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

Highest Paying Occupations **Highest paying occupations:**     20 occupations with the highest median annual pay. *Click on an occupation name to see the full occupational profile.* OCCUPATION
                2023     MEDIAN PAYOral and maxillofacial surgeons
		$line_item_noteThis wage is equal to or greater than $239,200 per yearSurgeons, all other
		$line_item_noteThis wage is equal to or greater than $239,200 per yearPediatric surgeons
		$line_item_noteThis wage is equal to or greater than $239,200 per yearOrthopedic surgeons, except pediatric
		$line_item_noteThis wage is equal to or greater than $239,200 per yearOphthalmologists, except pediatric
		$line_item_noteThis wage is equal to or greater than $239,200 per yearRadiologists
		$line_item_noteThis wage is equal to or greater than $239,200 per yearPsychiatrists
		$line_item_noteThis wage is equal to or greater than $239,200 per yearPhysicians, pathologists
		$line_item_noteThis wage is equal to or greater than $239,200 per yearObstetricians and gynecologists
		$line_item_noteThis wage is equal to or greater than $239,200 per yearNeurologists
		$line_item_noteThis wage is equal to or greater than $239,200 per yearEmergency medicine physicians
		$line_item_noteThis wage is equal to or greater than $239,200 per yearDermatologists
		$line_item_noteThis wage is equal to or greater than $239,200 per yearCardiologists
		$line_item_noteThis wage is equal to or greater than $239,200 per yearAnesthesiologists
		$line_item_noteThis wage is equal to or greater than $239,200 per yearOrthodontists
		$line_item_noteThis wage is equal to or greater than $239,200 per yearPhysicians, all other
		$line_item_note$236,000     per yearProsthodontists
		$line_item_note$234,000     per yearDentists, all other specialists
		$line_item_note$227,690     per yearFamily medicine physicians
		$line_item_note$224,640     per yearGeneral internal medicine physicians
		$line_item_note$223,310     per year **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
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS COMPENSATION AND WORKING CONDITIONS

Page 1

California Enacts Healthcare Law Covering Uninsured Workers

by John Buckley

Originally Posted: November 24, 2003

On October 5, 2003, the Governor of California signed the Health Insurance Act of 2003, which will provide health insurance

to an estimated 1.1 million working Californians currently without coverage. The provisions of the act will be introduced in two

stages: • Large employers--those with 200 or more employees statewide--are required to provide health insurance to

employees and their dependents beginning January 1, 2006. • Smaller employers--those with 50 to 199 employees statewide--are required to provide health insurance to employees

and their dependents beginning January 1, 2007.

Employers with fewer than 20 employees are exempt from the act. Employers with 20 to 49 employees are not required to

comply unless a tax credit is enacted and available to those employers.

The act creates the State Health Purchasing Program, which will be administered by the Managed Risk Medical Insurance

Board. The act requires employers to provide specified health benefits either directly or through the program. It also requires

the board to determine the fee employers must pay and states that the associated employee contributions collected by

employers may not exceed 20 percent of the employer fee.

The text of the act can viewed at the California State Senate website at http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/

sb_2_bill_20031006_chaptered.pdf.

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
#### Daniel TINSLEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA; Mr. Mayo, Lieutenant; Mr. Hicks, Nurse; Mr. Bishop, Lieutenant, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 07-7495.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 28, 2008.

Daniel Tinsley, Appellant Pro Se.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Tinsley appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. *Tinsley v. Corrections Corp. of America,*No. 2:07-cv-00382-RBS (E.D.Va., Aug. 23, 2007). 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.

*DISMISSED.*
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

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,                         *kimberly.firth@nih.gov*.                    

(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
EXHIBIT 99.2

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

     In connection with the Annual Report of The Ziegler Companies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary P.
Engle, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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

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

/s/ Gary P. Engle
-----------------------------------
Gary P. Engle
Chief Financial Officer
March 28, 2003

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to The Ziegler Companies, Inc. and will be retained by The Ziegler
Companies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Exhibit 10.20

FORM OF  EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AGREEMENT

This
Employment Security Agreement (the "Agreement") is between Zale Corporation ("Company") and the
undersigned [Executive][Group Senior] Vice President of Company ("Executive").

WHEREAS,in order to achieve its long-term objectives, Company recognizes that it is essential to attract and retain qualified executives;
and

WHEREAS, in consideration of Executive's valuable service for, and critical contribution to the success of, Company, Company desires to provide
Executive with certain benefits in the event Executive's employment is terminated, either in connection with or unrelated to a Change of Control of Company, on the terms and subject to the conditions
set forth in this Agreement. Capitalized terms that are used in this Agreement but not defined in connection with their use are defined in Article V.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and of the mutual covenants herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, it is agreed as follows:

ARTICLE I  TERMINATION BENEFITS

---







2

---





3

---







4

---





5

---





6

---





ARTICLE II  EXECUTIVE COVENANTS

7

---







8

---







9

---





ARTICLE III  DISPUTE RESOLUTION

10

---



11

---



ARTICLE IV  MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

12

---





13

---



ARTICLE V  DEFINITIONS

UNRELATED TO A CHANGE
OF CONTROLSECTION 1.1

RELATED TO A CHANGE OF
CONTROLSECTION 1.2

DISABILITY OR DEATH
SECTIONS 1.3 AND 1.4Average Bonus

Target Bonus

None




14

---





15

---





16

---





QUALIFYING TERMINATION
OTHER THAN DURING A
PROTECTION PERIOD
SECTION 1.1

QUALIFYING TERMINATION
DURING A PROTECTION
PERIODSECTION 1.2

TERMINATION OF
EMPLOYMENT DUE TO
DISABILITY OR DEATH
SECTIONS 1.3 AND 1.42 years

3 years

1 year


17

---



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the            day
of                        , 200    .

|ZALE CORPORATION. |  | 
|----------------- |  | 
|By:               |  | 
|Name:             |  | 
|Title:            |  | 
|EXECUTIVE         |  | 
|                  |  | 

18

---



QuickLinks
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF NORFOLK

#### Commonwealth of Virginia v. Clifton Earl Graham

January 8, 2002

Case No. CR94/3606/F/11 Ended File No. F2641 (1991)

By judge John c. Morrison, Jr.

The instant matter came before this Court on Petitioner Clifton Earl Graham’s Writ of Error Coram Nobis Motion to Dismiss Charges and Discharge Detainer and Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel.

Petitioner addressed two arguments in his first motion: (1) That the detainer against him is in violation of the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution; and (2) That a violation ofthe Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) occurred as a result of the detainer warrant issued for him by the Commonwealth’s Attorney. Petitioner also asks that this Court appoint him counsel.

This Court finds that there is no law to support petitioner’s contention that the detainer issued against him is in violation of the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

As to petitioner’s second argument, this Court also finds that the IAD does not apply to a probation violation capias. *Carchman*v. *Nash,*473 U.S. 716 (1985). A probation violation charge “does not accuse an individual with having committed a criminal offense in the sense of initiating a prosecution” and, therefore, the IAD does not apply. *Id.*

In petitioner’s second motion, he requests that this Court appoint him counsel to prosecute the Motion to Dismiss. This Court finds that there is no authority to support petitioner’s request for the appointment of counsel.

Accordingly, petitioner’s Motions are denied.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 11

- 00001

- CV

RON BURDICK APPELLANT

V.

OLNEY ISD AND FARMER S

NATIONAL BANK APPELLEES

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

FROM THE 90TH DISTRICT COURT OF YOUNG COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AN D JUDGMENT

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

On January 10, 2011, and January 26, 2011 , we notified appellant, in

accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this

appeal unless the $175 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

Appella nt has not paid the $175 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court ’s order of August 28, 2007, 2

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DELIVERED : March 3 , 2011

2 See Supreme Court of Tex., Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil

Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation , Misc. Docket No. 07

- 9138 (Aug. 28, 2007) (listing

fees in courts of appeals).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                                26,692
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                      4,901,891
<ALLOWANCES>                         226,526
<INVENTORY>                           28,549
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   4,908,260
<PP&E>                             1,546,253
<DEPRECIATION>                       836,744
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    15,290,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             10,297,269
<BONDS>                              808,043
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                             119,577
<OTHER-SE>                         4,065,411
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      15,290,300
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  13,298,166
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     10,195,477
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   2,586,985
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     144,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   477,624
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (313,810)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (313,810)
<DISCONTINUED>                     1,425,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                      (1,738,810)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.14)


</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 20613 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. TIMOTEO JUAN FLORES , also known as Timoteo Juan

- Flores , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4 :15

- CR

- 251

- 1

Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Timoteo Juan Flores raises

an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Rodriguez , 711 F.3d 541, 562

- 63 & n.28 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc), in which we held that the generic, contemporary definition of sexual abuse of a minor does not require the age of consent to be below 17 years old and does not include an age

- differential requirement. He also raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances se t forth in 5 TH C IR

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

### FILED August 16, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-20613 Document: 00513638999 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2016No. 15

- 20613

2 v. Elizondo

- Hernandez , 755 F.3d 779, 7 81

- 82 (5th Cir. 2014), which held that the Texas offense of indecency with a child by contact satisfied the generic definition of sexual abus e of a minor. Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for a n extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Case: 15-20613 Document: 00513638999 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2016
----

----

| 1.   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and                                                      |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2.   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated. |

|                                     |   |   |                                    |
|------------------------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|                                     |   |   |                                    |
| /s/ Robert A. Whitman                    |   |   | /s/ Stephen D. Young                    |
| Robert A. WhitmanChief Executive Officer |   |   | Stephen D. YoungChief Financial Officer |
| Date: July 7, 2011                       |   |   | Date: July 7, 2011                      |
#### KRAUSHAAR v. LESCHIN.

No. 3535.

District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

April 27, 1944.

*144See also 4 F.R.D. 144.

Maxwell Pestcoe, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Edward I. Weisberg, of Philadelphia, Pa,, for defendant.

KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.

I do not think that, on the pleadings as they now stand, I can consider the question whether the action is barred by the statute of limitations.

 The general rule is that a party must- plead the statute of limitations in order to avail himself of it, the reason being that it is an affirmative defense which, like most, may be waived. Rule 8 (c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, confirms this principle and it is clear that, in general, the defense may not be raised by demurrer in the Federal Courts even though the bar is apparent upon the pleadings.

An exception to the foregoing general rule is to be found where the cause of action is one that does not exist at common law but is created by a statute which makes the bringing of the suit within a specified time a condition precedent to the existence of the cause of action itself. The distinction is between a substantive right and a procedural requirement. However, this exception does not apply to the present case, because this Court is bound by the law of Pennsylvania in matters involving both conflict of laws and substantive rights and, in Rosenzweig v. Heller, 302 Pa. 279, 153 A. 346, 348, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, with the precise question before it, held (a) that the New Jersey statute is a general statute of limitation and that the time limitation is not a “condition of the cause of action itself” and (b) that in such cases the “statute of limitation of the state of the forum controls the action.”

The defendant has called his motion both a motion for summary judgment and a motion for judgment on the pleadings and it is impossible to say which he intends it to be. However, I do not think that it makes much difference because what has been said applies equally in either case.

The motion is denied.
<table class="regular" id="BLStable_2022_1_20_23_43" style="width: 95%;"><caption><span class="tableTitle">Chart 4. <strong>Percentage of mothers with access to family-friendly benefits, by part-time or full-time status</strong></span></caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th style="vertical-align: middle; min-width: 80px;" rowspan="1" scope="col">Family-friendly benefit</th>
<th scope="col">Full time</th>
<th scope="col">Part time</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>Can work at home</p>
</th>
<td>36.5</td>
<td>20.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>Access to paid leave</p>
</th>
<td>76.0</td>
<td>29.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>Can adjust work hours</p>
</th>
<td>52.6</td>
<td>58.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>Advanced notice of schedule (4+ weeks)</p>
</th>
<td>71.0</td>
<td>50.4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot id="BLStable_2022_1_20_23_43_footnotes" style="display: table-footer-group;">
<tr class="footnotes">
<td class="footnotes" colspan="3">
<p>Note: Data include all wage and salary working mothers living with their children under age 18.</p>
<p>Source: 2017–18 American Time Use Survey Leave and Job Flexibilities Module.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tfoot>
</table>
<p></p>
<table class="regular" id="BLStable_2023_10_24_8_31" style="width: 95%;"><caption><span class="tableTitle">Chart 4. Percentage of 16- to 24-year-olds enrolled in school, American Indians and Alaska Natives and the total population, averages for the combined years 2019–21</span></caption>
<thead>
<tr>
<th style="vertical-align: middle; min-width: 80px;" rowspan="1" scope="col">Characteristic</th>
<th scope="col">American Indian and Alaska Native</th>
<th scope="col">Total population</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>Total, 16 to 24 years</p>
</th>
<td>44.8</td>
<td>52.4</td>
</tr>
<tr class="greenbar">
<th scope="row">
<p>Men</p>
</th>
<td>43.0</td>
<td>50.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="row">
<p>Women</p>
</th>
<td>46.5</td>
<td>54.5</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot id="BLStable_2023_10_24_8_31_footnotes" style="display: table-footer-group;">
<tr class="footnotes">
<td class="footnotes" colspan="3">
<p>Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tfoot>
</table>
<p></p>