alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
108 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.

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

FISCAL YEAR 2016

VIRGINIA

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type

Service: 60%

Research and 

Development: 9%

Supplies and 

Equipment: 30%

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M=millions B=billions)

Huntington Ingalls $1.4 B

Northrop Grumman $1.3 B

Atlantic Diving Supply $1.1 B

Lockheed Martin $975.0 M

CACI International $819.9 M

General Dynamics $753.1 M

Booz Allen Hamilton $744.7 M

Hewlett-Packard $721.2 M

SAIC $697.6 M

MITRE $476.6 M

$37.2 $39.1 $36.4

$53.8

$30.2

$19.5

$28.2

$37.4

27%

36%

11%

26%

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

$14.5 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

285,678

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County/City Total* Active Duty Civilians

Military

Norfolk City 50,910 25,889 18,411

Virginia Beach City 28,480 20,144 3,913

Prince George 27,429 23,012 4,094

Fairfax 24,681 8,673 13,422

Arlington 22,562 4,076 18,307

Portsmouth City 21,464 6,363 14,823

Prince William 18,782 13,276 4,986

Newport News City 13,399 8,425 4,025

York 11,793 9,748 710

Accomack 9,933 9,273 92

*Total also includes uniformed National Guard and Reserve units.

National Guard/

Reserve: 8%

Active Duty: 54%

Civilian: 38%

27%

51%

10%

12%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense
Office of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2016 109

Fairfax

Arlington

Prince William 

Newport News 

Norfolk

Virginia Beach 

Lynchburg 

Fairfax

Alexandria

Arlington

Prince William 

Loudoun

Norfolk

Manassas 

Norfolk City

$2.6 B

Arlington County

$1.9 B

Fairfax County 

$1.9 B

Portsmouth City

$1.2 B

Virginia Beach City

$1.1 B

Prince George County

$619.9 M

Newport News City

$624.0 M

Accomack County

$610.9 M

Prince William County

$572.8 M

King George County

$539.3 M

(M=millions)

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

Fairfax County

$9.9 B

Arlington County

$2.3 B

Norfolk City

$2.0 B

Virginia Beach City

$1.8 B

Newport News City

$1.6 B

rince William Count

$984.9 M

Loudoun County

$800.6 M

Alexandria City

$724.9 M

Manassas City

$715.4 M

Lynchburg City

$497.4 M

P y

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

#2

$42.7 B 

SPENT IN STATE

#1

8.5% OF STATE GDP

11.3%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

$5,071

PER RESIDENT

#2

$28.2 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

#3

285,678 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

#1

$14.5 B PERSONNEL

SPENDING

FISCAL YEAR 2016 VIRGINIA

King George 

Accomack

Prince George 

Portsmouth

Virginia Beach 

Newport News 

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

# What is a turbidity current? 

## A turbidity current is a rapid, downhill flow of water caused by increased density due to high amounts of sediment.

Turbidity currents can be caused by earthquakes, collapsing slopes, and other geological disturbances. Once set in motion, the turbid water rushes downward and can change the physical shape of the seafloor.

Turbidity is a measure of the level of particles such as  sediment, plankton, or organic by-products, in a body of water. As the  turbidity of water increases, it becomes denser and less clear due to a higher  concentration of these light-blocking particles.

Turbidity currents can be set into motion when mud and sand  on the continental shelf are loosened by earthquakes, collapsing slopes, and  other geological disturbances. The turbid water then rushes downward like an  avalanche, picking up sediment and increasing in speed as it flows.

Turbidity currents can change the physical shape of the seafloor by eroding large areas and creating underwater canyons. These currents  also deposit huge amounts of sediment wherever they flow, usually in a gradient  or fan pattern, with the largest particles at the bottom and the smallest ones  on top.

NOAA scientists use current meters attached with turbidity  sensors to gather data near underwater volcanoes and other highly active  geological sites. Also, satellite imagery is used to observe turbidity by  measuring the amount of light that is reflected by a section of water.

###### **Search** Our Facts

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

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

          - Ocean  Geologic Features 

**Last updated:**   01/20/23**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 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
STATE v. Waymare BILLUPS.

No. 307P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Joel H. Brewer, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st day of June 2005 by Defendant for Termination of Conviction, Request for Investigation and Appointment of Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 30th day of June 2005."
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5400 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5400

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 160 East Washington Street in Chagrin Falls, Ohio, as the ``Sgt. 
              Michael M. Kashkoush Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. SGT. MICHAEL M. KASHKOUSH POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 160 East Washington Street in Chagrin Falls, Ohio, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Sgt. Michael M. Kashkoush Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sgt. 
Michael M. Kashkoush Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 5, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5400

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 160 East Washington Street in Chagrin Falls, Ohio, as the ``Sgt. 
              Michael M. Kashkoush Post Office Building''.
```
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5185 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on polytetramethylene ether 

glycol. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2008 

Mrs. MALONEY of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 

polytetramethylene ether glycol. 

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

3 SECTION 1. POLYTETRAMETHYLENE ETHER GLYCOL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.02.98 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 polytetramethylene ether glycol) is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

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

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


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5185 IH

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
44 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.

INDIANA

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

FISCAL YEAR 2016

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$980.7 MILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

31,311

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Total* Active Duty Civilians

Military

Marion 9,299 367 5,564

Martin 4,737 72 4,665

Johnson 2,273 425 290

Miami 2,027 21 588

Allen 1,947 49 348

Vigo 1,308 30 207

St. Joseph 1,001 100 55

Tippecanoe 781 87 26

Lake 738 ND 64

Vanderburgh 655 67 34

*Total also includes uniformed National Guard and Reserve units.

National Guard/

Reserve: 57%

Active Duty: 4%

Civilian: 39%

56%

17%

13%

14%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

By Type

Service: 21%

Research and 

Development: 2%

Supplies and 

Equipment: 76%

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M=millions)

MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings $998.1 M

Rolls-Royce $586.9 M

Raytheon $269.3 M

ERAPSCO $197.2 M

AmeriQual Group $133.3 M

Northrop Grumman $85.9 M

Petroleum Traders Corporation $62.2 M

Honeywell $47.6 M

Calumet Shreveport Fuels $45.1 M

Seaward Services $38.5 M

$5.0

$4.3

$5.3

$3.4

$4.8

$3.0 $3.2

$4.1

41%

32%

10%

17%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, Billions)

Construction: 1%
Office of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2016 45

Johnson

St. Joseph

Marion

Allen 

Miami 

Martin

Shelby 

Tippecanoe

Johnson

St. Joseph

Marion

Allen 

Miami 

Whitley

Martin

Bartholomew

Vanderburgh

Floyd

Marion County

$381.1 M

Martin County

$364.8 M

Johnson County 

$51.4 M

Miami County

$46.4 M

Allen County

$31.5 M

Vigo County

$21.3 M

St. Joseph County

$11.0 M

Shelby County

$9.2 M

Tippecanoe County

$7.8 M

Lake County

$7.6 M

(M=millions)

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

St. Joseph County

$1.1 B

Marion County

$938.1 M

Martin County

$262.2 M

Allen County

$252.6 M

Whitley County

$186.9 M

Vanderburgh County

$135.2 M

Johnson County

$55.2 M

Miami County

$41.7 M

Floyd County

$39.9 M

Bartholomew County

$30.7 M

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

#26

$4.2 B 

SPENT IN STATE

#34

1.2% OF STATE GDP

1.1%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

$629

PER RESIDENT

#22

$3.2 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

#29

31,311 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

#30

$1.0 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

FISCAL YEAR 2016 INDIANA

Lake 

Vigo 

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active
Exhibit 32.1



    CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss.1350


     The undersigned hereby certifies that he is the duly appointed and acting
Chief Executive Officer of Big Dog Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), and hereby further certifies as follows.

   1.  The periodic report containing financial statements to which this
       certificate is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of
       Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

   2.  The information contained in the periodic report to which this
       certificate is an exhibit fairly presents, in all material respects, the
       financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

     In witness whereof, the undersigned has executed and delivered this
certificate as of the date set forth opposite his signature below.



Date: March 31, 2005              /s/ Andrew D. Feshbach
                                  ----------------------------------------
                                  Andrew D. Feshbach
                                  President & Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5460 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5460

To amend the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and title 18, United States 
Code, to include waterboarding in the definition of cruel, inhuman, or 
degrading treatment or punishment and in the definition of torture, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 14, 2008

 Ms. Eshoo (for herself and Mr. Thompson of California) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 
  and in addition to the Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent 
Select) and Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined 
 by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
        fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and title 18, United States 
Code, to include waterboarding in the definition of cruel, inhuman, or 
degrading treatment or punishment and in the definition of torture, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. WATERBOARDING INCLUDED IN DEFINITION OF CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR 
              DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT AND IN DEFINITION OF 
              TORTURE.

    (a) Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.--Section 
1003(d) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 2000dd; Public 
Law 109-148) and section 1403(d) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 
(42 U.S.C. 2000dd; Public Law 109-163) are each amended by inserting 
after ``1984'' the following: ``, and includes waterboarding, which 
includes any form of physical treatment that simulates drowning or 
gives the individual who is subjected to it the sensation of 
drowning''.
    (b) Torture.--Section 2340(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting before the semicolon at the end the following: 
``and includes the technique known as `waterboarding', which includes 
any form of physical treatment that simulates drowning or gives the 
individual who is subjected to it the sensation of drowning''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF INDIVIDUALS IN CUSTODY OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE 
              AGENCY.

    Section 1003(a) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 
2000dd; Public Law 109-148) and section 1403(a) of the Detainee 
Treatment Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 2000dd; Public Law 109-163) are each 
amended by inserting after ``Government,'' the following: ``including 
any individual in the custody or under the physical control of the 
Central Intelligence Agency,''.
                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-16-00232-CR

Christopher Ray LOPEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 12, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 388503

Honorable Scott Roberts, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED December 28, 2016.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
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 September 30, 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 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 September 30, 2010, and for the
period then ended.

|                        | 
|----------------------- | 
|/s/Glade M. Knight      | 
|                        | 
|Glade M. Knight         | 
|Chief Executive Officer | 
|                        | 
|November 5, 2010        | 
|                        | 
|/s/   Bryan Peery       | 
|                        | 
|Bryan Peery             | 
|Chief Financial Officer | 
|                        | 
|November 5, 2010        | 

---
THREATT v. SOUTHERN PIPE, INC.

COA03-1186.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 3, 2004.

Certification Date August 23, 2004.

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed in part and remanded.
Exhibit
99





NASDAQ rule used by the
Company to determine whether a director is independent.





4200.
Definitions





(a)
      For purposes of the Rule 4000 Series, unless the context requires
      otherwise:








(15)
“Independent director” means a person other than an officer or employee of the
company or its subsidiaries or any other individual having a relationship,
which, in the opinion of the company's board of directors, would interfere with
the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the responsibilities of a
director. The following persons shall not be considered
independent:


(A) a
director who is, or at any time during the past three years was, employed by the
company or by any parent or subsidiary of the company;


(B) a
director who accepted or who has a Family Member who accepted any payments from
the company or any parent or subsidiary of the company in excess of $60,000
during the current or any of the past three fiscal years, other than the
following:


(i)
compensation for board or board committee service;


(ii)
payments arising solely from investments in the company’s
securities;


(iii)
compensation paid to a Family Member who is a non-executive employee of the
company or a parent or subsidiary of the company;


(iv)
benefits under a tax-qualified retirement plan, or non-discretionary
compensation; or


(v) loans
permitted under Section 13(k) of the Act.


Provided,
however, that audit committee members are subject to additional, more stringent
requirements under Rule 4350(d).


(C) a
director who is a Family Member of an individual who is, or at any time during
the past three years was, employed by the company or by any parent or subsidiary
of the company as an executive officer;


(D) a
director who is, or has a Family Member who is, a partner in, or a controlling
shareholder or an executive officer of, any organization to which the company
made, or from which the company received, payments for property or services in
the current or any of the past three fiscal years that exceed 5% of the
recipient’s consolidated gross revenues for that year, or $200,000, whichever is
more, other than the following:


(i)
payments arising solely from investments in the company’s securities;
or


(ii)
payments under non-discretionary charitable contribution matching
programs.


(E) a
director of the listed company who is, or has a Family Member who is, employed
as an executive officer of another entity where at any time during the past
three years any of the executive officers of the listed company serve on the
compensation committee of such other entity; or


(F) a
director who is, or has a Family Member who is, a current partner of the
company’s outside auditor, or was a partner or employee of the company’s outside
auditor who worked on the company’s audit at any time during any of the past
three years.


(G) In
the case of an investment company, in lieu of paragraphs (A)-(F), a director who
is an “interested person” of the company as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940, other than in his or her capacity as a member of
the board of directors or any board committee.
2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-25-2002

Ambrose v. Robinson

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 01-1871

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Ambrose v. Robinson" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 611.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/611
PRECEDENTIAL 

 Filed September 25, 2002 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

Nos. 01-1871 and 01-3229 

TERRY L. AMBROSE, 

v. 

TOWNSHIP OF ROBINSON, PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

(D.C. No. 99-cv-01218) 

District Judge: The Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose 

Argued April 30, 2002 

BEFORE: NYGAARD, ROTH, and WEIS, Circuit Judge s. 

ORDER AMENDING SLIP OPINION 

IT IS ORDERED that the slip opinion in the above case, 

filed on September 4, 2002, be amended as follows: 

Counsel shall be listed as follows: 

 David P. Helwig, Esq. (Argued) 

 Marks, O’Neill, O’Brien & Courtney 

 707 Grant Street 

 3200 Gulf Tower 

 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 

 Counsel for Appellant, Township of Robinson, PA 

 

 Samuel P. Kamin, Esq. 

 Goldberg, Kamin & Garvin 

 437 Grant Street, 1806 Frick Building 

 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 

 Counsel for Appellant, Township of Robinson 

 Joseph H. Chivers, III, Esq. (Argued) 

 Suite 600 

 312 Boulevard of the Allies 

 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 

 Counsel for Appellee, Terry L. Ambrose 

And, the second reference to 42 U.S.C. S 1983 on page 5 

should be changed to 42 U.S.C. S 1988. 

 By the Court, 
 /s/Richard L. NygaardCircuit Judge 

Dated: September 25, 2002 

A True Copy: 

Teste: 

 Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals 

 for the Third Circuit 

 2
STATE v. ADAMS.

No. COA05-662.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed January 17, 2006.

Certification Date February 6, 2006.

Appeal from Iredell (01CRS8493, 01CRS53076, 01CRS53079).

Case reported without published opinion. No. error.