alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
days ORDERED that remand results shall be filed no later than 

### 60 after the date of this order; and it is further ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall file papers with the Court indicating whether they are satisfied with the remand results no later than 

### 30 days after the remand results are filed with the Court; and it is further . Defendant.
ORDER Upon consideration of the defendant's consent motion for voluntary remand, it is hereby ORDERED that the consent motion is granted;.and it is further ORDERED that this action is remanded to the Department of Labor to conduct a further investigation and to make a redetermination as to whether petitioners are eligible for certification for worker adjustment assistance benefits; and it is further : CHAO, U.S. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ; : Court No. 

### 01-00883 : . : : . . 141 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS
FORMER EMPLOYEES OF HENDERSON SEWING MACHINES,Plaintiffs, V . Ol- Slip Op.-ALAS SENIOR JUDGE Dated: December 7, 

### 2001 New York, New York NICHOLAS 

### (1) and Rule 72(a), shall be extended to 

### 30 days after the plaintiffs indicate whether they are satisfied or dissatisfied with the remand results.

**V** §

### 2653(d) U.S.C. (1) the answer 

### Rule 12(a)(l) (A); and (2) the administrative record

28 Court No. 01-00883 Page 2

ORDERED pursuant to pursuant .to that the deadline for the filing of:
STATE of North Carolina v. Kenneth R. SCOTT.

No. 281P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

Kenneth R. Scott, Pro Se.

Kathleen U. Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, William David McFadyen, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*657*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."
STATE of North Carolina v. Antione Denard ALLEN.

No. 137P04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2004.

Reita Pendry, for Antione Denard Allen.

Robert C. Montgomery, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 4th day of August 2005 by Attorney General 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:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of October 2005."
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 5, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 39886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14190]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 11776]


Extension of Waiver of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act 
With Respect to Assistance to the Government of Azerbaijan

    Pursuant to the authority contained in title II of the Foreign 
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 
2002 (Pub. L. 107-115), E.O. 12163, as amended by E.O. 13346, and 
pursuant to Delegation of Authority 513, I hereby determine and certify 
that extending the waiver of section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act of 
1992 (Pub. L. 102-511) with respect to Azerbaijan:
    <bullet> is necessary to support U.S. efforts to counter 
international terrorism; or
    <bullet> is necessary to support the operational readiness of 
United States Armed Forces or coalition partners to counter 
international terrorism; or
    <bullet> is important to Azerbaijan's border security; and
    <bullet> will not undermine or hamper ongoing efforts to negotiate 
a peaceful settlement between Armenia and Azerbaijan or be used for 
offensive purposes against Armenia.
    Accordingly, I hereby extend the waiver of section 907 of the 
FREEDOM Support Act. This Determination shall be published in the 
Federal Register, and the Determination and Memorandum of Justification 
shall be provided to the appropriate committees in Congress.

    Dated: June 21, 2022.
Brian P. McKeon,
Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.
[FR Doc. 2022-14190 Filed 7-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-23-M
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5536 

To require the Secretary of Commerce to prescribe regulations to reduce 

the incidence of vessels colliding with North Atlantic right whales by 

limiting the speed of vessels, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 5, 2008 

Mr. ALLEN (for himself and Mr. GONZALEZ) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Commerce to prescribe regulations to reduce the incidence of vessels colliding with 

North Atlantic right whales by limiting the speed of 

vessels, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REGULATIONS TO PROTECT NORTH ATLANTIC 

4 RIGHT WHALES FROM SHIP STRIKES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after the 

6 earlier of the date of the enactment of this Act or June 

7 1, 2008, the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the 

8 Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, shall preVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:55 Mar 06, 2008 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5536.IH H5536

smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5536 IH

1 scribe regulations to reduce the incidence of vessels col2 liding with North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena 

3 glacialis) by limiting the speed of vessels. 

4 (b) INCORPORATION OF PROPOSED RULE.—The reg5 ulations required by subsection (a) shall— 

6 (1) incorporate the whale protection measures 

7 contained in the proposed rule entitled ‘‘Endangered 

8 Fish and Wildlife; Proposed Rule to Implement 

9 Speed Restrictions to Reduce the Threat of Ship 

10 Collisions with North Atlantic Right Whales’’ (71 

11 Fed. Reg. 36299; June 26, 2006); and 

12 (2) provide the same or greater level of protec13 tion against collisions with vessels. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5301 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on o-Acetylsalicylic acid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2008 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on oAcetylsalicylic acid. 

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

3 SECTION 1. O-ACETYLSALICYLIC ACID. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.12.11 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 o-Acetylsalicylic acid) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/ 

7 2009’’ 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 5301 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
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5282 

To extend the suspension of duty on Lycopene 10%. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2008 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the suspension of duty on Lycopene 10%. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LYCOPENE 10%. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.24.41 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Lycopene 10%) is amended by striking the date in the 

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

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

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

10 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

11 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
#### Ultra Flex Packaging Corp., Appellant-Respondent, v I.J. Litwak & Co., Inc., Respondent-Appellant.

[799 NYS2d 743]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages pursuant to a lease, the plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated June 14, 2004, as, after a nonjury trial, in effect, determined that, under the lease between the parties, the defendant was obligated to repair the roof of the demised premises but not obligated to replace it, and the defendant cross-appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same judgment as, in effect, dismissed its counterclaim to recover damages based upon the plaintiffs alleged breach of the subject lease.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In interpreting a written contract, the objective is to determine what was the intention of the parties as derived from the language employed *(see Hartford Acc. & Indent. Co. v Wesolowski,*33 NY2d 169, 171-172 [1973]). In this case, the lease, read as a whole to determine its purpose and intent *(see Rentways, Inc. v O’Neill Milk & Cream Co.,*308 NY 342, 347 [1955]), plainly manifested the defendant’s intention to accept the obligation to bear the cost of any substantial repairs to the roof exceeding $500 per annum. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant was obligated to repair the roof of the demised premises.

*“A*determination of a trial court after a nonjury trial should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is not supported by legally sufficient evidence or could not have been reached by any fair interpretation of the evidence” *(Martin Iron & Constr. Co. v Grace Indus., Inc.,*14 AD3d 495 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 705 [2005]; *see A & S Trucking Serv. v New York State Thruway Auth.,*268 AD2d 493 [2000]).

We find no reason to disturb the Supreme Court’s determination that the defendant was obligated to repair the subject roof, *483rather than to replace it, as requested by the plaintiff. The determination was not against the weight of the evidence *(see Matter of Sawhorse Lbr. & More v Amell,*2 AD3d 1082, 1083-1084 [2003]; *see generally Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129, 134 [1985]; *cf. Lolik v Big V Supermarkets,*86 NY2d 744 [1995]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5196 

To suspend temporarily the duty on UNITRONIC LIYCY-type 350-volt 

Multi-conductor copper cable, PVC (Polyvinylcarbonate) insulation, 8.9 

millimeter diameter. 

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 UNITRONIC LIYCYtype 350-volt Multi-conductor copper cable, PVC 

(Polyvinylcarbonate) insulation, 8.9 millimeter diameter. 

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

3 SECTION 1. UNITRONIC LIYCY-TYPE 350-VOLT MULTI-CON4 DUCTOR COPPER CABLE, PVC 

5 (POLYVINYLCARBONATE) INSULATION, 8.9 

6 MILLIMETER DIAMETER. 

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

8 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

HR 5196 IH

1 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

2 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 UNITRONIC LIYCY-type 

350-volt Multi-conductor copper cable, PVC 

(Polyvinylcarbonate) insulation, 8.9 millimeter diameter. 

LAPP Part Number 34608 

(provided for in subheading 

8544.49.30) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

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

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

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

6 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
IN RE M.B.

No. COA04-1709

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed October 4, 2005

Certification Date October 24, 2005

Appeal from Mecklenburg (O3J952, 03J953).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. BENJAMIN.

No. COA04-1137.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 7, 2005.

Certification Date June 27, 2005.

Appeal from Johnston (03CRS50760, 03CRS1154)

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 11, 2014

jam 

# Order

Clerk June 11, 2014

1 49459 ( 25 )

IN RE WALTHALL

______________ ____________________

LARRY WALTHALL

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 1 49459

COA: 319793

WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

,

Defendant

- Appellee.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be

liable for filing fees.

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall p ay to the

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $ 8 .00, shall submit a copy of this order

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being

filed in this Court.

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until t he payments equal the balance due of

$36 7 .00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in civil

actions in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full.

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.2
Matthew Oliver ALFORD v. Secretary of Correction Theodis BECK Superintendent L.C.I. George Kenworthy.

No. 558P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 4, 2005.

Matthew Oliver Alford, Pro Se.

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

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Petitioner on the 4th day of October 2005 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Haywood County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of October 2005."
70 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.

NEBRASKA

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

FISCAL YEAR 2016

By Type

Service: 46%

Construction: 36%

Research and 

Development: 1%

Supplies and 

Equipment: 17%

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M=millions)

Intelligent Software Solutions $411.7 M

KiewitPhelps $295.7 M

Computer Sciences Corporation $85.3 M

Northrop Grumman $73.6 M

Countertrade Products $34.4 M

Sterling Computers $30.6 M

BAE Systems $20.3 M

Securitas $15.4 M

Akira Technologies $13.2 M

McCallie Associates $12.7 M

$0.9

$0.8

$0.7

$0.5 $0.5

$0.7

$1.3

$0.7

62%

7%

30%

1%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, Billions)

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$730.9 MILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

18,168

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Total* Active Duty Civilians

Military

Sarpy 10,825 7,435 2,895

Lancaster 2,587 57 614

Douglas 2,062 118 972

Saunders 460 ND 42

Hall 290 ND 45

Adams 223 ND 25

Dodge 214 ND ND

Platte 211 ND ND

Buffalo 194 ND 10

Lincoln 187 ND 17

*Total also includes uniformed National Guard and Reserve units.

National Guard/

Reserve: 31%

Active Duty: 43%

Civilian: 26%

38%

6%

56%

0%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense
Office of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2016 71

Adams

Madison 

Hall Douglas 

Sarpy 

Saunders 

Lancaster

Cedar 

Adams

Lincoln 

Buffalo 

Hall Douglas 

Sarpy 

Dodge 

Saunders 

Lancaster

Sarpy County

$570.6 M

Douglas County

$82.9 M

Lancaster County 

$51.1 M

Saunders County

$5.6 M

Cedar County

$3.8 M

Hall County

$3.6 M

Dodge County

$2.3 M

Adams County

$1.7 M

Buffalo County

$1.5 M

Lincoln County

$1.2 M

(M=millions)

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

Sarpy County

$1.1 B

Douglas County

$49.7 M

Madison County

$29.0 M

Lancaster County

$17.0 M

Adams County

$9.4 M

Harlan County

$8.3 M

Hall County

$5.9 M

Thurston County

$4.9 M

Kearney County

$4.1 M

Saunders County

$3.8 M

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

#38

$2.0 B 

SPENT IN STATE

#28

1.7% OF STATE GDP

0.5%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

$1,062

PER RESIDENT

#37

$1.3 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

#37

18,168 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

#33

$0.7 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

FISCAL YEAR 2016 NEBRASKA

Thurston 

Harlan 

Kearney 

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active
Lester R. MITCHUM v. Timothy Glenn GASKILL.

No. 481P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

Thomas H. Morris, Kinston, for Timothy G. Gaskill.

*628Raymond E. Dunn, Jr., New Bern, J. Jefferson Newton, Beaufort, for Lester R. Mitchum.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 1st day of September 2005 by Defendant 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 6th day of October 2005."
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5346 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5346

              To suspend temporarily the duty on Imazapyr.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 2008

 Mrs. Biggert introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              To suspend temporarily the duty on Imazapyr.

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

SECTION 1. IMAZAPYR.

    (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       2-[4,5-dihydro-4-   Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          methyl-4-(1-                                                       31/2011.......
                          methylethyl)-5-
                          oxo-1H-imidazol-2-
                          yl]-3-
                          pyridinecarboxyli
                          c acid (CAS No.
                          81334-34-1)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          2933.39.25)......

    (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>
```
60 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.

MICHIGAN

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

FISCAL YEAR 2016

By Type

Service: 26%

Research and 

Development: 8%

Supplies and 

Equipment: 65%

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M=millions B=billions)

General Dynamics $1.0 B

BAE Systems $221.6 M

Peckham Vocational Industries $92.2 M

Avon Rubber $76.3 M

L-3 Communications $75.4 M

Loc Performance Products $68.2 M

Wolverine World Wide $48.5 M

Interpublic Group of Companies $42.8 M

Raytheon $40.6 M

Oshkosh $38.2 M

$5.1 $5.0

$3.5

$2.7 $2.7

$0.6

$2.3

$3.9

66%

10%

4%

20%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, Billions)

Construction: 1%

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$996.3 MILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

25,002

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Total* Active Duty Civilians

 Military

Macomb 9,283 375 6,908

Calhoun 2,535 54 1,591

Wayne 2,103 300 341

Kalamazoo 1,534 14 89

Kent 1,294 78 91

Oakland 1,270 147 419

Clinton 783 16 ND

Ingham 775 238 416

Crawford 567 ND 128

Eaton 540 34 105

*Total also includes uniformed National Guard and Reserve units.

National Guard/

Reserve: 52%

Active Duty: 6%

71%

10%

13%

6%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Civilian: 42%
Office of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2016 61

Chippewa

Kalamazoo

Macomb

Oakland

Wayne

Washtenaw

Ingham 

Kent

Dickinson

Muskegon

Macomb Ottawa

Oakland

Wayne

Wexford 

Washtenaw

Ingham 

Kent

Macomb County

$641.3 M

Calhoun County

$118.7 M

Wayne County 

$55.0 M

Oakland County

$41.3 M

Ingham County

$33.4 M

Clinton County

$15.0 M

Kent County

13.5 M

Kalamazoo County

$12.1 M

Washtenaw County

$9.1 M

Chippewa County

$9.0 M

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

Macomb County

$1.0 B

Kent County

$181.7 M

Oakland County

$177.9 M

Wayne County

$156.6 M

Washtenaw County

$137.3 M

Muskegon County

$133.0 M

Ingham County

$120.8 M

Wexford County

$106.3 M

Ottawa County

$35.5 M

Dickinson County

$26.3 M

#28

$3.3 B 

SPENT IN STATE

#47

0.7% OF STATE GDP

0.9%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

$333

PER RESIDENT

#27

$2.3 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

#31

25,002 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

#29

$1.0 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions B=b (M=millions) illions)

FISCAL YEAR 2016 MICHIGAN

Clinton

Calhoun

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