alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Levar Jamel ALLEN.

No. 485PA04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2006.

Robert C. Montgomery, Assistant Attorney General, Michael K. Lands, District Attorney, for State.

Richard Jester, for Allen.

*ORDER*

WHEREAS the Supreme Court of North Carolina issued an opinion in *State v. Allen,* 359 N.C. 425, 615 S.E.2d 256 (2005), and whereas the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion in *Washington v. Recuenco,* ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2546, 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (2006).

NOW THEREFORE, this Court, *ex mero motu,* withdraws the opinion filed on 1 July 2005 in *State v. Allen,* reported at 359 N.C. 425, 615 S.E.2d 256.

Upon consideration of the order of the Supreme Court of the United States vacating the judgment of this Court in *North Carolina v. Speight,* ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2977, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2006) and remanding that cause for further consideration in light of its decision in *Washington v. Recuenco,* ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 2546, 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (2006), the following order is entered:

The State shall have 20 days from the filing of this order to file and serve a supplemental brief with this Court, limited to the questions of whether there was error in this case pursuant to *Washington v. Recuenco* and, if so, whether any error can be found to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. *State v. Allen,* 359 N.C. 425, 615 S.E.2d 256 (2005). Defendant may file his brief in response within 20 days after service of the State's brief upon him. Each side will be allowed up to 20 minutes of oral argument.

By order of the Court in Conference, this 17th day of August, 2006.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jasper Kalven SUMMERS.

No. 358P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Richard E. Jester, for Jasper Kalven Summers.

Leonard Green, Assistant Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 629 S.E.2d 902.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant on the 11th day of July 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 11th day of July 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:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk April 29, 2013

s0422 

# Order

April 29, 2013

146909 & (23)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146909

COA: 311060

Wayne CC: 90

- 001794

- FC

MARCAEL MARIO DIXON

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.

The application for leave to appeal the March 7, 2012 order of the Court of Appeals is

considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment

is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
54 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.

MAINE

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

FISCAL YEAR 2016

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$607.4 MILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

12,069

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Total* Active Duty Civilians

 Military

York 6,763 ND 6,570

Penobscot 1,784 ND 448

Cumberland 788 219 80

Kennebec 760 56 202

Aroostook 745 ND 656

Sagadahoc 526 188 338

Androscoggin 286 ND 20

Washington 124 ND 80

Oxford 81 ND ND

Somerset 66 ND ND

*Total also includes uniformed National Guard and Reserve units.

National Guard/

Reserve: 26%

Active Duty: 4%

Civilian: 70%

24%

58%

12%

6%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

By Type

Service: 36%

Research and 

Development: 0%

Supplies and 

Equipment: 63%

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M=millions B=billions) 

Bath Iron Works $1.2 B

Martin’s Point Health Care $329.5 M

City of Bangor $25.1 M

Methuen Construction $18.1 M

Ameresco $12.9 M

Orbis $7.5 M

CCI Energy and Construction Services $7.5 M

Engineered Construction Services $7.2 M

Huntington Ingalls $7.2 M

CCI Construction Services $6.3 M

1%

78%

0%

21%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Construction: 1%

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, Billions)

$1.4

$1.1

$1.3

$2.7

$1.6 $1.7

$2.8

$1.8
Office of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2016 55

York County

$466.5 M

Penobscot County

$34.0 M

Sagadahoc County 

$32.5 M

Aroostook County

$30.7 M

Kennebec County

$20.3 M

Cumberland County

$12.4 M

Washington County

$4.7 M

Androscoggin County

$2.2 M

Hancock County

$2.1 M

Lincoln County

$0.6 M

(M=millions)

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

Sagadahoc County

$1.2 B

Cumberland County

$350.4 M

York County

$174.2 M

Penobscot County

$32.7 M

Washington County

$23.9 M

Kennebec County

$3.4 M

St. Mary's County

$3.1 M

Aroostook County

$2.2 M

Hancock County

$0.9 M

Piscataquis County

$0.7 M

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

#35

$2.4 B 

SPENT IN STATE

#9

4.0% OF STATE GDP

0.6%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

$1,790

PER RESIDENT

#30

$ 1.8 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

#42

12,069 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

#36

$0.6 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

FISCAL YEAR 2016 MAINE

York

Hancock

Sagadahoc

Cumberland

Aroostook

Washington

Penobscot

Androscoggin 

Kennebec 

Piscataquis 

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

York

Hancock

Sagadahoc

Cumberland

Aroostook

Washington

Penobscot

Androscoggin 

Kennebec 

Lincoln
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M E L V IN B L U IT T , a. k. a. M el vi n L ee B lu itt, P e titio n e r- A p p e llan t, v. TE RR I GO NZALEZ , R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 06- 56483 D. C . No . C V- 0 5 - 0 0 1 3 1 - C AS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia C hr i s t i naA . S ny de r , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r21, 2011 ** B efo re: T A S H IM A , B E R Z O N , an dT A L L M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C alifo rn ia state p riso n erM elv in B lu itt ap p ea ls fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s j udgm e ntde ny i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 , a n dw e a f f irm . 

# FI LED NO V 28 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS06- 56483 2 B l ui ttc ont e nds tha tthe G ove rnor ’ s 2003 de c i s i on r e ve r s i ng the B oa r d of Pr i s o n Te rms ’ s d e c i s i o n f i n d i n g h i m s u i t ab l e f

o rp ar o l e i s n o ts up p o rt e db ys o me e v id e n c e . T h e r e c o r dr e f le c ts th a t B lu itt r e c e iv e da ll p r o c e s s th a t w a s du e . See Sw artho utv. C oo ke , 13 1 S . C t . 85 9, 86 2-63 (201 1) (percuri am ). W e c ons true B l ui tt ’ s a ddi t i ona l a r gum e nta s am ot i on t o e xpa nd the c e rtif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ility . S o c o n s tru e d , th e m o tio n is d e n ie d . See 9 th C ir . R . 2 2 - 1 ( e ) ; s e e al

s o Hi i v ala v . W

ood , 19 5 F . 3d 10 98 , 11 04 -05 (9th C i r. 19 99 ) ( per curi am ). AF F I RME D.
# L_2013138EN.01001901.xml

| 24.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 138/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 138/19

---

GUIDELINE OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 15 May 2013

amending Guideline ECB/2006/4 on the Eurosystem’s provision of reserve management services in euro to central banks and countries located outside the euro area and to international organisations

(ECB/2013/14)

(2013/234/EU)

THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,

Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Articles 12.1 and 14.3 and Article 23 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Guideline ECB/2006/4 of 7 April 2006 on the Eurosystem’s provision of reserve management services in euro to central banks and countries located outside the euro area and to international organisations (1) should address the issue of counterparties subject to restrictive measures in the area of anti-money laundering and terrorist financing. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Guideline ECB/2006/4 of 7 April 2006 on the Eurosystem’s provision of reserve management services in euro to central banks and countries located outside the euro area and to international organisations (1) should address the issue of counterparties subject to restrictive measures in the area of anti-money laundering and terrorist financing.

| (2) | Therefore, Guideline ECB/2006/4 should be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Therefore, Guideline ECB/2006/4 should be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS GUIDELINE:

Article 1

Amendment

In Article 7 of Guideline ECB/2006/4, the following point (f) is added:

| ‘(f) | state that the customer shall confirm to the Eurosystem member that it complies with all Union and national laws for the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing, insofar as and to the extent applicable to it, including instructions given by competent authorities, and that it is not involved with any form of money laundering or terrorist financing.’. |
| --- | --- |

‘(f)

state that the customer shall confirm to the Eurosystem member that it complies with all Union and national laws for the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing, insofar as and to the extent applicable to it, including instructions given by competent authorities, and that it is not involved with any form of money laundering or terrorist financing.’.

Article 2

Taking effect and implementation

1.   This Guideline shall take effect on the day of its notification to the national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro (hereinafter the ‘NCBs’).

2.   The NCBs shall comply with this Guideline from six weeks after notification is given to them.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 15 May 2013.

For the Governing Council of the ECB

The President of the ECB

Mario DRAGHI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 107, 20.4.2006, p. 54.

1

---
STATE v. JACOBS and McMILLIAN.

No. 617A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2006.

Alexander McC. Peters, Karen Long, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, L. Johnson Britt, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

C. Scott Holmes, Durham, for Curly Jacobs.

*AMENDED*

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th day of April 2006 by Defendant's Counsel to Withdraw as Appellate Counsel:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 4th day of May 2006."
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 156/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 156/2013 of 20 February 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 156/2013                     

# of 20 February 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

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

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 February 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

José Manuel Silva Rodríguez                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
STATE of North Carolina v. Shamonte Arnell GREEN.

No. 345P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2006.

Barbara S. Blackman, Matthew D. Wunsche, Assistant Appellate Defenders, for Green.

Beirne M. Harding, Assistant District Attorney, Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 28th day of June 2006 for Writ of Supersedeas of the Order of the Forsyth County Superior Court, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Forsyth County Superior Court:

"Dismissed as Moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of October 2006."
In the Matter of A.P.

No. 534A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2006.

Katherine Chester, for Mother-Parks.

Robert Newman, Asheboro, for Father-Parks.

Gary Rhodes, Salisbury, for Hylton.

Randi Weiss, Winston-Salem, for Guardian ad Litem.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 634 S.E.2d 561.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th day of October 2006 by Petitioner (Forsyth DSS) for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of October 2006."
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Wilson, Appellant.

[802 NYS2d 643]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (William C. Donnino, J.), rendered June 24, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of conspiracy in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 7/3 to 22 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. There was ample evidence to corroborate the testimony of defendant’s accomplices, by connecting defendant with the crime in a manner sufficient to satisfy the jury that the accomplices were telling the truth *(see*CPL 60.22 [1]; *People v Breland,*83 NY2d 286 [1994]; *People v Crow,*284 AD2d 653 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 900 [2001]). Among other evidence, the People introduced a tape-recorded conversation between defendant and an accomplice that was fully authenticated through nonaccomplice testimony, and whose contents warranted the inference that defendant was referring to the murder conspiracy at issue.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Saxe and Williams, JJ.
Specimen of Amend No.2 - Non-Qualified Stock Optio



 






EXHIBIT 10.54




Amendment No. 2 to Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreements




     This Amendment No. 2 to each of the Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreements (the “Agreements”)
by and between Seabulk International, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and
___(“Employee”), with grant dates of ___and ___, is entered into as of
the 18th day of April, 2005.



     WHEREAS, the Company and Employee desire to amend each of the Agreements in certain respects;
and



     WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company has authorized
this amendment on April 18, 2005.



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set forth above and the mutual covenants set
forth herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and
Employee hereby amend each of the Agreements as set forth herein below, effective as of the date
first set forth above:




	1.	 	Section 2.2 of each of the Agreements is hereby amended and restated by
deleting the text appearing therein in its entirety and inserting the following text
in lieu thereof:






          “2.2 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this
Agreement, in the event of any Termination of Employment, other than by
reason of death or Disability, within two years following a Change in
Control, this Option shall become one hundred percent (100%) Vested and
exercisable. The Committee may, in its sole discretion, accelerate the
exercisability of any unexercisable portion of this Option at any time.”




	2.	 	Section 6 of each of the Agreements is hereby amended and restated by
deleting the text appearing therein in its entirety and inserting the following text
in lieu thereof:






“6. Intentionally left blank.”




	3.	 	As so amended, each of the Agreements remains in full force and effect.





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has caused this Amendment to be duly
executed and delivered as of the date first set forth above.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	SEABULK INTERNATIONAL, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	By:	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	“Employee”
HAMBY v. PROFILE PRODUCTS, et al.

No. 507-A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 5, 2006.

Joseph W. Moss, Charlotte, Sarah L. Buthe, Raleigh, for Profile Products.

G. Chrisopher Olson, Raleigh, for Hamby.

Gregory C. York, Charlotte, for Electric Service Group, Inc.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th day of December 2006 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Profile Products) shall have up to and including the 17th day of January 2007 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of December 2006."
Exhibit 99.1

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 Annual Report of Omtool, Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert L. Voelk, 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, that:



|/s/ROBERT L. VOELKRobert L. Voelk Chief Executive OfficerMarch 10,
2003 |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
#### In the Matter of Lois Phillips, Appellant, v Suffolk County Board of Elections et al., Respondents, and Michael J. Caracciolo, Respondent.

[799 NYS2d 750]

In a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, inter alia, to invalidate a petition designating Michael J. Caracciolo as a candidate in a primary election to be held on September 13, 2005, for the nomination of the Republican Party as its candidate for the public office of Member of the Assembly, First Assembly District, the petitioner appeals from a final order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated August 4, 2005, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the final order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements *(see Matter of Phillips v Suffolk County Bd. of Elections,*21 AD3d 509 [2005] [decided herewith]). H. Miller, J.P., S. Miller, Ritter and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5631 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5631

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1155 Seminole Trail in Charlottesville, Virginia, as the ``Corporal 
                Bradley T. Arms Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2008

  Mr. Goode (for himself, Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, Mr. Boucher, Mr. 
 Cantor, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mrs. Drake, 
  Mr. Wolf, and Mr. Moran of Virginia) introduced the following bill; 
 which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1155 Seminole Trail in Charlottesville, Virginia, as the ``Corporal 
                Bradley T. Arms Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CORPORAL BRADLEY T. ARMS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1155 Seminole Trail in Charlottesville, Virginia, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Corporal Bradley T. Arms Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Corporal 
Bradley T. Arms Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```