alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
102 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) 

FedEx $450.9 M

BAE Systems $394.7 M

Bechtel Group $196.8 M

Chemring Group $56.2 M

ECI Defense Group $48.0 M

Healtheon Inc. $41.9 M

AECOM $38.7 M

L3 Technologies $34.5 M

Valley Apparel $28.1 M

APTIM Federal Services $26.7 M

Contract Awards Performed (by fiscal year, billions)

TENNESSEE

#35 #47 0.6% $439 #34 #28 #33

$3.0 B SPENT 

IN STATE

0.8% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $2.0 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

26,245 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$1.0 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$1.0 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

26,245

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Shelby 1,271 2,373 1,311 1,429 6,384

Davidson 374 1,120 2,344 1,466 5,304

Blount 21 86 1,602 ND

Knox 78 404 364 809 1,655

Rutherford 30 116 957 432 1,535

Hamilton 50 76 399 747 1,272

Montgomery 41 1,084 48 ND

Coffee 50 378 235 ND

Gibson ND 38 418 ND

Washington 41 35 63 291 430

Construction: 16%

Research and

Development: 2%

Service: 53%

Supplies and

Equipment: 29%

Active Duty: 8%

Civilian: 24%

National Guard: 48%

Reserve: 21%

30%

12%

39%

19%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

62%

18%

18%

2%

$2.5

$1.5 $1.4 $1.3 $1.3

$2.0

$1.7

$2.0

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

ND

ND

ND

ND
Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018 103

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)

Hawkins Sullivan

Davidson

Anderson

Knox

Hickman

Coffee

Shelby Hardeman

FISCAL YEAR 2018 TENNESSEE

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

FISCAL YEAR 2018

Shelby

Coffee

Sullivan

Davidson

Knox

Montgomery

Hawkins

Hardeman

Hickman

Anderson

(M = millions)

$634.0 M

$379.4 M

$336.7 M

$90.6 M

$77.0 M

$73.1 M

$59.8 M

$56.3 M

$51.3 M

$26.5 M

Shelby

Davidson

Montgomery

Knox

Blount

Coffee

Rutherford

Hamilton

Gibson

Madison

$354.6 M

$208.7 M

$71.2 M

$54.4 M

$47.2 M

$39.0 M

$33.2 M

$26.9 M

$12.4 M

$9.4 M

Montgomery

Gibson

Rutherford

Madison Blount

Coffee

Shelby Hamilton

Montgomery

Davidson

Knox
AMENDMENT NO. 2


                                     TO THE


                       AGREEMENT FOR PROVISION OF SERVICES



     THIS  AMENDMENT  NO. 2 TO THE  AGREEMENT  FOR  PROVISION  OF SERVICES  (the
"Amendment")  is entered  into as of  December  2, 2001,  by and  between  MAFCO
HOLDINGS  INC., a Delaware  corporation  ("Mafco") and GOLDEN STATE BANCORP INC.
("GSB"),  a  Delaware  corporation,  in  reference  to the  following  facts and
understandings:

     WHEREAS, GSB and its subsidiaries have continuously  benefited from certain
services provided by Mafco for the benefit of GSB and its subsidiaries  pursuant
to the  Agreement  for  Provision  of Services  dated as of January 1, 1999 (the
"Agreement").

     WHEREAS,  GSB and Mafco desire to extend the term of the Agreement  through
December 31, 2002.

     NOW  THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of the  foregoing,  and of their mutual
covenants herein,  and intending to be legally bound thereby,  the parties agree
as follows:

     1. TERM OF AGREEMENT.  The term of the Agreement shall be extended  through
        -----------------
and including December 31, 2002.

     2. FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. Except as specifically amended by this Amendment,
        ---------------------
all other terms and  conditions of the Agreement  shall remain in full force and
effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the parties have executed this Amendment by their duly
authorized officers effective on the date first written above.


MAFCO HOLDINGS INC.,                           GOLDEN STATE BANCORP INC.,
a Delaware corporation                         a Delaware corporation



By:     /s/ Glenn P. Dickes               By:      /s/ Eric K. Kawamura
   ---------------------------------         ---------------------------------
            Glenn P. Dickes                            Eric K. Kawamura
            Senior Vice President                      Senior Vice President
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 AER Ventures, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



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 results of operations of the Company.





Date:  August 12, 2005



/s/ Paul John

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

Paul John, Treasurer and Director

Principal Financial Officer
Ned DORROH and Kimberly D. Dorroh v. John A. WILLIAMS.

No. 115P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

Henry C. Fordham, Jr., Apex, for John A. Williams.

Paul S. Messick, Jr., for Ned & Kimberly Dorroh.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd day of February 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 30th day of June 2005."
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

         Listed below, as of October 31, 1999, are the significant subsidiaries
of the Company and their jurisdictions of organization. All of such subsidiaries
are either directly or indirectly wholly owned by the Company. Other
subsidiaries of the Company have been omitted because, considered in the
aggregate, they would not constitute a significant subsidiary.
                                                 Jurisdiction of
Name of Subsidiary                               Organization
------------------                               ------------

100% Owned
----------

CUNO Europe S.A                                  France
CUNO Pacific, Pty. Ltd.                          Australia
CUNO Filtration Asia Pte. Ltd.                   Singapore
CUNO K.K                                         Japan
CUNO Latina Ltda                                 Brazil
CUNO SarL                                        Italy
CUNO GmbH                                        Germany
CUNO Ltd.                                        United Kingdom
Chemical Engineering Corporation                 Indiana
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of SkyePharma PLC, a company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's
knowledge, that:

The
Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report") of the Company fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

|Dated: June 28, 2004 |  |        |                                       
|-------------------- |  | ------ | --------------------------------------
|                     |  | By:    | /s/MICHAEL ASHTON                     
|                     |  | Title: | Michael Ashton
Chief Executive Officer

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,
chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) as an exhibit to the Report.

---



QuickLinks
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 D0 16 7 . ERI C F. DAVI S v . COBB COUNTY POLI CE.

Eri c F. D av i s h as fi l ed a p ro s e ap p li cat i o n fo r d is cret i o n ary ap p eal

. A l t h o u g h

i t i s u n cl ear wh at ru li n g D av i s i s ch al l en gi n g , t h e o nl y t ri al co u rt o rd er i n cl u d ed wi th

h i s ap p l i cat i o n i s an A u g u st 9

, 2 0 1 2

, o rd er d i s m i s s i ng h i s ci vi l act i o n

. D av i s fi l ed h i s

ap p li cat io n o n Oct o b er 3 0 , 2 0 1 5

. 1

W e l ack ju ri s d i ct io n b ecau s e t h e ap p l i c a t i o n i s u n t i m el y

. A n ap p l i cat i o n fo r

d i s cret i o n ary ap p eal m

u s t b e fi l ed wi t h in 3 0 d a ys o f t he en t ry o f t h e o rd er o r ju d g m en t t o b e ap p eal ed

. See OCGA § 5-6 -3 5 (d ). Th e req ui rem en t s o f O CGA § 5

-
6

- 3 5 are ju ri s d i ct i o n al

, an d t h is Co u rt can no t accep t an ap p l i cat i o n fo r ap p eal n ot

m ad e i n co m

p l i an ce th erewi t h. See Bo yl e v. S t a t e , 1 9 0 Ga. Ap p

. 7 34 (3 8 0 SE2 d 5 7 )
(1 9 8 9). Here, Dav i s fi l e d h i s a p p l i cat i o n m o re t han t h ree y ears aft er en try o f t h e

o rd er h e s eek s t o ap p eal

. H i s ap p l i cat i on i s th u s u n t i m el y, a n d i t i s h ereb y

DISM ISSED fo r l ack o f ju ri s d i ct i o n

.
C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

.

1 Dav i s fi l ed hi s ap p li cat i o n i n t h e Su prem e Co u rt

, wh i ch t ran s ferred t h e m at t er h ere. 12/30/2015 December 30, 2015
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 23, 2014

No. 04-14-00284-CR

Loretta STRACHE,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 7, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 370016

Honorable Phil Chavarria, Jr., Judge Presiding

ORDER

On June 6, 2014, Appellant’s counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. In 

accordance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–19 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), appellant’s 

attorney is required to certify the following steps have be taken:

(1) notify Appellant that counsel has filed an Anders brief and motion to 

withdraw and enclose copies of the documents, 

(2) inform Appellant of his right to review the appellate record and file a pro 

se brief, 

(3) inform Appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary 

review should the court of appeals determine the appeal is frivolous, and 

(4) “take concrete measures to initiate and facilitate the process of actuating 

[appellant’s] right to review the appellate record, if that is what [appellant] 

wishes.” Id.

Id.; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670674 n. 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Meza v. State, 206 

S.W.3d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). With respect to the final requirement, counsel may either 

send a copy of the appellate record to his client or advise his client that if he wishes to review the 

appellate record, he must file a motion in this court within ten days of counsel’s letter, requesting 

access to the record. Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 318–19. Counsel should include with his letter a form 

motion for this purpose, advise his client to sign and date the motion and mail it to this court 

within ten days, and supply his client with this court’s mailing address. Id.
Counsel’s prior notification satisfied the first three requirements. We, therefore, ORDER 

appellant’s counsel to provide proof of compliance with the fourth requirement set forth in Kelly. 

Id. Counsel’s notification to this court is due to be filed with this court no later than October 8, 

2014. After counsel’s Anders brief and motion to withdraw comply with the requirements of 

Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 318–19, this court will set a due date for appellant’s pro se brief.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 23rd day of September, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
STATE v. MERENOPERDOMO.

No. COA05-1101.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed April 4, 2006.

Certification Date April 24, 2006.

Appeal from Mecklenburg (04CRS220866).

Case without published opinion. No error.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-7-2022]

      ( print page 40485)    
On March 3, 2022, Sunlit Arizona LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 75, in Phoenix, Arizona.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (87 FR 13963, March 11, 2022). On July 1, 2022, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.                

Dated: July 1, 2022.

Elizabeth Whiteman,

Acting Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-14479 Filed 7-6-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5376 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Thymol. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2008 

Mr. BROWN of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Thymol. 

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

3 SECTION 1. THYMOL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.43 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Thymol) is amended by striking the date in the effective 

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

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

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

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

11 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
STATE of North Carolina v. Harris Emanuel FORD.

No. 539P03-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 3, 2005.

Harris Emanuel Ford, Pro Se, Staples S. Hughes, Appellate Defender, for Harris Emanuel Ford.

Kathleen U. Baldwin, L. Johnson Britt, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*776*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 28th day of September 2005 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the 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 3rd day of November 2005."
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 Sign Media Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10QSB for the quarter ending June 30,2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Antonio
F. Uccello, III, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and

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

Dated:  August 23, 2004

/s/ Antonio F. Uccello, III
Antonio F. Uccello, III
Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>


                            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 Sign Media Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10QSB for the quarter ending June 30,2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Antonio
F. Uccello, III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and

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

Dated:  August 23, 2004

/s/ Antonio F. Uccello, III
Antonio F. Uccello, III
Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**





**CERTIFICATION**


Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ZHONGPIN INC. (the
“Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Xianfu
      Zhu, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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; 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:
                November 9, 2007
            By:
            /s/
                Xianfu ZhuXianfu
                ZhuChief
                Executive Officer





This
      certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
50 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021

KANSAS 

#30 

$3.7 B SPENT IN 

#26

1.9% OF STATE GDP

0.7%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

$1,263

PER RESIDENT 

#38 

$1.5 B CONTRACT 

#21

39,055 NUMBER OF 

#21

$2.2 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

Construction: 16%

Research and

Development: 3%

Supplies and

Equipment: 41%

Service: 41%

By Service 

Army

Navy/Marines

13%

Air Force

23%

Other Defense

12%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 9%

National 

Guard: 17%

Civilian: 18%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

Navy/Marines

1%

Air Force

18%

Other Defense

1%

Top Defense Contractors 

Webuild

Leading Technology Composites

Fleetcor Technologies, Inc.

Northrop Grumman

Celltron, Inc.

Bombardier, Inc.

Textron

General Electric

D-J Engineering, Inc.

Booz Allen Hamilton

(M = millions)

$218.8 M

$107.8 M

$87.4 M

$80.4 M

$72.7 M

$70.2 M

$62.3 M

$60.0 M

$33.3 M

$28.6 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$1.6 $1.5 $1.4

FY14

$1.3

$1.0 $0.9 $0.8 $0.9

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21

$2.2 BILLION 39,055

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

53%

Active Duty: 55%

80%

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County

Geary

Sedgwick

Leavenworth

Shawnee

Johnson

Riley

Saline

Crawford

Wyandotte

Douglas

Active Civilian National

Duty Guard

15,287 2,511 135 

2,852 1,033 1,811

3,280 2,517 309 

27 576 1,900

29 98 445 

36 150 275 

ND 43 201 

ND ND 161

0 34 162

40 24 49 

Reserve

104 

1,767

334 

308 

386

107 

46

28 

0 

69

Total

18,037

7,463

6,440

2,811

958 

568

ND 

ND 

196

182 
FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

KANSAS 

FISCAL YEAR 2021 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions)

Sedgwick

Wyandotte

Leavenworth

Johnson

Geary

Cherokee

Cowley

Butler

Shawnee

Labette

(M = millions)

$540.0 M

$239.1 M

$189.1 M

$150.1 M

$148.5 M

$73.0 M 

$62.4 M

$35.5 M

$28.1 M

$10.6 M

Geary

Leavenworth

Sedgwick

Shawnee

Riley

Johnson

Saline

Douglas

Wyandotte

Rush

$995.7 M

$557.6 M

$352.8 M

$109.9 M

$28.6 M

$28.4 M

$11.7 M

$7.7 M 

$6.2 M

$6.0 M

Geary

Butler

Sedgwick

Cowley Labette

Leavenworth

Shawnee

Johnson

Cherokee

Wyandotte

Johnson

Wyandotte

Leavenworth

Geary

Shawnee

Sedgwick

Rush

Saline

Riley

Douglas

Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2021 51

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