alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001019779
<NAME> CUNO, INC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLAR

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          13,814
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,634
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,395
<INVENTORY>                                     24,087
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                98,655
<PP&E>                                         125,598
<DEPRECIATION>                                  62,411
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 188,899
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,734
<BONDS>                                          3,422
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                     119,502
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   188,899
<SALES>                                        243,074
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               243,074
<CGS>                                          138,589
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  138,589
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                76,558
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   266
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 695
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,595
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,148
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,447
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,447
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.05


</TABLE>
# L_2017089EN.01001001.xml

| 1.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 89/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 89/10

---

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2017/621

of 31 March 2017

amending Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya

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 31 July 2015 the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 31 July 2015 the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 (1).

| (2) | On 31 March 2016 the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2016/478 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 31 March 2016 the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2016/478 (2).

| (3) | In view of the gravity of the situation in Libya, the Council considers that restrictive measures against three persons should be extended for a further period of six months. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In view of the gravity of the situation in Libya, the Council considers that restrictive measures against three persons should be extended for a further period of six months.

| (4) | Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In Article 17 of Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333, paragraphs 3 and 4 are replaced by the following:

‘3.   The measures referred to in Article 8(2) shall apply with regard to entries 16, 17 and 18 in Annex II until 2 October 2017.

4.   The measures referred to in Article 9(2) shall apply with regard to entries 21, 22 and 23 in Annex IV until 2 October 2017.’.

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, 31 March 2017.

For the Council

The President

L. GRECH

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, and repealing Decision 2011/137/CFSP (OJ L 206, 1.8.2015, p. 34).

1

(2)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/478 of 31 March 2016 amending Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ L 85, 1.4.2016, p. 48).

2

---
STATE v. BRADSHAW.

No. COA05-573.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed February 21, 2006.

Certification Date March 13, 2006.

Appeal from Wake (04CRS55431, 04CRS55432, 04CRS55433, 04CRS55434, 04CRS59598).

Case reported without published opinion. Remanded for resentencing.
26 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.

COLORADO

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

FISCAL YEAR 2016

By Type

Service: 55%

Construction: 10%

Research and 

Development: 23%

Supplies and 

Equipment: 12%

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M=millions)

Northrop Grumman $951.8 M

United Launch Alliance $718.8 M

Raytheon $444.6 M

Lockheed Martin $248.6 M

Kiewit-Turner, JV $233.9 M

Berkshire Hathaway $166.0 M

Harris $160.5 M

Honeywell $129.2 M

Intelligent Software Solutions $97.4 M

Ball Corporation $66.7 M

$5.8

$4.9

$5.4 $5.8 $5.7 $5.7

$4.5

$5.1

11%

17%

60%

12%

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

$3.0 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

71,713

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Total* Active Duty Civilians

Military

El Paso 56,871 42,690 9,902

Arapahoe 8,055 2,941 1,991

Denver 1,700 408 327

Adams 1,014 ND 75

Weld 862 ND 126

Jefferson 839 71 286

Pueblo 619 21 523

Boulder 435 219 66

Mesa 173 24 29

Larimer 157 34 10

*Total also includes uniformed National Guard and Reserve units.

National Guard/

Reserve: 15%

Active Duty: 66%

Civilian: 19%

61%

4%

33%

2%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense
Office of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2016 27

Larimer 

El Paso

Boulder

Arapahoe

Adams

Denver 

Douglas

Jefferson 

Pueblo 

Larimer 

El Paso

Boulder

Weld 

Arapahoe

Adams

Denver 

Douglas

Jefferson 

Pueblo 

El Paso County

$2.6 B

Arapahoe County

$300.3 M

Denver County 

$50.9 M

Pueblo County

$31.1 M

Jefferson County

$30.3 M

Boulder County

$16.3 M

Adams County

$13.1 M

Weld County

$12.2 M

Douglas County

$5.5 M

Larimer County

$3.6 M

(M=millions)

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

El Paso County

$1.5 B

Arapahoe County

$1.5 B

Boulder County

$726.1 M

Adams County

273.3 M

Jefferson County

$236.8 M

Denver County

$94.3 M

Mesa County

$42.3 M

Pueblo County

$40.8 M

Douglas County

$38.6 M

Larimer County

$38.3 M

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS

#16

$7.5 B 

SPENT IN STATE

#17

2.3% OF STATE GDP

2.0%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

$1,356

PER RESIDENT

#17

$4.5 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

#13

71,713 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

#10

$3.0 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

FISCAL YEAR 2016 COLORADO

(M=millions B=billions)

(M=millions B=billions)

Mesa

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active
EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.
C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 I, G.
Rowland Carey, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
USA Superior Energy Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for
the period ended June 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 
 /S/ G.
Rowland Carey
 -------------------------------
 G.
Rowland Carey
 Acting
Chief Financial Officer
 August
19, 2008
 
 
 This
certification accompanies this 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, or otherwise required, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
of § 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT ALLEN BANE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MR. ROBINSON; DOCTOR MAY;

DOCTOR THOMPSON; RON ANGELONE,

Director, Virginia Department of

No. 97-7591

Corrections; E. B. WALKER,

Assistant Warden; MS. EPPERSON,

Head Nurse; E. WHITLEY, Nurse,

LPN; J. H. FIELDS, Regional

Ombudsman; SERGEANT LOVE;

SERGEANT TAYLOR,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge.

(CA-96-243-AM)

Submitted: September 30, 1998

Decided: November 6, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and

HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Robert Allen Bane, Appellant Pro Se. Martha Murphey Parrish,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Elizabeth Butter-
worth Stutts, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P.,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Robert Allen Bane appeals from the district court's order dismissing his complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C.A.§ 1983 (West

Supp. 1998), and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A.

§§ 12101-12213 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) (ADA). We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

reversible error regarding Bane's § 1983 claims. Accordingly, we

affirm the dismissal of these claims on the reasoning of the district

court. Bane v. Robinson, No. CA-96-243-AM (E.D. Va. Oct. 17,

1997).

Turning to Bane's ADA claim, we note that the district court disposed of this claim under our holding in Amos v. Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, 126 F.3d 589 (4th

Cir. 1997), stating that the ADA does not apply to prisons. During the

pendency of Bane's appeal, the Supreme Court held in Pennsylvania

Department of Corrections v. Yeskey, ___ U.S. ___, 66 U.S.L.W.

4481 (U.S. June 15, 1998) (No. 97-634), that Title II of the ADA does

apply to state prison and prisoners. Following this announcement, the

Court vacated our opinion in Amos. Our review of the record leads us

to conclude that, notwithstanding Title II's applicability to state prisons, the district court properly disposed of Bane's ADA claims

because his pleadings fail to establish a violation of Title II or any

other Title of the ADA. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's

holding on this alternative ground.

We also deny Bane's pending motions for a special order of injunction or compulsion as moot. We dispense with oral argument because

 2
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3
Exhibit 10.1


 


DIRECTORS COMPENSATION SUMMARY


 


Outside
directors receive compensation for board service.


That
compensation includes:


 


	
  Annual Retainer:

  	
   

  	
  $4,000 for all outside directors

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Annual Stipend:

  	
   

  	
  Board Chairman - $15,000

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Audit Committee Chairman - $15,000

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Compensation Committee Chairman - $3,000

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Attendance Fees:

  	
   

  	
  $2,500 for each Board meeting

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  $2,000 for each Audit Committee meeting

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  $1,000 for each Compensation Committee meeting

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Reduced to $500 in all cases for telephonic attendance.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Equity Grants:

  	
   

  	
  The Company plans to continue to grant stock options to purchase
  5,000 shares (or equivalent value) to each newly appointed outside director
  and annually to each continuing outside director.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Plus Expenses related to attendance
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

September 23, 2014

N o. 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 Appellan t 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 appella te 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, c ounsel may either send a copy of the ap pellate 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 incl ude 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 O ctober 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 bri ef.

_________________________________ 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
**Exhibit 4.2 **

 

CONSENT OF ENGINEER

****Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended February 28, 2009 (the “Annual Report”) of Virginia Mines Inc. (the “Company”), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

I participated in the preparation of an independent technical study, completed in 2003 (the "Technical Study") concerning mineralized material in the Poste Lemoyne Extension property for the Company, portions of which are summarized in the Annual Information Form of the Company for the year ended February 28, 2009.  I hereby consent to the references to my name under the foregoing heading and to all other references to my name included or incorporated by reference in the Annual Report. 

Very truly yours, 

*/s/ Christian D’Amours*Name: Christian D’Amours Title: Geologist 

March 24, 2009 

>
INTERNATIONAL FOOD PRODUCTS GROUP, INC.
                     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  of International Food Products Group,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Joseph R. Rodriguez, Jr., Principal Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, 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 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.



/s/ Joseph R. Rodriguez, Jr.
---------------------------------------
Joseph R. Rodriguez, Jr.
Principal  Financial  Officer
October 14, 2003

     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.
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 New York Mortgage Trust, Inc., (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 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 12, 2008
            
            /s/ Steven
                R. MummaChief
                Financial Officer
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed October 24, 2013.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-01265-CR

ADRIAN DESHARN OVEAL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13-70144-Q

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices O’Neill, Lang-Miers, and Evans

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s counsel has approved the 

motion. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the appeal be DISMISSED and 

this decision be certified below for observance. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

131265F.U05
Cherry

Nev. 450, 458-59, 168 P.3d 1055, 1061-62(2007); Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232, 236 (2009) (recognizing that a plaintiff must satisfy these two elements but that a reviewing court may address the second element first). On appeal, appellant argues that the district court erred in granting dismissal by applying a two-step test for qualified immunity because a reasonable person would have known that the conduct in question violated appellant's rights. We perceive no error in the district court's analysis, as the district court correctly determined that appellant's allegations, even if accepted as true, failed to demonstrate that respondents violated his constitutional rights, much less that appellant had clearly established constitutional rights that were violated. 1 Buzz Stew, 124 Nev. at 228, 181 P.3d at 672; Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232, 236; see Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 197 (1984) (concluding that a § 1983 plaintiff bears the burden of overcoming the defendant's qualified immunity by showing that his constitutional rights were clearly established). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in finding that qualified immunity applied. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Hardesty

, J. Douglas 'In reaching this conclusion, we have given individual consideration to each of appellant's claims.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A

### cc: Hon. Richard Wagner, District Judge James Anthony Davis Attorney General/Carson City Pershing County Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 

### 3
(0) 1947A 

### e
EXHIBIT 23.2



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Forms S-8 Nos. 333-47312 and 333-69340) of Puradyn Filter
Technologies Incorporated and the related prospectuses of our audit report dated
March 22, 2006, except for note 16, as to which the date is March 29, 2006 with
respect to the consolidated statements of operations, changes in shareholder'
equity and cash flows of Puradyn Filter Technologies Incorporated for the year
ended December 31, 2005 in the Form 10-KSB.



/s/ DASZKAL BOLTON LLP

Boca Raton, Florida
April 2, 2007
John Earle "Dan" SKINNER and Joy Skinner v. Richard W. FURMAN, M.D. and Watauga Surgical Group, P.A.

No. 235P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2005.

Jeff Erick Essen, Donald B. Strickland, Goldsboro, for John and Joy Skinner.

Isaac N. Northup, Jr., Asheville, for Richard Furman, Asheville, for Richard Furman et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 4th day of May 2005 by Plaintiffs 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 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 AER Ventures, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 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:  November 12, 2004





/s/ Stuart Rogers

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

Stuart Rogers, President and C.E.O.

(Principal Executive Officer)
STATE v. Douglas Shane WRIGHT.

No. 483A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 2, 2005.

Robert T. Newman, Asheboro, for Douglas S. Wright.

Robert F. Johnson, District Attorney, for State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 1st day of September 2005 by Attorney General for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 2nd day of September 2005."