alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# L_2016039EN.01000301.xml

| 16.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 39/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 39/3

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/198

of 3 February 2016

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Abricots rouges du Roussillon (PDO)]

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, France's application to register the name ‘Abricots rouges du Roussillon’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, France's application to register the name ‘Abricots rouges du Roussillon’ 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 ‘Abricots rouges du Roussillon’ 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 ‘Abricots rouges du Roussillon’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Abricots rouges du Roussillon’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.

The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals fresh or processed set out 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, 3 February 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 327, 3.10.2015, p. 10.

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

---
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 USA Superior  Energy  Holdings,
Inc. (the  Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, G. Rowland Carey, Chief Financial Officer of the company,  certify,  pursuant
to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief.

        (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/G. Rowland Carey
                                                ----------------------
                                                 G. Rowland Carey,
                                                 Chief Financial Officer



  Dated:  December 7, 2007
Assistant Administrator

Nicole LeBoeuf

Deputy Assistant

Administrator for Ocean

Services and Coastal

Zone Management

Paul M. Scholz

Deputy Assistant

Administrator for

Navigation,

Observations, and

Positioning

Rachael Dempsey

Chief of Staff

Rebecca Holyoke, Ph.D.

Special Advisor for

Coastal Inundation and Resilience

Mark Osler

EEO and Diversity

Programs Manager

Michelle Slade

National Ocean Service Organization Chart

Positioning America for the Future

Management and 

Budget Office

Cherish K. Johnson •

Melissa Pratt-Zossoungbo* 

Office of Coast Survey 

RDML Benjamin Evans • 

Lorraine Robidoux

National Geodetic Survey 

Juliana Blackwell • Brad Kearse

Center for Operational 

Oceanographic Products and 

Services

Marian Westley, Ph.D. • 

Laura Rear McLaughlin*

Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries

John Armor • Monique Baskin

Office of Response and 

Restoration

Scott Lundgren • Lindsay Fullenkamp*

Office for Coastal Management

Jeffrey Payne, Ph.D. • Keelin Kuipers

National Centers for Coastal

Ocean Science

Sean Corson • Margo Schulze-Haugen

*Acting

U.S. Integrated Ocean 

Observing System Program

Carl Gouldman • Krisa Arzayus

oceanservice.noaa.gov | Updated 11/29/2023

Information Management 

Office

Lemuel Thomas • Cheryl Marlin
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5300 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5300

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain cores used in 
                             remanufacture.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2008

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain cores used in 
                             remanufacture.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN CORES USED IN REMANUFACTURE.

    (a) In General.--Headings 9902.25.30, 9902.25.31, and 9902.25.32 of 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States are each amended by 
striking the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/
2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Roger L. Koenig, Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer,certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Carrier Access Corporation; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which 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 inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b)  [reserved];  c)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal controls overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        March 16, 2005 /s/ Roger L. Koenig   Chairman of the Board of Directors,    President and Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Washington, Appellant.

[799 NYS2d 217]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J.), rendered January 30, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent felony offender, to a term of 20 years to life, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence to a term of 15 years to life, and otherwise affirmed.

The court properly declined to submit petit larceny as a lesser included offense. There was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed most favorably to defendant, that defendant did not steal a wallet from the victim’s person, but instead only committed petit larceny by acquiring lost property (Penal Law § 155.05 [2] [b]). Nothing in the evidence supported a theory that the victim’s wallet somehow fell out of his pocket and was picked up by defendant *(see People v Ortiz,*272 AD2d 224 [2000]).

Similarly, the court properly precluded defendant from making a summation argument about the wallet falling out of the victim’s pocket, since this argument was speculative and not based on any evidence or any reasonable inferences from the evidence *(see People v Tart,*305 AD2d 137 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 624 [2003]). In any event, the court accorded defendant ample latitude in which to make essentially the same argument, and there was no violation of his right to make a summation and present a defense.

The court properly exercised its discretion in sentencing defendant as a persistent felony offender. The procedure under which defendant was adjudicated a persistent felony offender is not unconstitutional *(see People v Rivera,*5 NY3d 61 [2005]; *People v Rosen,*96 NY2d 329 [2001], *cert denied*534 US 899 [2001]). We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated. *254Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
STATE v. JOHNSON

No. COA04-468

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 3, 2005.

Certification Date May 23, 2005.

Appeal from the Beaufort (02CRS052221).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
50 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) 

Textron $185.3 M

Leading Technology Composites $75.9 M

Northrop Grumman $75.2 M

EXI $71.2 M

Booz Allen Hamilton $24.2 M

D-J Engineering Inc. $18.5 M

Day & Zimmermann Group $18.3 M

General Electric $17.6 M

Black & Veatch Construction Inc. $16.8 M

Federal Contracting Inc. $14.8 M

Contract Awards Performed (by fiscal year, billions)

KANSAS

#34 #30 0.6% $1,057 #40 #21 #20

$3.1 B SPENT 

IN STATE

1.8% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $1.1 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

38,752 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$2.0 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$2.0 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

38,752

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Geary 15,058 2,692 150 135 18,035

Sedgwick 2,856 995 1,755 1,575 7,181

Leavenworth 3,408 2,407 218 367 6,400

Shawnee 36 650 1,844 380 2,910

Johnson 29 88 487 343 947

Riley 32 106 229 187 554

Saline ND 56 205 66

Ellis ND 13 67 121

Wyandotte ND 25 150 ND

Douglas 38 20 43 70 171

Construction: 8% Research and

Development: 1%

Service: 42%

Supplies and 

Equipment: 48%

Active Duty: 55%

Civilian: 19%

National 

Guard: 17%

Reserve: 9%

52%

7%

25%

15%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

80%

1%

18%

1%

$1.8 $1.7

$1.2

$0.9

$1.5

$1.0 $1.0 $1.1

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

ND

ND

ND
Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018 51

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)

Riley Leavenworth

Geary

Wyandotte

Butler

Sedgwick Cowley

Labette

FISCAL YEAR 2018 KANSAS

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions) (M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018

Sedgwick

Leavenworth

Johnson

Geary

Butler

Cowley

Riley

Labette

Wyandotte

Shawnee

(M = millions)

$518.8 M

$177.5 M

$128.7 M

$83.0 M

$34.4 M

$19.3 M

$18.3 M

$18.2 M

$12.8 M

$12.4 M

Geary

Leavenworth

Sedgwick

Shawnee

Johnson

Riley

Saline

Wyandotte

Douglas

Ellis

$949.9 M

$521.5 M

$317.3 M

$111.4 M

$24.0 M

$22.5 M

$10.6 M

$8.4 M

$6.8 M

$4.4 M

Riley Leavenworth

Geary

Shawnee

Wyandotte

Ellis

Douglas Johnson

Saline

Johnson

Shawnee

Sedgwick
110 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, B = billions) 

Huntington Ingalls $2.2 B

Booz Allen Hamilton $1.9 B

Northrop Grumman $1.6 B

General Dynamics $1.3 B

CACI $1.2 B

Leidos $1.0 B

BAE Systems $762.8 M

Atlantic Diving Supply $703.2 M

Lockheed Martin $671.8 M

SAIC $562.1 M

Contract Awards Performed (by fiscal year, billions)

VIRGINIA

#2 #1 11.2% $6,603 #3 #2 #1

$56.2 B SPENT 

IN STATE

10.3% OF STATE 

GDP

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $38.2 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

244,892 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$18.0 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$18.0 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

244,892

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Norfolk 16,184 16,317 291 2,177 34,969

Virginia Beach 16,594 3,565 798 4,445 25,402

Fairfax 6,901 12,080 576 2,886 22,443

Arlington 2,736 15,913 80 165 18,894

Portsmouth 3,674 14,139 124 70 18,007

Prince William 7,822 4,323 281 798 13,224

Prince George 9,063 3,603 ND 452

Newport News 5,751 3,655 ND 1,076

York 7,758 631 979 920 10,288

Accomack 6,792 87 74 717 7,670

Construction: 2% Research and

Development: 10%

Service: 62%

Supplies and

Equipment: 26%

Active Duty: 50%

Civilian: 39%

National Guard: 3%

Reserve: 7%

24%

36%

14%

25%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

23%

58%

9%

10%

$40.1 $38.2

$33.8 $35.9

$29.8 $30.7 $33.3

$38.2

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

ND

ND
Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018 111

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)

Loudoun

Fairfax

Prince William

Arlington

Alexandria

Newport News

Norfolk

Virginia Beach

Chesapeake

Portsmouth

FISCAL YEAR 2018 VIRGINIA

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

FISCAL YEAR 2018

Fairfax

Arlington

Norfolk

Newport News

Prince William

Loudoun

Virginia Beach

Alexandria

Portsmouth

Chesapeake

(M = millions, B = billions)

$16.6 B

$3.4 B

$3.1 B

$2.7 B

$1.9 B

$1.7 B

$1.6 B

$1.3 B

$882.2 M

$526.0 M

Norfolk

Fairfax

Arlington

Virginia Beach

Portsmouth

Accomack

Prince William

Newport News

Prince George

York

$2.7 B

$2.2 B

$2.0 B

$1.5 B

$1.3 B

$962.5 M

$799.5 M

$649.1 M

$647.2 M

$598.8 M

Arlington

Accomack

Prince George

Fairfax

Prince William

Newport News

Norfolk

Virginia Beach

Portsmouth

York
STATE v. DOUGLAS

No. COA05-141.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed October 18, 2005.

Certification Date November 7, 2005.

Appeal from Scotland (02CRS50524, 02CRS50526, 02CRS53007).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
U.S. flag An official website of the United States government.
				Here's how you know we're official. **Official websites use .gov** A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure websites use HTTPS** A small lock or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to a .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Toggle navigation Toggle search National Ocean Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
 Search
					Search National Ocean Service


Home
				Ocean Facts

				Topics
					Explore All Topics 
                        Arctic 
                        Careers 
                        Economy 
                        Ecosystems 
                        Geodesy 
                        Hazards 
                        International
                        Navigation 
                        Observations 
                        Ocean 
                        Recreation 
                         Sea Level Rise 
                        Story Maps 
                        Tools
                
                			Education

				
				News
				Podcasts
				Video
				Images
				About Us


1. Home
2. Facts
3. Are starfish really fish?

**Are starfish really fish?**  Sea stars, commonly called, "starfish," **are not fish**. sea star*There are approximately 2,000 species of sea star, all of which live in marine waters.* Sea stars live underwater, but that is where their  resemblance to fish ends. They do not have gills, scales, or fins. Sea stars  live only in saltwater. Sea water, instead of blood, is actually used to pump  nutrients through their bodies via a 'water vascular system.' Also, sea stars move by using tiny tube feet located on the  underside of their bodies. Adult sunflower sea stars can move at the astonishing  speed of one meter per minute using 15,000 tube feet. Tube feet also help sea  stars hold their prey. Sea stars are related to sand dollars, sea urchins, and sea  cucumbers, all of which are echinoderms, meaning that they have five-point  radial symmetry. However, this does not mean that all sea stars have five arms  and species with 10, 20, or even 40 arms exist! If one of these arms is lost, a  sea star has the amazingly ability to regenerate it.
 More **Information** NOAA Photo Library: Starfish   Get **Social** Social
  **Last updated:** 08/24/23 **Author:** NOAA How to cite this article Contact Us


Feedback Provide Feedback
							Contact Us
							Report an error
 Social Instagram Logo/a>


*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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NYMOX PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION AS OF AND
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         449,363
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,611
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               776,824
<PP&E>                                       1,384,813
<DEPRECIATION>                                 216,497
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,140,491
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          833,344
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    16,912,963
<OTHER-SE>                                (15,605,816)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,140,491
<SALES>                                        153,252
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               190,203
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  252,977
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,336,006
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,551,183)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 46,684
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,314,296)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)


</TABLE>