alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Defense Manufacturing Supply Chain: 

Critical to the U.S. Economy and National Security 

MADE STRONGER WITH MEP NATIONAL NETWORKTM SUPPORT 

Contribution of Defense Contract Spending to State Economies 

DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING DOLLARS AS PERCENTAGE OF STATE GDP: 

3.1 - 6.0% 

2.1 - 3.0% 

1.1 - 2.0% 

0.0 - 1.0% 

Source: DoD Office of Economic Adjustment, Defense Spending by State, FY 2017; 

US DOC Bureau of Economic Analysis 

TOP 10 STATES 

Virginia 6.0% 

Connecticut 5.4% 

Alabama 3.7% 

Maryland 3.5% 

Maine 3.1% 

Mississippi 2.9% 

District of Columbia 2.8% 

Kentucky 2.7% 

Alaska 2.5% 

Arizona 2.5% 

Challenges Faced by the Defense Supply Chain 

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Business Challenges Identified The Aging Workforce in Supplement (DFARS) Compliance by MEP Center Clients in the Aerospace and Defense Awareness (Survey of NDIA members) Defense Supply Chain 

Are Aware of Mandatory of the A&D workforce Cost 67% 64% DFARS requirement is over the age of 41. Reduction 

Employee Have read DFARS 58% 60% Recruitment requirement document 

Growth 50% 46% Found DFARS requirements Opportunity difficult to understand 

Source: National Defense Industrial Association, Product 

Implementing Cybersecurity in DoD Supply 43% 

Chains - White Paper, July 2018 Source: 2017 Aviation Week Workforce Study Development 

Manufacturing’s Contribution to the Defense Supply Chain 

(AND HOW THE MEP NATIONAL NETWORK HELPS) 

MEP Center 

Client Company 

Limco Airepair, OK 

Heat transfer solutions 

Greno Industries, NY 

Key precision parts 

Triton Defense, MD 

Electromagnetic protection 

solutions 

General Tool Company, OH 

Hardware, equipment, 

parts, systems 

ER Precision Optical Corp., FL 

High precision infrared 

& visible optics 

Emhiser Research, NV 

Airborne & ground-based 

telemetry equipment 

Material, Component, or 

Subsystem Supplied 

Cooling systems for... 

High pressure & 

temperature safety 

GIS valve for... 

Armor, electrical housing 

units for... 

Torpedo for... 

Optical components for... 

Command transmitters/ 

encoders for... 

Defense/National Security MEP National Network 

System where Used 

Military 

shelters 

& vehicles 

Navy ships 

FEMA alert 

system 

Submarines 

Night vision 

surveillance 

equipment 

Drones 

Support for Company 

Oklahoma Manufacturing 

Alliance; 

NADCAP certification 

NY MEP; 

AS9100D compliance 

MD MEP; 

Strategic consulting 

& presentation development 

Ohio MEP; 

NIST SP 800-171 

and DFARS compliance 

FloridaMakes; 

Updating and training on 

metrology systems 

Nevada Industry 

Excellence; 

ISO 9001 recertification 

Emerging Technologies Identified as Critical for National Defense 

DOD NEEDS THE DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE TO SUPPORT SCALE UP AND INNOVATION IN: 

Hypersonics Directed-Energy Cyber Artificial Intelligence/ Quantum Fully Networked Microelectronics 

Weapons Machine Learning Science Command, Control, 

& Communications 

Source: 2018 Industrial Capabilities Annual Report to Congress 

www.nist.gov/mep/mep-national-network 

1-800-MEP-4MFG
IB 

Union Calendar No. 436

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H.R. 4817

[Report No. 108–714] 

To facilitate the resolution of a minor boundary encroachment on lands 

of the Union Pacific Railroad Company in Tipton, California, which 

were originally conveyed by the United States as part of the rightof-way granted for the construction of transcontinental railroads. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 12, 2004

Mr. NUNES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Resources 

SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on July 12, 2004] 

A BILL

To facilitate the resolution of a minor boundary encroachment on lands of the Union Pacific Railroad Company 

in Tipton, California, which were originally conveyed by 

the United States as part of the right-of-way granted 

for the construction of transcontinental railroads.
2

•HR 4817 RH 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. RELEASE OF UNITED STATES INTERESTS IN 

4 CERTAIN RAILROAD GRANT LANDS IN TIP5 TON, CALIFORNIA. 

6 (a) RELEASE OF INTERESTS.—There is hereby re7 leased, without consideration, all right, title, and interest 

8 of the United States in and to the surface portion of the 

9 property located at 615 North Burnett Road in Tipton, 

10 California, which encroaches upon land that, subject to a 

11 reversionary interest, was conveyed by the United States 

12 pursuant to the Act of July 27, 1866 (14 Stat. 292) to fa13 cilitate the construction of transcontinental railroads. The 

14 United States retains any subsurface mineral rights held 

15 by the United States as of the date of the enactment of this 

16 Act associated with such land. 

17 (b) INSTRUMENT OF RELEASE.—The Secretary of the 

18 Interior shall execute and file in the appropriate office a 

19 deed of release, amended deed, or other appropriate instru20 ment effectuating the release of interests made by subsection 

21 (a). 

Union Calendar No. 436

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H.R. 4817

[Report No. 108–714] 

A BILL

To facilitate the resolution of a minor boundary enof transcontinental railroads. of the right-of-way granted for the construction originally conveyed by the United States as part road Company in Tipton, California, which were croachment on lands of the Union Pacific RailSEPTEMBER 30, 2004

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New 	York, Respondent,  <br><br>against<br><br>Walter Warrington, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Brenda Rivera, J.), rendered March 25, 2015, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the third degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Brenda Rivera, J.), rendered March 25, 2015, affirmed.</p><p>Defendant's present challenge to his plea allocution, to the extent preserved for appellate review, is without merit. Our review of the record reveals that defendant "intelligently and understandingly waived [his] constitutional rights" (<i>People v Conceicao</i>, 26 NY3d 375, 383 [2015]; <i>see Boykin v Alabama</i>, 395 US 238 [1969]; <i>People v Tyrell</i>, 22 NY3d 359, 366 [2013]), and entered an otherwise knowing and voluntary guilty plea. Furthermore, as defendant pleaded guilty to an uncharged lesser offense, no factual basis for the plea was necessary (<i>see People v Moore</i>, 71 NY2d 1002, 1006 [1988]; <i>People v Clairborne</i>, 29 NY2d 950, 951 [1972])<i>.</i></p><p>In any event, the only relief defendant requests is a dismissal of the accusatory instrument, and he expressly requests this Court to affirm his conviction if it does not grant a dismissal. Since dismissal is not warranted (<a href="../2016/2016_03598.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Teron</i>, 139 AD3d 450</a> [2016]), we affirm on this basis as well (<a href="../2013/2013_08025.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Diaz, </i>112 AD3d 423</a> [2013], <i>lv denied </i>23 NY3d 1036 [2014]).    </p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur <br>Decision Date: February 21, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### Temple et al. *v.*Lasher.

*PRACTICE.—Assignment of*Error.—An assignment that the court erred in excluding the evidence of a certain witness raises no question, where there is no general assignment that the court erred in overruling a motion for a new trial, and there is an assignment of error in refusing to grant a new trial placed on other specific grounds only; although the exclusion of the evidence was mentioned in the motion as a reason for a new trial.

*204Motion for. New *Trial.—Misconduct of*Jury.—A motion for a new trial on the ground of misconduct of the jury, if not supported by affidavit, is properly disregarded.

APPEAL from the Perry Common Pleas.

Downey, J.

Action by the appellee against the appellants on a promissory note, and for work and labor, money paid, and goods sold and delivered, there being in the complaint a count on the note, and another for the other causes of action. The defendants pleaded a general denial, and there was an agreement that under the issue thus formed, all matters might be given in evidence. There was a trial of the cause by a jury, and a verdict for the plaintiff for three hundred dollars on the note, and fifteen dollars on the account. A motion made for a new trial by the defendants was overruled, and final judgment rendered on the verdict.

The defendants appealed and have here assigned errors as follows: first, excluding the evidence of the witness Andrew Miller; second, in overruling the appellants’ *motion*for a new trial on the ground of the misconduct of . the jury that tried the cause; third, in overruling the motion of appellants for a new trial on the ground that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence; fourth, in overruling the motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict of the jury is contrary to law.

There is no general assignment that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. The first assignment of error raises no question. Nor can we examine the question whether the testimony of Miller was or was not properly excluded. Although the exclusion of his evidence is mentioned as a,reason for a new trial, the refusal to grant a new trial, except on other grounds, is not assigned for error. *Smith*v. *Crigler,*29 Ind. 516; *Whitinger*v. *Nelson,*29 Ind. 441; *Herrick*v. *Bunting,*29 Ind. 467; *The Bellefontaine R. W. Co.*v. *Reed,*33 Ind. 476.

The allegation with reference to the misconduct of the jury was not supported by affidavit in the court below, as required by the code (2 G. & H. 215, sec. 355), and hence *205was properly disregarded by the common pleas, as it must be by us.

S'. *K Wolfe,*for appellants.

*E. R. Hatfield, W. H. Peckinpaugh,*and *fi. B. Black,*for appellee.

The facts of the case, as disclosed by the evidence, do not wax-rant us in disturbing tile judgment in the common pleas. The evidence as to whether there was or was not a warranty of the boat, which was the ground of defence, was quite contradictory. That question must remain as settled by the ' jury.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000068145
<NAME> MORGAN'S FOODS, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                       2,655,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    332,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,243,000
<PP&E>                                      31,738,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              13,346,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,011,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,425,000
<BONDS>                                     17,338,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,218,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,248,000
<SALES>                                     40,607,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            40,607,000
<CGS>                                       23,409,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,538,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (701,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    20,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (721,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (287,000)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,008,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.35)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES v. HOPSON et al.

Civ. No. 1937.

United States District Court W. D. Kentucky, at Louisville.

Aug. 22, 1951.

Paul Marshall, Dominic J. Cimino, Enforcement Attys., Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Sidney Baer, Louisville, Ky., for defendants.

SHELBOURNE, Chief Judge.

The United States instituted this action June 29, 1950, under Sections 205 and 206(b) of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947 as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, §§ 1895, 1896(b), against Archie L. Hopson and Sarah Hopson, to recover $230.75 the amount of an alleged overcharge on housing accommodations located at 102 W. Tenny Street in Louisville, such recovery to be for the benefit of the tenant Henry B. Odum, and an additional judgment in favor of the United States for $319.50, two times the amount of the overcharge collected within twelve months next before the institution of this action.

Findings of Fact.

1. The premises in question were purchased by the defendant Archie L. Hopson in April 1947 and were rented the following May.

2. At the time of the renting, the ceiling rent was $60 per month. This amount was subsequently reduced' on June 18, 1947 by the Area Rent Director to $45 per month.

The tenant, Henry B. Odum, rented the property April 1, 1949, and continued in the occupancy thereof until April 7, 1950. During said time, he paid at the rate of $15 per week.

Conclusions of Law.

I. The Court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter, under the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 1881 et seq.

II. At the time the owner Archie L. Hopson and his wife Sarah Hopson rented the premises, the ceiling rental therefor was $45 per month.

III. Defendants are liable to the plaintiff for the use and benefit of the tenant Henry B. Odum in thé sum of $230.75, and in addition thereto,'because the overcharge was willful, the United States is entitled to recover $319.50, and costs incurred in this action.

Judgment in accordance with this memorandum will be tendered by Counsel for plaintiff.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 469 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 469

  To provide an enhanced penalty for threatening to kill, injure, or 
intimidate an individual, or to cause property damage, by means of fire 
                  or an explosive on school property.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 29, 2003

  Mrs. Lowey (for herself, Mr. Engel, and Mrs. Kelly) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide an enhanced penalty for threatening to kill, injure, or 
intimidate an individual, or to cause property damage, by means of fire 
                  or an explosive on school property.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Zero Tolerance School Terror Act''.

SEC. 2. ENHANCED PENALTY FOR THREATENING TO KILL, INJURE, OR INTIMIDATE 
              AN INDIVIDUAL, OR TO CAUSE PROPERTY DAMAGE, BY MEANS OF 
              FIRE OR AN EXPLOSIVE ON SCHOOL PROPERTY.

    Section 844(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following: ``If the threat or conveying of false 
information referred to in the preceding sentence concerns conduct on 
the grounds of a school which provides elementary or secondary 
education (as determined under State law), the maximum term of 
imprisonment under this subsection shall be 20 years.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 23.1



The Board of Directors
Venus Exploration, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form
S-8 of Venus Exploration, Inc. of our report dated March 26, 1998, relating to
the consolidated balance sheets of Venus Exploration, Inc. and subsidiaries as
of December 31, 1997, and 1996, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, shareholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997, which report appears in the
December 31, 1997, annual report on Form 10-K of Venus Exploration, Inc.





                                             KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP




San Antonio, Texas
August 10, 1998
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 Amendment to the Quarterly Report of Magnitude
Information Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended
June 30, 2004 (the "Form 10-QSB"), I, Steven D. Rudnik, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, as of the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge, the Company's Form 10-QSB fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Security Exchange Act of 1934 and
that the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Dated: March 3, 2006                   By: /s/ Steven D. Rudnik
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Steven D. Rudnik
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

.

R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-21126

Summary Calendar

JOYCE LYNN BANOWSKY FOGO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH S. APFEL,

Commissioner of Social

Security,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 95-CV-1337

- - - - - - - - - - October 31, 1997 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Joyce Lynn Banowsky Fogo is appealing from the district

court’s judgment granting the defendant Commissioner’s motion for

summary judgment and affirming the Commissioner’s denial of old age

insurance benefits to Fogo.

Fogo argu es that the Commissioner erred in applying the

regulations governing Fogo’s right to obtain old age benefits based

on her status as a divorced wife of an insured wage earner. FogoNo. 96-21126

-2-

argues that the Commissioner erred in determining that she had not

received one-half of her support from her former husband during the

relevant period in light of her expenses incurred during that time.

Fogo also argues that the manner in which the regulations are

applied by the Commissioner discriminates aga inst divorced wives

living in states governed by a community property system.

We have reviewed the record , including the administrative

record, and the briefs of the parties and find that the

Commissioner’s application of the regulations was not plainly

erroneous and that the decision was sup ported by substantial

evidence in the record. S ee Thomas Jefferson University v.

Shalala

, 512 U.S. 504, 512 (1994); Greenspan v. Shalala

, 38 F.3d

232, 236 (5th Cir. 1994).

Fogo has no standing to assert the discrimi nation claim

because she has not shown that she was denied benefits based on the

alleged discriminatory application of the regulations. S ee Nevares

v. San Marcos Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist.

, 111 F.3d 25, 26 (5th Cir.

1997).

Therefore, the district court did not err in granting the

Commissioner’s motion for summary j udgment and dismissing Fogo’s

complaint.

AFFIRMED.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4746 

To amend the Military Selective Service Act to terminate the registration 

requirement and the activities of civilian local boards, civilian appeal 

boards, and similar local agencies of the Selective Service System, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2004 

Mr. OWENS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Military Selective Service Act to terminate 

the registration requirement and the activities of civilian 

local boards, civilian appeal boards, and similar local 

agencies of the Selective Service System, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Selective Service Reg5 istration Termination Act’’. 
2 

•HR 4746 IH 

1 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE 

2 ACT REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT. 

3 (a) REGISTRATION TERMINATION.—Section 17 of the 

4 Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 467) is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following new sub6 section: 

7 ‘‘(d) TERMINATION OF REGISTRATION REQUIRE8 MENT.—Notwithstanding any other provisions of this title, 

9 on and after the date of the enactment of the Selective 

10 Service Registration Termination Act (except in the event 

11 of a declaration of war by the Congress), no person shall 

12 be registered for possible induction for training and serv13 ice in the Armed Forces, including persons who were sub14 ject to such registration requirements before that date but 

15 who had not complied with such registration requirements 

16 by that date.’’. 

17 (b) SUSPENSION OF SANCTIONS FOR PERSONS PRE18 VIOUSLY SUBJECT TO REGISTRATION.—Section 12 of 

19 such Act (50 U.S.C. App. 462) is amended by adding at 

20 the end the following new subsection: 

21 ‘‘(h) In addition to the exception provided by sub22 section (g), a person may not be denied a right, privilege, 

23 benefit, or employment position under Federal law on the 

24 grounds that the person failed to present himself for and 

25 submit to registration under section 3 before the date of 
3 

•HR 4746 IH 

1 the enactment of the Selective Service Registration Termi2 nation Act.’’. 

3 (c) SUSPENSION OF LOCAL BOARDS, APPEAL

4 BOARDS, AND OTHER SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM

5 AGENCIES.—Section 10 of such Act (50 U.S.C. App. 460) 

6 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub7 section: 

8 ‘‘(i) During any period in which the registration re9 quirements of section 3 are terminated, the President may 

10 not appoint a person as a member of a civilian local board, 

11 civilian appeal board, or similar local agency of the Selec12 tive Service System and any such board established under 

13 subsection (b)(3) may not meet.’’. 

Æ