alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | (a) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (b) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form l0-Q. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Ronald E. Baron     | Date: November 22, 2010 |
|--------|-------------------------|-------------------------|
|   | Ronald E. Baron         |                    |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |                    |
STATE v. Billy Gene LEDWELL.

No. 291P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Parker, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th day of May 2005 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 30th day of June 2005."
Third Amendment to the Assignment of License Agreement, dated July 25, 2005


 Exhibit 10.3 
  
 THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF LICENSE AGREEMENT 
  
 THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF LICENSE AGREEMENT (“Third Amendment”) is entered into July 25, 2005
(“Effective Date”) by and between Blast Energy Services, Inc. (formerly known as Verdisys, Inc.), a California corporation (“Blast”) and Maxim TEP, Inc., a Texas Corporation (“Maxim”). 
  
 WHEREAS on March 8, 2005, Blast and Maxim entered into an assignment of license
agreement requiring payments to be made in accordance with a defined payment schedule; 
  
 WHEREAS Maxim has failed to pay Four Hundred Thousand ($400,000) Dollars of the total balance due on June 3, 2005, has failed to cure the default within the defined 45 day cure period and has failed to pay the amount by the extension
date of July 25, 2005; 
  
 WHEREAS Maxim has
requested an extended period to pay the additional consideration due; 
  
 THEREFORE, in view of the good and valuable consideration stated below, Blast and Maxim agree as follows: 
  

	1.	Extension Period. 

  
 1.1 Blast agrees to extend the period that Maxim has to pay the additional Four Hundred Thousand ($400,000) Dollars of the balance due to July 29,
2005. Failure to pay by the Four Hundred Thousand ($400,000) Dollars on July 29, 2005 will result in the lapse of the assignment and forfeiture of all prior consideration. 
  

	2.	Consideration. 

  
 2.1 In consideration of this Extension, Maxim shall pay a delinquency fee of Fifty Thousand ($50,000) Dollars by wire on July 25, 2005. 

 
 All other terms of the Assignment of License Agreement and the First and
Second Amendment are unchanged and remain in full force and effect. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. 
  
 MAXIM TEP, INC. 
  

					
	/s/    Robert Sepos, CFO	 	 	 	July 25, 2005
	 Robert Sepos, Chief Financial Officer
	 	 	 	Date
			
	BLAST ENERGY SERVICES, INC.	 	 	 	 
			
	 /s/    David M. Adams
	 	 	 	July 25, 2005
	David Adams, President & Co-CEO	 	 	 	Date
STATE v. Paul Dewayne CUMMINGS.

No. 1A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 15, 2005.

William N. Farrell, Jr., Senior Deputy Attorney General, Ben David, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th day of June 2005 by Defendant for Extension of Time for Court Reporter to Prepare the Transcript:

"Motion Allowed. Court reporter shall have up to and including the 6th day of July 2005 to prepare and deliver transcript to counsel. By order of the Court in conference this the 15th day of June 2005."
**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 adopted pursuant
        to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report
        on Form 10 -QSB/A
        of
        General Moly, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with
        the requirements of Section 13/A(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
        of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on
        Form
        10-QSB/A fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
        and
        results of operations of General Moly, Inc.


Dated:
              November 15, 2007By:
            /s/
                David A. ChaputName:
            David A. ChaputTitle:
            Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial
              Officer)
H. R. 50 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven 

An Act 

To reauthorize the African Elephant Conservation Act and the Rhinoceros and 

Tiger Conservation Act of 1994. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Multinational Species Conservation Funds Reauthorization Act of 2007’’. 

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION AND AMENDMENT OF AFRICAN ELEPHANT 

CONSERVATION ACT. 

(a) NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF PROJECT PROPOSAL.—Section 

2101(c) of the African Elephant Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4211(c)) 

is amended by striking ‘‘and to each country within which the 

project is proposed to be conducted’’. 

(b) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—Section 2306(b) of the African 

Elephant Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4245(b)) is amended by 

striking ‘‘$80,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$100,000’’. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 2306(a) of the 

African Elephant Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4245(a)) is amended 

by striking ‘‘2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007’’ and 

inserting ‘‘2007 through 2012’’. 

SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION AND AMENDMENT OF RHINOCEROS AND 

TIGER CONSERVATION ACT OF 1994. 

(a) NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF PROJECT PROPOSAL.—Section 5(c) 

of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 

5304(c)) is amended in the third sentence by striking ‘‘, to the 

Administrator, and to each country within which the project is 

to be conducted’’ and inserting ‘‘and to the Administrator’’. 

(b) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—Section 10(b) of the Rhinoceros 

and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5306(b)) is amended 

by striking ‘‘$80,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$100,000’’. 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 10(a) of the 

Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 5306(a)) 
H. R. 50—2 

is amended by striking ‘‘2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 

2007’’ and inserting ‘‘2007 through 2012’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
54 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 $159.0 M

Placid Refining Company $113.7 M

Cubic Corp. $73.1 M

Gulf Island Fabrication Inc. $63.6 M

AECOM $51.1 M

Gravois Aluminum Boats $46.7 M

JGILS $35.5 M

Swiftships $25.7 M

PRIDE Industries $24.2 M

Threat Defense $22.9 M

Contract Awards Performed (by fiscal year, billions)

LOUISIANA

#36 #39 0.6% $627 #37 #23 #26

$2.9 B SPENT 

IN STATE

1.1% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $1.3 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

37,598 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$1.6 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$1.6 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

37,598

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Vernon 7,823 1,328 125 25 9,301

Bossier 5,163 1,422 201 2,160 8,946

Orleans 908 1,607 2,740 2,572 7,827

Rapides ND 426 1,430 ND

East Baton Rouge 152 104 438 644 1,338

Tangipahoa ND 103 729 ND

Iberville 63 38 680 47 828

Plaquemines 83 640 ND ND

Calcasieu ND 45 340 183

Lafayette 42 48 329 83 502

Construction: 4%

Research and 

Development: 3%

Service: 42%

Supplies and 

Equipment: 50%

Active Duty: 38%

Civilian: 16%

National 

Guard: 30%

Reserve: 15%

32%

39%

10%

20%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

62%

11%

26%

1%

$1.2

$2.1

$1.3 $1.3 $1.5

$1.1 $1.1 $1.3

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

ND

ND

ND

ND
Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018 55

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)

Bossier

Vernon

West Baton Rouge St. Tammany

Orleans

St. Mary

Lafourche

Iberia

Terrebonne

Jefferson

FISCAL YEAR 2018 LOUISIANA

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

FISCAL YEAR 2018

Orleans

Vernon

Bossier

West Baton Rouge

Terrebonne

Jefferson

Lafourche

Iberia

St. Tammany

St. Mary

(M = millions)

$328.2 M

$295.2 M

$119.0 M

$114.1 M

$71.8 M

$61.1 M

$53.4 M

$48.4 M

$35.9 M

$27.0 M

Vernon

Bossier

Orleans

Rapides

Plaquemines

East Baton Rouge

Tangipahoa

Iberville

Lafayette

Avoyelles

$510.8 M

$483.1 M

$342.1 M

$55.9 M

$44.4 M

$36.1 M

$27.9 M

$22.8 M

$14.0 M

$11.4 M

Bossier

Rapides

Vernon

Avoyelles Tangipahoa

East Baton Rouge

Iberville Lafayette

Plaquemines

Orleans
In the Matter of A.D.L., J.S.L., C.L.L. appealed by Mother.

No. 330P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2005.

Katharine Chester, for Jennifer L.-Mother.

Michael K. Newby, High Point, for Guilford County DSS.

Joyce Terres, Greensboro, for Guardian Ad Litem.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th day of June 2005 by Respondent (Mother) 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 18th day of August 2005."
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60809 Conference Calendar

ABNER LAGUERRE, Petitioner,

versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A72-041-448

- - - - - - - - - - August 14, 1997 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Abner Laguerre appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision to deny Laguerre’s application for asylum and for a withholding of deportation. We have reviewed the record and the briefs and determine that the Board’s decision is supported byNo. - 2 - substantial evidence. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS , 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996). The petition for review is DENIED.
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Angelo E. MATTEI, Appellant.

No. 11032.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued June 11, 1953.

Decided June 29, 1953.

A. E. Mattei, pro se.

Joseph G. Hildenberger, Charles H. Greenberg, Philadelphia, Pa., for appel-lee.

Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and STA-LEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The questions raised by the appellant are so frivolous as not to require discussion. The judgment of the court below will be affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5122 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5122

           To suspend temporarily the duty on Pyrasulfotole.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 23, 2008

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To suspend temporarily the duty on Pyrasulfotole.

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

SECTION 1. PYRASULFOTOLE.

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

``      9902.01.00       5-Hydroxy-1,3-      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          dimethylpyrazol-4-                                                 31/2011.......
                          yl 2-mesyl-4-
                          (trifluoromethyl)
                          phenyl ketone
                          (Pyrasulfotole)
                          (CAS No. 365400-
                          11-9) (provided
                          for in subheading
                          2933.19.23)  ....

    (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>
```
Earth monitoring systems are vital 

for tracking future sea level rise

Earth monitoring systems are vital 

for tracking future sea level rise
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5145 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5145

     To suspend temporarily the duty on digital zoom camera lenses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 28, 2008

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To suspend temporarily the duty on digital zoom camera lenses.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON DIGITAL ZOOM CAMERA LENSES.

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

``      9902.01.00       Lenses for digital  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          cameras with                                                       31/2011.......
                          focal length
                          between 17 mm and
                          55 mm inclusive,
                          not exceeding 27
                          oz. in weight
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          9002.90.11)  ....

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

No. COA04-231.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed April 5, 2005.

Certification Date April 25, 2005.

Appeal from Forsyth (02CRS50551, 02CRS367).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION BY THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Visant Holding Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 29, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul B. Carousso, Vice President, Finance 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, 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 13, 2008 |  |  |  | /S/ PAUL B. CAROUSSO         
|                   |  |  |  | Paul B. Carousso             
|                   |  |  |  | Vice President, Finance      
|                   |  |  |  | (principal financial officer)
# L_2016170EN.01000401.xml

| 29.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 170/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 170/4

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/1044

of 15 June 2016

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Ginja de Óbidos e Alcobaça (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

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

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Portugal's application to register the name ‘Ginja de Óbidos e Alcobaça’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Portugal's application to register the name ‘Ginja de Óbidos e Alcobaça’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Ginja de Óbidos e Alcobaça’ should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Ginja de Óbidos e Alcobaça’ should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name ‘Ginja de Óbidos e Alcobaça’ (PGI) 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, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).

Article 2

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

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

Done at Brussels, 15 June 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 91, 8.3.2016, p. 12.

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

---
# L_2016068EN.01001601.xml

| 15.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 68/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 68/16

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2016/367

of 4 March 2016

on the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement on Satellite Navigation between the European Union and its Member States and the Kingdom of Norway

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 171 and 172, in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(8) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Having regard to the consent of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:

| (1) | The Commission has negotiated the Cooperation Agreement on Satellite Navigation between the European Union and its Member States and the Kingdom of Norway (2) (‘the Agreement’) which was signed on 22 September 2010. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Commission has negotiated the Cooperation Agreement on Satellite Navigation between the European Union and its Member States and the Kingdom of Norway (2) (‘the Agreement’) which was signed on 22 September 2010.

| (2) | The Agreement covers matters falling within the competence of the Union as well as Member States. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The Agreement covers matters falling within the competence of the Union as well as Member States.

| (3) | In accordance with Article 12(4) of the Agreement and the Decision on its signature (3), the Agreement is applied on a provisional basis by the Union, as regards elements falling within its competence, and by the Kingdom of Norway, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In accordance with Article 12(4) of the Agreement and the Decision on its signature (3), the Agreement is applied on a provisional basis by the Union, as regards elements falling within its competence, and by the Kingdom of Norway, pending the completion of the procedures for its conclusion.

| (4) | The Agreement, which will also have to be ratified by Member States, should be approved on behalf of the Union for matters falling within its competence, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The Agreement, which will also have to be ratified by Member States, should be approved on behalf of the Union for matters falling within its competence,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Cooperation Agreement on Satellite Navigation between the European Union and its Member States and the Kingdom of Norway is hereby approved on behalf of the Union (4).

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 4 March 2016.

For the Council

The President

S.A.M. DIJKSMA

---

(1)  
  OJ C 131 E, 8.5.2013, p. 155.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 283, 29.10.2010, p. 12.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 283, 29.10.2010, p. 11.

3

(4)  The date of entry into force of the Agreement will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by the General Secretariat of the Council.

4

Official Journal of the European Union

---