alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE v. BARTLETT

No. COA04-1122

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 3, 2005.

Certification Date May 23, 2005.

Appeal from the Gaston (02CRS63069).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
40 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021

HAWAII 

#22

$7.9 B SPENT IN 

#2

8.3% OF STATE GDP

1.4%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

$5,465

PER RESIDENT 

#29

$2.6 B CONTRACT 

#9 

70,484 NUMBER OF 

#9 

$5.3 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Supplies and Equipment: 7% Construction: 15%

Research and Service: 71%

Development: 6%

By Service 

Army

29%

Navy/Marines

50%

Air Force

8%

Other Defense

12%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 6%

National Guard: 8%

Civilian: 29%

Active Duty: 57%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

37%

Navy/Marines

47%

Air Force

14%

Other Defense

2%

Top Defense Contractors 

Hensel Phelps Construction

Smartronix

Vigor Industrial

MNDPI Pacific, JV

TNT Constructors

PCL U.S. Holdings, Inc.

Koa Lani, JV LLC

Portico Services LLC

AECOM

Matson

(M = millions)

$212.7 M

$107.8 M

$81.1 M

$69.3 M

$58.5 M

$50.6 M

$45.6 M

$43.7 M

$40.5 M

$40.0 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$2.7 $2.6 $2.4 $2.2 $1.9 $2.0 $1.9 $1.8

FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21

$5.3 BILLION 70,484

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active Civilian National Reserve Total

Duty Guard

Honolulu 34,740 19,923 4,598 4,127 63,388

Hawaii ND 186 405 74 ND 

Kauai 85 185 150 43 463

Maui 26 67 207 0 300 
FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

HAWAII 

FISCAL YEAR 2021 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

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

Honolulu

Kauai

Hawaii

Maui

(M = millions, B = billions)

$2.4 B

$95.7 M

$35.3 M

$33.3 M 

Honolulu

Kauai

Hawaii

Maui

$4.8 B

$35.0 M

$31.9 M

$17.8 M

Kauai

Honolulu

Maui

Hawaii

Kauai

Honolulu

Maui

Hawaii

Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021 41

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Robert C. Buhrmaster,certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Jostens Holding Corp.;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:

 

a)     designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during this period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)     disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)     all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  May 14, 2004 | /s/  Robert C. Buhrmaster                |
|--------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                     | Robert C. Buhrmaster                               |
|                     | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
HomeOcean Facts

# What color is an iceberg?

## The colorful hues of icebergs result from the interplay of light with dense ice, ice crystals, and algal growth.

An iceberg (and a few penguins) floating off the coast of Antarctica. Photo courtesy of Kathy Reitz.

Most people would say that icebergs are white—and most of them are. But did you know that icebergs can also appear in spectacular shades of blue and green? An iceberg looks white because compressed snow on its surface contains large numbers of tiny air bubbles and crystal edges that equally reflect all wavelengths of visible light.

As more and more heavy snow accumulates atop an iceberg, the air bubbles get compressed, forcing the smaller ice crystals to grow together and merge into larger grains. When the iceberg is underwater, the air bubbles are squeezed out and washed away. Then, when light encounters the dense, compressed ice, much of the light penetrates it. The ice absorbs longer wavelengths of colors, such as red and yellow. Colors of shorter wavelengths, like green and blue, reflect the light. This "leftover" blue-green light is what gives some icebergs their remarkable colors.

Additionally, algae often grow on the underwater sides of icebergs, producing beautiful green stripes in the ice. These are readily seen when an iceberg rolls over and sections that were previously underwater are exposed.

The U.S. National Ice Center, operated by NOAA, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Coast Guard, monitors ice and snow worldwide.

###### Get **Social**

###### More **Information**

          - U.S. National Ice Center
          -  Arctic Navigation
          - Surveying in the Arctic (audio podcast)
          -  What is an iceberg?
          -  Quick Facts on Icebergs (National Snow and Ice Data Center) 

**Last updated:**   01/18/24**Author:** NOAAHow to cite this article

Contact Us

            - Provide Feedback 
            -  Contact Us 
            -  Report an error 

##### Science. Service.Stewardship.

###### 						About NOS 					

            - About Us
            - NOS Program Offices
            - Media Inquiries
            - Website Acknowledgements

###### 						Resources 					

            - Site Index
            - Disclaimer
            - Freedom of Information Act
            - Accessibility

###### 						More Resources 					

            - Information Quality
            - Privacy Policy
            - NOS For Employees
            - USA.gov

          -  National Ocean Service
          -  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
          -  Department of Commerce

##### 						Social 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6352** 

WILLIAM EDWARD REBROOK, III , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Charleston

. John T. Copenhaver, Jr. , District Judge. ( 2:10

- cv - 01009 )

Submitted : September 26, 2014 Decided: December 30, 2014

Before MOTZ , SHEDD , and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Lonnie Carl Simmons, DITRAPANO, BARRETT, DIPIERO, MCGINLEY & SIMMONS PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Larry R. Ellis, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William Edward ReBrook , III , appeals the district

court ’ s order , accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendati on (except as otherwise stated), denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis, and dismissing the action. In his writ , ReBrook allege s that his conviction for wire fraud, under 18
U.S.C. § § 1343, 1346 (2012), i s no longer valid in light of
Skillin g v. United States , 561 U.S. 358 (2010). We note that a
writ of error coram nobis is a remedy of last resort , United
States v. Mandel , 862 F.2d 1067, 1075 (4th Cir. 1988) , and that
it is narrowly limited to extraordinary cases presenting
circumstances com pelling its use to achieve justice

. United
States v. Denedo , 556 U.S. 904 (2009) . We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of the writ, United
States v. Akinsade , 686 F.3d 248, 251

- 52 (4th Cir. 2012) (providing review standard), and a ccordingly affirm for the reasons stated by the district court that the conviction is
valid under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 under a property fraud theory

. Re B rook v. United States **,** No. 2:10

- cv - 01009 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 11, 2014) . We dispense with oral argument beca use the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
STATE v. KEY.

No. COA04-940.

Court of Appeal of North Carolina

Filed August 2, 2005.

Certification Date August 22, 2005.

Appeal from the Wiles (03CRS52232)

Case reported without published opinion No error.
STATE v. Allen Wayne CRAWFORD.

No. 195P04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th day of March 2005 by Defendant for "Petition for Writ of Certiorari":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 30th day of June 2005."
CUMMINGS v. CARRIAGE CLUB OF CHARLOTTE

No. COA04-1278

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed August 16, 2005

Certification Date September 6, 2005

Appeal from Mecklenburg (04CVS7351).

Cases reported without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
STATE v. ARNOLD

No. COA04-460

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed December 21, 2004

Certification Date January 10, 2005

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
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





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Scientific Energy, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stanley Chan, President, CEO & CFO 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:





(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 result of operations of the Company.







|                                   | 
|---------------------------------- | 
|/s/ Stanley Chan                   | 
|Stanley Chan, President, CEO & CFO | 
|                                   | 



Dated:  November 17, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5137 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 5137

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 5, 2008

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    To ensure that hunting remains a purpose of the New River Gorge 
                            National River.

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

SECTION 1. HUNTING IN NEW RIVER GORGE NATIONAL RIVER.

    Section 1106 of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (16 
U.S.C. 460m-20) is amended in the first sentence by striking ``may'' 
and inserting ``shall''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 4, 2008.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.

                               By Deborah M. Spriggs,

                                                          Deputy Clerk.
```
In the Matter of H.W., DOB: 11/12//23/1995.

No. 194P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 24, 2004.

Nancy R. Gaines, for Mother.

Katharine Chester, for Father.

Charles E. Frye, III, Staff Attorney, Davidson Co. DSS, for Davidson Co. DSS.

Laura B. Beck, for Guardian ad Litem.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 23rd day of April 2004 by Respondent (Father) 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 24th day of June 2004."
- Home
- Facts
- What is a Plimsoll line?

# **What is a Plimsoll line?**

##  A commercial ship is **properly loaded** when the ship’s waterline equals the ship’s Plimsoll line.

*Plimsoll mark on the hull of a floating ship.*

The Plimsoll line is a reference mark located on a ship’s hull that indicates the maximum depth to which the vessel may be safely immersed when loaded with cargo. This depth varies with a ship’s dimensions, type of cargo, time of year, and the water densities encountered in port and at sea. Once these factors have been accounted for, a ship’s captain can determine the appropriate Plimsoll line needed for the voyage (see above image): 

          - I TF  = Tropical Fresh Water
          - T  = Tropical
          - F  = Fresh Water
          - S  = Summer
          - W  = Winter
          - WNA  = Winter North Atlantic
          - AB  = Letters indicating the registration authority (American Bureau of Shipping in the image shown; the circle with the line through it indicates whether or not the cargo is loaded evenly)

Samuel Plimsoll (1824–1898) was a member of the British Parliament who was concerned with the loss of ships and crews due to vessel overloading. In 1876, he persuaded Parliament to pass the Unseaworthy Ships Bill, which mandated marking a ship's sides with a line that would disappear below the waterline if the ship was overloaded. The line, also known as the Plimsoll mark, is found midship on both the port and starboard hulls of cargo vessels and is still used worldwide by the shipping industry.

##### More **Information**

 Office of Marine and Aviation Operations 

##### **Last updated:**

######  						 11/24/23 					

**Author:** NOAA

How to cite this article

Contact Us

##### 					Feedback

          -  Provide Feedback 
          -  Contact Us
          -  Report an error

##### 					Social

          - 
          - 
          - 
*Science. Service.Stewardship.*
							About NOS						- About Us
- NOS Program Offices
- Media Inquiries
- Website Acknowledgements
- Site Index
- Disclaimer
							More Resources						- Freedom of Information Act
- Accessibility
- Information Quality
- Privacy Policy
- NOS For Employees
- USA.gov
-  Department of Commerce
-  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
-  National Ocean Service
102 E nutesmyn tal, Praliedien One rbeitin, of Crmerteg,
RE: united tae Sema, pooh, funler Lidl me hae 1997-43 years. CUSCh)

Waa Thad USS cate. dred Bi task of ee Yr aac i

‘ki OT a whee fe these
USUS Bate phewes mbiabe/ yl, bernie ile hee heen
decreasing of Ufeee aplice, fin fet aeicce, bee
uses allan ace feanderffee’ Rite Roe, a Last 20 dette
eo cheapie bind Lent Ld Ye rhe, Looser)
Sen. acta faeinl Aanol Le thettL Va Qahl, Oraed Pastner tends,
CPoTal) wich Su erecer. ay an popesdatzin, Ln erenee Le SN oh ft deacon
ee Tad Rees Gian Obsk. «8k Ascher g nit ,
Wied ects reap ttonas Poturs ane Me Retictiona, / \ hi a
Oh rederer’ henge ae, eee Mpalialt tact ernment, Meng deme
Ce ry ond Le A PLLA,

2 EPA 04a4 etna oN Haunt, x ow
ee geht
20% Nebateed Degen Meas tt Con Rettanka Srnithirn asks, usLleal pretend
meet Me Lemomuz,

fot dawn pom Yat ae Meet tHamyien, Lon point
ier i ie pe ae nae

ote at le Si ope clit
i ‘ ORL S1KGAL ffeatint ard rennet,
Fea er hate bina oe
at

Cheek

Asch?

(1 ff Lankin TE ohn, obtt Amer aud wire, staat roa il arses,

“ sa ak peaLien Meow erste atten nak Kee
Fra Cah Rep Beek. Coin EA) FA) sane. tad,
Ohi au 3 inehee, Xue fal
pus ta fackaner irene Har Lamanch begat
Ce: Sen, tty and Hueksy » Gathecht

a, Uae,
Repre. Mass #9 Yo Wied dun Que
TA. dev. Uitsaete ; Neth werd, beure 50y/59 “F107
Tf sen. Bartz. .

AW Gove Ventura
INTERNATIONAL FOOD PRODUCTS GROUP, INC.
                     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 International Food Products
Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2004, as filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard Damion, Principal Executive 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:

(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/ Richard Damion
---------------------------------------
Richard Damion
Principal  Executive  Officer
May 6, 2005

     A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has
been  provided  to  International Food Products Group, Inc. and will be retained
by International Food Products Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Big Dog Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we,
      Andrew D. Feshbach, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
      Roberta J. Morris, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to s.s. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that to the best of our 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/ANDREW
                D. FESHBACH
            
            /s/ROBERTA
                J. MORRISAndrew
                D. Feshbach
            
            Roberta
                J. MorrisPresident
                and Chief Executive Officer
            
            Chief
                Financial OfficerMarch
                30, 2007
            
            March
                30, 2007
108 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) 

General Dynamics $241.4 M

United Technologies $123.8 M

Benaka Inc. $43.0 M

Omni Measurement Systems $17.2 M

New England Woodcraft $16.9 M

Thomas Instrument & Machine Co. $9.9 M

Stewart Construction Inc. $5.5 M

Concepts NREC $4.8 M

Revision Militaire Inc. $4.3 M

Vermont Aerospace Industries $2.9 M

Contract Awards Performed (by fiscal year, billions)

VERMONT

#46 #28 0.1% $1,026 #44 #51 #51

$0.6 B SPENT 

IN STATE

1.9% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $0.5 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

4,304 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$0.1 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$133.9 MILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

4,304

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Chittenden 89 576 2,137 ND

Washington 39 11 370 ND

Rutland ND ND 120 103

Franklin ND ND 175 ND

Windsor ND 17 85 65

Windham ND ND 83 ND

Caledonia ND ND 84 ND

Bennington ND ND 83 ND

Orange ND ND 73 ND

Lamoille ND ND 62 ND

Supplies and

Equipment: 86%

Construction: 9% Research and

Development: 1%

Service: 4%

Active Duty: 3%

Civilian: 15%

National Guard: 78%

Reserve: 4%

65%

19%

9%

8%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

67%

2%

31%

1%

$0.3

$0.3 $0.2 $0.2

$0.3

$0.4

$0.5 $0.5

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND
Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018 109

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)

Lamoille Caledonia

Chittenden

Washington

Addison Orange

Windsor

Rutland

Bennington

Windham

FISCAL YEAR 2018 VERMONT

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

FISCAL YEAR 2018

Chittenden

Addison

Rutland

Windsor

Washington

Bennington

Caledonia

Windham

Orange

Lamoille

(K = thousands, M = millions)

$339.5 M

$125.3 M

$20.5 M

$7.9 M

$6.0 M

$3.4 M

$3.2 M

$1.3 M

$1.0 M

$412.3 K

Chittenden

Washington

Windsor

Rutland

Franklin

Windham

Caledonia

Bennington

Addison

Orange

$102.5 M

$11.7 M

$4.8 M

$4.1 M

$3.8 M

$1.3 M

$1.1 M

$1.1 M

$1.1 M

$893.8 K

Franklin

Caledonia

Chittenden

Washington

Addison Orange

Windsor

Rutland

Bennington

Windham