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

Assess patient health problems and needs, develop and implement nursing 

care plans, and maintain medical records. Administer nursing care to ill, 

injured, convalescent, or disabled patients. May advise patients on health 

maintenance and disease prevention or provide case management. Licensing 

or registration required. Includes Clinical Nurse Specialists.

Cognitive and mental requirements

The qualifications that workers need to use judgment, make decisions, 

interact with others, and adapt to changes in jobs.

In 2023, verbal interactions were required constantly (every few minutes) for 34.7 percent of registered nurses, and 

were required not constantly, but more than once per hour for 63.0 percent.

Table 1. Percentage of registered nurses with cognitive and mental requirements, 

2023

Requirement Yes No

Pace: Pause control 29.4 70.6

Interaction with general public >99.5 <0.5

Working around crowds <0.5 >99.5

Telework 2.8 97.2

Work review: Supervising others 31.0 69.0

Work review: Presence of supervisor 60.6 39.4

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Requirements Survey

Education, training, and experience requirements

The minimum level of formal 

education required, 

credentials necessary, on-thejob training, and prior work 

experience necessary for 

average performance in jobs.

In 2023, credentials were 

required for greater than 99.5 

percent of registered nurses. 

Prior work experience was 

required for 48.3 percent and 

on-the-job training was 

required for 72.8 percent.

A bachelor's degree was 

required for 49.7 percent of 

registered nurses.
Occupational Requirements Survey ●www.bls.gov/ors ●orsinfo@bls.gov ●202.691.6199

Environmental conditions

The various tangible or concrete 

hazards or difficulties that are in the 

vicinity of where jobs’ critical tasks are 

performed.

In 2023, greater than 99.5 percent of 

registered nurses were not exposed to 

extreme cold, and greater than 99.5 

percent were not exposed to extreme 

heat. Wetness was not present for 11.6 

percent, greater than 99.5 percent 

were not exposed to heavy vibrations, 

and 97.1 percent were not exposed to 

the outdoors.

Physical demands

Refer to the physical activities required to 

perform tasks in jobs. The presence and, 

in some cases, duration of these activities 

are published.

In 2023, keyboarding was required for 

96.8 percent of registered nurses and was 

not required for 3.2 percent.

Performing work in low postures was 

required for 84.4 percent of registered 

nurses and was not required for 15.6 

percent.

The choice to sit or stand when 

performing critical tasks was available to 

19.4 percent of registered nurses. On 

average, workers spent 30.7 percent of 

the workday sitting and 69.3 percent of the workday standing.

Table 2. Percentage of registered nurses with physical demands, 2023

Requirement Yes No

Choice of sitting or standing 19.4 80.6

Driving 11.9 88.1

Climbing structure-related ramps or stairs 19.7 80.3

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Requirements Survey
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.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

          - RIN 0648-XF659

# AGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

# ACTION:

Notice of public meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Electronic Monitoring Workgroup (EMWG) will hold a public meeting on September 18, 2017, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Pacific Time, AFSC, Traynor Room in Building 4, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 18, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Pacific Time.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held in the FMA Observer Training Room 1055 AFSC, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA. It will also be available by teleconference at (907) 271-2896.

*Council address:*                         North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone: (907) 271-2809.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Diana Evans, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Agenda

1. Update on 2017 pre-implementation program;

2. Discuss 2018 EM deployment and implementation, including budget;

3. Review EM component of draft Statement of Work for observer/EM contract;

4. Review draft methodology for allocating the observer fee between EM and observers;

5. Review NMFS draft EM policy directive;

6. Research and development report; and

                    7. Other business and scheduling. The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at                     *http://www.npfmc.org/​.*

## Special Accommodations

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

      ( print page 41614)    
Dated: August 29, 2017.

Tracey L. Thompson,

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 2017-18600 Filed 8-31-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Each of the undersigned
hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of The Finish Line, Inc. (the Company), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



| |  |  | The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the thirty-nine weeks ended November 26, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |                                                                          
|------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: December 21, 2005
|                         | 
|By:                      |  | /s/ Alan H. Cohen                                                        
|                         |  | Alan H. Cohen                                                            
|                         |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                                     
|                         | 
|By:                      |  | /s/ Kevin S. Wampler                                                     
|                         |  | Kevin S. Wampler                                                         
|                         |  | Executive Vice-President, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary
Percent distribution of employed foreign-born and native-born persons, by occupation, 2007 


		
							Foreign born	Native born

Total							    100%	    100%
Management, professional, and related			    27.2	    37.0
Service							    22.8	    15.4
Sales and office					    17.5	    26.2
Natural resources, construction, and maintenance	    16.4	     9.7
Production, transportation, and material moving		    16.2	    11.7
#### NASH-KELVINATOR CORP. v. CALIFORNIA REFRIGERATOR REPAIR SHOP.

No. 11702.

United States District Court. S. D. California, Central Division.

July 28, 1950.

*314Wm. Edward Hann, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs.

William C. Ring, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant.

MATHES, District Judge.

This cause having come before the court for hearing on defendant’s motion, filed July 7, 1950, to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 12(b) (1), 28 U.S.C.A.; and the motion having been argued and submitted for decision; and it appearing to the court:

(a) that the motion in effect traverses the allegations of plaintiffs’ complaint as to the requisite jurisdictional amount, Fed. R. Civ.P. 8(a) (1) and thus casts the burden upon plaintiffs to come forward with proof of the facts upon which the jurisdiction of this court depends, KVOS, Inc., v. Associated Press, 1936, 299 U.S. 269, 278, 57 S.Ct. 197, 81 L.Ed. 183;

(b) that upon a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the court may receive and weigh affidavits as evidence, Fed.R. Civ.P. 43(a) ; Cal.Code Civ.P. § 2009 and need not treat the motion “as one for summary judgment” Fed.R. Civ.P. 12(b);

(c) that it appears from the complaint, The Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co., 1913, 228 U.S. 22, 25, 33 S.Ct. 410, 57 L.Ed. 716, that causes of action for injunctive relief and damages are asserted by plaintiffs. based upon claimed acts of unfair competition consisting *inter alia*of alleged unlicensed use by defendant of plaintiffs’ trade names “Kelvinator” and “Leonard” within the Los Angeles area;

(d) that plaintiffs have failed in response to this motion to show actual or threatened damage of $3,000 or more proximately resulting from defendant’s alleged acts of unfair competition, KVOS, Inc., v. Associated Press, supra, 1936, 299 U.S. 269, 279, 57 S.Ct. 197, 81 L.Ed. 183; cf. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 1936, 298 U.S. 178, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135; Gibbs v. Buck, 1939, 307 U.S. 66, 75, 59 S.Ct. 725, 83 L.Ed. 1111;

(e) that the affidavits on file in opposition to this motion do however establish that the value of the exclusive right to use the trade names “Kelvinator” and “Leonard” in the Los Angeles area, see Stork Restaurant, Inc., v. Sahati, 9 Cir., 1948, 166 F.2d 348, which is the “matter in controversy” involved in plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief, Beneficial Industrial *315Loan Corporation v. Kline, 8 Cir., 1942, 132 F.2d 520, 525; Scalise v. National Utility Service, Inc., 5 Cir., 1941, 120 F.2d 938, 940; Indian Territory Oil & Gas Co. v. Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co., 10 Cir., 1938, 95 F.2d 711, 713, certiorari denied, 1938, 305 U.S. 607, 59 S.Ct. 67, 83 L.Ed. 386, does far exceed “the sum or value of $3,000 exclusive of interest and costs”. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1332.

It is now ordered that defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction be and is hereby denied.

It is further ordered that the Clerk this day serve this order by United States mail on the attorneys for the parties appearing in this action.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 830 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 830

To increase the maximum percentage of funds available to the Department 
      of Energy for laboratory directed research and development.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 23, 2015

Mr. Heinrich (for himself and Mr. Udall) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To increase the maximum percentage of funds available to the Department 
      of Energy for laboratory directed research and development.

    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 ``LDRD Enhancement Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN CAP ON FUNDING FOR LABORATORY DIRECTED RESEARCH AND 
              DEVELOPMENT.

    (a) In General.--Section 308 of the Energy and Water Development 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009 (division C of Public Law 
111-8; 123 Stat. 626) is amended by striking ``8 percent'' and 
inserting ``10 percent''.
    (b) Applicability to National Security Laboratories.--Section 
4811(c) of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2791(c)) is amended 
by striking ``6 percent'' and inserting ``10 percent''.
    (c) Conforming Repeal.--Section 309 of the Energy and Water 
Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014 (division D 
of Public Law 113-76; 128 Stat. 175) is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. §1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Universal Hospital Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Gary D. Blackford, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/GARY D. BLACKFORDGary D. Blackford
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2007 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 732 

To amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to reaffirm the authority of the 

Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for Indian tribes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 12, 2015 

Mr. TESTER (for himself, Mr. MORAN, Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. HEINRICH, Ms. 

HEITKAMP, Mrs. MURRAY, Ms. STABENOW, and Mr. UDALL) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Indian Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land into 

trust for Indian tribes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REAFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY. 

4 (a) MODIFICATION.— 

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—The first sentence of section 

6 19 of the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly known 

7 as the ‘‘Indian Reorganization Act’’) (25 U.S.C. 

8 479), is amended— 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 732 IS

1 (A) by striking ‘‘The term’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘Effective beginning on June 18, 1934, the 

3 term’’; and 

4 (B) by striking ‘‘any recognized Indian 

5 tribe now under Federal jurisdiction’’ and in6 serting ‘‘any federally recognized Indian tribe’’. 

7 (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made 

8 by paragraph (1) shall take effect as if included in 

9 the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly known as the 

10 ‘‘Indian Reorganization Act’’) (25 U.S.C. 479), on 

11 the date of enactment of that Act. 

12 (b) RATIFICATION AND CONFIRMATION OF AC13 TIONS.—Any action taken by the Secretary of the Interior 

14 pursuant to the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly known 

15 as the ‘‘Indian Reorganization Act’’) (25 U.S.C. 461 et 

16 seq.), for any Indian tribe that was federally recognized 

17 on the date of that action is ratified and confirmed, to 

18 the extent such action is subjected to challenge based on 

19 whether the Indian tribe was federally recognized or under 

20 Federal jurisdiction on June 18, 1934, as if the action 

21 had, by prior Act of Congress, been specifically authorized 

22 and directed. 

23 (c) EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.— 

24 (1) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this section or 

25 the amendments made by this section shall affect— 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•S 732 IS

1 (A) the application or effect of any Federal 

2 law other than the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 

3 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), as amended by subsection 

4 (a); or 

5 (B) any limitation on the authority of the 

6 Secretary of the Interior under any Federal law 

7 or regulation other than the Act of June 18, 

8 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), as so amended. 

9 (2) REFERENCES IN OTHER LAWS.—An express 

10 reference to the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 

11 461 et seq.), contained in any other Federal law 

12 shall be considered to be a reference to that Act as 

13 amended by subsection (a). 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Unassociated Document











EXHIBIT 10.2




 



LEASE AGREEMENT


 


This Lease Agreement is entered into on the 22nd day of August, 2011, by and between BAY ENERGY SERVICES, INC. (herein “BAY” or “LESSEE) and WEST TEXAS RESOURCES, INC., (herein “LESSOR”) to provide the terms under which BAY will lease one or more vacuum water trailers from LESSOR as follows:


 



	
1.  

	
BAY will pay LESSOR, for each trailer, Twenty-Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) plus ten percent (10%) of the gross proceeds generated by the trailer per month at $35.00 per hour.  This payment shall be paid in arrears and shall be due within five (5) days after the end of each month;







 



	
2.  

	
BAY shall operate the equipment in a fair and reasonable manner and in compliance with all governing laws, ordinances and regulations.  BAY shall be solely responsible for all maintenance of the equipment and repair of any and all damage to the equipment;







 



	
3.  

	
BAY will maintain liability and collision insurance on the equipment;







 



	
4.  

	
This Lease will be for a period of two (2) years from the above date;







 



	
5.  

	
At the end of this Lease, LESSOR shall have the option, but not the obligation, to sell the equipment to BAY for seventy-five percent (75%) of the original purchase price;







 



	
6.  

	
This Lease shall only be valid for equipment that BAY has inspected and approved in its sole discretion;







 



	
7.  

	
If the equipment is purchased used, after BAY has approved the equipment as provided above, BAY shall be fully responsible for any initial repairs needed to put the equipment into service;







 



	
8.  

	
LESSOR shall not be responsible for any accidents or damages caused by BAY or its employees using the equipment covered by this Lease and BAY shall indemnify and hold harmless LESSOR from any and all such liability and damages;







 



	
9.  

	
Upon expiration or termination of this Lease, BAY shall return the equipment to LESSOR in good repair, condition and working order, ordinary wear and tear expected;







 



	
10.  

	
LESSOR shall be responsible for any and all taxes, fees, and registrations due upon or for the equipment;







 


 




	
LESSEE:

	  	
LESSOR:

	 
	
BAY ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

	  	
WEST TEXAS RESOURCES, INC.

	 
	  	  	  	 
	
/s/ Lindsey Vinson      

	  	
/s/ Stephen E. Jones      

	 
	
LINDSEY VINSON, President

	  	
STEPHEN E. JONES, President
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Gustavo Estrella POOT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-40187

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 25, 2008.

Ernest Gonzalez, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Plano, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Robert Gerard Arrambide, Federal Defender’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gustavo Estrella Poot has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Poot has filed a response, asserting that counsel was ineffective. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Poot’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the 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. Poot’s motion to disqualify and appoint new counsel is DENIED.

*

 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.
#### Ronita Faith BELL *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 97-1004

961 S.W.2d 36

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered March 26, 1998

*433
      *Steve Kirk,*for appellant.

No response.

Per Curiam.

Appellant Ronita Faith Bell, by her attorney, Steve Kirk, has two motions pending for an extension of time to file her brief. Prior to these motions, BeE through counsel, Steve Kirk, filed a motion for an extension to file her brief on October 7, 1997, and it was granted untE November 7, 1997. She then asked for a second extension on November 6, 1997, and it was granted untE December 22, 1997. She next moved for a third extension of time and to supplement the record on December 22, 1997, and this was granted on January 15, 1998. This was described as a “final extension.” We stated that the brief would be due 14 days after the supplement to the transcript was filed. The supplement was filed on February 13, 1998, which made BeE’s brief due on February 27, 1998.

The first of the two current motions for an extension was filed on February 27, 1998, and it asked for an extension untE March 6, 1998. The second motion was filed on March 6, 1998, and requests an extension untE March 16, 1998. Each motion asks that it be deemed a “final extension.” BeE’s brief was tendered to this court on March 16, 1998. We accept the brief for filing.

We do not grant extensions as a matter of course after a final extension has been given. The final extension occurred on January 15, 1998, with the brief due on February 27, 1998.

Attorney Steve Kirk is ordered to appear at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, AprE 9, 1998, to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for faEing to file appeEant’s brief in a timely manner.