alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Bureau of Labor Statistics U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Food Preparation and Serving Occupations These workers make and provide food and drink to customers. Overall employment in food preparation and serving occupations is projected to grow about as fast as the average for all occupations from 2022 to 2032. About 2.5 million openings are projected each year, on average, in these occupations due to employment growth and the need to replace workers who leave the occupations permanently. The median annual wage for this group was $32,240 in May 2023, which was lower than the median annual wage for all occupations of $48,060. BLS employment projections, wage, and other data for related occupations not shown in the following table are available on the Data for Occupations Not Covered in Detail page. Information highlighting physical demands, cognitive and mental requirements, and other qualifications for workers in this group are available in a BLS Occupational Requirements Survey (ORS) profile. **Occupation**
                **Job Summary**
                **Entry-Level Education**
                **2022     MEDIAN PAY****Bartenders**
            Bartenders mix drinks and serve them directly to customers or through wait staff.
            No formal educational credential
            $31,510**Chefs and Head Cooks**
            Chefs and head cooks oversee the daily food preparation at restaurants and other places where food is served.
            High school diploma or equivalent
            $58,920**Cooks**
            Cooks season and prepare foods, including soups, salads, entrees, and desserts.
            See How to Become One
            $34,320**Food and Beverage Serving and Related Workers**
            Food and beverage serving and related workers take and prepare orders, clear tables, and do other tasks associated with providing food and drink to customers.
            No formal educational credential
            $29,710**Food Preparation Workers**
            Food preparation workers perform a variety of tasks other than cooking, such as slicing meat and brewing coffee.
            No formal educational credential
            $32,420**Waiters and Waitresses**
            Waiters and waitresses take orders and serve food and beverages to customers in dining establishments.
            No formal educational credential
            $31,940 **Last Modified Date:**
                        Wednesday, April 17, 2024


**U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics**
Office of Occupational Statistics and Employment Projections 
PSB Suite 2135 
2 Massachusetts Avenue NE  
Washington, DC 20212-0001 Telephone:1-202-691-5700 

www.bls.gov/ooh
Contact OOH
EXHIBIT 32
 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
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated: November 10, 2008
    /s/ Edward K. ChristianEdward K. ChristianChief Executive OfficerDated: November 10, 2008
    /s/ Samuel D. BushSamuel D. BushChief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18 United States Code Section 1350,As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

The undersigned hereby certifies that, to thebest of my knowledge, the Amendment No.1 on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September30, 2004 of Graphic Packaging Corporation (the ‘‘Company’’) filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
|   | /s/ STEPHEN  M. HUMPHREY                      |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|   | Name:  Stephen M. Humphrey                    |
|   | Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | Date: August  9, 2005                         |

 

----
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

298 CA 11-02179 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

ELLEN J. GALLAGHER, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

EDWARD R. GALLAGHER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 3.)

D.J. & J.A. CIRANDO, ESQS., SYRACUSE (JOHN A. CIRANDO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
GETNICK, LIVINGSTON, ATKINSON & PRIORE, LLP, UTICA (THOMAS L. ATKINSON OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (David A. Murad, J.), dated April 28, 2011 in a divorce action. The order, among other things, required defendant to maintain plaintiff as co-insured on all property and liability insurance until he has removed her name from all instruments of liability.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs ( see Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy , 140 AD2d 988; Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v Roberts & Roberts , 63 AD2d 566, 567; see also CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Entered: March 23, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<NAME>   WPL HOLDINGS, INC.
<CIK>    0000352541
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      1240569
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    2335342
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          172402
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        245370
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                    6848
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1900531
<COMMON>                                           308
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       303856
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             303191
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  607355
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      59963
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            362564
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               43279
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                        56975
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                   59500
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    67626
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  643269
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  1900531
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       932844
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             41814
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      319154
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      791340
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         141504
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               15644
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  115334
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         38819
<NET-INCOME>                                     76515
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       3310
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    73205
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         60656
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        35855
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          190719
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Applicable accounting rules do not require WPL Holdings, Inc. to report
earnings per share on a fully diluted basis.
</FN>
        

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

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

629 

CA 12-01412 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

EDWARD A. LEGARRETA, M.D., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MELISSA A.L. NEAL, M.D., AND TWENTY 20 EYE CARE

AND AESTHETIC OCULOPLASTIC MEDICINE, PLLC, 

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. 

(APPEAL NO. 3.) 

 

MYERS, QUINN & SCHWARTZ, LLP, WILLIAMSVILLE (JAMES I. MYERS OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS. 

JAECKLE FLEISCHMANN & MUGEL, LLP, BUFFALO (BRADLEY A. HOPPE OF

COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme

Court, Erie County (John A. Michalek, J.), entered March 1, 2012. The

order and judgment, among other things, granted that part of

plaintiff’s motion for entry of a default judgment. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order and judgment so appealed from

is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same Memorandum as in Legarreta v Neal ([appeal No. 2] ___ AD3d

___ [July 5, 2013]).

Entered: July 5, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Affirmed an d Memorandum Opinion filed January 10 , 201 2

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 1 1

- 00 387

- CR

____________ CHRISTOPHER REYES , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 239t h District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 56,225



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant entered a plea of ― guilty ‖ to the offense of aggravated assault

. The trial court deferred adjudicating guilt and placed appellant under community supervision for a period of three years. Subsequently, the State moved to adjudicate guilt. On April 27,
2011 , the trial court adjudicat ed guilt and sentenced appellant to c onfinement for eight years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant ’ s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirement s of Anders v.2

California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of
the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
A copy of counsel ’ s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. (Tex. Crim. App.1991). Appellant has had the opportunity to file a pro se response, but, a s of this date, no pro se response has been filed.
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel ’ s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible er ror in the record

. We
are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State
, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accord ingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Christopher. Do Not Publish

— T ex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 691 

To require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to obtain the consent of 

affected State and local governments before authorizing the construction 

of a nuclear waste repository. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 10, 2015 

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. HELLER) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

A BILL 

To require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to obtain 

the consent of affected State and local governments before authorizing the construction of a nuclear waste repository. 

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 ‘‘Nuclear Waste In5 formed Consent Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act, the terms ‘‘affected Indian tribe’’, ‘‘Com8 mission’’, ‘‘high-level radioactive waste’’, ‘‘repository’’, and 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 691 IS

1 ‘‘spent nuclear fuel’’ have the meanings given the terms 

2 in section 2 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 

3 U.S.C. 10101). 

4 SEC. 3. CONSENT BASED APPROVAL. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Commission may not author6 ize construction of a repository unless the Secretary has 

7 entered into an agreement to host the repository with— 

8 (1) the Governor of the State in which the re9 pository is proposed to be located; 

10 (2) each affected unit of local government; 

11 (3) any unit of general local government contig12 uous to the affected unit of local government if 

13 spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste will 

14 be transported through that unit of general local 

15 government for disposal at the repository; and 

16 (4) each affected Indian tribe. 

17 (b) CONDITIONS ON AGREEMENT.—Any agreement 

18 to host a repository under this Act— 

19 (1) shall be in writing and signed by all parties; 

20 (2) shall be binding on the parties; and 

21 (3) shall not be amended or revoked except by 

22 mutual agreement of the parties. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 691 IS

1 SEC. 4. APPLICATION. 

2 This Act applies to any application submitted to the 

3 Commission for construction authorization for a repository 

4 that— 

5 (1) exists as of the date of enactment of this 

6 Act; or 

7 (2) is submitted on or after the date of enact8 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit
        23.1**
 
 **WISS
        & COMPANY, LLP**
 **CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**
 
  We
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
        Form
        S-8 Registration No. 333-122455 of Dialysis Corporation of America of our
        report
        dated February 7, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
        of
        Dialysis Corporation of America as of and for the year ended December 31,
        2002,
        which report appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, Amendment No. 1,
        of
        Dialysis Corporation of America for the year ended December 31,
        2004.
  
 
 /s/
        Wiss & Company, LLP
 WISS
        & COMPANY, LLP
 
 Livingston,
        New Jersey
  August
        9,
        2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,027,485
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,145,190
<ALLOWANCES>                                   970,336
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,442,244
<PP&E>                                      33,823,578
<DEPRECIATION>                              25,512,508
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,127,915
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,061,627
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        145
<COMMON>                                       174,825
<OTHER-SE>                                  27,615,875
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                44,127,915
<SALES>                                      6,022,610
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,141,797
<CGS>                                        7,748,310
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,748,310
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            18,604,232
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,211
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,242,956)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,242,956)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,242,956)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.26)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7103

REGINALD C. SHEFTALL, JR., a/k/a Riegnald C. Sheftall,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

AARON JOYNER, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (8:17-cv-01955-TMC)

Submitted: February 21, 2019 Decided: February 25, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald C. Sheftall, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Reginald C. Sheftall, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sheftall has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1



STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER-SHARE NET LOSS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                              Three Months Ended September 30,   Nine Months Ended September 30,
                                                    1996             1997             1996             1997
                                                ----------------------------      ----------------------------


<S>                                               <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>      
AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                        7,316,849        7,358,148        7,331,173        7,347,430

NET EFFECT OF ANTI-DILUTIVE STOCK AND STOCK
OPTIONS AND WARRANTS                                      0                0                0                0
                                                ----------------------------      ----------------------------

TOTAL                                             7,316,849        7,358,148        7,331,173        7,347,430
                                                ============================      ============================

NET LOSS                                        ($1,173,634)     ($1,480,346)     ($4,130,753)     ($5,130,096)
                                                ============================      ============================

PER-SHARE AMOUNT                                ($     0.16)     ($     0.20)     ($     0.56)     ($     0.70)
                                                ============================      ============================
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 380 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 380

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exemption from 
     the tax on early distributions for certain Bureau of Prisons 
correctional officers who retire before age 55, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 5, 2015

Mr. Toomey (for himself and Mr. Bennet) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exemption from 
     the tax on early distributions for certain Bureau of Prisons 
correctional officers who retire before age 55, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Correctional Officer Fairness Act of 
2015''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM TAX ON EARLY DISTRIBUTIONS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (t) of section 72 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(11) Distributions to qualified federal correctional 
        officers from the thrift savings fund.--
                    ``(A) In general.--In the case of a distribution to 
                a qualified Federal correctional officer from the 
                Thrift Savings Fund established under section 8437 of 
                title 5, United States Code, paragraph (2)(A)(v) of 
                this subsection shall be applied by substituting `age 
                50 (or, if earlier, the age at which the employee has 
                completed 25 years of creditable service)' for `age 
                55'.
                    ``(B) Qualified federal correctional officer.--For 
                purposes of this paragraph, the term `qualified Federal 
                correctional officer' means an individual--
                            ``(i) who is employed by the Federal Bureau 
                        of Prisons as a correctional officer, and
                            ``(ii) who has completed 20 years of 
                        creditable service.
                    ``(C) Creditable service.--For purposes of this 
                paragraph, the term `creditable service' means 
                creditable service under section 8332 or 8411 of title 
                5, United States Code.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to distributions made after December 31, 2015.
                                 <all>
```