alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS COMPENSATION AND WORKING CONDITIONS

Page 1

IRRA Holds Its 2002 National Forum in Washington, DC

by John K. Steinmeyer

Originally Posted: January 30, 2003

The Industrial Relations Research Association (IRRA) held its 4th Annual Policy Forum in Washington, DC, on June 20-21,

2002. The theme of the Forum was "Working Families: Private Practices and Public Policies to Promote Economic Security,

Well-being, and Work-life Balance."

Two plenary sessions were held the first day. At the first session, Solicitor of Labor Eugene Scalia spoke of the current

priorities of the U.S. Department of Labor to clarify labor and employment laws and to provide compliance assistance to

employers and workers. Scalia said that Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao had created the job of Director of Compliance to

achieve the latter purpose.

In the second plenary session, the speaker was Victoria A. Lipnic, Assistant Secretary, Employment Standards

Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. She spoke of the need to create more workplace flexibility in the face of demands

by employers and families. Today’s employers need to attract and retain skilled workers. In order to do so, employer policies

must allow workers the flexibility to handle personal and family matters. These policies, over the long run, will maintain

productivity. Workplace flexibility is thus linked to work-life integration.

The Forum also offered five groups of sessions over the two days. Comprising each of the groups were three concurrent

sessions devoted to a different aspect of the main Forum theme. Presenters at each session included representatives of

nongovernment policy organizations, labor organizations, business, government, and academia. Group 1 included concurrent

sessions covering Social Security and old-age benefits, discrimination in the workplace, and raising the technological skills of

the workforce. Group 2 included sessions devoted to strategies for an aging workforce, unemployment insurance programs,

and solutions to the work-life integration.

Group 3 included presentations on pension and retirement plans, violence at home and work, and child labor protection.

Group 4’s sessions included privacy in the workplace, press coverage of working families, and temporary assistance to

needy families. Group 5’s sessions ended the Forum with topics including health improvement of working families, living and

minimum wages, and benefits for the victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The next major event for the national IRRA organization was its 55th Annual Meeting in Washington, DC, on January 2-5,

2003. Information on that event can be obtained on the Internet at www.irra.uiuc.edu.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics | Division of Information and Marketing Services, PSB Suite 2850, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC

20212-0001 | www.bls.gov/OPUB | Telephone: 1-202-691-5200 | Contact Us
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS APPEARING IN THE FORM 10-Q TO WHICH
THIS SCHEDULE IS AN EXHIBIT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      12,994,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               17,123,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,272,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            34,104,000
<PP&E>                                      20,588,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,098,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              60,354,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,953,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        82,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,245,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                60,354,000
<SALES>                                     26,475,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            52,382,000
<CGS>                                        3,657,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,413,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,269,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             605,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                424,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   459,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (35,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (35,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6992

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TEERAN TYRON GRESHAM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (7:03-cr-00064-F-1)

Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 22, 2010

Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Teeran Tyron Gresham, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Teeran Tyron Gresham appeals the district court’s 

order denying his “Motion to Recall” the court’s June 2, 2009

order. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Gresham, No. 7:03-cr-00064-F-1 

(E.D.N.C. June 30, 2010). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Eddie R. FELDER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. R.D. MILES, Warden, United States Penitentiary Beaumont; Solicitor General, United States Department of Justice; United States Bureau of Prisons; University of Texas Medical Branch, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-40063

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 16, 2008.

Eddie Richard Felder, Lovelady, TX, pro se.

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Eddie R. Felder, Texas prisoner # 1210034, challenges, *pro se,*the dismissal of his civil rights and .Federal Torts Claims Act claims as barred by the statute of limitations. Felder does not brief, however, the dismissal of his complaint as untimely. Contentions must be properly briefed in order to be preserved for appeal. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). In short, Felder has abandoned the dispositive issue on appeal. *Id.*

*797Accordingly, Felder’s appeal is without arguable merit and, therefore, is dismissed as frivolous. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). Felder is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

**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.
#### Karl SHECHTMAN v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY.

Civ. No. 16106.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

Sept. 27, 1954.

Richter, Lord & Farage, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Philip Price, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

GANEY, District Judge.

The only question here involved concerns the following interrogatory, to which the defendant objects:

> “14. State the names and addresses and job classifications of plaintiff’s fellow crew or gang workers, if any, who were working with the plaintiff at the time of the accident. State where each stood in relation to the plaintiff, what each was doing at the time of the accident and what part, if any, each played in the event.”

This court follows the latest ruling made on July 31, 1954 by Judge Follmer in this district in which the identical objection to the identical interrogatory was sustained by him. Wehler v. P. R. R., C.A. 15, 405; McCullough v. Cambria Indiana R. R. Co., C.A. 15, 505.

Accordingly, the defendant’s objection to the interrogatory is sustained.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00572-CR

Brian Sellers

v.

The State of Texas

On appeal from the

319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 17FC-0421-G

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 9, 2019
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 165 (Monday, August 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 40776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18199]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Initial Review 
Group; Behavior and Social Science of Aging Review Committee.
    Date: October 5-6, 2017.
    Time: 3:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 
20814.
    Contact Person: Kimberly Firth, Ph.D., National Institute on 
Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7702, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#03686a6e6166716f7a2d656a71776b436d6a6b2d646c75"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="375c5e5a5552455b4e19515e45435f77595e5f19505841">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 23, 2017.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-18199 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Samuel A. TANNENBAUM v. Elvin E. WALKER and Sam Charen.

Civ. A. No. 15500.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. 8, 1954.

*571Freedman, Landy & Lorry, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Swartz, Campbell & Henry, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant Sam Charen.

Thomas E. Comber, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant Elvin E. Walker.

WELSH, District Judge.

Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C., the defendant, Sam Charen, filed a motion for the production of the statement given by a witness to plaintiff’s prior counsel a few days after the alleged accident.

The facts in support of the motion are as follows: The witness, William R. Singiser, at oral depositions taken December 30,1953, some seven months after the accident, stated that he was upset for personal reasons, admitted that his depositions were not too clear, and repeatedly referred to his *statement*made a few days *after*the alleged accident which occurred on *June 1, 1953*as being more accurate and more detailed than his then present recollection.

The sole question presented is: “Do the above facts meet the ‘good cause’ requirement of Rule 34?” We think they do.

We do not consider the conclusion just reached in conflict with the established proposition that a party is not entitled to the statement of a witness if the witness is available for oral depositions for in the present case it will be observed that the oral depositions of the witness have already been taken and the witness testified that the statement given by him a few days after the alleged accident is more accurate and detailed than his oral depositions which were taken approximately seven months after the alleged accident. In such circumstance, we feel the proposition, established as it may well be, should not operate, as would appear here, to shut out a more accurate and detailed account of the alleged occurrence than was brought out on oral depositions.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      14,665,730
<SECURITIES>                                 5,348,742
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,507,336
<ALLOWANCES>                                   340,572
<INVENTORY>                                    336,545
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,033,079
<PP&E>                                       3,632,772
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,303,191
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,345,482
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,108,904
<BONDS>                                      1,261,172
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 67,560,365
<COMMON>                                        17,838
<OTHER-SE>                                (49,890,312)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,345,482
<SALES>                                      5,326,761
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,326,761
<CGS>                                        2,052,370
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,726,361
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               141,124
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (279,143)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,120,457)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,120,457)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,120,457)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.49)


</TABLE>
## The Honorable D. Brook Bartlett, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 1 

## the Western District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals 

### FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-1791

___________ Buck Green, individually and on * behalf of all others similarly situated; * Joyce Moton, individually and on * behalf of all others similarly situated, * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Gary J. Stangler; Carmen Schulze; * Richard Koon; Don Holt; Louise * [Unpublished] Critten; D. Wayne Osgoode; Charles * Diamond, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: June 20, 1997 Filed: July 9, 1997

___________ Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Buc k Green and Joyce Moton appeal the district court’s grant o f 1 summary

## -2-

judgment to defendants in their civil rights action. Having carefull y reviewedthe record and the parties’ submissions, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Moton from the appeal is granted. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 914 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                        Calendar No. 47
114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 914

                          [Report No. 114-24]

     To amend title 31, United States Code, to clarify the use of 
                    credentials by enrolled agents.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 14, 2015

   Mr. Hatch, from the Committee on Finance, reported the following 
     original bill; which was read twice and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend title 31, United States Code, to clarify the use of 
                    credentials by enrolled agents.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF ENROLLED AGENT CREDENTIALS.

    Section 330 of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as 
        subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively, and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
        subsection:
    ``(b) Any enrolled agents properly licensed to practice as required 
under rules promulgated under subsection (a) shall be allowed to use 
the credentials or designation of `enrolled agent', `EA', or `E.A.'.''.
                                                        Calendar No. 47

114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 914

                          [Report No. 114-24]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

     To amend title 31, United States Code, to clarify the use of 
                    credentials by enrolled agents.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 14, 2015

                 Read twice and placed on the calendar
```
#### Raul Torres GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-74256.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 **.

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Sung U. Park, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, Raul Torres Garcia, La Habra, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Sada Manickam, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Raul Torres Garcia seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals *989(“BIA”) upholding an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, *Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We are not persuaded that Torres Garcia’s removal results in the deprivation of his children’s rights. *See Cabrerar-Alvarez v. Gonzales,*423 F.3d 1006, 1012-13 (9th Cir.2005).

We lack jurisdiction to review Torres Garcia’s contention that the IJ denied him a full and fair hearing in violation of due process because Torres Garcia failed to raise it before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (noting that due process challenges that are “procedural in nature” must be exhausted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      14,180,106
<SECURITIES>                                 6,588,432
<RECEIVABLES>                                  961,884
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,412,140
<PP&E>                                       9,291,288
<DEPRECIATION>                             (6,059,693)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,755,449
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,982,959
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       170,974
<OTHER-SE>                                 117,782,252
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,755,449
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               534,925
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,498,081
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,578,837)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,578,837)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>