alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
20 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020

ALASKA 

#35 #6 0.6% $4,577 #38 #27 #24

$3.3 B SPENT IN 6.4% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. PER RESIDENT $1.5 B CONTRACT 28,426 NUMBER OF $1.8 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Supplies and Construction: 12%

Equipment: 15% Research and

Development: 3%

Service: 70%

By Service 

Army

47%

Navy/Marines

8%

Air Force

33%

Other Defense

12%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

National Reserve: 3%

Guard:13%

Civilian: 20%

Active Duty: 64%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

Navy/Marines

1%

Air Force

Other Defense

1%

52%

47%

Top Defense Contractors 

Arctic Slope Regional Corp.

Doyon Limited

Indyne

J & J Maintenance

Chugach Alaska Corp.

Watterson Construction Co.

Usibelli Coal Mine

ARCTEC Alaska, JV

Paug Vik & Ghemm Co., JV

Calista

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$1.9 $1.7 $1.6 $1.5

FY13 FY14 FY18 FY19

$1.5 $1.4 $1.3 $1.3

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY20

$1.8 BILLION 28,426

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active

Duty

Civilian National

Guard

Reserve Total

Anchorage 9,671 3,343 2,500 773 16,287

Fairbanks North Star 8,386 1,829 680 82 10,977

Southeast Fairbanks ND 311 212 0 ND

Matanuska-Susitna ND ND 243 ND ND

Denali 30 30 97 ND ND

Kodiak Island 16 21 ND 0 ND

Juneau ND 13 ND 0 ND

Kenai Peninsula 0 ND ND 0 ND

Nome 0 ND 0 0 ND

Bethel 0 ND 0 0 ND

(M = millions)

$169.5 M

$88.7 M

$57.1 M

$42.4 M

$41.9 M

$38.1 M

$33.0 M

$28.3 M

$21.4 M

$20.7 M
FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020 21

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

ALASKA 

FISCAL YEAR 2020 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions)

Anchorage

Fairbanks North Star

Denali

Southeast Fairbanks

Aleutians West

Matanuska-Susitna

Kenai Peninsula

Sitka

Bristol Bay

Yukon-Koyukuk

(K = thousands, M = millions, B = billions)

$765.7 M

$501.5 M

$88.7 M

$53.0 M

$31.5 M

$17.3 M

$13.6 M

$10.5 M

$8.6 M 

$8.4 M 

Anchorage

Fairbanks North Star

Southeast Fairbanks

Denali

Matanuska-Susitna

Kodiak Island

Juneau

Kenai Peninsula

Bethel

Nome

$1.1 B

$669.3 M

$44.4 M 

$13.8 M

$7.5 M

$2.9 M

$931.5 K

$749.9 K

$66.6 K 

$43.1 K

Yukon-Koyukuk

Denali

Fairbanks North Star

Southeast Fairbanks

Matanuska-Susitna

Sitka

Bristol Bay

Anchorage 

Kenai Peninsula

Aleutians West

Denali

Fairbanks North Star

Southeast Fairbanks

Matanuska-Susitna

Nome

Juneau

Kodiak Island

Anchorage 

Kenai Peninsula

Bethel
EXHIBIT 31.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  Principal Executive Officer  I, Robert L. Russell, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Idaho General Mines, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c. disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting;  5. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.  Dated: August 14, 2006  By: /s/    Robert L. Russell Name: Robert L. Russell Title: Chief Executive Officer
IIB 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 478 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 14, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 101 Barr Street in Lexington, Kentucky, as the ‘‘Scott Reed Federal Building and United 

States Courthouse’’. 

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


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

HR 478 RFS

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The Federal building and United States courthouse 

3 located at 101 Barr Street in Lexington, Kentucky, shall 

4 be known and designated as the ‘‘Scott Reed Federal 

5 Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

9 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec10 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Scott 

11 Reed Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 13, 

2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
STATE of North Carolina v. Jason Christopher WALKER and Emil E. Browning, Jr. and Javier A. Hernandez Jr.

No. 16P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2005.

Brian Michael Aus, Durham, for Emil E. Browning, Jr.

Kristine L. Lanning, Assistant Attorney General, Mitchell D. Norton, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*922*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant (Emil E. Browning, Jr.) on the 10th day of January 2005 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of May 2005."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th day of January 2005 by Defendant (Emil E. Browning, Jr.) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of May 2005."
#### UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. Edgar L. GRUBB, Appellee.

No. 11812.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

June 2, 1953.

Dick L. Johnson, U. S. Atty., Nashville, Tenn., for appellant.

G. Maynard Smith, Atlanta, Ga., L. B. Bolt, Jr., Knoxville, Tenn., and Albert Williams, Nashville, Tenn., for appellee.

Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and ALLEN and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The above cause coming on to be heard, and it appearing that the order of the District Court which is here sought to be reviewed is not an appealable order, and the court being duly advised,

Now, therefore, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the appeal from the order of the District Court be and is hereby dismissed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      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), 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 and for the periods indicated. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| August                7, 2006 | /s/                Jeffrey J. Zimmer   |   |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                          | Jeffrey                J. Zimmer       |
|                          | Chief                Executive Officer |
BROWN v. AMERICAN MULTIMEDIA, INC.

No. COA04-1075.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 7, 2005.

Certification Date June 27, 2005.

Appeal from Alamance (03CVS663)

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Exhibit 4.1 


   




 Alaia Capital, LLC 


 10 Corbin Drive 


 Darien, Connecticut 06820 


   


 August 7, 2019 


   


 m+ Buffered Fund, Alaia Market Linked Trust, Series 1-5 


 c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee 


 2 Hanson Place, 12th Floor 


 Brooklyn, New York 11217 


   


		 Re: 	 Alaia Market Linked Trust, Series 1-5 (the “Trust”) 



   


   


 Ladies and Gentlemen: 


   


 We have examined Amendment No. 2 to
the Registration Statement (File No. 333-231414) for the above captioned Trust. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration
Statement of the references to Alaia Capital, LLC as evaluator. 


   


 You are hereby authorized to file a
copy of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 


   


   


   


	   	 Very
    truly yours, 
	   	   	   
	   	 Alaia
    Capital, LLC 
	   	   	   
	   	 By: 	 /s/
    Oscar Loynaz 
	   	   	 Name:
    Oscar Loynaz 
	   	   	 Title:  Managing
    Director
Exhibit 99.2

                              QUADRAMED CORPORATION
                 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

     In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of QuadraMed
Corporation for the period ended December 31, 2001, I, Charles J. Stahl, Chief
Financial Officer of QuadraMed Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge:

1. this Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2001 fully complies with
   the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
   1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and,

2. the information contained in this Form 10-K/A for the period ended December
   31, 2001 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
   and results of operations of QuadraMed Corporation.



Date:  June 6, 2003                               /s/ Charles J. Stahl
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                  Charles J. Stahl
                                                  Chief Financial Officer



                                       1
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief FinancialExecutive Officer and Controller of Graymark Healthcare, Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2008 (the “Annual Report”)fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the AnnualReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  May 6, 2008 | /S/MARK R. KIDD         |
|-------------------------|-------------------------|
|                    | Chief Financial Officer |
|                    | and Controller          |

 

----
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-19477) pertaining to the Prosoft I-Net Solutions, Inc. 1996 Stock
Option Plan, of our report, dated March 8, 1996, on the financial statements
of Professional Development Institute (a sole proprietorship) appearing in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Prosoft I-Net Solutions, Inc. for the year ended
July 31, 1998.

/s/ KELLY & COMPANY
-------------------
Newport Beach, California
November 11, 1998
STATE of North Carolina v. Ang XANONH.

No. 20P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 3, 2005.

Constance Widenhouse, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Ang Xanonh.

David Roy Blackwell, Special Deputy Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, District Attorney, for State of NC.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th day of January 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of February 2005."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         316,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,774,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   502,000
<INVENTORY>                                 20,624,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            34,340,000
<PP&E>                                      24,258,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,759,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,785,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,990,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,327,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,357,000
<SALES>                                     76,839,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            76,839,000
<CGS>                                       61,366,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,596,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               108,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               177,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,235,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,750,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   992,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,758,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,758,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Ricky STUBBS.

No. 349P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

Ricky Stubbs, Pro Se.

Kathleen U. Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Parker, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 27th day of June 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Richmond County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th day of June 2005."
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001018765
<NAME>                        CUIDAO HOLDING CORP.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Currency

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,533
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  27,422
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    304,346
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               333,301
<PP&E>                                         584,873
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 946,647
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          471,664
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       240
<OTHER-SE>                                     (5,017)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   946,647
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               125,057
<CGS>                                          46,154
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  46,154
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               426,450
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             33,631
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (438,488)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (438,488)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.186)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
IN RE T.G.

No. COA04-922.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 6, 2005.

Certification September 26, 2005.

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
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 Labor

          - 29 CFR Part 21

### CFR Correction

This rule is being published by the Office of the Federal Register to correct an editorial or technical error that appeared in the most recent annual revision of the Code of Federal Regulations.

In Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 0 to 99, revised as of July 1, 2021, in § 21.101, remove the heading from paragraph (l) and add a heading to paragraph (l)(1) to read as follows:

§ 21.101 

* * * * *

(l) * * *

                            (1)                             *Pre-2018 Requirements.*                             * * *                        

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2022-14237 Filed 6-30-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 0099-10-P
## Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Interest of J.C., a Child

No. 06

- 22

- 00042

- CV Appeal from the 71st District Court of

Harrison County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 21

- 0471 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by

Chief Justice St evens

, Justice van Cleef and

Justice Rambin participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant has adequately indicat ed h er inability to pay costs of appeal.

Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MARCH 2 , 2023

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4941 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on bicycle wheel rims. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2008 

Mr. BLUMENAUER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on bicycle wheel 

rims. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BICYCLE WHEEL RIMS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.24.69 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 bicycle wheel rims) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4941 IH

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS