alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
68 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by Territory, FY 2022

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions, B = billions)

Boeing $4.1 B

Accredo Health Group, Inc. $737.9 M

Olin Corp. $383.8 M

Honeywell $304.4 M

World Wide Technology $276.7 M

J.E. Dunn Construction $155.3 M

Raytheon Technologies $154.6 M

Leonardo SpA $138.7 M

Enersys $69.4 M

PROAIM Americas, LLC $35.5 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

MISSOURI

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$1.6 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

39,952

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Pulaski 9,485 3,034 260 377 13,156

Johnson 3,793 1,000 1,101 917 6,811

Jackson 84 848 882 1,429 3,243

St. Louis 83 322 1,570 1,060 3,035

Greene 35 224 859 622 1,740

St. Louis City 235 987 0 462 1,684

Buchanan 16 267 1,154 63 1,500

Cole 18 320 754 69 1,161

St. Charles 15 125 0 789 929

Cass 0 21 0 421 442

Construction: 3% Research and

Development: 3%

Service: 32%

Supplies and 

Equipment: 62%

Active Duty: 36%

Civilian: 20%

National 

Guard: 28%

Reserve: 16%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

15%

26%

38%

21%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

67%

8%

21%

4%

$6.1

$9.4

$5.6

$4.2

$10.5

$11.8

$8.8

$7.2

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22

#21 #18 1.6% $1,437 #16 #42 #20 #27

$8.9 B SPENT 

IN STATE

2.3% OF 

STATE GDP

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER 

RESIDENT

$7.2 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

39,952 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$1.6 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

$64.5 M GRANT 

SPENDING
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2022 69

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

Platte

FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS

Dent

FISCAL YEAR 2018 MISSOURI

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

FISCAL YEAR 2022

St. Louis

Jackson

Pulaski

Johnson

St. Louis City

Howell

St. Charles

Jasper

Dent

Buchanan

(M = millions)

$5.4 B

$789.9 M

$404.2 M

$140.5 M

$120.8 M

$79.8 M

$38.5 M

$32.1 M

$29.9 M

$20.5 M

Pulaski

Johnson

Jackson

St. Louis

Buchanan

Cole

Greene

Platte

$596.9 M

$335.3 M

$125.9 M

St. Louis City

$110.3 M

$94.1 M

$68.4 M

$63.2 M

$41.3 M

$30.3 M

$12.4 M

Jackson

Johnson

Jasper

Pulaski

Pulaski

Buchanan

Buchanan

Jackson

Johnson

St. Louis

St. Louis City

St. Charles

Howell

St. Louis

St. Louis City

St. Charles

Cole

Greene

St. Charles
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his or her capacity as an officer of Centrue Financial Corporation (the "Company") that the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial statements included in such report.





/s/ Kurt R. StevensonName:Kurt R. StevensonTitle:President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)Date:March 24, 2017


/s/ Daniel R. KadolphName:Daniel R. KadolphTitle:Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)Date:March 24, 2017
IN RE M.S.

No. COA04-1705

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed November 1, 2005

Certification Date November 21, 2005

Appeal from Wilkes (00J33).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
[bylaws1002.gif]

[bylaws1004.gif]

[bylaws1006.gif]

[bylaws1008.gif]

[bylaws1010.gif]

[bylaws1012.gif]

[bylaws1014.gif]

[bylaws1016.gif]

[bylaws1018.gif]

[bylaws1020.gif]

[bylaws1022.gif]

[bylaws1024.gif]

[bylaws1026.gif]

[bylaws2002.gif]

[bylaws2004.gif]

[bylaws2006.gif]

[bylaws2008.gif]

[bylaws2010.gif]

[bylaws2012.gif]

[bylaws2014.gif]

[bylaws2016.gif]
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5107 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 5-year carryback 

for certain net operating losses and to increase the dollar limitation 

on expensing certain depreciable assets. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 23, 2008 

Ms. BEAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 

5-year carryback for certain net operating losses and 

to increase the dollar limitation on expensing certain 

depreciable assets. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Giving Resources and 

5 Opportunities to the Workforce Act of 2008’’. 


pwalker on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5107 IH

1 SEC. 2. 5-YEAR CARRYBACK FOR CERTAIN NET OPERATING 

2 LOSSES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (H) of section 

4 172(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amend5 ed by inserting ‘‘or beginning during 2007, 2008, or 

6 2009,’’ after ‘‘2002,’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

8 this section shall apply to net operating losses for taxable 

9 years beginning after December 31, 2006. 

10 SEC. 3. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN DOLLAR LIMITATION ON 

11 EXPENSING CERTAIN DEPRECIABLE BUSI12 NESS ASSETS. 

13 (a) DOLLAR LIMITATION.—Paragraph (1) of section 

14 179(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 

15 limitations) is amended by striking ‘‘$125,000 in the case 

16 of taxable years beginning after 2006 and before 2011’’ 

17 and inserting ‘‘$125,000 in the case of taxable years be18 ginning in 2007, 2009, or 2010 and $250,000 in the case 

19 of taxable years beginning in 2008’’. 

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

21 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

22 December 31, 2007. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), the undersigned officer of Steiner Leisure Limited certifies that (1) this Annual Report of Steiner Leisure Limited (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



| | /s/ Stephen B. Lazarus                              
| | ----------------------------------------------------
| | Stephen B. Lazarus                                  
| | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

February 27, 2009
EXHIBIT
        32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
                  REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350(AS
                  ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
                  2002)
 
 I,
        Charles R. Eitel, as Chief Executive Officer of Simmons Company (the “Company”),
        certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section
        906
        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my knowledge:
 
 (1)
        the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March
        31,
        2007 (the “Report”), being filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
        Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section
        13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
        and
 
 (2)
        the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company.
 
 Date: May
        15, 2007 /s/
        Charles R. Eitel
 Name:
        Charles R. Eitel
 Title:
        Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 A
        signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
        provided to Simmons Company and will be retained by Simmons Company and
        furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Christopher H. Volk, certifythat:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Spirit Finance Corporation;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a) designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as ofthe end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

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

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a) allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b) any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Date: November 14, 2005
|   | /s/  Christopher H. Volk |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Christopher  H. Volk     |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
STATE v. Shawn D. McLAURIN.

No. 427P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

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

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th day of August 2005 by Defendant for "Petition for Discretionary Review Under G.S. 7A-31":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of October 2005."
IN RE K.D.

No. COA04-1254.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 21, 2005.

Certification Date July 11, 2005.

Appeal from the Catawba (03J167, 03J168, 03J169).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
NEW YORK 

#15 #50 2.2% $662 #12 #15 #17

$12.8 B SPENT IN 0.7% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. PER RESIDENT $10.0 B CONTRACT 59,716 NUMBER OF $2.8 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Construction: 6% Research and

Development: 6%

Service: 15%

Supplies and

Equipment: 72%

By Service 

Army

25%

Navy/Marines

Air Force

12%

Other Defense

18%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

: 21%

l 

27%

Active Duty:

Civilian: 20%

Reserve

Nationa

Guard: 

46%

32%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

72%

Navy/Marines

9%

Air Force

16%

Other Defense

3%

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions, B = billions)

Lockheed Martin $2.5 B

L3Harris Technologies $1.5 B

Griffon Corp. $414.4 M

BAE Systems $188.9 M

Northrop Grumman $178.2 M

HBP Joint Venture $176.3 M

Assured Information Security $173.9 M

Moog $147.3 M

Jamaica Bearings $113.4 M

St. Vincent's Catholic Medical Centers of NY $110.8 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$10.0 $8.8

$7.1 $6.9 $7.4

FY13 FY14

$6.4 $6.1

FY17

$6.7

FY15 FY16 FY18 FY19 FY20

$2.8 BILLION 59,716

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active Civilian National

Duty Guard

Jefferson 15,120 2,224 74

Orange 1,771 2,543 1,569

Niagara 16 601 774

Onondaga 191 505 1,493

Oneida 65 1,803 656

Queens 86 111 598

Kings 210 362 587

Albany 217 1,410 897

Schenectady 22 284 1,574

Suffolk 50 292 1,519

Reserve Total

209 17,627

802 6,685

1,563 2,954

663 2,852

292 2,816

1,990 2,785

1,531 2,690

14 2,538

619 2,499

332 2,193

82 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020
FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

NEW YORK 

FISCAL YEAR 2020 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

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

Tioga

Suffolk

Monroe

Onondaga

New York

Nassau

Oneida

Erie

Orange

Ontario

(M = millions)

$1.8 B

$1.5 B

$1.4 B

$986.5 M

$638.2 M

$612.7 M

$567.1 M

$448.5 M

$277.1 M

$247.8 M

Jefferson

Orange

Oneida

Albany

Niagara

Onondaga

Schenectady

New York

Suffolk

Nassau

$964.7 M

$422.1 M

$167.0 M

$161.4 M

$113.0 M

$112.4 M

$108.4 M

$98.4 M

$92.6 M

$86.8 M 

Oneida

Monroe

Erie Onondaga

Tioga

Orange

Nassau

Suffolk

New York

Ontario

Orange

Nassau

Suffolk

Oneida

Onondaga

Schenectady

Albany

Jefferson

Niagara

New York

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

Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020 83
BOST v. BOST.

No. COA05-360.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed January 3, 2006.

Certification Date January 23, 2006.

Appeal from Lee (00SP178).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. Alexander C. POLKE.

No. 412A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 4, 2005.

Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd day of October 2005 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Serve Proposed Record on Appeal:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant shall have up to and including the 14th day of October 2005 to serve his/her proposed record upon the district attorney. The parties shall then proceed to settle and file the record on appeal pursuant to the provisions of Appellate Rules 11 and 12. By order of the Court in conference this the 4th day of October 2005."
AMMONS v. YATES

No. COA04-1714

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed November 1, 2005

Certification Date November 21, 2005

Appeal from Cumberland (03CVS7172).

Cases reported without published opinion. Reversed.
HomeOcean Facts

# What's the difference between an ocean and a sea?

## In terms of geography, seas are **smaller** than oceans and are usually located where the **land and ocean meet**. Typically, seas are **partially enclosed by land**.

 Seas are found on the margins of the ocean and are partially enclosed by land. Here, you can see that the Bering Sea is part of the Pacific Ocean.

Many people use the terms "ocean" and "sea" interchangeably when speaking about the ocean, but there is a difference between the two terms when speaking of geography (the study of the Earth's surface).

Seas are smaller than oceans and are usually located where the land and ocean meet. Typically, seas are partially enclosed by land. 

The Sargasso Sea is an exception. It is defined only by ocean currents. 

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

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

          - Office of Coast Survey
          - A History of Charting America's Waters
          - NOAA 200th Anniversary Web Site

**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 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
Faith JONES v. Thomas DALTON, M.D., Wilmington Anesthesiologists, L.L.P., Gloria Moley, C.R.N.A., and New Hanover Regional Medical Center.

No. 423P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

Marie Moseley, W. Gregory Merritt, New Bern, for Gloria Moley, et al.

Carl W. Thurman, III, Andrew R. Kirschner, Atlanta, GA, Jennifer J. Slusser, Wilmington, for Faith Jones.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant (Gloria Moley, C.R.N.A.) on the 11th day of August 2005 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 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 6th day of October 2500."
STATE of North Carolina v. Henry Ford ADKINS.

No. 55P02-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 3, 2005.

Henry Ford Adkins, Pro Se.

Christopher W. Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, Belinda J. Foster, District Attorney, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 1st day of February 2005 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Rockingham County:

"Denied by order of the Court in Conference this the 3rd day of March 2005."
HomeOcean Facts

# How does a sanctuary protect marine life?

## Sanctuary managers use a combination of science, education, and enforcement to protect marine life

Our national marine sanctuaries use a variety of mechanisms to understand and protect marine resources. 

National marine sanctuary staff conduct research and use that science to better understand the marine  environment at all sanctuary sites. This knowledge is  necessary to establish an effective strategy for protection. 

Public education and appreciation for marine resources is needed for protection. Education programs exist at all sanctuary sites. An educated public understands  how to interact in the environment to avoid damaging marine resources and will help  to promote the main conservation messages.	        

The sanctuaries also implement a  permit system to regulate and oversee potentially harmful activities in  sanctuaries. This framework may be enhanced by the adoption of state and other  federal laws and regulations.

Another important tool is  “interpretive enforcement,” emphasizing education about responsible behavior as  a proactive method to prevent harmful resource impacts from occurring in the  first place.

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act, along with site-specific  legislation and regulations, provides the legal framework outlining the  activities that are allowed or prohibited.

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

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

          -  Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 
          -  National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

**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 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350), the undersigned officer of Southwest Community Bancorp (the
"Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date: August 12, 2004

                                                /s/ James L. Lemery
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              James L. Lemery
                                              Executive Vice President and
                                              Chief Financial Officer

     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and is not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

                                       26
STATE of North Carolina v. Terry Scott LEE.

No. 401P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Southern Pines, for Terry Scott Lee.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jeff Hunt, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 1st day of August 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

*625"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of October 2005."