alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
96 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.

SOUTH CAROLINA

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

FISCAL YEAR 2016

By Type

Service: 62%

Construction: 7%

Research and 

Development: 4%

Supplies and 

Equipment: 27%

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M=millions)

SAIC $136.0 M

UNAKA $101.7 M

Detyens Shipyards $78.3 M

Honeywell $75.4 M

Mercom $73.6 M

CACI International $68.7 M

Scientific Research Corporation $68.5 M

General dynamics $51.6 M

Wespavia SA $46.6 M

Keenan Fort Detrick Energy $44.4 M

$4.1

$4.7 $4.7

$3.3

$2.8

$2.3 $2.4

$3.3

21%

58%

7%

14%

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

$2.4 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

114,798

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Total* Active Duty Civilians

Military

Richland 40,640 32,544 3,936

Beaufort 28,646 26,965 1,484

Charleston 12,239 4,490 4,614

Berkeley 9,857 9,270 453

Sumter 7,740 6,629 743

Greenville 1,668 67 247

Spartanburg 488 ND 10

Greenwood 418 ND 16

Orangeburg 409 ND 28

Florence 381 35 ND

*Total also includes uniformed National Guard and Reserve units.

National Guard/

Reserve: 13%

Active Duty: 77%

Civilian: 10%

45%

35%

19%

1%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense
Office of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2016 97

McCormick

Greenville

Florence

Berkeley

Charleston 

Beaufort 

Sumter

Richland

Lexington

Greenville

Marion

Georgetown

Berkeley

Charleston 

Beaufort 

Sumter

Richland

Richland County

$628.5 M

Charleston County

$582.8 M

Beaufort County 

$372.6 M

Sumter County

$369.3 M

Berkeley County

$333.3 M

Greenville County

$23.9 M

Pickens County

$5.4 M

McCormick County

$4.5 M

Spartanburg County

$4.2 M

Florence County

$3.5 M

(M=millions)

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

Charleston County

$1.2 B

Richland County

$290.3 M

Berkeley County

$229.3 M

Beaufort County

$133.6 M

Sumter County

$127.8 M

Marion County

$101.7 M

Greenville County

$90.3 M

Georgetown County

$59.8 M

Lexington County

$49.4 M

Pickens County

$14.2 M

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

#23

$4.8 B 

SPENT IN STATE

#18

2.2% OF STATE GDP

1.3%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

$958

PER RESIDENT

#26

$2.4 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

#7

114,798 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

#16

$2.4 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

FISCAL YEAR 2016 SOUTH CAROLINA

Spartanburg 

Pickens

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

Pickens
100 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020

$0.2

FY13 FY14

$0.2

$0.1

FY15 FY16

$0.3 $0.3 $0.3

$0.2

FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

SOUTH DAKOTA 

#49

$0.7 B SPENT IN 

STATE 

#44 

1.2% OF STATE GDP

0.1%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING 

$750

PER RESIDENT 

#48 

$0.3 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING 

#47

9,622 NUMBER OF 

PERSONNEL 

#47

$0.4 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type*

Construction: 0%

Supplies and

Equipment: 63%

By Service 

Army

15%

Navy/Marines

14%

Air Force

Other Defense

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 4%

National 

Guard: 44%

Research and

Development: 2%

Service: 36%

37%

34%

Active Duty: 36%

Civilian: 15%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

43%

Navy/Marines

1%

Air Force

56%

Other Defense

0%

Top Defense Contractors 

Sterling Computers

Rosenbauer Beteiligungsverwaltung

Nova Group

Oneida Nation

Black Hills Ammunition Inc.

BEM Systems Inc.

Raven Industries Inc.

Amtec Corp.

National Presto Industries

Golden Rule Construction Co. Inc.

(M = millions)

$92.8 M

$50.7 M

$22.1 M

$11.3 M

$11.2 M

$8.2 M

$6.2 M

$6.1 M

$5.2 M

$3.8 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$0.4

$392.6 MILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL 

9,622

TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active Civilian National Reserve Total

Duty Guard

Meade 3,361 ND 115 22 ND 

Minnehaha 30 362 1,529 309 2,230

Pennington 11 866 916 0 1,793

Codington 0 ND 246 0 ND 

Brown 0 ND 146 86 ND 

Davison 0 49 168 0 217

Hughes 0 47 121 0 168

Hutchinson 0 0 147 0 147

Lake 0 0 132 0 132

Clay ND ND 98 0 ND 

* The “Defense Contracts By Type” breakdown reflects different figures from the raw totals due to a negative value in “Construction.”
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020 101

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

SOUTH DAKOTA FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

FISCAL YEAR 2020 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

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

Union

Meade

Minnehaha

Pennington

Deuel

Oglala Lakota

Charles Mix

Fall River

Yankton

Brown

(M = millions)

$94.4 M

$69.5 M

$66.9 M

$20.5 M

$11.2 M

$4.0 M

$2.1 M

$2.0 M

$1.8 M

$1.2 M

Meade

Pennington

Minnehaha

Hughes

Codington

Brown

Davison

Charles Mix

Lincoln

Buffalo

$192.8 M

$80.4 M

$63.1 M

$8.9 M

$6.4 M 

$5.8 M

$4.6 M 

$3.8 M 

$3.7 M

$3.5 M

Brown

Meade

Deuel

Pennington

Yankton

Union

Minnehaha

Fall River

Charles Mix

Brown

Meade

Pennington Minnehaha

Charles Mix

Oglala Lakota

Hughes Codington

Buffalo

Davison

Lincoln
STATE v. Kyle BERRY.

No. 389A01-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 20, 2006.

Marilyn G. Ozer, William F.W. Massengale, Chapel Hill, for Kyle Berry.

William N. Farrell, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Joan Cunningham, Assistant Attorney General, Ben David, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th day of February 2006 by Attorney General for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion for Appropriate Relief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 20th day of February 2006."
rgnx-ex101_82.htm



EXHIBIT 10.1

 

REGENXBIO INC.

COMPENSATION PROGRAM FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS

(as adopted by the Board of Directors on September 22, 2015 and amended on May 31, 2019)


	
A.
	
Cash Compensation 





	
 
	
1.
	
Board retainer: $40,000 per year for each non-employee director, paid in quarterly installments in arrears.





	
 
	
2.
	
Chairman of the Board retainer: $30,000 per year, paid in quarterly installments in arrears.





	
 
	
3.
	
Committee chair retainer: $18,000 per year for the Audit Committee chair, $12,500 per year for the Compensation Committee chair, and $8,500 per year for the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee chair, paid in quarterly installments in arrears.





	
 
	
4.
	
Committee member retainer: $9,000 per year for each non-chair member of the Audit Committee, $6,000 per year for each non-chair member of the Compensation Committee, and $5,000 per year for each non-chair member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, paid in quarterly installments in arrears.





	
B.
	
Equity Compensation 





	
 
	
1.
	
Initial stock option grant: stock option for each non-employee director to purchase 20,000 shares of REGENXBIO Inc. (the “Company”) common stock.  The per share price of each option shall equal 100% of the Fair Market Value (as defined in the 2015 Equity Incentive Plan (the “EIP”)) of a share of common stock of the Company on the date the option is granted.  The option shall vest in equal monthly installments over the 36 months following the grant date, with immediate full vesting in the event of a Change in Control (as defined in the EIP).  The option will be granted by the Compensation Committee under the EIP in conjunction with the director’s initial appointment or election to the Board.





	
 
	
2.
	
Annual stock option grant: stock option for each non-employee director to purchase 10,000 shares of the Company’s common stock.  The per share price of each option shall equal 100% of the Fair Market Value of a share of common stock of the Company on the date the option is granted.  The option shall vest in equal monthly installments over the 12 months following the grant date, with immediate full vesting in the event of a Change in Control. The option will be granted by the Compensation Committee under the EIP following the election of such director at the Company’s annual meeting of stockholders.





	
C.
	
Other Items





	
 
	
1.
	
Non-employee directors will be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred to attend Board and Committee meetings.





	
 
	
2.
	
Customary director and officer insurance is provided for non-employee directors.
<PAGE>

                           POWER OF ATTORNEY

                  KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby
constitutes and appoints each of Christie S. Flanagan, Renee Nichols Tucei, and
Eric K. Kawamura or any of them, each acting alone, his true and lawful
attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution for him and in his
name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, in connection with the GOLDEN
STATE BANCORP INC. (the "Corporation"), Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 1998 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to sign the Form
10-K in the name and on behalf of the Corporation or on behalf of the
undersigned as a director or officer of the Corporation, and any amendments to
the Form 10-K and any instrument, contract, document or other writing, of or in
connection with the Form 10-K or amendments thereto, and to file the same, with
all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, including
this power of attorney, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office
of Thrift Supervision, or other appropriate regulatory authority and any
applicable securities exchange or securities self-regulatory body, granting unto
said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, full power and authority
to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be
done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might
or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorney-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, or his substitute or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed these presents
this 9 day of March 1999.

                                             /s/ Gabrielle K. McDonald
                                            --------------------------------
                                            Gabrielle K. McDonald
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-10-00062- CV

In re Cor i Leigh Ice

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM B ELL COUNTY
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Relator C o ri L eig h I ce has filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion to stay the final hear ing set for Marc h 20, 2010. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8, 52.10. Having revie wed the petition, motion, and applicable law, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus an d overr ule the motion to s tay .

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pury ear and Waldrop Filed: Mar ch 16, 2010
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Marketing WorldWide, Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
Marvin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my
knowledge that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

                                                   /s/ James Marvin
                                                   -----------------------
                                                   James Marvin
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                                   Date: August 16, 2007
# L_2017069EN.01000101.xml

| 15.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 69/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 69/1

---

COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2017/446

of 3 March 2017

on the conclusion on behalf of the European Union of the Protocol (2015) amending the Annex to the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(6)(a) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

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

Whereas:

| (1) | By means of Decision 80/271/EEC (2), the Council approved the conclusion of the GATT Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft (the Agreement). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By means of Decision 80/271/EEC (2), the Council approved the conclusion of the GATT Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft (the Agreement).

| (2) | Signatories to the Agreement, through their representatives, agreed to open the Protocol (2015) Amending the Annex to the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft (the Protocol) for acceptance in Geneva on 5 November 2015, transposing into the Annex to the Agreement the changes introduced in the 2007 version of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Signatories to the Agreement, through their representatives, agreed to open the Protocol (2015) Amending the Annex to the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft (the Protocol) for acceptance in Geneva on 5 November 2015, transposing into the Annex to the Agreement the changes introduced in the 2007 version of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System.

| (3) | The Protocol should be approved, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Protocol should be approved,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Protocol (2015) amending the Annex to the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.

The text of the Protocol is attached to this Decision.

Article 2

The President of the Council shall designate the person(s) empowered to deposit, on behalf of the Union, the instrument of acceptance in order to express the consent of the Union to be bound by the Protocol (3).

Article 3

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

Done at Brussels, 3 March 2017.

For the Council

The President

M. FARRUGIA

---

(1)  Consent of 15 February 2017 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

1

(2)  Council Decision 80/271/EEC of 10 December 1979 concerning the conclusion of the Multilateral Agreements resulting from the 1973 to 1979 trade negotiations (OJ L 71, 17.3.1980, p. 1).

2

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

3

Official Journal of the European Union

---
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 1610

SARAH SANDOVAL , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. THE CENTER FOR INNOVATIVE GYN CARE, PC; NATALYA DANILYANTS, M.D. , Defendants

- Appellants

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. ( 8:17

- cv - 01599

- PJM )

Submitted : January 22, 2024 Decided: March 5, 2024

Before GREGORY and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Benjamin S. Vaughan , German A. Rodriguez , ARMSTRONG, DONOHUE, CEPPOS , VAUGHAN & RHOADES, CHARTERED , Rockville, Maryland , for Appellant Natalya Danilyants, M.D. J. Kristen Wiggins , Michael K. Wiggin s, WHARTON, LEVIN , EHRMANTRAUT & KLEIN, P.A. , Annapolis , Maryland, for Appellant The Center for Innovative GYN Care, P.C

. George S. Tolley , III , DUGAN, BABIJ, TOLLEY & KOHLER, LLC, Timonium , Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1610 Doc: 40 Filed: 03/05/2024 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: Following a jury trial, the district court entered judgment for Sarah Sandoval on her claim against The Center f or Innovative Gyn Care, PC ( CIGC ) and Natalya Danilyants , M.D., for medical malpractice. After trial, the district court denied CIGC ’s and Danilyants’
renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). CIGC and Danilyants appeal and argue that the district court erred in denying this motion because Sandoval did not present sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that they caused her injuries. We affirm. When, as here, the “ the loser of a jury trial challenges the verdict under [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 50(b), the question is whether a jury, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the winning party, could have properly reached the conclusion reached by this jury .” Wiener v. AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co. , 58 F.4th 774, 784 (4th Cir. 2023) (cleaned up). “Because [Sandoval] won at trial, all disputed facts must be construed in h[er] favor and [s] he must be given the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” Id. We review
the district court’s denial of the Rule 50(b) motion challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence de novo. Id. Having reviewed the facts adduced at trial in the light most favorable to Sandoval, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find Appellants caused her injuries. We reject as without merit their appellate arguments challenging this
conclusion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Sandoval v. Ctr. for Innovative Gyn Care, PC , No. 8:17

- cv - 01599

- PJM (D. Md. May 10, 2022). We dispense USCA4 Appeal: 22-1610 Doc: 40 Filed: 03/05/2024 Pg: 2 of 33 with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1610 Doc: 40 Filed: 03/05/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
Exhibit 21.1

SEACHANGE INTERNATIONAL,
INC.

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

|Subsidiary Name                                            |  | Subsidiary Jurisdiction
|---------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|SeaChange Holdings,
      Inc.                             |  | Delaware               
|ZQ Interactive, Ltd.                                       |  | British Virgin Islands 
|S.E.A.C. Ireland
      Limited                             |  | Ireland                
|SeaChange International UK Ltd.                            |  | United Kingdom         
|ZQ Interactive (Shanghai),
      Ltd.                      |  | China                  
|SeaChange International SARL                               |  | France                 
|SeaChange Japan
    KK                                     |  | Japan                  
|SeaChange US Pty Limited                                   |  | Australia              
|SeaChange Asia Pacific
      Operations Pte. Ltd.          |  | Singapore              
|SeaChange Philippines Corporation                          |  | Philippines            
|SEAC Germany
GmbH                                          |  | Germany                
|SeaChange India Private. Ltd.                              |  | India                  
|SeaChange Korea
    LLC                                    |  | Korea                  
|SeaChange Telekomünikasyon Hizmetleri Anonim
      Sirketi |  | Turkey                 
|On Demand Group,
      Ltd.                                |  | United
Kingdom         
|On Demand Management Ltd.                                  |  | United Kingdom         
|On Demand Productions
      Ltd.                           |  | United
Kingdom         
|ODG Deutschland GmbH                                       |  | Germany                
|Mobix Interactive
      Ltd.                               |  | United
Kingdom         
|Sceneworx Ltd.                                             |  | United Kingdom         
|SEAC Canada Limited                                        |  | Canada                 
|Cambio Marítimo México S. de R.L. de C.
      V.           |  | Mexico                 

---
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of International Food Products
Group, Inc. (the “Company”),
for the year ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Richard Damion, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify, to my knowledge
that:





(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 15 U.S.C. 78m (a) or 780(d)); and





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








/s/
Richard Damion


__________________________________________


Richard
Damion


Chief
Executive Officer


Chief
Financial Officer





Dated:  October
31, 2008





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
International Food Products Group, Inc. and will be retained by International
Food Products Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.