alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Advance copies of this statement are made available to the press 

under lock-up conditions with the explicit understanding that 

the data are embargoed until 8:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. 

Statement of 

Keith Hall 

Commissioner 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Friday, July 8, 2011

Nonfarm payroll employment was essentially unchanged in 

June (+18,000), and the unemployment rate, at 9.2 percent, also 

changed little. Over the past 2 months, job growth has slowed 

markedly. Employment rose by an average of 215,000 per month 

from February through April of this year, compared with an 

average of 22,000 for May and June. 

Mining employment continued to expand in June, with a job 

gain in support activities for mining (+7,000). Employment in 

professional and technical services also continued to increase 

(+24,000). The industry has added 245,000 jobs since reaching a 

recent low in March 2010. Leisure and hospitality employment 

edged up over the month (+34,000). 

Employment in manufacturing was flat in May and June, 

following 6 months of gains that totaled 164,000. Employment in 

temporary help services changed little in June and has shown 
2 

little net growth so far this year. Most other private-sector 

industries showed little or no change over the month. 

Employment in government continued to trend down (-39,000) 

in June. Federal employment declined by 14,000. The number of 

jobs in both state government and local government continued to 

trend down over the month and has been falling since the second 

half of 2008. 

Average hourly earnings of all employees on private nonfarm 

payrolls were down by 1 cent in June to $22.99. Over the past 

12 months, average hourly earnings have risen by 1.9 percent. 

From May 2010 to May 2011, the Consumer Price Index for All 

Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased by 3.4 percent. 

Turning now to measures from the household survey, the 

unemployment rate was 9.2 percent in June, and 14.1 million 

people were unemployed. Since March, the unemployment rate has 

risen by 0.4 percentage point, and the number of unemployed 

persons has increased by 545,000. 

The employment-population ratio declined to 58.2 percent in 

June. Among the employed, the number of individuals working 

part time who preferred full-time work was essentially unchanged 

at 8.6 million. 

The labor force participation rate was little changed, at 

64.1 percent, in June. Among those outside the labor force--

persons neither working nor looking for work--the number of 
3 

discouraged workers in June was 982,000, down from 1.2 million a 

year earlier. These individuals were not looking for work 

because they believed no jobs were available for them. 

In summary, nonfarm payroll employment in June was 

essentially unchanged for the second consecutive month. The 

unemployment rate, at 9.2 percent, was 0.4 percentage point 

higher than in March.
#### BANK OF AMERICA NAT. TRUST & SAVINGS ASS’N et al. v. UNIVERSAL PICTURES CO., Inc.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Dec. 3, 1952.

Gainsburg, Gottlieb, Levitan & Cole, S. Gottlieb, E. Baetich, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Cohen & Bingham, Henry Cohen, Richard E. Colby, New York City, for defendant.

CONGER, District Judge.

Motion by defendant to vacate an ex parte order of Judge Irving Kaufman of this Court. The issue concerns the taking of depositions pursuant to rule 26(a) of the Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C.A.

The action was commenced by the filing of the complaint on September 4, 1952. Defendant was served on September 5, 1952. On September 9, 1952 plaintiff obtained an ex parte order granting leave to issue and serve notice of the examination upon Universal Pictures Co., Inc. and to proceed therein to take testimony of the officers and directors of the defendant. Pursuant to said order plaintiff served a notice on defendant to take the depositions of four of defendant’s officers on September 30, 1952.

I am convinced that I should grant defendant’s motion. Ex parte orders, such as the one here, should not be granted except upon a showing of some unusual or special circumstances. I find none here.

In so holding I am not unmindful of my decision in Keller-Dorian Colorfilm Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., D.C., 9 F.R.D. 432. See also Morris & Co. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, D.C., 10 F.R.D. 236, 238; Babolia v. Local 456, etc., D.C., 11 F.R.D. 423-424; Caldwell-Clements, Inc. v. McGraw Hill Pub. Co., D.C., 11 F.R.D. 156; 4 Moore Federal Practice, 1950 Ed. 1047-9.

Settle order.
##### 



EXHIBIT 1.6

Section 906 Certification

The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany the
report on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2002 pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350).

The undersigned certifies that the report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of issuer.

| |  |                        |  |                                                                                                                 
| |  | ---------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | Name:
Title:
 Company: |  | /s/ G.A. (Drew) FitchG.A. (Drew) Fitch
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
The Westaim Corporation
|
| |  | Date:                  |  | May 5, 2003
IV 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 347

Concerning United States assessed contributions to the United Nations. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2003

Mr. PENCE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on International Relations 

RESOLUTION

Concerning United States assessed contributions to the 

United Nations.

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that the Representative of the United States 

3 to the United Nations should seek an agreement to lower 

4 the assessment level of the United States for the regular 

5 budget of the United Nations when the United Nations 

6 General Assembly considers the scale of assessments for 

7 member nations for the period 2004 through 2006.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES v. EHBAUER.

No. 7512.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, W. D.

Aug. 4, 1952.

Joseph E. Bablca, St. Louis, Mo., Carroll W. Berry, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Thomas J. Brown, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

RIDGE, District Judge.

The requests for admission of facts propounded by the plaintiff are not subject to the objections defendant makes thereto.

The application of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, to a given housing accommodation is a question of fact. United States v. Lewis, D.C., 10 F.R. D. 56.

It is not a valid objection to a request for admission of fact, under Rule 36, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C.A., that it calls for “controversial facts.” If the facts are controverted, because the truth thereof is denied, a denial of the request should be made, and not an objection lodged thereto. Thus the parties know what the “controverted facts” are, and may proceed to procure proof of same. If the denial is not made in good faith, the cost of obtaining such proof may be charged against the party who denied a request for admission of fact, knowing the same to be true. Knowlton v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., D.C., 11 F.R.D. 62; Jones v. Boyd Truck Lines, D.C., 11 F.R.D. 67; Dulansky v. Iowa-Illinois G. & E. Co., D.C., 92 F.Supp. 118.

Defendant’s objections to requests for admission of facts propounded by plaintiff are by the Court overruled, *in toto.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vicente CERVANTES-AVALOS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-30060.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 31, 2012.

Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Francis Franze-Nakamura, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Donald M. Reno, Jr., Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.

Robert Harris Gombiner, Law Offices of Robert Gombiner, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.

*505Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Vicente Cervantes-Avalos appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 45-month and one-week sentence imposed following his bench-trial conviction for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Cervantes-Avalos contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain the sentence and by relying on the clearly erroneous premise that he had illegally returned to the United States to sell drugs. We review for plain error, *see United States v. Valencias-Barragan,*608 F.Sd 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.2010), and find none. The district court reviewed all of the evidence submitted, listened to the mitigating arguments, and considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Nothing more was required. *See Rita v. United States,*551 U.S. 338, 358-59, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Further, the court properly considered Cervantes-Ava-los’s history of drug offenses in the context of the need for deterrence and to protect the public. It did not choose the sentence based on clearly erroneous facts. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir.2008)(en banc).

Cervantes-Avalos next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. Under the totality of the circumstances, including Cervantes-Avalos’s history of immigration 'violations, the below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3359 

To amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 

1968 to authorize grants for heroin and methamphetamine task forces. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2016 

Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 

Streets Act of 1968 to authorize grants for heroin and 

methamphetamine task forces. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HEROIN AND METHAMPHETAMINE TASK 

4 FORCES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title I of the Omnibus Crime 

6 Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 

7 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3359 IS

1 ‘‘PART MM—HEROIN AND METHAMPHETAMINE 

2 TASK FORCE GRANTS 

3 ‘‘SEC. 3031. HEROIN AND METHAMPHETAMINE TASK 

4 FORCES. 

5 ‘‘(a) AUTHORITY.—The Attorney General may make 

6 grants to State law enforcement agencies for investigative 

7 purposes— 

8 ‘‘(1) to locate or investigate illicit activities 

9 through statewide collaboration, including activities 

10 related to— 

11 ‘‘(A) the distribution of heroin, fentanyl, or 

12 carfentanil or the unlawful distribution of pre13 scription opioids; or 

14 ‘‘(B) unlawful heroin, fentanyl, carfentanil, 

15 and prescription opioid traffickers; and 

16 ‘‘(2) to locate or investigate illicit activities, in17 cluding precursor diversion, laboratories, or meth18 amphetamine traffickers. 

19 ‘‘(b) APPLICATIONS.—A State law enforcement agen20 cy desiring a grant under this section shall submit an ap21 plication to the Attorney General at such time and in such 

22 form as the Attorney General may require.’’. 

23 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

24 1001(a) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 

25 Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3793(a)) is amended by 

26 adding at the end the following: 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3359 IS

1 ‘‘(28) For activities under part MM, there are 

2 authorized to be appropriated— 

3 ‘‘(A) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 

4 2017 through 2021 to carry out paragraph (1) 

5 of section 3031(a); and 

6 ‘‘(B) $7,000,000 for each of fiscal years 

7 2017 through 2021 to carry out paragraph (2) 

8 of section 3031(a).’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 21.1


WHX CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES
----------------------------

CONSUMERS MINING COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation
CHAMPION METAL PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware corporation
MINGO OXYGEN COMPANY, an Ohio corporation
PITTSBURGH-CANFIELD CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania corporation
UNIMAST INCORPORATED, an Ohio corporation
WHX ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation
WHEELING-PITTSBURGH CAPITAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation
WPC LAND CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation
WHEELING-PITTSBURGH CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation
WHEELING-PITTSBURGH STEEL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation
WHEELING CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware corporation
WHEELING-EMPIRE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation
WP STEEL VENTURE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation
WHEELING-PITTSBURGH FUNDING, INC., a Delaware corporation
W-P COAL COMPANY, a West Virginia corporation
CAMDEL METALS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation
CONTINENTAL INDUSTRIES, INC. an Oklahoma corporation
ele CORPORATION, a California corporation
HANDY & HARMAN, a New York Coroporation
HANDY & HARMAN OF CANADA, LIMITED, an Ontario, Canada corporation
HANDY & HARMAN ELECTRONIC MATERIALS CORPORATION, a Florida corporation
HANDY & HARMAN (EUROPE) LIMITED, a UK corporation
HANDY & HARMAN INTERNATIONAL, LTD., a Delaware corporation
HANDY & HARMAN PERU, INC., a Delaware corporation
HANDY & HARMAN TUBE COMPANY, INC., a Delaware corporation
HANDY & HARMAN UK HOLDINGS LIMITED, a UK corporation
INDIANA TUBE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation
INDIANA TUBE DANMARK A/S a Denmark corporation
LUCAS-MILHAUPT, INC., a Wisconsin corporation
MARYLAND SPECIALTY WIRE, INC., a Delaware corporation
MICRO-TUBE FABRICATORS, INC., a Delaware corporation
OLYMPIC MANUFACTURING GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation
RIGBY-MARYLAND (STAINLESS), LTD, a UK corporation
SUMCO INC., an Indiana corporation
WILLING B WIRE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation
WHX METALS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation
WHX AVIATION CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation
GT ACQUISITION CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation
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.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Election Commission

# DATE AND TIME:

 Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.

# PLACE:

 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC. (Ninth floor).

# STATUS:

 This meeting will be open to the public.

# ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on the Illinois Republican Party (IRP) (A13-09)

Draft Advisory Opinion 2017-06: Stein and Gottlieb

Management and Administrative Matters

Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.

# PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

 Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Laura E. Sinram,

Acting Deputy Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2017-17237 Filed 8-10-17; 4:15 pm]

 BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
No. 1210.

#### Ginsburg *v.*Sachs et al.

June 3, 1946.

*Paul Ginsburg, pro se.*

*Louis Caplan*for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied.
#### KARTTUNEN v. DRYTRANS, Inc. et al.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

March 10, 1953.

Sterling & Schwartz, New York Chy, for plaintiff.

Kirlin, Campbell & Keating, New Yerk City, for defendants.

EDELSTEIN, District Judge.

Defendants move for an order, under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., requiring plaintiff to produce for discovery and inspection two statements obtained by the plaintiff’s attorney in preparation of the casé. In answer to interrogatories, plaintiff admitted that written statements had been taken from two witnesses. Thereupon, defendant interviewed them. One of them was willing to talk about the alleged accident to the plaintiff, the other was unwilling to give the defendants any information at all,, and neither would sign statements.

The affidavits submitted with the notice of motion make no allegation that the documents sought will in some particular way aid the defendants in the preparation of their case or that the denial of production would cause them hardship. There is no allegation that the statements were made by eyewitnesses, or indeed, by witnesses who might possess any relevant information. And there has been no showing that the statements were taken by plaintiff on the spot, immediately, after the accident, thereby giving them a unique status in the realm of the establishment of good cause. There is, in effect, a mere allegation that plaintiff has taken statements which defendants want to see. A more substantial showing of good cause is required, especially where the statements *24sought involve the work product of a lawyer. See Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d Ed., vol. 4, § 34.09, p. 2454.

Accordingly the motion will be denied, but without prejudice, to a renewal upon a proper showing of good cause.
EX-10.58






Exhibit 10.58



December 29, 2008




Norb Whitlock

EVP Operations




Dear Norb,



As you know, we are behind schedule in the succession planning and transition of your operations
responsibilities to other members of the ACL team. As a result, we would like to extend the timing
of your letter agreement (dated May 14, 2008) by six months. This extension would allow us the
benefit of your continued employment with ACL through June, 2009. During this time, we will
formalize a plan with you which will provide sufficient time to effectively advance the transition
of your operations duties to your successor(s). As part of this revised agreement you may earn a
pro-rata portion of AIP bonus for 2009. You would be eligible for a pro-rata portion of AIP bonus
if ACL meets or exceeds the 2009 AIP performance metrics and if the Board of Directors approves any
such AIP payments to the employees of ACL. The pro-rated AIP payment would be made to you on or
about February 2010. In addition, we would offer you a consulting agreement covering one (1) year
subsequent to your retirement.



This letter does not affect the terms of the Termination Benefits Agreement, as amended.



Please note that all payments by the Company will be made in accordance with all applicable
laws and regulations.



Norb, you have been a key asset to ACL and by agreeing to this proposal, you will help ensure the
continuity of our Transportation business and its people. If you have any questions, please let me
know.




	 	 	 	 	 
	Regards,

 	 
	/s/ Rich Spriggle
 	 
	Rich Spriggle   	 
	SVP Human Resources 	 
	 


I understand and agree to the terms stated above.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 
	/s/ Norb Whitlock
 	 
	Norb Whitlock  	 
	EVP Operations



Cc: Mike Ryan, President & CEO
**SEC. File Nos.	**333-180729

	811-22692

** **

** **

 

**UNITED STATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

 

**FORM N-1A**

Registration Statement

Under

the Securities Act of 1933

Post-Effective Amendment No. 6

and

Registration Statement

Under

the Investment Company Act of 1940

Amendment No. 8

 

 

 

**AMERICAN FUNDS COLLEGE TARGET DATE SERIES**

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

 

6455 Irvine Center Drive
H. R. 825

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the seventh day of January, two thousand and three

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’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.