alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Santiago Montez HOUSTON.

No. 219P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 30, 2005.

Brian Michael Aus, Durham, for Santiago Montez Houston.

W. Dale Talbert, Special Deputy Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*282*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 26th day of April 2005 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th day of June 2005."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 26th day of April 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."
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 544 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.544

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven

                                 An Act

 
  To designate the United States courthouse at South Federal Place in 
    Santa Fe, New Mexico, as the ``Santiago E. Campos United States 
                              Courthouse''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.
    The United States courthouse at South Federal Place in Santa Fe, 
New Mexico, shall be known and designated as the ``Santiago E. Campos 
United States Courthouse''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Santiago E. 
Campos United States Courthouse''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
MISSOURI 

ηϭϮ

Ψϭρ͘Ϭ^WEd/E

ηϭϮ

κ͘ρйK&^dd'W

Ϯ͘ϳй

OF TOTAL U.S. 

ΨϮ͕κκϬ

PER RESIDENT 

ηε

Ψϭϯ͘κKEdZd

ηϮϬ

κκ͕ϯκρEhDZK&

#27 

Ψϭ͘ςWZ^KEE>

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

 DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type 

ZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚĂŶĚ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ͗ ρй

ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͗ ρй

^ƵƉƉůŝĞƐĂŶĚ

ƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚ͗ ϳκй

By Service 

Army 

14% 

Navy/Marines 

Air Force 

Other Defense 

12% 

ůůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ͕LJdLJƉĞ

Reserve: 17% 

National 

Guard: 26% 

Civilian: 18% 

ůůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ͕By Service 

^ĞƌǀŝĐĞ͗ ϭϳй

33% 

41% 

Active Duty: 38% 

Army 

70% 

Navy/Marines 

9% 

Air Force 

20% 

Other Defense 

2% 

Top Defense Contractors (DсŵŝůůŝŽŶƐ͕сďŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

ŽĞŝŶŐ ΨΘ͘Θ

džƉƌĞƐƐ^ĐƌŝƉƚƐ Ψςϯϳ͘ϳD

>ĞŽŶĂƌĚŽ^Ɖ Ψκεϳ͘ϮD

DĐĂƌƚŚLJ,ŝƩͲEĞdžƚE'tĞƐƚ:s Ψϯϯϳ͘ϭD

EŽƌƚŚƌŽƉ'ƌƵŵŵĂŶ ΨϯϮκ͘ΘD

tŽƌůĚtŝĚĞdĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐLJ ΨϯϮϮ͘ςD

ĞƌŶĞƌŽƌƉŽƌĂƟŽŶ ΨϭϯΘ͘ϬD

ĂŐůĞWŝĐŚĞƌdĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐŝĞƐ>> ΨϭϮϮ͘κD

:͘͘ƵŶŶŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ Ψϳε͘ϮD

'<EŵĞƌŝĐĂŽƌƉ͘ Ψςϳ͘ΘD

Contract Awards Performed ;LJ&ŝƐĐĂůzĞĂƌ͕ďŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

Ψϭϯ͘ϭ Ψϭϯ͘κ

Ψε͘ρ Ψε͘ε

&zϭϮ

ΨΘ͘ϭ

&zϭϯ

Ψς͘Θ Ψς͘ϭ

&zϭκ &zϭρ &zϭς

Ψς͘Ϯ

&zϭϳ &zϭΘ &zϭε

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Ψϭ͘ς/>>/KE κκ͕ϯκρ

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

dŽƉĞĨĞŶƐĞWĞƌƐŽŶŶĞů>ŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ

ŽƵŶƚLJͬŝƚLJ ĐƚŝǀĞ ŝǀŝůŝĂŶ EĂƟŽŶĂů

ƵƚLJ 'ƵĂƌĚ

WƵůĂƐŬŝ ϭϮ͕Ϭϳϯ ϯ͕ϬρϬ Ϯϳε

:ŽŚŶƐŽŶ ϯ͕Θϯς ϭ͕Ϭϳϭ ϭ͕ϭεϭ

:ĂĐŬƐŽŶ Θς ΘϯϬ εϮς

^ƚ͘>ŽƵŝƐ ςϮ ρρε ϭ͕κϮς

'ƌĞĞŶĞ ϭϳ ϮεϬ εεΘ

^ƚ͘>ŽƵŝƐŝƚLJ Ϯςϭ ϳΘϬ ϯϳ

ƵĐŚĂŶĂŶ ϭϮ Ϯες ϭ͕ϯϮϬ

ŽůĞ Ϯε ϯρϭ ΘΘϳ

^ƚ͘ŚĂƌůĞƐ E ϳε Ϭ

ĂƐƐ Ϭ Ϯϳ ϭϮϮ

ZĞƐĞƌǀĞ dŽƚĂů

κϯϬ ϭρ͕ΘϯϮ

ϭ͕ϬϮϭ ϳ͕ϭϭε

ϭ͕ΘϬς ϯ͕ςκΘ

ϭ͕ϭκκ ϯ͕ϭεϭ

ρεκ ϭ͕Θεε

ϳϮϳ ϭ͕ΘϬρ

ςϭ ϭ͕ςΘε

εΘ ϭ͕ϯςρ

Θρκ E

κϮϭ ρϳϬ

68 KĨĨŝĐĞŽĨ>ŽĐĂůĞĨĞŶƐĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶͶĞĨĞŶƐĞ^ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐďLJ^ƚĂƚĞ͕&zϮϬϭε
FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018 I S CMISSOURI AL YEAR 2 0 1 8

FISCAL YEAR 2019 

ƵĐŚĂŶĂŶ

ŽůĞ

WƵůĂƐŬŝ

'ƌĞĞŶĞ

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

ůĂLJ

:ĂĐŬƐŽŶ

:ŽŚŶƐŽŶ ^ƚ͘>ŽƵŝƐ

^ƚ͘>ŽƵŝƐŝƚLJ

:ĞĨĨĞƌƐŽŶ

:ĂƐƉĞƌ

,ŽǁĞůů

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS ;DсŵŝůůŝŽŶƐ͕сďŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

^ƚ͘>ŽƵŝƐ

:ĞīĞƌƐŽŶ

:ĂĐŬƐŽŶ

^ƚ͘>ŽƵŝƐŝƚLJ

WƵůĂƐŬŝ

ůĂLJ

:ĂƐƉĞƌ

:ŽŚŶƐŽŶ

^ƚ͘ŚĂƌůĞƐ

,ŽǁĞůů

;DсŵŝůůŝŽŶƐͿ

ΨϭϬ͘ρ

ΨϳϭϬ͘ΘD

Ψρκρ͘εD

Ψκϯε͘ςD

Ψϯϯϯ͘εD

Ψϭϳκ͘ϭD

ΨϭϳϮ͘ϳD

ΨϭϯΘ͘εD

Ψϭϯϯ͘ϭD

Ψρκ͘κD

WƵůĂƐŬŝ

:ŽŚŶƐŽŶ

:ĂĐŬƐŽŶ

^ƚ͘>ŽƵŝƐŝƚLJ

^ƚ͘>ŽƵŝƐ

ŽůĞ

ƵĐŚĂŶĂŶ

'ƌĞĞŶĞ

^ƚ͘ŚĂƌůĞƐ

:ĂƐƉĞƌ

ΨςϬϮ͘εD

Ψϯϭρ͘ςD

ΨϭϮϮ͘κD

Ψεε͘ϭD

ΨΘΘ͘ϬD

Ψςϭ͘ΘD

Ψρκ͘κD

ΨϯΘ͘ϮD

$24.3 M 

Ψϭϭ͘ϮD

&ĐƚŝǀĞ &'ƵĂƌĚ &ZĞƐĞƌǀĞ ƌŵLJĐƚŝǀĞ ƌŵLJ'ƵĂƌĚ ƌŵLJZĞƐĞƌǀĞ DĐƚŝǀĞ EĂǀLJĐƚŝǀĞ t,^

WƵůĂƐŬŝ

^ƚ͘>ŽƵŝƐŝƚLJ

^ƚ͘ŚĂƌůĞƐ

^ƚ͘>ŽƵŝƐ

:ĂĐŬƐŽŶ

:ĂƐƉĞƌ

:ŽŚŶƐŽŶ

^ƚ͘ŚĂƌůĞƐ

KĨĨŝĐĞŽĨ >ŽĐĂůĞĨĞŶƐĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶͶĞĨĞŶƐĞ^ƉĞŶĚŝŶŐďLJ^ƚĂƚĞ͕&zϮϬϭε 69
David G. JONES v. Edward D. RATLEY and Best Roofing Company.

No. 114A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 7, 2005.

*504Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 168 N.C.App. 126, 607 S.E.2d 38 (2005), affirming a judgment entered on 8 August 2003 by Judge Thomas G. Foster, Jr. in District Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Supreme Court 12 September 2005.

No appearance or brief for plaintiff-appellee.

Douglas S. Harris, Greensboro, for defendant-appellants.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and remanded.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Gregory Leroy PACKER, Petitioner v. Mark CAPOZZA, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Fayette, et al.

No. 19-6001

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.2CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002     I,Charles D. Hamm, Jr., Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of ProCentury Corporation (the“Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:(1) the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2005 whichthis certification accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2) the information contained in the quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/Charles D. Hamm, Jr.     CharlesD. Hamm, Jr.  Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer  September1, 2005
34 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) 

U.S. Department of Energy $715.2 M

Booz Allen Hamilton $247.0 M

General Dynamics $233.8 M

Alion Science and Technology $198.9 M

Deloitte $125.8 M

Ernst & Young $93.0 M

CACI $82.0 M

Advantaged Solutions $76.8 M

KPMG $73.8 M

Government of the United States $66.9 M

Contract Awards Performed (by fiscal year, billions)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

#22 #8 1.5% $10,540 #21 #30 #18

$7.4 B SPENT 

IN STATE

5.2% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $5.1 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

25,183 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$2.3 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$2.3 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

25,183

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

District of Columbia 8,076 13,023 2,580 1,504 25,183

Construction: 3%

Research and 

Development: 6%

Service: 70%

Supplies and 

Equipment: 20%

Active Duty: 32%

Civilian: 52%

National 

Guard: 10%

Reserve: 6%

11%

55%

9%

24%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

19%

63%

15%

3%

$4.8 $4.5 $4.5 $4.2 $3.8 $3.7

$4.4

$5.1

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18
Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018 35

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)

District of Columbia

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FISCAL YEAR 2018

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

FISCAL YEAR 2018

District of Columbia

(B = billions)

$5.1 B

District of Columbia

District of Columbia

$2.3 B
EXHIBIT 32.2

Section 1350 Certification of the Chief
Financial Officer

In connection
with the Annual Report of Rofin-Sinar Technologies Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the year ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ingrid Mittelstaedt,
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, 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 25, 2009 |                         
|                        | /s/ Ingrid Mittelstaedt 
|                        |                         
|                        | Ingrid Mittelstaedt     
|                        | Chief
 Financial Officer

---
EXHIBIT 32

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         The undersigned, John M. Sharpe, Jr., hereby certifies as follows:

         1. I am the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of
Inner Systems, Inc. (the "Company").

         2. To the best of my knowledge, the Company's Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the "Report") complies in all
material respects with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

         3. To the best of my knowledge based upon a review of the Report, the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period
audited.


     SIGNATURE                        TITLE                          DATE


/s/ John M. Sharpe, Jr.     President, Chief Executive         August 16, 2006
-----------------------     Officer and Chief Financial
JOHN M. SHARPE, JR.         Officer
STATE v. MORTON

No. COA04-1484.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 20, 2005.

Certification Date October 10, 2005.

Appeal from Forsyth (02CRS55018).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed and remanded in part; no error in part.
NO. 07-10-0234-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO
PANEL B JULY 13, 2010

In re JOHNNY LEE REY, Relator

Memorandum Opinion

Before QUINN, C.J., a nd CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Pending before the court is the petit ion of Johnny Lee Rey for a writ of mandamus. Rey asks that we direct the Honorable Ana Estevez, District Judge, 251st Judicial District, to act upon a pending motion and to void an “Order to Withdraw Inmate Funds” (Order to Withdraw). We deny the petition.
The motion in question involved Rey’s effort to have the trial court vacate the aforementioned Order to Withdr aw. The trial court acted upon that motion by denying it on June 25, 2010. A true and correct copy of t hat order is attached to this opinion as exhibit A. Thus, the portion of Rey’s petition asking us to di rect the trial court to act upon his motion is now moot.

To the extent that the trial court iss ued the Order to Wit hdraw and now denied Rey’s motion to strike or otherwise vacate it, the appropriate avenue for relief available to him is via appeal. Harrel v. State , 286 S.W.3d 315, 321 (T ex. 2009). Since the2 Texas Supreme Court has so held, he has an adequate remedy of law and, therefore, is not entitled to relief via mandamus.
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

Per Curiam3
# L_2017058EN.01003401.xml

| 4.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 58/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 58/34

---

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2017/381

of 3 March 2017

amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

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

Whereas:

| (1) | On 5 March 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/119/CFSP (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 5 March 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/119/CFSP (1).

| (2) | On 4 March 2016 the Council extended the restrictive measures against 16 persons until 6 March 2017 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 4 March 2016 the Council extended the restrictive measures against 16 persons until 6 March 2017 (2).

| (3) | On the basis of a review of the restrictive measures set out in Decision 2014/119/CFSP, the application of those restrictive measures should be extended until 6 March 2018. The entry for one person listed in the Annex to Decision 2014/119/CFSP should be deleted. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of a review of the restrictive measures set out in Decision 2014/119/CFSP, the application of those restrictive measures should be extended until 6 March 2018. The entry for one person listed in the Annex to Decision 2014/119/CFSP should be deleted.

| (4) | Decision 2014/119/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Decision 2014/119/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Decision 2014/119/CFSP is amended as follows:

| (1) | in Article 5, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:
  ‘This Decision shall apply until 6 March 2018.’; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

in Article 5, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:

‘This Decision shall apply until 6 March 2018.’;

| (2) | the Annex is amended as set out in in the Annex to this Decision. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

the Annex is amended as set out in in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 3 March 2017.

For the Council

The President

M. FARRUGIA

---

(1)  Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 66, 6.3.2014, p. 26).

1

(2)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 60, 5.3.2016 p. 76).

2

---

ANNEX

In the Annex to Decision 2014/119/CFSP the entry relating to the following person is deleted:

| 16. | Yuriy Volodymyrovych Ivanyushchenko |
| --- | --- |

16.

Yuriy Volodymyrovych Ivanyushchenko

---
STATE v. Jimmy Lawrence SHUE.

No. 103P04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

Amy C. Kunstling, Lori A. Kroll, Assistant Attorney Generals, Robert F. Johnson, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 17th day of August 2005 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review and Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of October 2005."
STATE v. HOWARD.

No. COA05-310.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed January 17, 2006.

Certification Date February 6, 2006.

Appeal from Pitt (03CRS64331).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
# C_2017158EN.01000101.xml

| 19.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/1

---

Statements by the Council and by the Commission relating to Regulation (EU) 2017/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 laying down supply chain due diligence obligations for Union importers of tin, tantalum and tungsten, their ores, and gold originating from conflict-affected and high-risk areas (1)

1

(2017/C 158/01)

Statement by the Council

Statement by the Council

The Council agrees, on an exceptional basis, to delegate to the Commission the power to adopt delegated acts to amend the thresholds of Annex I as set out in Article 1(4) and (5), so as to ensure a timely adoption of the thresholds and to meet the objectives of this Regulation. Such agreement is without prejudice to future legislative proposals in the area of trade, as well as in the area of external relations as a whole.

Statement 1 by the Commission

Statement 1 by the Commission

The Commission will consider making additional legislative proposals targeted at EU companies with products containing tin, tantalum, and tungsten and gold in their supply chain should it conclude that the aggregate efforts of the EU market on the responsible global supply chain of minerals are insufficient to leverage responsible supply behaviour in producer countries, or should it assess that the buy-in of downstream operators that have in place supply chain due diligence systems in line with the OECD guidance is insufficient.

Statement 2 by the Commission

Statement 2 by the Commission

In the exercise of its empowerment to adopt delegated acts pursuant to Article 1(5), the Commission will take due account of the objectives of this Regulation, notably as set out in recitals 1, 7, 10 and 17.

In doing so, the Commission will, in particular, consider the specific risks associated with the operation of upstream gold supply chains in conflict affected and high-risk areas and taking into account the position of Union micro and small enterprises importing gold in the EU.

Statement 3 by the Commission

Statement 3 by the Commission

In response to the request of the European Parliament for specific guidelines, the Commission is willing to develop performance indicators specific to the responsible sourcing of conflict minerals. By means of such guidelines, relevant companies with more than 500 employees that are required to disclose non-financial information in conformity with Directive 2014/95/EU would be encouraged to disclose specific information in relation to products containing tin, tantalum, tungsten or gold.

---

(1)  OJ L 130, 19.5.2017, p. 1.

1

---
HSI NORTH CAROLINA, LLC, d/b/a HUGHES SUPPLY, INC. v. DIVERSIFIED FIRE PROTECTION OF WILMINGTON, INC., John W. Wheeler, III, N.C. Monroe Construction Company, and Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America.

No. 232P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2005.

Charles F. Marshall, Raleigh, Michael D. Meeker, Clinton R. Pinyan, Caroline R. Heil, Greensboro, for N.C. Construction Co., et al.

James W. Sprouse, Jr., James R. Vann, Raleigh, for HSI North Carolina, LLC.

Robert L. Burchette, Charlotte, Martin L. White, Durham, for the Carolinas Branch.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendants (N.C. Monroe Construction Co. and Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America) on the 5th day of May 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th day of August 2005."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th day of May 2005 by Defendants (N.C. Monroe Construction Co. and Travellers Casualty & Surety Co.) 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 18th day of August 2005."
Exhibit 10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 December 24, 2003 
  
 Mr. C. Wayne Grubbs 
 Vice President 
 Corporate Controller & Treasurer 
 SRA International, Inc. 
 Fairfax, VA 22033 
  
 Dear Mr. Grubbs: 
  
 This letter will acknowledge
our agreement to modify the Loan Agreement dated August 15, 2001, between SRA International, Inc. (the Company), Systems Research and Applications Corporation (SRA) and SRA Technical Services Center, Inc. (STSC) and SunTrust Bank (the Lender), as
outlined below: 
  

	 	1.	Extend the Termination Date to February 29, 2004, as allowed in Section 2.1(f). 

  

	 	2.	Waive Section 6.9 to allow for the Company’s planned acquisition of Orion Scientific Systems. 

  
 Should you have any questions about this modification, please call me at your earliest convenience. 
  
 Sincerely, 
  

	
	 /s/ Duncan S. Owen, III


	 Duncan S. Owen, III
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6344
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DONALD EUGENE SMILEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CR-01-213, CA-02-978-2) Submitted: April 17, 2003 Decided: April 24, 2003 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald Eugene Smiley, Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Donald Eugene Smiley seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) because the direct appeal of his conviction was still pending. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the movant can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F. 3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smiley has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , U.S. , 123 S.Ct. 1029 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Smiley’s motion to consolidate this appeal with the appeal pending in his criminal case, No. 02-4464. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED