alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112125 

nn· :,tm<tl 

~ NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

. ,., HANDLE VIA 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

THE NR0 STAFF December 11, 1969 

MEMORANDUM FOR GENERAL SMART 

SUBJECT: Guidelines for Study of the CORONA ERS Role 

As you are aware, we have held preliminary discussions with 

your representatives following Dr. Mc Lucas' offer of the CORONA 

system to NASA. We are hopeful that formal studies to determine 

the capability of the CORONA to satisfy NASA ERS mission requirements may begin shortly. 

In anticipation of formal studies, we have prepared a set of 

guidelines which I have attached. These are brief but are intended 

to closely control the information flowing from the studies to preclude premature public disclosure and permit us to resolve the 

problems of national policy and security resulting from a decision 

to use the CORONA system in the ERS role. 

The guidelines are written to apply to contracted studies, but 

would apply equally to in-house efforts. If these are acceptable to 

you I propose that they be effective immediately. 

LEW ALLEN, JR. 

Brigadier General, USAF 

Director 

Attachment 

ll 1irirr~111111 11 l111 li211111111111111111111111111111111 

CORONA HANDLE VlA 

BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

TOP SECRET EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING 

000 D!REcnvE 5200.10 DOES NOT APPLY 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112125 

CONTROL NO BYE 1 3 4 3 0 - 6 9 

COPY 2-.. OF ___ COP!ES 

1 PAGES 
Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112125 HANDLE VIA 

I UI' :st:mu.1 BYEMAN 

GUIDELINES FOR STUDIES ON APPLICATION OF CORONA 

TO THE NASA ERS PROGRAM 

1. The NRO will perform contracting functions. Studies are to 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

be funded by NASA through the NRO by interdepartmental fund transfer. 

2. This effort will be performed by special study contracts within 

the BYEMAN system, project CORONA, with access on a must know 

basis. 

3. Contractors will be authorized to communicate only with 

designated contacts within NASA and the NRO. There will be no unsolicited briefings or proposals without prior NRO approval. 

4. The NRO will perform security review before any information 

is released -- briefings, reports or public statements. 

5. The NRO will have review and approval authority for the 

statements of work to be prepared by NASA. 

6. Statements of work will be written to reflect that the primary 

purpose of the studies is to determine the applicability of the J-3 

CORONA to the NASA ERS Program. 

CORONA 

HANDLE VIA 

BVEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

TOP SECRET EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING 

DOD OIRECTII/E 5200.10 DOES NOT APPLY 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112125 

CONTROL NO BYE 13430-69 

COPY--,..---_or ___ cOP![S 

PAGE 2 or __ 2 __ PAGES
#### Heindel, Special Deputy Commissioner of Banking, Appellant, vs. Brazel, imp., Respondent.

*November 9*

December *6, 1932.*

*574For the appellant there was a brief by *McDaniel & Olson*of Darlington, and oral argument by *F. B. Olson*and *C. F. McDaniel.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *W. A. Loveland,*of Monticello and *Conley & Conley*of Darlington, and oral argument by *Mr. E. F. Conley*and *Mr. Loveland.*

Fowler, J.

We do not perceive that any useful purpose would be served by detailing the evidence. We have examined the record with utmost care. In our opinion the find-*575mgs of the trial court, except as to notification by the defendant Robert to the bank, are against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence. To us it appears that the defendants were for many years partners in farming operations. The bank’s note record leaves no doubt that the $203.40 note was given for interest on a $3,390 note of which the $3,390 note sued on is a renewal, and that the former $3,390 note represents, through intermediate renewals, a renewal of a $3,000 note given by Brazel Brothers ostensibly as a renewal of notes theretofore given by Brazel Brothers while the defendants were partners and were carrying an account in the liquidating bank as Brazel Brothers, and prior to the time when, as the trial court found, Robert told the bank that he and Martin were through and he would not be responsible for Martin’s acts thereafter. All the notes in the long series connected with the $3,390 note sued on, about fifty in number, were signed in the same way, “Brazel Bros, by M. Brazel.”

It thus appears that during the time the transactions connected with the $3,390 note sued upon occurred until Robert made the said statement to the bank, the defendants were holding out to the bank that they were partners and that the several notes covered partnership loans. Ostensible partnership, when relied on, imposes the same obligations to third persons as actual partnership. Sec. 123.13, Stats. As Robert held out to the bank that Martin was his partner and authorized to act for the partnership, and the bank acted in reliance on the relation so held out, he was bound by all the transactions of Martin up to the time he notified the bank that he would be responsible no longer. The notification relieved him from liability on the notes executed by Martin after it was given, as disclaiming responsibility for Martin’s acts would cover his act in renewing the note then outstanding, but it did not relieve him from liability on the outstanding note.

*576We are of opinion that the judgment should be reversed for a new trial with the privilege to the plaintiff to amend his complaint to declare on the $3,000 note outstanding at the time Robert notified the bank that he would not be responsible for Martin’s future acts.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the county court is reversed for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion.
#### State ex rel. Stevens and another, Petitioners, vs. Grimm, Circuit Judge, and another, Respondents.

*March 11*

April *5, 1927.*

Companion case to *State ex rel. Stevens v. Grimm, ante,*p. 601.

This is an original proceeding, begun by petition in this court, praying that a writ of prohibition issue restraining the circuit court for Jefferson county from any further proceedings in an action wherein *Dan Patterson*is plaintiff and *R. B. Stevens*and *Stanley R. Stevens*are defendants.

For the petitioners there was a brief by *Richmond, Jack-man, Wilkie & Toebaas*of Madison, and oral argument by *Harold M. Wilkie.*

For the respondents there was a brief by *Kading & Kad-ing,*and oral argument by *Harold M. Dakin,*all of Water-town.

Rosenberry, J.

This is a companion case to *State ex rel. Stevens et al.,*Petitioners, *v. George Grimm,*Circuit Judge *606for Jefferson County, and *Mary*Steffen, Respondents, decided herewith *{ante,*p. 601, 213 N. W. 475). The facts in this case differ slightly from those in the *Steffen Case,*but are substantially the same, and for the reasons there stated the circuit court for Jefferson county obtained no jurisdiction over *R. B. Stevens*and *Stanley R. Stevens;*and for the reasons there stated the writ of prohibition should issue.

*By the Court.*— Let the writ issue as prayed for.
20

24

HEAVY

NROL-70

NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

THE FINAL FAREWELL

2011 2013 2019 2021 2022 2009 2010 2012 2016 2020 2023 2024

CAPE CANAVERAL
*October 8, 1928.*

#### Ulman, Appellant, vs. Jolin and others, Respondents.

For the appellant: *E. C. Smith*of Appleton.

For the respondents: *Kittell, Joseph, Young & Everson*of Green Bay.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
Submitted on record and brief June 15,

reversed and remanded for reconsideration July 14, 1993

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of Ronald D. Sparkman, Claimant. SAFEWAY STORES, INC., *Petitioner, v.*Ronald D. SPARKMAN, *Respondent.*

(WCB No. 91-09047; CA A74811)

855 P2d 665

Kenneth L. Kleinsmith and Meyers & Radler, Tigard, filed the brief for petitioner.

Bruce D. Smith and Smith *&*Smith, Medford, waived appearance for respondent.

Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration. *SAIF v. Herron,*114 Or App 64, 836 P2d 131, *rev den*315 Or 271 (1992).
#### Siegel, Appellant, vs. Siegel and others, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Hile & Dahl*of Superior, attorneys, and *Kaplan & Kenfield*of Minneapolis, Minnesota, of counsel.

For the respondents: *R. I. Tipton*of Superior.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
# C_2004228EN.01001902.xml

| 11.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Gorizia by order of that court of 7 April 2004 in the case of Azienda Agricola Bressan Aldo against Agenzia per le erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) and Cospalat Friuli Venezia Giulia

(Case C-223/04)

(2004/C 228/37)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Gorizia (District Court, Gorizia, Italy) of 7 April 2004, received at the Court Registry on 28 May 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Azienda Agricola Bressan Aldo against Agenzia per le erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) and Cospalat Friuli Venezia Giulia on the following question:

| — | Since the legal nature of the additional levy on milk and milk products must therefore be determined in the light of the provisions of Community law under which that levy was introduced and the basic rules governing its application were established (in particular Regulation No 856/84 (1) of 31 March 1984 and Regulation No 3950/92 2 of 28 December 1992), must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 of 31 March 1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 (2) of 28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of an administrative penalty with the result that producers are liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence? |
| --- | --- |

—

Since the legal nature of the additional levy on milk and milk products must therefore be determined in the light of the provisions of Community law under which that levy was introduced and the basic rules governing its application were established (in particular Regulation No 856/84 (1) of 31 March 1984 and Regulation No 3950/92 2 of 28 December 1992), must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 of 31 March 1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 (2) of 28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of an administrative penalty with the result that producers are liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?

1

2

---

(1)  OJ L 90 of 1. 4. 1984, p. 10.

1

(2)  OJ L 405 of 31. 12. 1992, p. 1.

2

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


                CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
     (AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, Charles R. Eitel, as Chief Executive Officer of Simmons Bedding Company (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my knowledge:

            (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
      December 25, 2004 (the "Report"), being filed with the U.S. Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof, 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
      the Company.

Date: March 22, 2005                /s/ Charles R. Eitel
                                    ---------------------------------
                                    Name: Charles R. Eitel
                                    Title:   Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Simmons Bedding Company and will be retained by Simmons Bedding
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,405
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,320
<ALLOWANCES>                                       100
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,421
<PP&E>                                           1,506
<DEPRECIATION>                                     914
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,222
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,969
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            55
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,998
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,222
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,143
<CGS>                                           34,450
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,370
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  17
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    685
<INCOME-TAX>                                       209
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                476
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       476
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2



                                  CERTIFICATION
                          REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(B) OR
                    RULE 15D-14(B) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

           I, Richard W. Lucas, as Chief Financial Officer of KSW, Inc., (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350 (as adopted by Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my knowledge:

           (1) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2004 (the "Report") filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 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 the
Company.

Dated:  August 13, 2004

                                                 /s/ Richard W. Lucas
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Richard W. Lucas
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
# C_2005048EN.01000501.xml

| 24.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3703 — RABOBANK/IHC)

(2005/C 48/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 14 February 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3703. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3703. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
# C_2004314EN.01001501.xml

| 18.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/15

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 14 October 2004

in Case T-137/02: Pollmeier Malchow GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(State aid - Action for annulment - Recommendation 96/280/EC - Meaning of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs))

(2004/C 314/38)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-137/02: Pollmeier Malchow GmbH & Co. KG, established in Malchow (Germany), represented by S. Völcker and J. Heithecker, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and V. Di Bucci, and M. Núñez-Müller) — action for annulment of Commission Decision 2002/821/EC of 15 January 2002 on the State aid implemented by Germany for Pollmeier GmbH, Malchow (OJ 2002 L 296, p. 20) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tiili, A.W.H. Meij, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 169 of 13.07.2002.

---
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 Commerce Office of the Secretary
 AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Commerce.
 ACTION: General notice announcing population estimates.
 SUMMARY: This notice announces the voting age population estimates as of July 1, 2014, for each state and the District of Columbia. We are providing this notice in accordance with the 1976 amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act, Title 2, United States Code, Section 441a(e).
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Humes, Chief, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Room HQ-5H174, Washington, DC 20233, at 301-763-2071.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the requirements of the 1976 amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act, Title 2, United States Code, Section 441a(e), I hereby give notice that the estimates of the voting age population for July 1, 2014, for each state and the District of Columbia are as shown in the following table. Estimates of the Population of Voting Age for Each State and the District of Columbia: July 1, 2014
Area
Population 18 and overUnited States
245,273,438Alabama
3,741,806Alaska
550,189( print page 6689)Arizona
5,109,792Arkansas
2,259,350California
29,649,348Colorado
4,109,494Connecticut
2,821,247Delaware
731,367District of Columbia
543,588Florida
15,839,713Georgia
7,604,061Hawaii
1,111,117Idaho
1,203,384Illinois
9,892,106Indiana
5,014,928Iowa
2,381,172Kansas
2,181,355Kentucky
3,400,843Louisiana
3,536,183Maine
1,071,112Maryland
4,625,863Massachusetts
5,354,940Michigan
7,686,087Minnesota
4,175,347Mississippi
2,262,810Missouri
4,670,966Montana
798,555Nebraska
1,414,894Nevada
2,175,874New Hampshire
1,059,672New Jersey
6,926,094New Mexico
1,583,623New York
15,517,321North Carolina
7,656,415North Dakota
570,955Ohio
8,955,859Oklahoma
2,925,352Oregon
3,112,217Pennsylvania
10,086,316Rhode Island
842,321South Carolina
3,747,734South Dakota
642,768Tennessee
5,054,826Texas
19,841,344Utah
2,038,787Vermont
504,976Virginia
6,457,174Washington
5,458,809West Virginia
1,470,179Wisconsin
4,457,375Wyoming
445,830Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Vintage 2014 Population Estimates.
 I have certified these estimates for the Federal Election Commission. Dated: January 29, 2015. Penny Pritzker, Secretary of Commerce.


[FR Doc. 2015-02473 Filed 2-5-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
                          REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) OR
                    RULE 15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
          (AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

         I,  Floyd  Warkol,  as  Chief  Executive  Officer  of KSW,  Inc.,  (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350 (as adopted by Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my knowledge:

         (1) the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-Q for the  period
ending  March 31,  2006  (the  "Report"),  filed  with the U.S.  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission,  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 the
Company.

Dated:  May 12, 2006

                                         /s/Floyd Warkol
                                         -----------------------
                                         Floyd Warkol
                                         Chief Executive Officer
```
Miscellaneous Documents

(Posted September 30, 2016)

Final PSD Permit Decision for 

the MCU Facility
#### Mitchell Street Loan and Building Association, Respondent, vs. Wolff, by guardian *ad litem,*Appellant.

For the appellant: *Lilian M. Kohlmets,*attorney, and *Julia B. Dolan,*guardian *ad litem,*both of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *George A. Affeldt*and *Rudolph W. Talsky,*both of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 23.1

               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants


The Board of Directors
Profile Technologies, Inc.

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(No. 333-53575) on Form S-3 of Profile Technologies, Inc. of our report dated
September 10, 1999, relating to the balance sheet of Profile Technologies, Inc.
as of June 30, 1999, and the related statements of operations, stockholders'
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended June
30, 1999, which report appears in the June 30, 1999 annual report on Form 10-KSB
of Profile Technologies, Inc.

                                               /s/ KPMG LLP

Seattle, Washington
September 23, 1999