alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Air Force

Army

Navy/Marines

Other Defense

36%

22%

31%

11%

$1.5

$1.2 $1.3 $1.3 $1.2 $1.1 $1.2

$1.5

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

57%

15%

22%

6%

Construcon: 0%

Research and

 Development: 10%

Service: 14%

Supplies and

 Equipment: 76%

Acve Duty: 9%

Civilian: 18%

Naonal Guard/

Reserve: 73%

BAE Systems

Red River Computer Company

L3 Technologies

Elbit Systems

Opcs 1

Creare

Rockwell Collins‐ESA Vision Systems

Windmill Intl (AQYR)

Cuer Enterprises

Timken

$905.3 M

$74.7 M

$72.0 M

$21.9 M

$18.4 M

$17.4 M

$14.6 M

$14.3 M

$13.0 M

$12.0 M

Rockingham

Merrimack

Hillsborough

Graon

Strafford

Cheshire

Coos

Belknap

Carroll

County

3,219

837

815

442

298

80

64

ND

ND

Total*

423

ND

53

ND

15

ND

ND

ND

ND

Acve Duty

   Military

400

199

181

221

14

ND

ND

ND

ND

Civilian

 FISCAL YEAR 2017

NEW HAMPSHIRE

   DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M=millions)

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, Billions)

   DEFENSE PERSONNEL

Allocaons, By Type

Allocaons, By Service

$214.0 MILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

5,762

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locaons

*Total also includes uniformed Naonal Guard and Reserve units.

Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquision Policy; DoD’s Military Installaons, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis;

U.S. Census Bureau; and Unitedstateszipcodes.org.

74 Oĸce of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2017
AF Guard Army Guard

NEW HAMPSHIRE HAMPSHIRENEW

#39 #21 0.4% $1,309 #33 #50 #50

$1.8 B

SPENT IN STATE

2.1% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S.

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $1.5 B CONTRACT

SPENDING

5,762 NUMBER

OF PERSONNEL

$0.2 B PERSONNEL

SPENDING

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

MAINE

VERMONT

Hillsborough County

$1.0 B

Rockingham County

$173.2 M

Sullivan County

$76.3 M

Grafon County

$50.6 M

Merrimack County

$9.5 M

Cheshire County

$7.6 M

Belknap County

$6.5 M

Straford County

$4.2 M

Coos County

$622.1 K

Carroll County

$5.6 K Hillsborough

Rockingham

Sullivan

Grafon

Merrimack

Cheshire

Belknap

Straford

Coos

Carroll

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

MAINE

VERMONT

Rockingham County

$116.4 M

Merrimack County

$35.4 M

Hillsborough County

$30.3 M

Grafon County

$20.6 M

Straford County

$8.6 M

Cheshire County

$1.2 M

Coos County

$720.8 K

Belknap County

$243.2 K

Carroll County

$41.1 K Rockingham

Merrimack

Hillsborough

Grafon

Straford

Cheshire

Coos

Belknap

Carroll

Oĸce of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2017 75
exv10w3



 






Exhibit 10.3




PRIDE
INTERNATIONAL, INC.

SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN




(As Amended and Restated Effective February 17, 2005)



First Amendment



          Pride International, Inc. (the “Company”), having previously established the Pride
International, Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, originally effective January 1, 1996,
as amended and restated effective May 18, 2004 and February 17, 2005 (the “Plan”), and having
reserved the right under Section 8.1 thereof to amend the Plan, does hereby amend the Plan,
effective as of May 12, 2005, as follows:




     1. Section 1.3(g) of the Plan is hereby amended by adding a new item (vi) thereto to read as
follows “a Limited Change in Control”.



     2. Section 1.3(h) of the Plan is hereby amended by substituting the phrase “(i) within two (2) years
following a Change in Control which occurs other than because of a Limited Change in Control or
within one (1) year following a Limited Change in Control, or (ii)” for the phrase “within two (2)
years following a Change in Control, or”.



     3. Section 1.3 of the Plan is hereby amended by inserting a new subsection (r) thereto, and
renumbering the subsequent subsections and cross references to Section 1.3 accordingly, such new
subsection (r) to read as follows:




     “(r) ‘Limited Change in Control’ of the Company shall mean, and shall be deemed
to have occurred on the date of, the date the Company shall have merged into or
consolidated with another corporation, or merged another corporation into the
Company, on a basis whereby at least fifty percent (50%) but not more than eighty
percent (80%) of the total voting power of the surviving corporation is represented
by shares held by former shareholders of the Company prior to such merger or
consolidation.”



1









 





          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Pride International, Inc. has caused these presents to be executed by
its duly authorized officers in a number of copies, all of which shall constitute one and the same
instrument, which may be sufficiently evidenced by any executed copy hereof, this 1st
day of August, 2005, but effective as of the date herein stated.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	PRIDE INTERNATIONAL, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Louis A. Raspino
 	 
	 	 	Louis A. Raspino 	 
	 	 	President and Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 



ATTEST:



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ W. Gregory Looser
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	W. Gregory Looser
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Secretary
	 	 	 	 	 	 






2
STATE of North Carolina v. David FELTON.

No. 393P03-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Nifong, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 27th day of July 2005 in this matter for a writ of certiorari, the following *115order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of October 2005."
HomeEducationNOAA Planet StewardsNOAA Planet Stewards Webinar Videos

# The Connectedness of the Climate System

Derek "Deke" Arndt, Chief of NOAA's National  Climatic Data Center Climate Monitoring Branch gave an excellent  presentation of how the Earth's climate system works. He focused on how the  ocean and the atmosphere affect each other, and how a warming world may affect  this relationship. In addition to detailing the interconnectedness of the major  components of the climate system, Deke's presentation included insights into  recent trends and evidence of change.

Deke has served as the Chief of the  Climate Monitoring Branch of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center since 2009.  The Branch is responsible for routine and special reporting of the status of  the Earth’s climate system, from large global phenomena like global temperature  (“global warming”), to regional occurrences like drought and weather extremes.  The Branch is often asked to place today’s weather and climate events into a  historical perspective. Mr. Arndt was one of the lead editors for last four  editions of *The State of the Climate*, an annual supplement to the *Bulletin  of the American Meteorological Society*. This series features input and  analysis from nearly authors and editors in more than 50 countries. Before  coming to NCDC, he spent 15 years at the Oklahoma Climatological Survey, as the  Associate and Acting State Climatologist and the program Manager for the  OK-FIRST public safety outreach program. Mr. Arndt holds a B.S. and M.S. in  Meteorology from the University of Oklahoma. He is also a student in the  University of Oklahoma's Adult & Higher Education Ph.D. program.****

###### **Education**

Upcoming EventsThe Watch: Newsletter ArchivesWebinar ArchivesBook Club ArchivesEducation Resources

###### **Stewardship**

Supporting Stewardship Past ProjectsFocus Area ResourcesApplying for Funding

*Subscribe to the NOAA Planet Stewards Mailing List.* View our archive of past newsletters. 

Your E-mail Address:

###### **Search** Education

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

**Last updated:**   10/28/21**Author:** NOAAHow to cite this article

Contact Us

            - Provide Feedback 
            -  Contact Us 
            -  Report an error 

##### Science. Service.Stewardship.

###### 						About NOS 					

            - About Us
            - NOS Program Offices
            - Media Inquiries
            - Website Acknowledgements

###### 						Resources 					

            - Site Index
            - Disclaimer
            - Freedom of Information Act
            - Accessibility

###### 						More Resources 					

            - Information Quality
            - Privacy Policy
            - NOS For Employees
            - USA.gov

          -  National Ocean Service
          -  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
          -  Department of Commerce

##### 						Social 					

            - 
            - 
            - 
            - 
            -
TIXE:ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OFTEXA~ 

Honorable William A. Harrison 

Cormnietlioner of Insurance 

International Life Building 

Austin~lk, Texas 

Opinion NO. ~41-361, 

Re: Whether .an insurance company 

that divides and hurar,rll 

of its capital stook ona ng 

par basis may have different 

Dear Sir: classe4 ,of no par atock. 

You have asked, the opinion of this office whether an insnrante company may have different classes of no par stock. Article 3.02a 

added to the Insurance Code in 1955, provides that a life inrurance 

company may divide its shares of stock,on a no par basic. It further 

provides, “if divided orconverted Into shares of no par value, 

Such 6hare shall be,equal in all respects to every other share," 

every' 

..; 

A similar provision is contained in Article 2.07 of the Texas 

Insurance Code, which now r&late6 the issuance of no par stock by 

insurance corporatiorwother than life. 

The first provision in the Texas law permitt- a cnmoration 

of any type to iesue no par stock was enacted in 1925. (Acts 1925, 

39th Leg., p. 236, and set forth as Articles 1538a-A538m, V.A.C.S.) 

Expressly excluded from the provisions of the Act were insurance carporations. It was not until 1935 that Insurance canpanles were first 

enabled to issue no par stock, and this by virtue of the 'parrage of 

Acts 1935, 44th Leg., p. 492, amending Article 4794 of'the Atvised 

Civil Statutes. The 1935 Act 60 far es is here mrterial contained substantially the same language ds that now in Anicles 3.02a and 2.07. 

It is to be noted that in contrast to the provisions of Articlea 2.07, 3:02a and the 1935 Act, the provisione of Article 1538a d 

,they were originally enacted in 1925 and were In effect at the time 

of the passage of the insurance no par provisicnwwerg and are as fol-,, 

lows: 

"Every such shareshall be equal in all respects to 

every other share, except that the charter or any amendment thereof may provide that much shams should be divided into different classes. the~shueo of each class 

to have preferences, deei@atioas, rights, prlvilegee, 

and powers and be eubjCct,to ,euch nemtricti~us, limitations, and qualifications as shall be stated in the 

charter or any amendment thereof." 
Ronorable William A. Harrison, pagd 2 (h-j61) 

We believe that but one conclusion can be drawn from the lenguege in Articles 3.02a and 2.07 previously referred to above in view 

of the omission of the proviso expressly permitting different classes 

underlined above, found in Article 1538a, applicable to corporations 

generally. That interpretation is that if an insurance ~company issues 

no par stock, all shares of its-no par stock must be equal in all respects and that there cannbt be different classes of no par stock, and 

you are so advised. 

‘An insurance company may not have 

different classes of no par stock. 

OPINION COMMITTEE: 

Ceo. P. Blackburn, Chairman 

Morgan Nesbitt 

John H. Minton, Jr. ' 

Wayland C. Rivers, Jr. 

Your6 very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

BY 7dEU!& 

Fred B. Werkenthin 

Assistant 

REVIEWED FOR~THEATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: 

W. V. Geppert
STATE v. PRINGLE.

No. COA05-747.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed March 7, 2006.

Certification Date March 27, 2006.

Appeal from McDowell (04CRS50534)

Case without published opinion. No error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          41,402                  60,696
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  168,510                 159,549
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (9,292)                 (8,388)
<INVENTORY>                                    110,986                 102,526
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               372,327                 339,216
<PP&E>                                         460,973                 262,429
<DEPRECIATION>                               (219,955)                 (7,137)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 724,094                 771,888
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          281,587                 255,269
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     193,254                  12,426
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   724,094                 771,888
<SALES>                                        850,415                 849,133
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               850,415                 849,133
<CGS>                                          508,089                 532,059
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  508,089                 532,059
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               304,933                 425,350
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,287                     467
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,219                  22,606
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,804               (134,923)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,782                   9,117
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,254               (144,585)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,254               (144,585)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.000                   0.000
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.000                   0.000
        

</TABLE>
exv10w23



 






EXHIBIT 10.23




August 1, 2005




Dear Rodd:



It is my pleasure to offer you a promotion into the position of Executive Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer with StarTek, Inc. The position will report directly to the President and Chief
Executive Officer of StarTek, Inc.



Base Compensation

Your base compensation will be $220,000 per year, paid semi-monthly. You will be eligible for
future annual salary increases based upon performance and goal achievements.



Stock Options

You are awarded options to purchase 65,000 shares of StarTek, Inc. common stock at a strike price
effective at the close of the stock market on Friday, July 29, 2005, as approved by the StarTek
Compensation Committee.



Variable Compensation Eligibility

You are eligible to continue participation in the StarTek Leadership Incentive Compensation Plan.
Your targeted incentive eligibility is increased to 50% of your actual base earnings effective on
the day in which you accept this offer. You bonus incentive is 100% based on achievement toward
corporate-wide financial targets.



Severance

StarTek will offer you twelve (12) months of severance in the event of termination of employment
from StarTek, Inc. other than for “cause.” “Cause” shall require a reasonable good faith
determination by StarTek, Inc. and is defined as (1) an act or acts constituting a felony; (2) an
act or acts constituting dishonesty or disloyalty with respect to StarTek; (3) an act or acts
constituting fraud; and/or (4) an act or acts that materially adversely affect StarTek’s business
or reputation.



Other Benefits

StarTek will continue to offer you Executive Life, Long-Term Disability, and Accidental Death and
Dismemberment insurance. Additionally, your PTO accrual will remain unchanged. Lastly, you will
continue to be compensated for health insurance premiums.



Employment at Will

Your employment by StarTek, Inc. is “at will” meaning that you are free to terminate your
employment with StarTek, Inc. at any time for any reason and that StarTek, Inc. is also free to
terminate your employment at any time for any reason.



Rodd, I am so pleased to have your on-going exceptional service level and commitment to StarTek and
to see you move into a new phase in your career development.





Sincerely,




/s/ Steve Butler
 






Steve Butler

President and Chief Executive Officer



I, Rodd Granger, accept this offer with StarTek, Inc.




	 	 	 	 
	Signed

	 	/s/ Rodd Granger .
	 

	 	 
	Date

	 	8/1/05 .
STATE v. LIPSCOMB.

No. COA05-1280.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed June 6, 2006

Certification Date June 26, 2006

Appeal from Durham (04CRS53630)

Case without published opinion. No error.
THE NEWS AND OBSERVER PUBLISHING COMPANY v. Michael F. EASLEY, In his capacity as Governor of North Carolina.

No. 144P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2006.

Hugh Stevens, C. Amanda Martin, Raleigh, for News and Observer.

Andrew A. Vanore, Raleigh, W. Dale Talbert, Special Deputy Attorney General, for Governor.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 5th day of April 2006 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:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of May 2006."
AUSTIN

January 20, 1939

Hon. &!aurlos

Bulloak **Oounty Attorney**  **Fort Stockton,**  Texas Dear Mr. Bullock:

three queatioasa8 thla ofiiae. Tour que8tioa8are aa fo
ourisr for the Otity to pay part floor alao ,m~loyedby

in their mm8 to the aboto, I em annwerlngyour queatlom

1. Seotion 741 of the Postal **Lawn and**  **Regulations of**  **1913,** proTlde0:

Vhat a rural mall oarrler ahall not hold any atate, ootznty,

munioipalor a tomahip offioe.”**Hon. hkurloe**  **Bulloak,** January 20, 1939, Pqe 2

The ease of GrovesYB. Borden, 84 SB 1042, Xiolde: "A rural mall oarrler appointedby the Poatmaster Ganeral,a **member** of the oablnet and head of his departmentI8 an offloer.w The oases, Murray vs. State, 6Cr SW (2nd) 274; State vs. Brooks, 42 Texas 62 and Travis vs. Harris, 13 Texas SOT, hold that a deputy sheriff la a puE1110 ofiioer. ArtIole 14, Seotlon 2 of the Unltad States Conrtltutlon and Artlole 16, SeotIOn 40 Of the State QOnstIfutfOn prohibitsa person from holding two lnoompatlble offioer. In view of tha foregoingauthorities, your s&St questionmust be aummred in the negative.

**2.** The Oomal86Ionera* Oourt may employ nndfieor or the alty to perform servlo&swhloh are not raqulredof him by law and may oontraotto pay hti additionaloarpenution tharefor. H0wever. thm COmmIsalonarsl Oourt'harno authorityto pay ruoh oifloer for duties performedwbloh ara FWq;gd~ a? him by law. httimore ~8. Tarrant OounBy 184

. Tekne Jarisprudenoe~, Vol. 34, page bJJ, Se&a l19. You are re8peotfully adrlmd that It Is onlaw?ul for the oounty to pay a poaoe orfloor of ths Ulty of tprt **Stooktoo iOr**  rrerrloei! **rendered by**  hint

for the oounty Other than those not raqulrad OS him by law.

**3.** Artiole SJ39S

authorizesthe Commfssloner8' OtMWt to allow an orfioeroompaaaatI0n ror 6x orri010 8ervloe8provided that suoh oompenaation, togetherwith fees retained b7 him, %oes not amount tcimore than the maximum tee allowed **by** law. On **November** 9, 1928, tha Hon. H. Grady Chandler, Aselbtant.Attorney General,rendereden opinionhold1 Y itI arreot that Justfoaaof the Peaoe may be paid ex off10 o oo1- penaatlon.

You are reepsotfullyadvised that the &numi ehrr8* 

### Courtmy pay 

### ex orrlolosalariesto Justloes 0f the se provided that euoh oompeasatlone togetherwith the is?* ra-Hon. Yaurloe Bullook,January 20, 1939, Page 3

talned by them does not exoeed the maximum fee allowedby law. Trustlne that the foregoinganswers your lnqulrlee, ' I remain Very truly your8 ATTORN!i!!'GERERAL

OF TEXAS

AWrAW

.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the Report) of APOLLO INVESTMENT CORPORATION
(the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, JAMES C. ZELTER, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of 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, as amended; and

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



|      |  |                       
|----- |  | ----------------------
|      |  | /s/    JAMES C.
ZELTER
|Name: |  | James C. Zelter       
|Date: |  | August 6, 2009