alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flag
        An official website of the United States government
          Here’s how you know
        Here’s how you know **Official websites use .mil**
              A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization.
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
              A **lock** (A locked padlock) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.




Menu


close site.logo-mark-desc
 Home
          
        AboutAbout UsNGA LocationsHistoryMissionStrategyNGA KidsPolicies and ProgramsNext NGA WestNewsNewsContract Announcements2023 Industry Strategy Summit2023 DoDIIS Worldwide Conference2024 Esri Federal GIS Conference2024 GEO Resilience SummitCareersYour CareerHiring ProcessBenefits & PayStudent OpportunitiesSenior Executive PositionsMilitary Career OpportunitiesWork With UsIndustryAcademiaGovernmentInternationalWork With UsResourcesOffice of the Inspector GeneralProducts & ServicesMoonshot LabsPublic ReleaseContact Us Facilities Operating Status
          Employee Resources Search small
        Search Site


Historical Imagery


Home
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
						
							
							
							Resources
								
							
						
					
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				Historical Imagery


Historical imagery, maps and charts available to the public may be obtained from the Library of Congress through the Ask a Librarian service and the National Archives Cartographic and Architectural Branch. NGA maintains an agreement with the National Archives and Records Administration to obtain original negative film dating back to 1936. NGA is able to provide digitized copies of aerial and satellite film missions from 1935 to 2004.





Home
              HomeAbout
							  About UsNGA LocationsHistoryMissionStrategyNGA KidsPolicies and ProgramsNext NGA WestNews
							  NewsContract Announcements2023 Industry Strategy Summit2023 DoDIIS Worldwide Conference2024 Esri Federal GIS Conference2024 GEO Resilience SummitCareers
							  Your CareerHiring ProcessBenefits & PayStudent OpportunitiesSenior Executive PositionsMilitary Career OpportunitiesWork With Us
							  IndustryAcademiaGovernmentInternationalWork With UsResources
							  Office of the Inspector GeneralProducts & ServicesMoonshot LabsPublic ReleaseContact Us
							  Contact Us
 Connect With Us


nga.mil
          An official website of the
            National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
          7500 GEOINT DriveSpringfield, VA 22150 About NGAAccessibility supportFOIA requestsNo FEAR Act dataOffice of the Inspector GeneralPerformance reportsPrivacy policyPrivacy program Looking for U.S. government information and services?
        Visit USA.govLast Site Build: 2024-04-19 07:09 UTC
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,517]

      ( print page 21827)    
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 4, 2009 in response to a petition filed by the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 1112, on behalf of workers at General Motors Corporation, Warren, Ohio. The workers at the subject facility assemble automobiles.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC, this 17th day of April 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-10912 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Vadim Takser, Appellant. New York Compensation Insurance Rating Board, Respondent; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Submitted August 3, 2009;

decided October 15, 2009

Reported below, 63 AD3d 1478.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATION



This certification is provided pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and accompanies the Annual Report on Form 20-F (the “Report”) for the
period ended December 31, 2016 of Banco Latinoamericano de Comercio Exterior, S.A. (the “Company”).



I, Rubens V. Amaral Jr. Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify that:



| | (i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods presented.
| | ---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: April 28, 2017



|By:                      | 
|------------------------ | 
|/s/ Rubens V. Amaral Jr. | 
|Chief Executive Officer  |
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-73112 on FormS-3 of McAfee, Inc. and Registration Statement Nos. 333-112175, 333-49297, 333-51795, 333-43572,333-41964, 333-69301, 333-63627, 333-61369, 333-88399, 333-80829, 333-54024, 333-71404, 333-66586,333-99611, 333-91422, 333-110257, 333-41337 and 333-121740 on Form S-8 of McAfee, Inc. of ourreport dated March 30, 2005 (May 19, 2005 as to Note 11), relating to the 2004 consolidatedfinancial statements and financial statement schedule of McAfee, Inc. and our report dated March30, 2005, relating to management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting (which report expresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting because of material weaknesses), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/Aof the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004.
/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
San Jose, California
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA **Supreme Court Cause No. DA**  **24 -**  **0395**

__________________________________________________________________ JAWBONE HOLDINGS , LLC ,

Petitioner/Appellant v. THE MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE REGULATION, MONTANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ,

Respondent/Appellee and NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION d/b/a NORTHWESTERN ENERGY ,

Respondent/Appellee and THE MONTANA CONSUMER COUNSEL ,

Respondent
-

Interven o r/Appellee **[PROPOSED] ORDER ON JAWBONE HOLDINGS**  **, LLC’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME**  Appellant, Jawbone Ho ld ings , LLC (“ Jawbone ”), mo ved this Court for an extensio n of time to file its opening brief, pursuant to Rule 26(1) of the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure. Counsel for the other parties in t his matter do not object. 07/16/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0395No object io n having been made , and good cause appearing, it is ordered that Jawbone ’s

Moti on f or Extension of

Time i s GRANTED. Appellant shall file its opening brief on or before August 29 , 202 4
. Done and dated this

______ da y of July, 202 4
.

__________________________________ Just ice Supreme Court of the State of Montana

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court July 16 2024
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 491 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 

expand the definition of firefighter to include apprentices and trainees, 

regardless of age or duty limitations. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 2, 2005 

Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. SANTORUM, and Mr. LEAHY) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 

Judiciary 

A BILL

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 

Act of 1968 to expand the definition of firefighter to 

include apprentices and trainees, regardless of age or 

duty limitations.

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 ‘‘Christopher Kangas 

5 Fallen Firefighter Apprentice Act’’. 
2

•S 491 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF FIREFIGHTER TO 

2 INCLUDE APPRENTICES AND TRAINEES. 

3 Section 1204(4) of the Omnibus Crime Control and 

4 Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b(4)) is amend5 ed by inserting ‘‘, regardless of age, status as an appren6 tice or trainee, or duty restrictions imposed because of age 

7 or status as an apprentice or trainee,’’ after ‘‘fire depart8 ment’’. 

9 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

10 The amendment made by this Act shall apply with 

11 respect to deaths and injuries which occur on or after May 

12 4, 2002.

Æ
/**
 * @file
 * A JavaScript file for the theme.
 *
 * In order for this JavaScript to be loaded on pages, see the instructions in
 * the README.txt next to this file.
 */



// JavaScript should be made compatible with libraries other than jQuery by
// wrapping it with an "anonymous closure". See:
// - https://drupal.org/node/1446420
// - http://www.adequatelygood.com/2010/3/JavaScript-Module-Pattern-In-Depth
(function ($, Drupal, window, document, undefined) {

/*
Drupal.behaviors.smoothscroll = {
        attach: function(context) {
            $('a[href*=#]:not([href=#])').click(function() {
                if (location.pathname.replace(/^\//,'') == this.pathname.replace(/^\//,'')
                    || location.hostname == this.hostname) {

                    var target = $(this.hash);
                    target = target.length ? target : $('[name=' + this.hash.slice(1) +']');
                    if (target.length) {
                        $('html,body').animate({
                            scrollTop: target.offset().top
                        }, 1000);
                        return false;
                    }
                }
            });
        }
        };

        */
// To understand behaviors, see https://drupal.org/node/756722#behaviors
})(jQuery, Drupal, this, this.document);
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Susan McDade, Appellant.

Submitted October 22, 2009;

decided October 27, 2009

Reported below, 64 AD3d 884.

Motion to vacate this Court’s October 21, 2009 dismissal order granted *[see*13 NY3d 834 (2009)].
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 60 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 60

To repeal the provision of law that provides automatic pay adjustments 
                        for Members of Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 24, 2005

 Mr. Feingold introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal the provision of law that provides automatic pay adjustments 
                        for Members of Congress.

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

SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF AUTOMATIC PAY ADJUSTMENTS FOR MEMBERS OF 
              CONGRESS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 601(a) of the Legislative 
Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) is repealed.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 601(a)(1) of such 
Act is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(a)(1)'' and inserting ``(a)'';
            (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as 
        paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively; and
            (3) by striking ``as adjusted by paragraph (2) of this 
        subsection'' and inserting ``adjusted as provided by law''.
    (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on February 1, 
2007.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32

Certification of Periodic Financial Report by the Principal Executive Officer and

Principal Financial Officer

Solely for the purpose of complying with 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify
that, based on our knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |  |  |                            |  |                      |  |                                                
|---------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------- |  | -------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|Date: November 5, 2009 |  |  |  | MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
|                       |  |  | 
|                       |  |  |  | By:                        |  | /s/ David J. Schramm
|                       |  |  |  |                            |  |                      |  | David J. Schramm                               
|                       |  |  |  |                            |  |                      |  | President and Chief Executive Officer          
|                       |  |  |  |                            |  |                      |  | (Principal Executive Officer)                  
|                       |  |  | 
|Date: November 5, 2009 |  |  |  | By:                        |  | /s/ Kevin S. Royal  
|                       |  |  |  |                            |  |                      |  | Kevin S. Royal                                 
|                       |  |  |  |                            |  |                      |  | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
|                       |  |  |  |                            |  |                      |  | Treasurer and Secretary                        
|                       |  |  |  |                            |  |                      |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
#### In the Matter of Ramon Alvarez, Appellant, v New York State Division of Parole et al., Respondents.

Decided October 22, 2009

Reported below, 63 AD3d 1402.

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
#### Mansfield *et al. v.*The State.

Where a criminal case, originating in the county court and resulting in a conviction, was carried by *certiorari*to the superior court and there dismissed, it was, within the meaning of the act of September 7, 1891, a “criminal case tried” in the latter court. Consequently, where the bill of exceptions assigning as error the dismissal of the *certiorari*was not tendered and certified within twenty days from the date of the decision complained of, the writ of error must be dismissed.

April 16, 1894.

Practice in Supreme Court.

W. M. Harrell and Russell & Russell, by Harrison & Peeples, for plaintiff's in error.

W. N. Spence, solicitor-general, Donalson & Hawes and P. S. Harrell, by brief, *contra.*

Lumpkin, Justice.

Mansfield and others were jointly tried for assault ■and battery in the county court of Decatur county, and ■convicted. They took the case by *certiorari*to the supe*75rior court, and there on the trial the presiding judge, on motion, dismissed the *certiorari*because, in his opinion, the affidavit attached to the petition was insufficient in law.

In this court a motion to dismiss the writ of error was made and sustained, because the bill of exceptions assigning as error the dismissal of the *certiorari*was not tendered and certified within twenty days from the date of the decision complained of, as required by the act of September 7, 1891. This act provides that bills of exceptions in criminal cases shall, as to the time and manner of signing, filing, serving, transmitting and hearing, be governed in all respects, where applicable, by the laws of force at the time of its passage in reference to bills of exceptions in cases of injunction. In these latter cases, the bill of exceptions must be tendered and certified within twenty days.

The question is, was the case at bar a “ criminal case tried” within the meaning of that act. "We think it was. It was a case of some kind, and there is no class of cases to which it could possibly belong except criminal cases. It was a prosecution by the State against the accused for a criminal offence against the laws of the State. The fact that it originated in the county court, which has jurisdiction to try and finally dispose of misdemeanors, does not make it any the less a criminal case; and besides, the policy of the act in providing for the more speedy determination of criminal cases is fully as applicable to cases originating in the county court as in any other court of criminal jurisdiction.

*Writ of error dismissed.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Austin Lee, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 402]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward, J.), rendered October 31, 2011, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a determinate term of six years, to be followed by five years’ postrelease supervision, to run consecutively to a one-year sentence imposed on an unrelated 2008 fourth-degree drug possession conviction, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of remanding to Supreme Court for further sentencing proceedings consistent herewith.

Defendant was sentenced to 90 days and five years’ probation in an unrelated 2008 case. While on probation, he was arrested in Manhattan and charged with two drug related crimes, one of which was an A-I felony and the other an A-II.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the A-II drug charge in full satisfaction of the 2010 indictment, for which he received a determinate prison sentence of six years plus five years’ post-release supervision. At the same time, he also pleaded guilty to a probation violation on the 2008 indictment, for which he was sentenced to one year. Although defendant asked the sentencing court to run the sentence in the 2008 case concurrently with his determinate sentence in this case, the court declined to do so, noting that he had been allowed to plead guilty to the lesser A-II drug charge.

Defendant is not appealing his resentencing in the 2008 case, but the legality of the sentence he received in this case. He *433claims that because the trial court imposed a definite one-year sentence in the 2008 case and a determinate sentence in this case, the two sentences must run concurrently, not consecutively. He argues that because the sentences were made to run consecutively, they are illegal (see Penal Law § 70.35; *People v Leabo,*84 NY2d 952 [1994]). While we agree that, if the 2008 sentence is definite, then the sentence in this case should have run concurrently, we cannot determine the issue of the legality of defendant’s sentence on the record presently before us. The sentencing court did not characterize the one-year probation violation sentence as either determinate or definite, leaving an ambiguity in the record. This matter is, therefore, remanded for the sentencing court to clarify the record by stating whether the sentence is definite or determinate. We find no merit to the People’s position that we should not reach the issue because only the 2010 sentence was appealed *(see People v Jablonski,*93 AD3d 1319 [4th Dept 2012]). Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Feinman and Gische, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Sterling Financial Corporation (Sterling) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Gregory Seibly, Chief Executive Officer of Sterling, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|              |  |  |  |                                      
|------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|March 8, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ J. Gregory Seibly                
|              |  |  |  | J. Gregory Seibly                    
|              |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

This certification
accompanies each Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Sterling for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sterling and
will be retained by Sterling and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.