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

No. 76A95-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 2, 2004.

Paul M. Green, Durham, Jonathan L. Megerian, Asheboro, for Charles Walker.

R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th day of November 2004 by Attorney General to Vacate Stay of Execution Entered by Superior Court of Guilford County:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 2nd day of December 2004."
STATE v. ARIAS

No. COA05-460.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed November 15, 2005.

Certification Date December 5, 2005

Appeal from the Henderson (02CRS4482, 092CRS4483).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-51135

c/w No. 11-51136

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RICARDO PEREZ-CALDERON, also known as Ricardo Morales Perez,

Defendant-Appellant

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RICARDO PEREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:11-CR-1560-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 15, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
No. 11-51135 c/w

No. 11-51136

2

Ricardo Perez-Calderon challenges his concurrent 84-month sentences for

illegal reentry and failure to register as a sex offender. He asserts that the

district court plainly erred in calculating a guidelines range of 77 to 96 months

based on a determination that Perez was required to register as a Tier III sex

offender. According to Perez, the correct guidelines range was 70 to 87 months.

Even if Perez could show a clear or obvious error and that the correct

range was 70 to 87 months, he fails to show that the error affected his

substantial rights where his sentence falls within both ranges. He relies upon

the district court’s statement that it was “going to assess a sentence in the

middle of the Guidelines.” We have rejected a nearly identical argument. See

United States v. Blocker, 612 F.3d 413, 416-17 (5th Cir. 2010). A “casual

statement” by the district court does not establish the requisite reasonable

probability that Perez would have received a lesser sentence under a lower

range. Id. Accordingly, he fails to establish reversible plain error. See Puckett

v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); Blocker, 612 F.3d at 416-17. 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Apple REIT Six, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in
all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company as of June 30, 2006, and for the period then ended.



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/s/ GLADE M. KNIGHT                    
|Glade M. Knight Chief Executive Officer
|                                       
|August 8, 2006                         
|                                       
|/s/ BRYAN PEERY                        
|Bryan Peery Chief Financial Officer    
|                                       
|August 8, 2006                         



22
HomeEducationNOAA Planet StewardsNOAA Planet Stewards Webinar Videos

# Understanding Uncertainty in the Context of Climate Change

Does uncertainty about the impacts of climate change mean scientists aren’t sure climate change is even happening? Or, perhaps, that we should wait to take mitigation or resilience actions until further research reduces that uncertainty? These are a few of the questions students might raise about the uncertainty in climate change predictions. Ms. Townsend addresses these issues in the first part of her presentation, discussing the sources of uncertainty in climate projections, what uncertainty means for scientific consensus, and how it can actually be harnessed to make better mitigation and resilience decisions.

One takeaway will be that effective use of uncertainty information requires close attention to what’s communicated by the media, scientists, and interest groups. In the second part of her talk, Ms. Townsend points out common strategies for framing risk and uncertainty information, highlighting ways that students can be smart information consumers to avoid being misled. 

At the time she gave this presentation, Tarlise (Tarlie) Townsend  was a Master’s student at the University of Michigan’s Ford School of Public Policy. After completing her B.S. in neuroscience and her B.A. in Germanic Studies at Indiana University in 2012, Tarlie spent a year studying risk and uncertainty communication at Berlin’s Max Planck Institute for Human Development, where she was a DAAD Scholar. She then took what she had learned into the field: as a Henry Luce Scholar to go work in Vietnam’s Ministry of Science and Technology, where she and her colleagues used field experiments to investigate how rural Vietnamese perceive climate change and uncertainty.

###### **Education**

Upcoming EventsThe Watch: Newsletter ArchivesWebinar ArchivesBook Club ArchivesEducation Resources

###### **Stewardship**

Supporting Stewardship Past ProjectsFocus Area ResourcesApplying for Funding

*Subscribe to the NOAA Planet Stewards Mailing List.* View our archive of past newsletters. 

Your E-mail Address:

###### **Search** Education

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

**Last updated:**   01/26/23**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 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
COLORADO 

#18 #18 1.9% $1,992 #16 #12 #10

$11.6 B SPENT IN 2.9% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. PER RESIDENT $7.7 B CONTRACT 63,358 NUMBER OF $3.9 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Construction: 3%

Supplies and Research and

Equipment: 17% Development: 21% 

Service: 60%

By Service 

Army

15%

Navy/Marines

4%

Air Force

64%

Other Defense

16%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 13%

National 

Guard: 9%

Civilian: 19% Active Duty: 59%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

62%

Navy/Marines

4%

Air Force

32%

Other Defense

2%

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

Lockheed Martin $1.1 B

United Launch Alliance $1.0 B

Sierra Nevada Corp. $663.9 M

Raytheon $494.4 M

Bechtel Group $419.3 M

Jacobs $364.4 M

L3Harris Technologies $333.0 M

Ball Corp. $260.3 M

Denali Holding Inc. $193.2 M

Perspecta $115.3 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$7.7 $6.8 $6.3 $6.0 $5.8

FY13 FY14

$5.1 $4.9 $4.0

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

$3.9 BILLION 63,358

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active

Duty

Civilian National

Guard

Reserve Total

El Paso 33,947 9,123 1,032 4,557 48,659

Arapahoe 2,645 1,539 2,511 1,746 8,441

Denver 367 276 482 559 1,684

Adams ND 81 345 901 ND

Weld ND 93 642 145 ND

Jefferson 53 233 0 462 748

Pueblo 17 373 124 0 514

Boulder 90 58 58 ND ND

Montrose 0 ND 135 0 ND

Larimer 22 11 93 ND ND

28 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020 29

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

(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

COLORADO FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

FISCAL YEAR 2020 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

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

El Paso

Arapahoe

Douglas

Pueblo

Boulder

Jefferson

Larimer

Denver

Broomfield

Adams

(M = millions, B = billions)

$3.2 B

$2.4 B

$578.0 M

$434.5 M

$371.9 M

$217.7 M

$144.9 M

$126.9 M

$92.8 M

$89.2 M

El Paso

Arapahoe

Denver

Adams

Jefferson

Pueblo

Weld

Boulder

Douglas

Larimer

$3.1 B

$446.9 M

$80.5 M

$41.0 M

$35.8 M

$32.0 M

$23.0 M

$12.6 M

$7.5 M

$6.0 M

Adams

Arapahoe

Larimer

Boulder 

Broomfield

El Paso

Pueblo

Denver

Jefferson

Douglas

Weld

Adams

Arapahoe

Pueblo

Boulder

Douglas

Larimer

Denver

El Paso

Jefferson
HomeOcean Facts

# What threats do coastal communities face?

## The threats to coastal communities include extreme natural events such as hurricanes, coastal storms, tsunamis, and  landslides, as well as longer-term risks of coastal erosion and sea level rise.

Floods are the most frequent natural disaster;  one in three Federal disaster declarations is related to flooding.

Losses from catastrophic events such as hurricanes can be extensive.  The economic losses from the 2005 hurricane season, which included Hurricanes  Katrina and Rita, were $200 billion, the costliest season ever.

For some threats, such as sea level rise, only the projected  economic losses are indicated. For example, the vast majority of our nation’s  commercial and recreational fisheries are dependent on coastal marshes.  Approximately two-thirds of those fisheries spend some stage of their lives in  tidal marshes. As sea levels rise, the built-up areas behind these marshes will  provide no opportunities for wetlands to migrate. The net result will be  billions of dollars in economic impacts affecting the livelihoods and  sustainability of many coastal communities.

Coastal threats are different throughout  the United States. For example, in the Pacific Islands, there are more potentially catastrophic  coastal hazards such as tsunamis, flooding, and even droughts. In the  North Atlantic, there are more severe storms, population and development  pressures, and regional-scale impacts such as climate change.

It is critical to develop hazard-resilient communities to prepare for  these threats and enhance the ability of these communities to absorb impacts and  bounce back. This preparation will reduce the lives lost in disasters, secure  the economic stability of these communities, and support the health of our  coastal ecosystems, including wetlands which are essential for reducing storm  impacts on our coastal communities.

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

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

          - Office for  Coastal Management
          - Coastal Hazards

**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 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5213 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Mounting Fixture, 230 millimeters length 

× 150 millimeters width × 12 millimeters thick. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2008 

Mrs. TAUSCHER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Mounting Fixture, 230 

millimeters length × 150 millimeters width × 12 millimeters thick. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MOUNTING FIXTURE, 230 MILLIMETERS 

4 LENGTH × 150 MILLIMETERS WIDTH × 12 MIL5 LIMETERS THICK. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

HR 5213 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Mounting Fixture, 230 millimeters length × 150 millimeters width × 12 millimeters 

thick; Aluminum plate 

mounted to 165 millimeters 

outside diameter Teflon tube; 

Assembly height of 160 mm 

(provided for in subheading 

8483.30.80) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

3 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
STATE of North Carolina (George Kenworthy) v. Charles William JOHNSON.

No. 320P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 1, 2004.

Charles William Johnson, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 29th day of June 2004 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st day of July 2004."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,369
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,788
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     20,745
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          11,060
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            11,101
<LOANS>                                         62,333
<ALLOWANCE>                                        550
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 100,640
<DEPOSITS>                                      69,699
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                638
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,467
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,836
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 100,640
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,816
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,847
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,663
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,512
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,512
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,151
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       17
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (15)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,507
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,674
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,116
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.47
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.57
<LOANS-NON>                                         77
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   533
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        1
<RECOVERIES>                                         1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  550
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               388
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            162
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of New York Mortgage Trust, Inc, (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 6, 2010
            
            /s/ Steven
      R. MummaSteven
      R. Mumma
              Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
              (Principal
      Executive and Principal Financial
Officer)
**Exhibit31.1**

 

**Certificationof Chief Executive OfficerRequired by Rule 13a-14(a) (17 CFR 240.13a-14(a))**

 

I,Christopher B. Begley, certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Hospira, Inc. (“Hospira”);

 

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

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of Hospira as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.  Hospira’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for Hospira, andhave:

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to Hospira, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of Hospira’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in Hospira’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during Hospira’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, Hospira’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

1

----

 

5.  Hospira’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to Hospira’s auditors and the audit and public policycommittee of Hospira’s board of directors:

 

a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect Hospira’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in Hospira’s internal controlover financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  May 27, 2004 | /s/  Christopher B. Begley                 |   |
|--------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                     | Christopher  B. Begley, Chief Executive Officer |

 

2

----
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Numbers 333-16359, 333-92549,
333-119394, 333-139026, 333-133831, 333-148127, 333-145790, 333-157178, and 333-157566) of Centrue Financial
Corporation of our report dated March 12, 2009 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Centrue Financial Corporation and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which report
appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Centrue Financial Corporation for
the year ended December 31, 2008.

|                    |                    
|------------------- | -------------------
|                    | (Crowe Horwath LLP)
|                    |                    
|                    | Crowe Horwath LLP  
|                    |                    
|Oak Brook, Illinois |                    
|March 12, 2009      |                    

---
STATE v. HAMLIN

No. COA04-1271.

North Carolina Court of Appeals,

Filed September 20, 2005.

Certification Date October 10, 2005.

Appeal from Guilford (03CRS79883).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.