alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2016088EN.01002501.xml

| 5.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 88/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 88/25

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/526

of 30 March 2016

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Poljički soparnik/Poljički zeljanik/Poljički uljenjak (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia's application to register the name ‘Poljički soparnik’/‘Poljički zeljanik’/‘Poljički uljenjak’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia's application to register the name ‘Poljički soparnik’/‘Poljički zeljanik’/‘Poljički uljenjak’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Poljički soparnik’/‘Poljički zeljanik’/‘Poljički uljenjak’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Poljički soparnik’/‘Poljički zeljanik’/‘Poljički uljenjak’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Poljički soparnik’/‘Poljički zeljanik’/‘Poljički uljenjak’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 2.3. — Bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits and other baker's wares, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 March 2016.

For the Commission,

On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 358, 30.10.2015, p. 8.

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).

3

---
COMMISSIONER OF LABOR v. WEEKLEY HOMES.

No. 271P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

Thomas A. Farr, Phillip J. Strach, Bernhard Mueller, Cary, Robert E. Rader, Jr., for Weekley Homes.

Jane Ammons Gilchrist, Assistant Attorney General, for Commissioner of Labor.

J. Michael Carpenter, for National Asso. Home Bldrs., et al.

J. Nicholas Ellis, Rocky Mount, Julie W. Hampton, Raleigh, for NC Asso. of Defense Attorneys.

Richard M. Lewis, Raleigh, for Capital Associated Ind., et al.

The following order has been entered on the conditional motion filed on the 26th day of May 2005 by NC Citizens for Business and Industry and Carolinas Associated General Contractors for leave to file Amici Curiae Brief:

"Motion Dismissed as moot. By order of the Court in conference this the 30th day of June 2005."
Exhibit 32(a)


                            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 MSW Energy Holdings II LLC (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the
"Report"), we, John T. Miller, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Michael J. Gruppuso, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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/ John T. Miller                      /s/ Michael J. Gruppuso
    ------------------                      -----------------------
    John T. Miller                          Michael J. Gruppuso
    Chief Executive Officer                 Chief Financial Officer
    November 12, 2004                       November 12, 2004
STATE v. RATHBONE

No. COA04-1303

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed July 19, 2005

Certification Date August 8, 2005

Appeal from Haywood (03CRS1767).

Case without published opinion. No error.
# L_2016300EN.01000101.xml

| 8.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 300/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 300/1

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2016/1946

of 15 March 2016

concerning the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, in particular Article 37 thereof, and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Article 218(5) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(6) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | At its meeting on 20 January 2014, the Council decided to authorise the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR) to open negotiations pursuant to Article 37 of the Treaty on European Union and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in order to conclude an Agreement on the security of information between the European Union and Georgia. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

At its meeting on 20 January 2014, the Council decided to authorise the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR) to open negotiations pursuant to Article 37 of the Treaty on European Union and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in order to conclude an Agreement on the security of information between the European Union and Georgia.

| (2) | Following that authorisation, the HR negotiated an Agreement with Georgia on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Following that authorisation, the HR negotiated an Agreement with Georgia on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information.

| (3) | That Agreement should be approved, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

That Agreement should be approved,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.

The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.

Article 2

The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement in order to bind the Union.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 15 March 2016.

For the Council

The President

A.G. KOENDERS

---
Frederick GARCIA-CRUZ, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6755

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 27, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari:

I dissent for the reasons set out in *Brown v. United States* , 586 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 14, 202 L.Ed.2d 302 (2018) ( Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
STATE v. POLLARD

No. COA04-1309

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed July 19, 2005

Certification Date August 8, 2005

Appeal from Edgecombe (02CRS53138).

Case without published opinion. No error.
JERRY ALAN REESE, P.C. v. DAVIS.

No. COA04-793.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 21, 2005.

Certification Date July 11, 2005.

Appeal from the Mecklenburg (03CVS17958).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed; remanded for sanctions.
SMITH v. SCHELERO.

No. COA04-1103.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed April 5, 2005.

Certification Date April 25, 2005.

Appeal from Brunswick (03CVS1443).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
1 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-2034

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District Duane Wendall Larson, * of Minnesota. * Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________ Submitted: January 20, 2004 Filed: February 6, 2004

___________ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Duane Larson appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis, in which he sought to vacate his drug conviction and sentence (from which he has been released). We agree with the district court that Mr. Larson has not shown he is entitled to coram nobis relief, because he unsuccessfully raised on direct appeal and in prior 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions the Fourth Amendment and-2- ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims that he raises here. See Azzone v. United States , 341 F.2d 417, 419-20 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (coram nobis petitioner not entitled to review of issues that were considered and resolved either on direct appeal or in § 2255 motion), cert. denied , 381 U.S. 943 (1965); cf. United States v. Camacho-Bordes , 94 F.3d 1168, 1172-73 (8th Cir. 1996) (coram nobis relief is “‘substantially equivalent’” to habeas relief, and abuse-of-the-writ principle applies to coram nobis cases (quoted source omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5149 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5149

  To suspend temporarily the duty on dry adhesive copolyamide pellets.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 28, 2008

 Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on dry adhesive copolyamide pellets.

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

SECTION 1. DRY ADHESIVE COPOLYAMIDE PELLETS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00       Piperazine co-      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          polymerized                                                        31/2011.......
                          copolyamide resin
                          high-temperature
                          melt adhesive
                          pellets (CAS Nos.
                          118106-10-8,
                          1000189-84-3, or
                          1000189-29-6)
                          (provided for in
                          subheadings
                          3809.10.00 or
                          3908.90.70)  ....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
STATE of North Carolina v. Tony Robert JONES.

No. 669P03.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2003.

Tony Robert Jones, Pro Se.

Anne M. Middleton, Assistant Attorney General, Tom Horner, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 29th day of December 2003 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2004."
58 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021

MARYLAND 

#6

$26.3 B SPENT IN 

#7 

5.8% OF STATE GDP

4.7%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

$4,258

PER RESIDENT 

#8 

$17.9 B CONTRACT 

#8 

96,310 NUMBER OF 

#5

$8.3 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Construction: 4% Research and

Supplies and Development: 12%

Equipment: 26%

Service: 58%

By Service 

Army

25%

Navy/Marines

34%

Air Force

13%

Other Defense

28%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 13%

National 

Active Duty: 30% Guard: 7%

Top Defense Personnel Locations

Civilian: 50%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

37%

Navy/Marines

37%

Air Force

16%

Other Defense

10%

Top Defense Contractors 

Johns Hopkins University

Northrop Grumman

Leidos

Lockheed Martin

BAE Systems

Booz Allen Hamilton

Amentum Services, Inc.

Textron

Federal Resources Supply

General Dynamics

(M = millions, B = billions)

$1.6 B

$1.3 B

$727.3 M

$705.3 M

$534.6 M

$474.9 M

$442.1 M

$421.9 M

$352.6 M

$345.0 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$22.7

$17.8 $17.9 $16.9 $14.4 $14.8 $13.0 $13.2

FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21

$8.3 BILLION 96,310

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Reserve

3,870

4,616

622

16

528 

229 

780 

600

961

113 

County

Anne Arundel

Prince George’s

Harford

St. Mary’s

Montgomery

Frederick

Charles

Baltimore

Baltimore City

Allegany

Active Civilian

Duty

13,258

4,778

835 

2,126

4,745

1,274

588 

132 

63

1,040

9,190

4,763

10,886

10,384

6,717

2,280

2,406

380 

1,004

ND 

National

Guard

342 

1,041

892 

66

182 

95 

88 

2,735

374 

ND 

Total

26,660

15,198

13,235

12,592

12,172

3,878

3,862

3,847

2,402

ND 
(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2021 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions)

Anne Arundel

Montgomery

St. Mary’s

Harford

Howard

Baltimore

Baltimore City

Frederick

Queen Anne’s

(M = millions, B = billions)

$4.3 B

$2.8 B

$2.6 B

$2.2 B

$1.8 B

$1.2 B

Prince George’s

$1.0 B

$581.8 M

$513.8 M

$371.6 M

Anne Arundel

St. Mary’s

Harford

Montgomery

Frederick

Charles

Baltimore

Baltimore City

Allegany

$2.1 B

$1.4 B

$1.4 B

$1.2 B

Prince George’s

$1.2 B

$339.5 M

$292.5 M

$155.6 M

$145.8 M

$92.8 M

Frederick Baltimore Harford

Howard

Montgomery

Baltimore City

Queen Anne’s

Anne Arundel

Prince George’s

St. Mary’s

Frederick Baltimore Harford

Allegany

Baltimore City

Anne Arundel

Montgomery

Prince George’s

St. Mary’s

Charles

Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021 5

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

9

MARYLAND
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in Registration Statements No. 333-13281, 333-26417, 333-87193, 333-122368, 333-122369, and 333-130164 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-124114 on Form S-3 of our reports dated March 3, 2006, relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements and financial statement schedule of Cox Radio, Inc., and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cox Radio, Inc. for the yearended December 31, 2005. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Atlanta, Georgia 

March 3, 2006
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.15



AMENDMENT TO THE
STOCKHOLDERS AGREEMENT
This AMENDMENT, dated as of July 31, 2019 (this “Amendment”), to the Amended and Restated Stockholders Agreement, dated as of November 13, 2018 (the “Original Agreement”), is entered into by and between General Electric Company, a New York corporation (“GE”), and Baker Hughes, a GE company, a Delaware corporation (“BHGE”).  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Original Agreement.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7.8 of the Original Agreement, the Original Agreement may be amended or modified by a written instrument signed by the parties hereto, provided that any material amendment or modification of the Original Agreement shall require the prior written approval of the Conflicts Committee or its authorized designee; 
WHEREAS, this Amendment and the actions contemplated herein have been approved in writing by the Conflicts Committee or its authorized designee; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend the Original Agreement on the terms set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, and intending to be legally bound hereby, GE and BHGE hereby agree as follows: 
1.Section 3.3(a) of the Original Agreement is hereby amended and restated as follows:
“Audit Committee.  The Audit Committee of the Company Board shall have at least one (1) Company Independent Director.”
2.Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, this Amendment does not, by implication or otherwise, alter, modify, amend or in any way affect any of the terms, conditions, obligations, covenants or agreements contained in the Original Agreement.
3.Each reference to “hereto”, “hereunder”, “herein” and “hereof” and each other similar reference and each reference to “this Agreement” and each other similar reference contained in the Original Agreement shall, after this Amendment becomes effective, refer to the Original Agreement as amended hereby.
4.Sections 7.2 (Governing Law), 7.4 (Notices), 7.5 (Severability), 7.6 (Entire Agreement), 7.7 (Assignment; No Third-Party Beneficiaries), 7.8 (Amendment; Waiver), 7.9 (Interpretations), 7.11 (Counterparts; Electronic Transmission of Signatures) and 7.12 (Enforceable by the Conflicts Committee) of the Original Agreement are incorporated herein by reference, mutatis mutandis. 










IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the date first written above by their respective officers thereunto duly authorize. 
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY


By: /s/ John Godsman    
		
	 Name:
	John Godsman


		
	 Title:
	Vice President








BAKER HUGHES, A GE COMPANY


By: /s/ Lee Whitley    
Name:    Lee Whitley 
Title:    Corporate Secretary
100 Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018

 Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquisition Policy; DoD’s Military Installations, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis; U.S. Census Bureau; and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions) 

Sterling Computers $113.7 M

Rosenbauer Beteiligungsverwaltung $58.3 M

Black Hills Ammunition Inc. $12.6 M

Forest Products Distributors $9.4 M

IHK JV $6.5 M

Pro-Mark Services $4.8 M

National Presto Industries $4.5 M

BH Services Inc. $3.8 M

Herman Construction Group Inc. $3.5 M

VRC Metal Systems $2.8 M

Contract Awards Performed (by fiscal year, billions)

SOUTH DAKOTA

#47 #35 0.1% $713 #46 #47 #45

$0.6 B SPENT 

IN STATE

1.2% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $0.3 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

9,542 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$0.4 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$365.3 MILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

9,542

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Meade 3,318 12 114 18 3,462

Minnehaha 18 358 1,538 308 2,222

Pennington ND 818 777 ND

Codington ND ND 327 ND

Brown ND ND 149 102

Hughes ND 56 137 ND

Davison ND 49 108 ND

Charles Mix ND 49 100 ND

Brookings ND 14 120 ND

Beadle ND ND 121 ND

Service: 21%

Supplies and

Equipment: 75%

Construction: 2%

Research and

Development: 2%

Active Duty: 36%

Civilian: 15%

National 

Guard: 45%

Reserve: 4%

6%

13%

48%

33%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

43%

1%

55%

0%

$0.4 $0.4

$0.2

$0.3

$0.1

$0.2

$0.2

$0.3

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND
Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018 101

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

(M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

Codington

Meade

Deuel

Brookings

Pennington

Minnehaha

Oglala Lakota

Yankton Union

SOUTH DAKOTA FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (K = thousands, M = millions) (M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018

Union

Minnehaha

Meade

Pennington

Deuel

Oglala Lakota

Lincoln

Yankton

Codington

Brookings

(M = millions)

$114.5 M

$63.8 M

$44.7 M

$28.8 M

$4.5 M

$2.1 M

$1.7 M

$1.3 M

$550.6 K

$317.3 K

Meade

Pennington

Minnehaha

Hughes

Codington

Charles Mix

Brookings

Davison

Lincoln

Buffalo

$183.1 M

$74.6 M

$60.4 M

$7.2 M

$4.9 M

$4.2 M

$3.7 M

$3.6 M

$3.3 M

$3.3 M

Codington

Meade Hughes

Pennington

Buffalo

Davison

Charles Mix

Lincoln

Brookings

Minnehaha

Lincoln