alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Gaudencio Morales CELAYA.

No. 697P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Matthew D. Wunsche, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Gaudencio M. Celaya.

Richard E. Slipsky, Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant on the 20th day of December 2005 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals; the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of January 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th day of December 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 26th day of January 2006."
**Exhibit 6.2 **
****** **

 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 annual report on Form 40-F of Virginia Mines Inc. for the year ended February 28, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 
    -   The annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  
    -  The information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.  

  

Date: May 20, 2010 

| /s/ *Robin Villeneuve* |
|------------------------|

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
40 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) 

BAE Systems $158.0 M

Hensel Phelps Construction $152.4 M

Goodfellow Bros. Inc. $63.1 M

Harris Corp. $61.0 M

Matson $55.7 M

AECOM $53.2 M

Allied Pacific Builders Inc. $45.9 M

Syncon $44.3 M

PCL Employees Holdings Ltd $41.5 M

Booz Allen Hamilton $27.5 M

Contract Awards Performed (by fiscal year, billions)

HAWAII

#23 #2 1.4% $5,050 #32 #9 #9

$7.2 B SPENT 

IN STATE

7.7% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $2.3 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

70,574 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$4.9 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$4.9 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

70,574

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Honolulu 35,121 19,125 4,647 3,870 62,763

Hawaii 12 166 343 85 606

Kauai 85 157 71 32 345

Maui 19 63 174 ND

Construction: 18%

Research and 

Development: 6%

Service: 69%

Supplies and 

Equipment: 7%

Active Duty: 59%

Civilian: 28%

National 

Guard: 7%

Reserve: 6%

36%

47%

8%

9%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

38%

46%

14%

2%

$2.8

$2.3

$1.7 $1.8

$2.2

$1.8 $2.0 $2.3

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

ND
Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018 41

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)

Kauai

Honolulu

Maui

Hawaii

FISCAL YEAR 2018 HAWAII

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

FISCAL YEAR 2018

Honolulu

Maui

Kauai

Hawaii

(M = millions, B = billions)

$2.1 B

$88.2 M

$73.5 M

$34.8 M

Honolulu

Kauai

Hawaii

Maui

$4.3 B

$22.4 M

$20.8 M

$11.0 M

Kauai

Honolulu

Maui

Hawaii
STATE v. MOORE.

No. COA05-848.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed March 7, 2006.

Certification Date March 27, 2006.

Appeal from Henderson (03CRS2282, 03CRS51662)

Case without published opinion. No error.
28 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.

CONNECTICUT

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

FISCAL YEAR 2016

By Type

Service: 4%

Construction: 0%

Research and 

Development: 11%

Supplies and 

Equipment: 85%

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M=millions B=billions)

United Technologies $6.3 B

General Dynamics $4.8 B

Lockheed Martin $590.9 M

Raytheon $95.7 M

Northrop Grumman $54.4 M

Colt Defense Holding $38.9 M

Bechtel Group $28.5 M

Huntington Ingalls $28.2 M

Sonalysts $20.8 M

Treadwell $16.2 M

$9.1 $9.5

$11.0

$13.2

$10.0 $10.2

$12.6

$11.4

26%

62%

7%

5%

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

$492.0 MILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

16,130

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Total* Active Duty Civilians

Military

New London 9,340 6,810 1,629

Hartford 3,590 60 946

New Haven 1,064 97 68

Fairfield 912 18 264

Middlesex 862 ND 76

Tolland 124 98 ND

Litchfield 14 ND 14

Windham ND ND ND

*Total also includes uniformed National Guard and Reserve units.

National Guard/

Reserve: 36%

Active Duty: 46%

Civilian: 18%

43%

43%

10%

4%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense
Office of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2016 29

Litchfield 

Hartford

Windham 

Fairfield 

Tolland 

New London

New Haven Middlesex 

Litchfield 

Hartford

Windham 

Fairfield 

Tolland 

New London

New Haven Middlesex 

New London County

$342.0 M

Hartford County

$85.5 M

Fairfield County 

$25.5 M

New Haven County

$15.5 M

Middlesex County

$10.4 M

Tolland County

$5.4 M

Litchfield County

$0.6 M

Windham County

$0.4 M

(M=millions)

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

New London County

$4.8 B

Fairfield County

$4.4 B

Hartford County

$3.2 B

New Haven County

$140.9 M

Litchfield County

$52.3 M

Middlesex County

$46.1 M

Tolland County

$21.4 M

Windham County

$6.9 M

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS

#6

$13.1 B 

SPENT IN STATE

#6

4.9% OF STATE GDP

3.5%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

$3,671

PER RESIDENT

#5

$12.6 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

#39

16,130 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

#39

$0.5 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

FISCAL YEAR 2016 CONNECTICUT

(M=millions B=billions)

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.44


                                SPECIAL APPENDIX

The Benefits of Mark Frissora ("Frissora") under the Plan will be adjusted as
follows:

         The annual pension benefits to which Frissora shall be entitled under
         all defined benefit plans (qualified and non-qualified), including this
         Plan, commencing at age 55 or his separation from service, if later,
         will, at a minimum, be equal to the product of (x) and (y), where (x)
         is the average of his total base compensation plus bonus for the three
         calendar years immediately preceding his separation from service and
         (y) is the total of 40% plus 2% for each full year of service with the
         Company (including service with Tenneco Inc.) earned in the period
         commencing with Frissora's 55th birthday, for a maximum total of 50%.
         Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provisions set forth herein shall be
         applicable only if Frissora completes ten years of service with the
         Company (including Tenneco Inc.) during the period commencing January
         1, 1999.
Exhibit 10.5


 





Activision Publishing, Inc.


3100 Ocean Park Boulevard


Santa Monica, California 90405


 


June
15, 2005


 


 


Ron Doornink


872
9th Street


Manhattan Beach, CA 90266


 


Dear Ron,


 


Reference
is made to your employment agreement dated as of July 22, 2002, as previously
amended by that Amendment No. 1 to employment agreement, effective as of
February 27, 2003 and by that certain letter dated June 1, 2004 (collectively “Agreement”)
with Activision Publishing, Inc. (“Employer”). This is to confirm our mutual
agreement that, with the commencement of Michael Griffith’s employment with
Employer, your title at Employer will be Chairman and that you will no longer
have the titles of President or Chief Executive Officer of Employer. Except as so amended by this letter, the Agreement
remains in full force and effect.


 


If
the forgoing correctly sets forth our mutual understanding, please so indicate
by signing below.


 


Sincerely


 


	
  ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INC.

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
   

  	
  /s/ George Rose

  	
   

  	 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  Sr. Vice President

  	
   

  	 

	
   

  	
   

  	
  General Counsel

  	
   

  	 

	
   

  
	
  ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  /s/ Ron Doornink

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Ron Doornink
**Exhibit 31.2****Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification of Principal Financial Officer**I, Brian Fontana, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of INX Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: August 18, 2006 By  /s/ BRIAN FONTANA   Brian Fontana, Vice President   and Chief Financial Officer
Form of Restricted Stock Unit Award Notice



 Exhibit 10(n) 
  
 Form of Restricted Stock Unit Award Notice 
  
 [DATE] 
  
 Dear                 : 
  
 Congratulations! On
                    , you were granted McDonald’s restricted stock units (“RSUs”). You received this grant in
recognition of your significant contributions to McDonald’s long-term success. Below are details concerning the vesting of your RSU grant. 
  
 Your RSU grant is for          units, each representing a share of McDonald’s stock. Subject to the terms of
the grant, as described in the enclosed materials, your RSUs will vest on              [IF APPLICABLE:, if the Company’s Performance Period EPS as compared to the Base
Period EPS (as such terms are described on the enclosed Payout Schedule) represents a compounded annual growth rate (“CAGR”) of                 
% or more. If the CAGR is a positive value less than                 %, a portion of your RSUs will vest. The enclosed Payout Schedule shows what
percentage of your RSUs may vest, based on the CAGR achieved during the vesting period. The Payout Schedule also shows the diluted earnings per share (“EPS”) corresponding to each of the indicated CAGR levels]. 
  
 Upon vesting any RSUs will be distributed in either cash or shares of McDonald’s stock,
at the Company’s discretion. 
  
 Once again, thank you for your leadership.

  
 Best regards, 
  
 Corporate Executive Vice President, Human Resources 
  


 43
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NC/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JOSE GUADALUPE ESTRADADELGADO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-50350

D.C. No. 3:08-CR-03747-JAH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 5, 2010** 

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Jose Guadalupe Estrada-Delgado appeals from the 15-month sentence

imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for making and possessing false entry

FILED

APR 14 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
NC/Research 2 09-50350

documents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Estrada-Delgado contends that the district court sentenced him based on

clearly erroneous factual findings that: (1) the offense involved “solicitation;” and

(2) his criminal history included an offense involving the sale of drugs. He further

contends that the district court’s reliance upon the latter violates his Sixth

Amendment and Due Process rights. The record reflects that the district court did

not rely upon clearly erroneous facts. Accordingly, these contentions fail. 

Estrada-Delgado also contends that the district court’s consideration of his

criminal history at sentencing violates the Sixth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy

Clause. This contention fails because, even though Estrada-Delgado’s sentence is

affected by his criminal history, he is only being punished for one crime. See

United States v. Wright, 891 F.2d 209, 212 (9th Cir. 1989).

Finally, Estrada-Delgado contends that the district court erroneously

believed that extraordinary circumstances were required in order for it to vary

below the Guidelines range, and that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. 

The record reflects that the district court properly considered the Guidelines range

as a baseline, and then “tailor[ed] a sentence to the individualized offense and

offender characteristics of [Estrada-Delgado’s] case in consideration of the
NC/Research 3 09-50350

§ 3553(a) factors.” See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 994 (9th Cir. 2008)

(en banc). Moreover, in light of all of the circumstances in the case, the sentence

imposed is substantively reasonable. See id. at 995-96.

AFFIRMED.
Randy R. LEWIS, Employee v. BEACHVIEW EXXON SERVICE, Employer, Penn National Insurance Company, Carrier.

No. 645A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 5, 2006.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C.App. ___, 619 S.E.2d 881 (2005), reversing and remanding an opinion and award filed on 30 January 2004 by the North Carolina Industrial Commission. On 26 January 2006, the Supreme Court allowed defendants' petition for discretionary review as to additional issues. Heard in the Supreme Court 20 April 2006.

Wilson & Ratledge, P.L.L.C., by Perry J. Pelaez, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellee.

Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P, by Buxton S. Copeland and Meredith T. Black, Raleigh, for defendant-appellants.

PER CURIAM.

As to the issue on direct appeal, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion. Further, we conclude that the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues was improvidently allowed. This case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for remand to the North Carolina Industrial Commission for further findings of fact and conclusions of law on the issue of estoppel.

REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.

Justice WAINWRIGHT did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0002469

29-OCT-2014

08:22 AM
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 Teleglobe International Holdings Ltd (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2004, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Gerald Porter Strong, Chief Executive 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated
result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: June 14, 2004



/s/    GERALD PORTER
STRONGGerald Porter StrongChief Executive Officer and President of Teleglobe International Holdings Ltd




This certification has been
furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Toll-Free Phone Lines Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. This meeting will be held via teleconference.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, August 9, 2022.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rosalind Matherne at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4115.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Lines Project Committee will be held Tuesday, August 9, 2022, at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Rosalind Matherne. For more information, please contact Rosalind Matherne at 1-888-912-1227 or 202-317-4115, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at the website:                     *http://www.improveirs.org*. The agenda will include various IRS issues.                

Dated: July 5, 2022.

Kevin Brown,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2022-14641 Filed 7-8-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
CHALUMEAU POWER SYST EMS LLC, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

ALCATEL

- LUCENT ENTERPRISE US A, INC., Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2015

- 1191

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in No. 1:11

- cv

- 01175

- RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

R OBERT G REENSPOON , Flachsbart & Greenspoon, LLC, Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff

- appellant. Also repr esented by T RAVIS C AMPBELL

.

L ANA S. S HIFERMAN , Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA, argued for defendant

- appellee. Also represented by J. A NTHONY D OWNS , R OBERT F REDERICKSON , III.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it isO RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (L OURIE , W ALLACH , and H UGHES , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

August 12, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court