alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OREGON 

ηκϬ

Ψϭ͘ϳ^WEd/E

STATE 

ηρϬ

Ϭ͘ϳйK&^dd'W

Ϭ͘ϯй

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING 

ΨκϬϭ

PER RESIDENT 

ηκϭ

Ψϭ͘ϮKEdZd

SPENDING 

ηκϬ

ϭϯ͕ϬρϮEhDZK&

PERSONNEL 

#42 

ΨϬ͘ρWZ^KEE>

SPENDING 

 DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͗ Ϭй

^ƵƉƉůŝĞƐĂŶĚ

ƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ͗ ϳϭй

By Service 

Army 

12% 

Navy/Marines 

23% 

Air Force 

6% 

Other Defense 

ZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚĂŶĚ

ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͗ ρй

^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ͗ Ϯϯй

60% 

ůůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ͕LJdLJƉĞ

Active Duty: 4% Reserve: 12% 

Civilian: 24% 

National 

Guard: 60% 

ůůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ͕By Service 

Army 

66% 

Navy/Marines 

9% 

Air Force 

25% 

Other Defense 

0% 

Top Defense Contractors ;DсŵŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

sŝŐŽƌ/ŶĚƵƐƚƌŝĂů Ψςϭκ͘ϯD

&>/Z^LJƐƚĞŵƐ ΨΘκ͘ϮD

W/ǀŝĂƟŽŶ Ψϳκ͘ϭD

'ĂůŽŝƐ Ψϯε͘κD

ĂLJtĞƐƚ ΨϯϬ͘ϬD

ŽĞŝŶŐ ΨϮΘ͘εD

^ĂůƚĐŚƵŬ ΨϮϳ͘κD

WƌĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ/ŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞĚWƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ Ψϭϳ͘εD

DĞŐŐŝƩ Ψϭς͘ϬD

ZŽĐŬǁĞůůŽůůŝŶƐͲ^sŝƐŝŽŶ^LJƐƚĞŵƐ Ψϭρ͘εD

Contract Awards Performed ;LJ&ŝƐĐĂůzĞĂƌ͕ďŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

Ψϭ͘Ϯ

ΨϬ͘ε

&zϭϮ

ΨϬ͘ϳ ΨϬ͘ς ΨϬ͘ς ΨϬ͘ς ΨϬ͘ρ ΨϬ͘ρ

&zϭϯ &zϭκ &zϭρ &zϭς &zϭϳ &zϭΘ &zϭε

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Ψκεϳ͘ϮD/>>/KE ϭϯ͕ϬρϮ

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

dŽƉĞĨĞŶƐĞWĞƌƐŽŶŶĞů>ŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ

ŽƵŶƚLJ

DƵůƚŶŽŵĂŚ

DĂƌŝŽŶ

<ůĂŵĂƚŚ

ůĂĐŬĂŵĂƐ

>ĂŶĞ

hŵĂƟůůĂ

:ĂĐŬƐŽŶ

ůĂƚƐŽƉ

tĂƐŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ

ĞƐĐŚƵƚĞƐ

ĐƟǀĞ ŝǀŝůŝĂŶ EĂƟŽŶĂů

ƵƚLJ 'ƵĂƌĚ

Ϯϳϯ ϭ͕ρκρ Ϯ͕ϬϭϮ

E Ϯεϯ ϭ͕Ϯςϳ

ϭϭϬ ϯϮϯ ϭ͕ϬϬς

ϯϭ ϭϳϳ ρεϳ

κΘ ϭκϭ ϯεϳ

Ϭ ϭϳρ ϯκε

E κϬ ϯϳϮ

Ϭ ςϮ Ϯρϯ

E ϭρ ϮϮρ

E ϯρ ϭϳρ

ZĞƐĞƌǀĞ

ϳρκ

Ϭ

Ϭ

κϭρ

ϯκρ

Ϭ

Ϭ

Ϭ

Ϭ

Ϭ

dŽƚĂů

κ͕ρΘκ

E

ϭ͕κϯε

ϭ͕ϮϮϬ

εϯϭ

ρϮκ

E

ϯϭρ

E

E

εϮ KĨĨŝĐĞŽĨ>ŽĐĂůĞĨĞŶƐĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶͶĞĨĞŶƐĞ^ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐďLJ^ƚĂƚĞ͕&zϮϬϭε
FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018 I S COREGON AL YEAR 2 0 1 8

FISCAL YEAR 2019 

ůĂƚƐŽƉ

hŵĂƚŝůůĂ

^ŚĞƌŵĂŶ

tĂƐĐŽ

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

hŵĂƚŝůůĂ

DƵůƚŶŽŵĂŚ

tĂƐĐŽ

ůĂĐŬĂŵĂƐ

>ŝŶŶ

ĞƐĐŚƵƚĞƐ

<ůĂŵĂƚŚ

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS ;DсŵŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

ůĂĐŬĂŵĂƐ

DƵůƚŶŽŵĂŚ

DĂƌŝŽŶ

tĂƐŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ

hŵĂƟůůĂ

tĂƐĐŽ

zĂŵŚŝůů

<ůĂŵĂƚŚ

>ŝŶŶ

ĞƐĐŚƵƚĞƐ

;DсŵŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

ΨςϮϮ͘ϬD

ΨϮκϮ͘ςD

ΨΘε͘ςD

Ψςϭ͘ϯD

$33.3 M 

ΨϮε͘ϳD

ΨϮε͘ρD

Ψϭρ͘κD

ΨϭϬ͘εD

ΨϭϬ͘ΘD

DƵůƚŶŽŵĂŚ

DĂƌŝŽŶ

<ůĂŵĂƚŚ

ůĂĐŬĂŵĂƐ

>ĂŶĞ

hŵĂƟůůĂ

tĂƐĐŽ

^ŚĞƌŵĂŶ

:ĂĐŬƐŽŶ

ůĂƚƐŽƉ

ΨϮϮϭ͘ϳD

ΨρΘ͘ΘD

Ψρς͘ϮD

Ψϯς͘ϮD

ΨϮς͘ϮD

ΨϮϬ͘ςD

Ψϭϯ͘ϮD

ΨϭϬ͘ϮD

Ψε͘ϬD

ΨΘ͘κD

&ĐƚŝǀĞ &'ƵĂƌĚ &ZĞƐĞƌǀĞ ƌŵLJĐƚŝǀĞ ƌŵLJ'ƵĂƌĚ ƌŵLJZĞƐĞƌǀĞ DĐƚŝǀĞ EĂǀLJĐƚŝǀĞ t,^

tĂƐŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ

zĂŵŚŝůů

DĂƌŝŽŶ

DƵůƚŶŽŵĂŚ ůĂĐŬĂŵĂƐ

DĂƌŝŽŶ

>ĂŶĞ

:ĂĐŬƐŽŶ <ůĂŵĂƚŚ

KĨĨŝĐĞŽĨ >ŽĐĂůĞĨĞŶƐĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶͶĞĨĞŶƐĞ^ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐďLJ^ƚĂƚĞ͕&zϮϬϭε εϯ
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I,David A. Chaput, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of General Moly, Inc. for the quarterended September 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information containedin such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all materialrespects the financial condition and results of operations of General Moly, Inc.

 
| Dated:  October 29, 2010 |   |                     |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                          |   |                     |
|                          | By:    | /s/ David A. Chaput      |
|                          | Name:  | David A. Chaput          |
|                          | Title: | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

EX 32.2-1

----
STATE v. HERNANDEZ

No. COA04-358

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed July 19, 2005

Certification Date August 8, 2005

Appeal from Cumberland (01CRS54636).

Case without published opinion. No error.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4977 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on an infrared absorbing dye. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2008 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on an infrared 

absorbing dye. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AN INFRARED ABSORBING DYE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.23.13 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 an infrared absorbing dye) is amended by striking the date 

7 in the effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

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

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


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4977 IH

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
64 Office of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2016

 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 Unitedstateszipcodes.org.

MISSISSIPPI

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

FISCAL YEAR 2016

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$1.2 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

46,058

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Total* Active Duty Civilians

Military

Harrison 19,568 14,298 2,577

Lauderdale 5,214 3,120 787

Warren 2,915 ND 2,549

Lowndes 2,550 1,793 635

Hancock 2,119 646 1,419

Hinds 1,954 69 391

Forrest 1,767 490 417

Rankin 1,459 ND 442

Jackson 706 46 540

Lee 647 27 100

*Total also includes uniformed National Guard and Reserve units.

National Guard/

Reserve: 32%

Active Duty: 46%

Civilian: 22%

45%

18%

37%

0%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

By Type

Service: 28%

Construction: 1%

Research and 

Development: 1%

Supplies and 

Equipment: 70%

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M=millions B=billions)

Huntington Ingalls $2.4 B

L-3 Communications $606.7 M

Northrop Grumman $215.9 M

Vectrus $90.3 M

Raytheon $51.6 M

Navistar International $46.0 M

Computer Sciences Corporation $40.8 M

Government of the United States $28.0 M

United States Marine, Inc. $20.9 M

J.E. Dunn Construction Group $20.7 M

$3.5

$3.6

$3.9

$3.7 $3.7

$3.5 $3.5

$4.0 18%

73%

7%

2%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, Billions)
Office of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2016 65

Warren

Harrison

Hancock

Lowndes

Lauderdale

Rankin 

Jackson

Hinds

Grenada 

Harrison

Hancock

Lowndes

Clay

Lauderdale

Scott 

Jackson

Hinds

Madison

Harrison County

$429.1 M

Warren County

$180.2 M

Hancock County 

$143.5 M

Lauderdale County

$99.5 M

Lowndes County

$95.4 M

Forrest County

$57.3 M

Jackson County

$45.7 M

Hinds County

$44.0 M

Rankin County

$32.3 M

Grenada County

$9.1 M

(M=millions)

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

Jackson County

$2.4 B

Madison County

$576.9 M

Harrison County

$199.0 M

Lowndes County

$96.7 M

Scott County

$50.8 M

Clay County

$46.0 M

Hancock County

$33.9 M

Lauderdale County

$29.9 M

Hinds County

$27.1 M

Forrest County

$23.7 M

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

#24

$4.7 B 

SPENT IN STATE

#8

4.4% OF STATE GDP

1.2%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

$1,580

PER RESIDENT

#21

$3.5 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

#23

46,058 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

#27

$1.2 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

FISCAL YEAR 2016 MISSISSIPPI

Forrest 

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

Forrest
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in Registration Statements No. 333-13281, 333-122368, 333-122369, 333-130164 and 333-134505 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-124114 on Form S-3 of our reports dated March 13, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial
statements and consolidated 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 year
ended December 31, 2006.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
|                         
|Atlanta, Georgia         
|March 13, 2007
STATE v. Leroy McNEIL.

No. 37A87-6.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 21, 2005.

M. Gordon Widenhouse, Chapel Hill, Robert H. Hale, Jr., for McNeil.

C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th day of June 2005 by Attorney General for Extension of Time to File Response to Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Allowed. Attorney General shall have up to and Including the 4th day of August 2005 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 21st day of June 2005."
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Wells Real Estate Fund X, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the
Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to
the best of our 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ Leo F. Wells, III  
|Leo F. Wells, III      
|Chief Executive Officer
|March 18, 2010         



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ Douglas P. Williams
|Douglas P. Williams    
|Chief Financial Officer
|March 18, 2010
STATE v. Michael Lee SANDERS.

No. 362A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 9, 2005.

Robert K. Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Parker, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th day of September 2005 by Defendant to Amend or File an Addendum to Record on Appeal:

*531"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 9th day of September 2005."
58 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) 

Northrop Grumman $1.5 B

Lockheed Martin $1.4 B

Johns Hopkins University $852.3 M

BAE Systems $539.4 M

General Dynamics $512.9 M

Textron $488.7 M

Leidos $474.1 M

Johns Hopkins Health System Corp. $414.5 M

Smartronix $410.2 M

Booz Allen Hamilton $393.4 M

Contract Awards Performed (by fiscal year, billions)

MARYLAND

#4 #6 5.0% $4,169 #4 #8 #4

$25.2 B SPENT 

IN STATE

6.0% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $17.8 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

92,385 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$7.4 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$7.4 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

92,385

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Anne Arundel 12,579 8,277 432 3,628 24,916

Prince George’s 4,383 4,700 1,080 4,811 14,974

Harford 866 10,607 779 480 12,732

St. Mary’s 2,291 10,211 70 38 12,610

Montgomery 4,849 5,961 190 662 11,662

Baltimore 82 455 2,724 706 3,967

Frederick 1,215 2,231 109 235 3,790

Charles 555 2,156 105 101 2,917

Baltimore City 73 1,020 471 929 2,493

Allegany 1,000 ND 53 138

Construction: 4% Research and 

Development: 16%

Service: 51%

Supplies and

Equipment: 29%

Active Duty: 31%

Civilian: 50%

National 

Guard: 7%

Reserve: 13%

27%

39%

11%

23%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

38%

36%

17%

9%

$10.9

$15.1

$10.3

$14.2 $13.9 $15.0 $15.3

$17.8

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

ND
Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018 59

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)

Baltimore Harford

Frederick

Baltimore City

Howard

Anne Arundel

Montgomery

Prince George’s

Charles

St. Mary’s

MARYLAND FISCAL YEAR 2018

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

FISCAL YEAR 2018

Anne Arundel

St. Mary’s

Montgomery

Harford

Baltimore

Howard

Baltimore City

Frederick

Charles

(M = millions, B = billions)

$3.6 B

$3.0 B

$2.7 B

$2.4 B

$1.8 B

$1.3 B

Prince George’s

$956.4 M

$590.3 M

$441.7 M

$405.4 M

Anne Arundel

St. Mary’s

Harford

Montgomery

Frederick

Charles

Baltimore City

Baltimore

Allegany

$1.9 B

$1.3 B

$1.2 B

$1.1 B

Prince George’s

$1.0 B

$310.7 M

$236.4 M

$136.7 M

$116.5 M

$88.8 M

Allegany

Baltimore Harford

Frederick

Baltimore City

Anne Arundel

Montgomery

Prince George’s

Charles

St. Mary’s
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 121 (Friday, June 24, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37728-37729]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13570]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR Part 922

[Docket No. 220621-0139]
RIN 0648-AV85

Amendments to National Marine Sanctuary Regulations; Delay of 
Effective Date

AGENCY: Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).

ACTION: Interim final rule; delay of effective date.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On May 13, 2022, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) published an interim final rule in the Federal 
Register that amended the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) 
regulations. That rule was published with a 30-day comment period, 
which ended on June 13, 2022, and a 45-day delayed effective date of 
June 27, 2022. This rule delays the effective date of the interim final 
rule by 90 days, until September 26, 2022.

DATES: As of June 24, 2022, the effective date for the interim final 
rule published May 13, 2022, at 87 FR 29606, is delayed to September 
26, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vicki Wedell, NOAA Office of National 
Marine Sanctuaries, (240) 533-0650, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    In response to the interim final rule published on May 13, 2022 (87 
FR 29606), which updated and streamlined ONMS regulations, NOAA 
received eight comments before the end of the comment period on June 
13, 2022. The submitted comments are posted at regulations.gov under 
docket NOAA-NOS-2011-0120. Based on issues raised by some of the public 
comments, NOAA is preparing technical corrections and responses to 
those comments for the final rule. Therefore, NOAA is delaying the June 
27, 2022 effective date of the interim final rule by 90 days, to 
September 26, 2022. This action does not extend or reopen the comment 
period for NOAA's previous request for comments on the interim final 
rule.

National Marine Sanctuaries Act

    The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) authorizes the Secretary 
of

[[Page 37729]]

Commerce (Secretary) to designate, manage, and protect, as a national 
marine sanctuary, any area of the marine environment that is of special 
national significance due to its conservation, recreational, 
ecological, historical, scientific, cultural, archeological, 
educational, or esthetic qualities (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.). NMSA 
provides the legal basis and serves as the authority under which NOAA 
issues this action.

Nicole R. LeBoeuf,
Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management, 
National Ocean Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-13570 Filed 6-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P
```
82 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) 

Lockheed Martin $1.2 B

Harris Corp. $1.1 B

Northrop Grumman $361.0 M

BAE Systems $293.3 M

Moog $285.5 M

Interpublic Group of Companies $253.3 M

SRC $226.0 M

GLOBALFOUNDRIES $190.8 M

L3 Technologies $127.7 M

St. Vincent’s Catholic Medical Centers of NY $106.7 M

Contract Awards Performed (by fiscal year, billions)

NEW YORK

#16 #51 2.1% $530 #15 #13 #16

$10.4 B SPENT 

IN STATE

0.6% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $7.7 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

59,725 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$2.7 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$2.7 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

59,725

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Jefferson 14,855 2,174 164 247 17,440

Orange 1,777 2,514 1,573 780 6,644

Niagara 12 540 800 1,680 3,032

Onondaga 113 519 1,575 687 2,894

Oneida 68 1,770 611 319 2,768

Queens 80 97 575 1,932 2,684

Albany 233 1,261 979 31 2,504

Schenectady 18 281 1,483 663 2,445

Nassau 373 267 414 1,334 2,388

Suffolk 43 367 1,328 265 2,003

Construction: 2%

Research and

Development: 8%

Service: 18%

Supplies and

Equipment: 72%

Active Duty: 33%

Civilian: 19%

National 

Guard: 26%

Reserve: 22%

31%

34%

12%

22%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

71%

10%

16%

3%

$6.9 $7.6

$5.9

$7.3 $7.6

$6.3 $6.9 $7.7

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18
Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018 83

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)

Dutchess

Orange

Nassau

New York

Suffolk

Oneida

Monroe

Onondaga Erie

Tioga

FISCAL YEAR 2018 NEW YORK

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

FISCAL YEAR 2018

Suffolk

Onondaga

Monroe

Nassau

New York

Erie

Tioga

Oneida

Dutchess

Orange

(M = millions)

$1.1 B

$1.1 B

$1.1 B

$945.3 M

$636.3 M

$571.1 M

$358.2 M

$227.7 M

$220.0 M

$197.1 M

Jefferson

Orange

Oneida

Albany

Saratoga

Onondaga

Niagara

Nassau

Schenectady

Suffolk

$919.8 M

$403.4 M

$152.0 M

$148.5 M

$101.8 M

$101.0 M

$92.6 M

$91.4 M

$87.1 M

$77.8 M

Saratoga

Schenectady

Albany

Jefferson

Oneida

Niagara

Orange

Nassau

Suffolk

Onondaga
STATE v. Derrick J. BAILEY.

No. 26A05-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2005.

Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, Edward W. Grannis, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th day of April 2005 by Defendant Notice for a Writ of Error:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 4th day of May 2005."
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 35582]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12628]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: June 22, 2022, at 9:00 a.m.

PLACE: Atlanta, GA.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Wednesday, June 22, 2022, at 9:00 a.m.

    1. Strategic Issues.
    2. Financial and Operational Issues.
    3. Executive Session.
    4. Administrative Items.

GENERAL COUNSEL CERTIFICATION: The General Counsel of the United States 
Postal Service has certified that the meeting may be closed under the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Michael J. Elston, Secretary of 
the Board of Governors, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, 
Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone: (202) 268-4800.

Michael J. Elston,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-12628 Filed 6-8-22; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

Section 1350 Certification of the
Chief Executive Officer

In connection
with the Annual Report of Rofin-Sinar Technologies Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the year ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Günther Braun, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 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.

|                          |                          
|------------------------- | -------------------------
|Date:
  December 12, 2006 |                          
|                          |                          
|                          | /s/ Günther
  Braun      
|                          |                          
|                          | Günther
  Braun          
|                          | Chief
  Executive Officer

---
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with thefiling of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) of InfoSonicsCorporation (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2009,Joseph Ram, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934  (15U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: November 16, 2009 |     | /s/ JOSEPH  RAM                     |
|------------------------------|----------|------------------------------------------|
|                         |     | Joseph  Ram,                             |
| * *                     | * * | *Chief  Executive Officer and President* |

 

----