3.1

2.4

3.1

3.9

3.3

2.9

2.5 2.5

3.8

2.8

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

1981-82 1983-84 1985-86 1987-88 1989-90 1991-92 1993-94 1995-96 1997-98 1999-

2000

2001-

2002

2003-

2004

Displacement rate

NOTE: Displaced workers are persons 20 years and older who lost or left jobs they had held for at least 3 years because their plant 

or company closed or moved, there was insufficient work for them to do, or their positions or shifts were abolished. The 2-year

displacement rates shown here are the most recent data available. 

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Survey reference period

Chart 3-6. Displacement rates rise during recessions

• The displacement rate—which reflects the likelihood of job loss due to plant 

or company closings, reduced work loads, or the abolishment of positions or 

shifts—increases during recessions and falls during recoveries. 

• The risk of job loss was higher during 1981-82, 1991-92, and 2001-02, the 

survey reference periods that included recessions. As labor market conditions 

improved following the downturns, the risk of job loss due to displacement 

declined.
Order filed, May 14, 2015.

 In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

____________

NO. 01-15-00339-CR

STEVEN WAYNE FISHER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 263rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case 1428579

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due May 4, 2015. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. 

The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The record has 

not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we 

issue the following order.
We order Marcia Barnett, the official (or substitute) court reporter, to file the 

record in this appeal, if any, within 30 days of the date of this order.

/s/ Jan Bland

 Acting individually
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: Marvinell Harlan v. Texas Workforce Commission, Appeal

Tribunal, Hearing Officer J. Koehn, Hearing Officer L.

Lawrence, and Commissioners Hope Andrade and Andres

Alcantar

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 7

- 00 849

- CV

Trial court case number: 201 5

- 1 1049

Trial court: 190 th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: December 7 , 201 8

Party filing motion: Appellant

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is denied

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Lloyd.

Date: December 20, 2018
# Private dairy farms, 1998-02

Fatal occupational injuries in the private dairy farms industry, 1998-2002 - continued		

Fatal occupational injuries in the private dairy farms industry, 1998-2002		

Fatal occupational injuries in the private dairy farms industry, 1998-2002 - continued		

Fatal occupational injuries in the private dairy farms industry, 1998-2002		

Page &P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      27,965,007
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,608,925
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            35,083,933
<PP&E>                                       2,091,124
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              47,574,774
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,505,682
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        76,143
<OTHER-SE>                                  44,772,842
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                47,594,774
<SALES>                                     19,143,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,143,100
<CGS>                                       12,671,557
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,671,557
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (958,434)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,070,185
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,039,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,031,185
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,031,185
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34
        

</TABLE>