alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN RE I.O.E.

No. COA04-825

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed August 16, 2005

Certification Date September 6, 2005

Appeal from Mecklenburg (98J549).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
72 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021

Equipment: 13% 

NEBRASKA 

#42

$1.7 B SPENT IN 

STATE 

#42

1.1% OF STATE GDP

0.3%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING 

$844

PER RESIDENT 

#43

$0.7 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING 

#37 

16,608 NUMBER OF 

PERSONNEL 

#34

$1.0 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Supplies and Construction: 10%

Service: 71%

By Service 

Army

21%

Navy/Marines

5%

Air Force

Other Defense

9%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 11%

National 

Guard: 26%

Civilian: 25%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

35%

Navy/Marines

5%

Air Force

Other Defense

1%

59%

Research and

Development: 6%

Top Defense Contractors 

Peraton Corp.

Medvolt Construction Services

SAIC

Northrop Grumman

Gilbane

Medvolt-Komada, JV

Metgreen Solutions, Inc.

Booz Allen Hamilton

Raytheon Technologies

Covenant Russell LLC

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$0.9

$0.8

FY15

$0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.6 $0.6

FY14 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21

$965.9 MILLION 16,608

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active Civilian National

Duty Guard

Sarpy 6,172 2,585 76

Lancaster 33 524 2,078

Douglas 95 891 276

Saunders 0 29 690

Hall 16 38 249 

Adams 0 20 191 

Dodge 0 ND 0 

Buffalo ND ND 124 

Platte 0 ND 124 

Madison 0 11 94 

(M = millions)

$97.1 M

$54.5 M

$43.6 M

$39.8 M

$21.4 M

$17.5 M

$17.4 M

$17.1 M

$16.2 M

$15.1 M

Reserve

622

201 

542 

0 

0 

31 

165

36

43 

29 

Total

9,455

2,836

1,804

719 

303 

242 

ND 

ND 

ND 

134 

66%

Active Duty: 38%
FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

NEBRASKA 

FISCAL YEAR 2021 

Buffalo

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions)

Sarpy

Douglas

Lancaster

Madison

Thurston

Adams

Saunders

Hall

Dawson

Kimball

(M = millions)

$550.6 M

$65.4 M

$24.4 M

$9.7 M 

$7.4 M

$6.2 M

$2.9 M

$2.7 M

$2.2 M

$2.0 M

Sarpy

Lancaster

Douglas

Saunders

Hall

Adams

Buffalo

Cedar

Dodge

Platte

$692.9 M

$110.9 M

$102.3 M

$17.8 M

$9.5 M

$5.0 M

$4.3 M

$4.0 M

$3.6 M

$3.3 M 

Thurston

Saunders

Madison

Douglas

Sarpy

LancasterLancaster

Adams

Kimball

Dawson Hall

LancasterLancaster

Adams

Saunders

Douglas

Sarpy Hall

Platte

Cedar

Dodge

Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021 73

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS
STATE of North Carolina v. Clarence GILLIS.

No. 320P03-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

Clarence Gillis, Pro Se.

Robert C. Montgomery, Assistant Attorney General, Edward W. Grannis, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 24th day of May 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:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th day of June 2005."
**Exhibit 10.31****Line of Credit Promissory Note**$1,250,000.00 Date: As of August 10, 2005     1. FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned (“*Borrower*”) unconditionally promises to pay to theorder of BERJAYA GROUP (CAYMAN) LIMITED, a Cayman Islands corporation (“*Lender*”), without setoffand in immediately available funds, the principal amount of ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSANDand NO/100 U.S. Dollars (U.S. $1,250,000.00) or, if less, the total unpaid principal amountadvanced by Lender from time to time to or for the benefit of or at the request of Borrower,together with interest thereon according to the terms and conditions as set forth in that certainLoan Agreement of even date herewith between Lender and Borrower, together with all amendments,modifications and extensions thereof (the “*Loan Agreement*”). This Note is subject to the terms andconditions of the Loan Agreement; *provided*, *however*, that the Loan Agreement is expressly NOTincorporated herein pursuant to Section 201.08(6), Florida Statutes and Rules 12B-4.052(6)(b) and(12)(h) , Florida Administrative Code.     2. Upon default under this Note or the Loan Agreement, Lender shall have the right to pursueall rights and remedies available to Lender at law or in equity including, but not limited to,those set forth in this Note, the Loan Agreement and each security agreement executed by theBorrower in connection therewith.     3. Borrower agrees to promptly pay, indemnify and hold harmless Lender from all state andfederal taxes of any kind and other liabilities with respect to or resulting from the execution ordelivery of this Note or advances made pursuant to this Note and/or the Loan Agreement.     4. This Note shall be governed by, and construed under, the laws of the State of Florida.     5. Notwithstanding any other provision contained in this Note, Lender does not intend tocharge and Borrower shall not be required to pay any amount of interest or other fees or chargesthat is in excess of the maximum permitted by applicable law. Any payment in excess of suchmaximum shall be refunded to Borrower or credited against principal, at the option of Lender. Itis the express intent hereof that Borrower not pay and Lender not receive, directly or indirectly,interest in excess of that which may be lawfully paid under applicable law including the usury lawsin force in the State of Florida.      ROADHOUSE GRILL, INC.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5215 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5215

To suspend temporarily the duty on coupling assembly with 2 steel hubs 
with 32 millimeter outside diameter, 18 millimeter inside diameter, and 
   a white plastic sleeve with 46 millimeter outside diameter and 28 
                           millimeter width.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    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 coupling assembly with 2 steel hubs 
with 32 millimeter outside diameter, 18 millimeter inside diameter, and 
   a white plastic sleeve with 46 millimeter outside diameter and 28 
                           millimeter width.

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

SECTION 1. COUPLING ASSEMBLY WITH 2 STEEL HUBS WITH 32 MILLIMETER 
              OUTSIDE DIAMETER, 18 MILLIMETER INSIDE DIAMETER, AND A 
              WHITE PLASTIC SLEEVE WITH 46 MILLIMETER OUTSIDE DIAMETER 
              AND 28 MILLIMETER WIDTH.

    (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        Coupling assembly  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          with 2 steel hubs                                                  31/2011.......
                          with 32
                          millimeter
                          outside diameter,
                          18 millimeter
                          inside diameter,
                          and a white
                          plastic sleeve
                          with 46
                          millimeter
                          outside diameter
                          and 28 millimeter
                          width (provided
                          for in subheading
                          8483.90.50)......

    (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. Gene Archer DICKENS, Jr.

No. 15P04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 3, 2005.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Mitchell D. Norton, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th day of February 2005 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of March 2005."
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, John R. Miller, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of National Beef Packing Company, LLC; 

 

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

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

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

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 6506

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. CHARLES RICHARD MOORE, JR., a/k/a Charles R. Moore, Jr. , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Greenville

. James C. Fox , Senior District Judge. ( 4:12

- cr - 00032

- F

- 1; 4:15

- cv - 00035

- F )

Submitted : October 31, 2019 Decided: November 25, 2019

Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Eugene Ernest Lester, III, SHARPLESS MCCLEARN LESTER DUFFY, PA, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Charles Richard Moore, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orde r denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the d istrict court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

* After filing this appeal, Moore requested and was granted this court’s authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion challenging his firearms conviction under Johnson v. United States , 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015 ), an issue counsel also sought to raise in th is appeal. Moore’s successive motion remains pending in the district court and, thus, we express no opinion as to the merits of Moore’s Johnson claim, which should be resolved in the first instance by the district court.3 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argum ent would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
# L_2016308EN.01002001.xml

| 16.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 308/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 308/20

---

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION (CFSP) 2016/2000

of 15 November 2016

implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,

Having regard to Council Deision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (1), and in particular Article 30(1) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 31 May 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/255/CFSP, concerning restrictive measures against Syria. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 31 May 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/255/CFSP, concerning restrictive measures against Syria.

| (2) | Two entities should be removed from the list of entities subject to restrictive measures, as set out in Section B of Annex I to Decision 2013/255/CFSP. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Two entities should be removed from the list of entities subject to restrictive measures, as set out in Section B of Annex I to Decision 2013/255/CFSP.

| (3) | Annex I to Decision 2013/255/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Annex I to Decision 2013/255/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Annex I to Decision 2013/255/CFSP is amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 15 November 2016.

For the Council

The President

I. KORČOK

---

(1)  
  OJ L 147, 1.6.2013, p. 14.

1

---

ANNEX

I.

| 55. | Tri-Ocean Trading |
| --- | --- |

55.

Tri-Ocean Trading

| 55a. | Tri-Ocean Energy |
| --- | --- |

55a.

Tri-Ocean Energy

---
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, 2008, 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 14, 2008
            
            /s/ David
                A. AkreCo-Chief
                Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO****SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of BIO-key International, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, ThomasJ. Colatosti, Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of TheSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                     The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

(2)                     The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 
| BIO-kEY  INTERNATIONAL, INC. |                          |
|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------|
| By:                               | /s/ THOMAS J. COLATOSTI       |   |
|                              | Thomas J. Colatosti           |   |
|                              | Co - Chief Executive  Officer |   |
| Date: April 11, 2006              |                          |

 

----
36 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 $3.6 B

Northrop Grumman $1.9 B

Leonardo SpA $669.6 M

General Dynamics $628.6 M

Raytheon $571.2 M

Harris Corp. $563.8 M

Crowley $386.6 M

Honeywell $309.9 M

CAE $219.3 M

Jacobs Engineering Group $212.7 M

Contract Awards Performed (by fiscal year, billions)

FLORIDA

#5 #23 4.8% $1,132 #5 #5 #5

$24.1 B SPENT 

IN STATE

2.3% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $16.9 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

128,035 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$7.2 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$7.2 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

128,035

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Okaloosa 17,084 7,065 102 2,039 26,290

Duval 11,406 8,624 1,881 3,763 25,674

Escambia 11,317 2,494 191 1,058 15,060

Hillsborough 5,762 2,671 482 4,060 12,975

Bay 3,928 2,819 500 483 7,730

Miami-Dade 1,231 1,241 453 3,866 6,791

Orange 228 2,354 350 3,108 6,040

Brevard 1,598 2,328 396 1,260 5,582

Pinellas 65 311 674 1,267 2,317

Palm Beach 75 239 340 1,099 1,753

Construction: 1%

Research and 

Development: 5%

Service: 41% Supplies and 

Equipment: 53%

Active Duty: 47%

Civilian: 25%

National 

Guard: 9%

Reserve: 19%

25%

31%

29%

15%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

23%

41%

35%

2%

$12.7 $12.3 $10.7 $10.2 $10.1

$13.9 $15.0

$16.9

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18
Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018 37

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)

Duval

Bay

Okaloosa

Brevard Pinellas

Hillsborough

Palm Beach

Broward

Miami-Dade

FISCAL YEAR 2018 FLORIDA

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

FISCAL YEAR 2018

Orange

Brevard

Hillsborough

Duval

Okaloosa

Pinellas

Miami-Dade

Bay

Broward

Palm Beach

(M = millions, B = billions)

$4.8 B

$3.6 B

$1.6 B

$1.5 B

$1.3 B

$1.2 B

$461.3 M

$412.0 M

$351.0 M

$322.1 M

Santa Rosa

Escambia

Orange

Monroe

Okaloosa

Duval

Hillsborough

Escambia

Bay

Brevard

Orange

Miami-Dade

Santa Rosa

Monroe

$1.8 B

$1.5 B

$826.7 M

$683.1 M

$525.0 M

$329.6 M

$323.3 M

$316.9 M

$102.8 M

$98.6 M

Miami-Dade

Brevard

Orange

Hillsborough

Bay

Okaloosa Duval
**EXHIBIT32.3**

# **CERTIFICATIONBY THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Visant Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marc L. Reisch, the President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)          TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: August 13, 2007 |     | /s/ Marc L.  Reisch            |
|-----------------------|----------|--------------------------------|
|                  |     | Marc L. Reisch                 |
|                  | * * | *President  and*               |
|                  | * * | *Chief  Executive Officer*     |
|                  |     | (principal  executive officer) |

 

----