alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Council Decision of 10 December 2013 amending the Council's Rules of Procedure (2013/746/EU)

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Decision

# of 10 December 2013

# amending the Council's Rules of Procedure

# (2013/746/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Article 2(2) of Annex III to the Council's Rules of Procedure(1),                        

Whereas:

(1)The first and fourth subparagraphs of Article 3(3) of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions, annexed to the Treaty on                              European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, provide that, until 31 October 2014, when an act                              is to be adopted by the Council by a qualified majority, and if a member of the Council so requests, it must be verified that                              the Member States constituting the qualified majority represent at least 62 % of the total population of the Union.

(2)That percentage is calculated according to the population figures set out in Article 1 of Annex III to the Council's Rules                              of Procedure (the ‘Rules of Procedure’).

(3)Article 2(2) of Annex III to the Rules of Procedure provides that, with effect from 1 January each year, the Council, in accordance                              with the data available to the Statistical Office of the European Union on 30 September of the preceding year, must amend                              the figures set out in Article 1 of that Annex.

(4)The Rules of Procedure should therefore be amended accordingly for the period from 1 January 2014 to 31 October 2014,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

Article 1 of Annex III to the Rules of Procedure shall be replaced by the following:

# ‘Article 1

For the purposes of implementing Article 16(5) of the TEU and Article 3(3) and (4) of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions,                        the total population of each Member State for the period from 1 January 2014 to 31 October 2014 shall be as follows:                  

# Article 2U.K.

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

It shall apply from 1 January 2014.

Done at Brussels, 10 December 2013.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

R. Šadžius                            

1

Council Decision 2009/937/EU of 1 December 2009 adopting the Council's Rules of Procedure (OJ L 325, 11.12.2009, p. 35).
GOOD HOPE HOSPITAL, INC. and Good Hope Health System, L.L.C., Petitioners, and Town of Lillington, Petitioner-Intervenor, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Division of Facility Services, Certificate of Need Section, Respondent, and Betsy Johnson Regional Hospital, Inc., and Amisub Of North Carolina, Inc. d/b/a Central Carolina Hospital, Respondent-Intervenors.

No. 58A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 17, 2006.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 175 N.C.App. 309, 623 S.E.2d 315 (2006), affirming a final agency decision issued 1 November 2004 by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. Heard in the Supreme Court 18 October 2006.

Smith Moore L.L.P., by Maureen Demarest Murray and William W. Stewart, Jr., for petitioner-appellants, and Morgan, Reeves and Gilchrist, by C. Winston Gilchrist, for petitioner-intervenor-appellant.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Melissa L. Trippe, Special Deputy Attorney General, for respondent-appellee.

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough L.L.P., by Noah H. Huffstetler, III, and Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton L.L.P., by K. Edward Greene, for respondent-intervenor-appellee Betsy Johnson Regional Hospital, Inc.

Bode, Call & Stroupe, L.L.P., by S. Todd Hemphill, for respondent-intervenor-appellee Amisub of North Carolina, Inc. d/b/a Central Carolina Hospital.

*565Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., by Forrest W. Campbell, Jr., for amicus curiae North Carolina Hospital Association.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

Justice TIMMONS-GOODSON did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington D.C. 20549
 FORM
10-Q/A
 (Amendment
No. 1)
 (Mark One)
 þ
    
    QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the quarterly period ended March 30, 2008
  o
    
    TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the transition period from               to
 Commission File Number 333-112528
 Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc.
 (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
 Delaware
    
    75-2884072(State of Incorporation)
    
    (I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)201 East John Carpenter
Freeway, Tower 1, Suite 900Irving, Texas
    
    75062(Address of Principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 (972)-946-2011
(Registrants telephone number, including area code)
 þ o
  Large accelerated filer o
    
    Accelerated filer
o
    
    Non-accelerated filer
þ
    
    Smaller reporting company o(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
 o þ




---



##### Table of Contents



EXPLANATORY NOTE
   i




---



##### 



TABLE OF CONTENTS
 PagePART II  OTHER INFORMATIONItem 6. Exhibits
    
    
    1Certification of CEO Pursuant to Section 302Certification of CFO Pursuant to Section 302
  ii




---



##### Table of Contents



ITEM 6. EXHIBITS
 (a) Exhibits
 The following exhibits are filed with this report:
 31.1
    
    Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302
of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.31.2
    
    Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302
of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
 1




---



##### Table of Contents



SIGNATURES
 
 Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc.(Registrant)October 14, 2008
    
    /s/
KEITH B. HOWEVice President and Chief Financial Officer
 2
20 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.

ARIZONA

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

FISCAL YEAR 2016

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$1.7 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

51,923

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Total* Active Duty Civilians

 Military

Maricopa 14,251 4,959 2,642

Pima 14,157 7,340 2,914

Cochise 10,570 7,276 3,089

Yuma 9,315 7,869 1,391

Pinal 964 ND 340

Coconino 456 31 66

Yavapai 210 17 ND

Navajo 46 ND ND

Graham 35 ND ND

Apache ND ND ND

*Total also includes uniformed National Guard and Reserve units.

40%

18%

2%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

40%

National Guard/

Reserve: 23%

Active Duty: 57%

Civilian: 20%

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Contractors

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, Billions)

Raytheon $4.4 B

Boeing $1.6 B

Honeywell $332.7 M

General Dynamics $298.9 M

Northrop Grumman $230.2 M

TRAX International $110.1 M

Orbital Sciences Corporation $100.1 M

Patriarch Partners $82.8 M

L-3 Communications $71.5 M

Orbital ATK $57.1 M

$12.5

$11.1 $11.6

$9.5

$6.9

$6.0

$7.5

$10.2

49%

17%

16%

18%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Service: 16%

Construction: 0%

Research and 

Development: 6%

Supplies and 

Equipment: 78%

(M=millions B=billions) 

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Office of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2016 21

Coconino 

Maricopa

Pinal

Cochise 

La Paz 

Pima

Yuma

Yavapai

Mohave

Maricopa

Pinal

Cochise 

La Paz 

Pima

Yuma

Santa Cruz 

Pima County

$516.8 M

Cochise County

$435.4 M

Maricopa County 

$416.8 M

Yuma County

$258.0 M

Pinal County

$16.1 M

Coconino County

$7.9 M

Yavapai County

$1.7 M

Navajo County

$0.4 M

Graham County

$0.1 M

La Paz County

$0.1 M

(M=millions)

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

Pima County

$3.5 B

Maricopa County

$3.1 B

Cochise County

$725.6 M

Yuma County

$237.6 M

Pinal County

$26.2 M

Coconino County

$9.1 M

Santa Cruz County

$7.0 M

La Paz County

$2.5 M

Mohave County

$2.0 M

Gila County

$1.8 M

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS

#13

$9.2 B

SPENT IN STATE

#11

3.0% OF STATE GDP

2.4%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

$1,330

PER RESIDENT

#10

$7.5 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

#21

51,923 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

#21

$1.7 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

FISCAL YEAR 2016 A R I Z O N A 

(M=millions B=billions)

Navajo 

Coconino 

Graham 

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

Gila
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 134 (Thursday, July 14, 2022)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 42059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15183]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 134 / Thursday, July 14, 2022 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 42059]]

                Memorandum of July 8, 2022

                
Delegation of Authority Under Section 506(a)(1) 
                of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                By the authority vested in me as President by the 
                Constitution and the laws of the United States of 
                America, including section 621 of the Foreign 
                Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), I hereby delegate to the 
                Secretary of State the authority under section 
                506(a)(1) of the FAA to direct the drawdown of up to 
                $400 million in defense articles and services of the 
                Department of Defense, and military education and 
                training, to provide assistance to Ukraine and to make 
                the determinations required under such section to 
                direct such a drawdown.

                You are authorized and directed to publish this 
                memorandum in the Federal Register.
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, July 8, 2022

[FR Doc. 2022-15183
Filed 7-13-22; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

   We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-36374, 333-31026, 333-90091, 333-77961,
333-46691, 333-28277, 333-48844, and 333-55092) and on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-51176
and 333-35366) of Pumatech, Inc. of our report dated September 4, 2001, except
as to Note 18, which is as of September 24, 2001, relating to the financial
statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this form 10-K.

                                          /s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

San Francisco, California
October 29, 2001

                                      E-2
EXHIBIT
32







CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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





Carol K.
Nelson, Chief Executive Officer and President, and Lars H. Johnson, Chief
Financial Officer of Cascade Financial Corporation (the "Corporation"), each
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





1.
            The
      Form 10-Q of the Corporation for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008
      (the "Form 10-Q"), fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
      and





2.
            The
      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition, and results of operations of the
      Corporation.





This
certification is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906 and is not
being filed as part of this quarterly report.








Date: May
8, 2008








/s/ Carol K.
Nelson


Carol K.
Nelson, President and CEO








/s/ Lars H.
Johnson


Lars H.
Johnson, Chief Financial Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. George Wesley LAWSON.

No. 543P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Kimberly D. Potter, Assistant Attorney General, C. Branson Vickory, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Lynne Rupp, Durham, for George Wesley Lawson.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 30th day of September 2005 by Attorney General 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."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Attorney General on the 25th day of October 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 26th day of January 2006."
Exhibit 32

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

The
certifications set forth below are being submitted in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 28, 2009 (the "Report") for the
purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

John
A. Lederer, the Chief Executive Officer and John K. Henry, the Chief Financial Officer of Duane Reade Holdings, Inc., each certifies that:



Date: May 7, 2009

/s/ JOHN A. LEDERER John A. Lederer Chief Executive Officer/s/ JOHN K. HENRY John K. Henry Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16

- 0598 Filed August 2, 2017

ANTONIO M. JOHNSON , Applicant

- Appellant,

vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent

- Appellee.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Kevin McKeever , Judge.

Antonio Johnson appeals from the district court’s denial of his application for postconviction relief, claim ing his guilty plea was invalid and Iowa Code
section 903B.1 (2007) is unconstitutional. AFFIRMED.

Mark C. Meyer , Cedar Rapids , for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven , Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.

Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ. Potterfield, J., takes no part.2

MULLINS, Presiding Judge. Antonio Johnson filed a postconviction

- relief (PCR) application to challenge his conviction and sentence for sexual abuse in the third deg ree. He alleged several grounds, all of which were denied by the district court. Johnson appeals raising two grounds: (1) he did not know and understand he would be sentenced to the life

- time special sentence required by Iowa Code section
903B.1 (2007) a nd (2) the section 903B.1 special sentence is unconstitutional for all persons convicted of class “ C ” felony sex offenses. During the guilty plea proceeding, the district court engaged in this colloquy concerning section 903B.1:

THE COURT: And, finally, there is a sentencing provision in Chapter 903B which provides that you would be placed in the custody of [the Iowa] Department of Corrections for life with a two

year sentence possible for the first parole violation and not to exceed five years for second or subsequent violations during your lifetime. Do you understand that provision? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT : You have ha d an opportunity to talk to you r lawyer about that? THE DEFENDANT : Yes, sir. THE COURT : And do you understand? THE DEFEN DANT : Yes, sir. Johnson now claims he did not understand the lifetime special sentence , he would not have pled guilty had he understood , and counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to file a motion in arrest of judgment . He also argues his
low intelligence rendered him incapable of understanding. Based on the record made at the guilty plea proceeding and the PCR trial , we agree with the PCR court’s conclusion Johnson has not proven counsel failed3

to perform an essential duty . We affirm on thi s issue without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 2 1 .26(1)(a).
Johnson also claim s section 903B.1 is unconstitutional under both the federal and state constitutions, therefore making his sentence illegal. He argues State v. Kingery

, 774 N.W.2d 309 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) , should not control
because there is new research available to support his argument. Based on the reasoning of the PCR court’s ruling and our decision in Kingery , 774 N.W.2d at
312

– 15 , and considering the reasoning of Kolzow v. State , 813 N .W.2d 731 (Iowa 2012), and State v. Graham , ___ N.W.2d ___, ___, 201 7 WL 2291386 , at

* 9

– 11, * 12

– 13 (Iowa May 2 5 , 201 7 ) , we affirm pursuant to Iowa Court Rule
2 1 .26(1)(a)

. AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                               Consent of KPMG LLP

The Board of Directors
Navigant Consulting, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-53506, 333-81680, and 333-30267) on Form S-8 of Navigant Consulting, Inc. of
our report dated February 15, 2002 relating to the consolidated balance sheets
of Navigant Consulting, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000
and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2001, which report appears in the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K
of Navigant Consulting, Inc.

                                               /s/ KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 20, 2002
<PAGE>

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 Marketing WorldWide, Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending DECEMBER 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael Winzkowski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
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; and

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


                                                   /s/ Michael Winzkowski
                                                   -----------------------
                                                   Michael Winzkowski
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                                   February 19, 2008


                                    Page 25
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 Apollo Investment Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2015 (the “Report”), I, James C. Zelter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Gregory W. Hunt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


|   |                                                                                                                                       
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | To my knowledge, 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/ JAMES C. ZELTERJames C. ZelterChief Executive OfficerFebruary 9, 2016


/s/ GREGORY W. HUNTGregory W. HuntChief Financial OfficerFebruary 9, 2016
From: Michael Ravnitzky

To: Federal Register Liaison

Subject: FY2022 Proposed Reg Comments

Date: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 1:26:50 PM

CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL Do not click on links, open attachments, or provide information unless you are sure the

message is legitimate and the content is safe.

I wish to submit the following comments on the proposed OSC regulations.

1) The proposed FOIA regulations does not identify a fee category found in the

FOIA statute: "all other requesters".

This is an important and unfortunate omission because that category has specific fee

implications.

2) Proposed FOIA regulations 1820.4(d) and 1820.7(f) each inexplicably omit a

key sentence found in the statute. 

Multiple requests involving unrelated matters shall not be aggregated.

As it appears in the FOIA statute in Title 5 Section 552:

(iv) Each agency may promulgate regulations, pursuant to notice and receipt of

public comment, providing for the aggregation of certain requests by the same

requestor, or by a group of requestors acting in concert, if the agency reasonably

believes that such requests actually constitute a single request, which would

otherwise satisfy the unusual circumstances specified in this subparagraph, and the

requests involve clearly related matters. Multiple requests involving unrelated

matters shall not be aggregated.

Omitting this sentence included by Congress does not provide the most accurate

regulation on this point and can cause actual problems.

3) The proposed regulations at 1820.7(a) contains a sentence which seems

confusing in its current wording:

"In exceptional circumstances, OSC may charge fees after determining that unusual

circumstances exist."
Sincerely,

Michael Ravnitzky

mikerav@verizon.net
STATE v. GREEN.

COA06-65.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed October 17, 2006.

Certification Date November 6, 2006.

Appeal from Macon (04CRS851, 04CRS50948, 04CRS50949, 04CRS50950, 04CRS50951, 04CRS50952, 04CRS50955, 04CRS50956)

Case reported without published opinion. No error.