alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
( 

THE NRO STAFF 

HANDLE VIA 

BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/21 C051 07045 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 

( TOP SECRET 

/.ATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE 

WASH INGTON, D.C. 

18 May 1968 

MEMORANDUM FOR COLONEL CARTER 

SUBJECT: Comments on Colonel RaIl's Draft of the 

MC&G Working Group Paper to COMIREX on 

Processing of KH- 9 Materials 

14 00079029D 

BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

The concern expressed in this draft memorandum stems 

from two sources: 

A. Current processing, especially that associated 

with producing dupe positives through the Niagara printer, 

is introducing distortions which are of major concern not 

only to the mapping community, but also the intelligence 

community. This situation becomes even more acute when 

ultra-thin base film is used. 

f 

f 

! 

I 

I 

~ 

B. The recent briefings by Captain Koch and Mr. I 

Ed Green of E.K., to COMIREX on facilities am processing 

of HEXAGON film, stressed only physical plant required, 

but did not go into detail on processing techniques to be 

used. Apparently it was indicated that processing would 

be similar to that cUrrently being used on KH-4 with no 

special precautions being taken to keep fi 1m distortion 

to an absolute minimum. 

i!.l~ . 91~ ;:::b 

A discussion of CORONA processing came up on the West 

Coast during the recent PIM meeting. E.K:s position, as 

stated by Mr. Don Chessler, is that he has heard of no 

formal complaints with present processing and distortion 

in the thin-base film material and therefore, a 1% greater 

lOP SECRET EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING 

DOD DIRECTIVE 5200.10 DOES NOT APPLY 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/21 C051 07045 

CONTROL NO _____ _ 

COPY ___ OF ___ COPJES 

PAGE, ___ OF _ __ PAGES 

I 

l 

I 

l 

! 

; 

! 

"" , 

~ 
HANDLE VI A 

BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/21 C051 07045 

HANDLE VIA 

TOP SECRET BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

degradation in going to BTa would appear to be acceptable 

and conseqently E.K. has no intention of changing any of 

their processing equipment and procedures. Representation 

from NPIC stated that they were unaware of the magnitude 

of distortion of UTB and.based on previous E.K. data, had 

assumed it to be uniform~v~ to 2 micron region and not 

random in the 25 micron region as present data now indicates. 

I have talked to Colonel Hoy about this and he will 

be working with E.K., NPIC and MC&G people to see what can 

be done to reduce current processing distortions and what 

controls should be placed on processing HEXAGON material. 

In summary, it would appear that data now being presented 

by E.K. with film distortions resulting from processing, 

are of a significant nature and are legitimate concern to 

both MC&G and Intelligence users. 

I feel we should stick the needle to our friends at 

E.K. and get a jump on this problem before we get our face 

rubbed in it by the users. 

TOP SEeRET EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING 

DOD DIRECTlVE 5200.10 DOES NOTAPPLY 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/21 C051 07045 

CONTROL NO' ______ _ 

COPY ___ OF ___ COPIES 

i 

I 

... 

~
# 2024 Southern Regional Cooperative Soil Survey Conference

      Louisiana Immersive Technologies Enterprise (LITE) Center,        University of Louisiana,          Lafayette,        LA    

Soil

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Events 
-  2024 Southern Regional Cooperative Soil Survey Conference 

**Join us for the 2024 Southern Regional Cooperative Soil Survey Conference!**

## Registration

$325 – Regular Registration

$150 – Student Registration

$40 – Wednesday Evening Banquet Only (May 22nd)

$75 – Wednesday Field Tour and Banquet Only (subject to availability; May 22nd) 

Link to Registration

The 2024 Southern Regional Cooperative Soil Survey Conference will be held at the Louisiana Immersive Technologies Enterprise (LITE) Center at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. The conference theme is: **“Our Soils, Our Heritage.”**Connect with fellow soil scientists, catch up on activities of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, and learn about the soils and landscapes of South Louisiana.

## Call for Abstracts

Southern Call for Abstracts

## Committees

Southern NCSS Committees

## Lodging

**Book by April 28**

Hilton Garden Inn (across the street from the LITE Center)2350 West Congress StreetLafayette, LA 70506(337) 291-1977Group Code: SOILRate: $107/night

SpringHill Suites (River Ranch area; ~15 minutes from the Lite Center)321 Settlers Trace BoulevardLafayette, LA 70508(337) 981-5512Group Code: SOILRate: $107/night

Tru by Hilton (River Ranch area; ~15 minutes from the Lite Center)1310 Camelia BoulevardLafayette, LA 70508(337) 534-0844Group Code: 90NRate: $99/night

*****The dates for the block of rooms are from Sunday, May 19 through Friday, May 24. You can edit the date ranges to fit your travel schedule. If you need assistance, please contact****Mitchell Mouton****.**

## Co-Hosts

Mitchell MoutonState Soil ScientistNRCS Louisiana(p) 318-473-7789(e) mitchell.mouton@usda.gov

Dr. Anna PaltsevaAssistant Professor University of Louisiana(e) anna.paltseva@louisiana.edu

## Liaison

Jo ParsleySouthern Soil Survey Regional DirectorUSDA-NRCS(p) 254-742-9854(e) jeremiah.parsley@usda.gov

Bookmark this page and subscribe to GovDelivery for conference news!

### Check out the 2024 NCSS Awardees!

----

##   Agenda

###   Monday, May 20

###   Tuesday, May 21

###   Wednesday, May 22

###   Thursday, May 23

###   Friday, May 24
# C_2004145EN.01000101.xml

| 29.5.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

28 May 2004

(2004/C 145/01)

1 euro
  =

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2198 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 133,24 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4377 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,66475 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0893 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5276 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 87,22 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1993 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9475 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5844 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 31,625 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 251,40 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6576 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4254 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,6455 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 40 766 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,03 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 39,99 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 831 286 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7032 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6611 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,5122 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9291 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,072 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 415,03 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,9345 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2198

JPY

Japanese yen

133,24

DKK

Danish krone

7,4377

GBP

Pound sterling

0,66475

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0893

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5276

ISK

Iceland króna

87,22

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1993

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9475

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5844

CZK

Czech koruna

31,625

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

251,40

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6576

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4254

PLN

Polish zloty

4,6455

ROL

Romanian leu

40 766

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,03

SKK

Slovak koruna

39,99

TRL

Turkish lira

1 831 286

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7032

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6611

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,5122

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9291

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,072

KRW

South Korean won

1 415,03

ZAR

South African rand

7,9345

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
Exhibit 32.1

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2001.

      --------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the Annual Report of Vision Global Solutions, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jean-Paul Ouellette, Chief Executive Officer o and President of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: July 19, 2005

                                    /s/ Jean-Paul Ouellette
                                    -----------------------
                                    Jean-Paul Ouellette, Chief Executive Officer
# C_2005006EN.01004401.xml

| 8.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/44

---

Action brought on 1 November 2004 by Holger Standertskjöld-Nordenstam against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-437/04)

(2005/C 6/86)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 November 2004, by Holger Standertskjöld-Nordenstam, residing in Waterloo (Belgium), represented by T. Demaseure, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the Commission's decision not to include the applicant's name on the list, published in Administrative Notices No 84-2003 of 19 December 2003, of the officials most deserving of promotion to Grade A3 in the ‘second round’ of the 2003 promotion procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission's decision not to include the applicant's name on the list, published in Administrative Notices No 84-2003 of 19 December 2003, of the officials most deserving of promotion to Grade A3 in the ‘second round’ of the 2003 promotion procedure;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant was proposed by his Directorate-General for promotion to Grade A3 in the 2003 procedure. The Consultative Committee on Appointments established a list of fourteen officials most deserving of promotion. The applicant was not on it, having been placed fifteenth. The Appointing Authority subsequently decided to add the names of 2 cabinet members to the list. On that basis the applicant alleges, in support of his action, that the contested decision infringes Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, since the merits of those 2 cabinet members were not compared with those of the other officials, including the applicant.

The applicant also relies on a second plea in law alleging breach of Article 4.2 of the Commission's decision of 19 July 1988. In that context, the applicant alleges that the promotions were made without the prior opinion of the Consultative Committee on Appointments and that the list of the most deserving officials should have included a number of officials' names exceeding the possible promotions by 50 % and not, as in this case, a number of names equal to the number of available posts.

The applicant pleads, lastly, breach of the duty to state reasons.

---
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM June 2022

D. Direct effect

#. Created by practice

LEGEND

Mitigating practice

Associated practice

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Pathway

Notes:

Effects are qualified with a plus 

(+) or minus (-). These symbols 

indicate only an increase (+) or a 

decrease (-) in the effect upon 

the resource, not whether the 

effect is beneficial or adverse.

Initial setting: Livestock or poultry operation with high 

nutrient levels in manure, air quality problems, or issues 

with pathogens

Start

D.1 (+) Animal nutrition

D.2 (-) Emissions of 

ammonia, odor, 

greenhouse gases, 

volatile organic 

compounds, and dust 

from animal feeding 

operations

D.3 (-) Nutrients and 

pathogens excreted in 

the manure

1. Improved diet formulation and feed 

ingredients

2. Feed additives 3. Improved feed management 

technologies

Feed Management (592)

C.1 (+) Increased farm 

profitability

C.2 (+) Human health, 

domestic animal health, 

community well-being

Nutrient 

Management (590)

C.3 (+) Quality of 

receiving waters, 

aquatic habitat, 

recreational 

opportunities

I.2 (-) 

Neighbor 

complaints I.3 (-) Nutrients, salts, 

pathogens in surface 

and ground water

I.1 (+) Air 

quality
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Access Road, Anaerobic Digester, Waste Storage Facility, Waste Treatment Lagoon.

**Note:**This worksheet contains general talking points for the conservation planner to discuss with the land user.  It is the first step towards an economic or financial analysis.  The second step would include identifying a specific site for analysis at the farm or field level, editing the template for local conditions, adding units and quantities of farm inputs and outputs.  The third step in the economic analysis is to place a dollar value on as many variables as possible, put all units in the same time frame, using amortization ($/Acres/Year) or net present value ($/Acre), so benefits and costs can be compared.  The fourth and final step would be to combine several conservation practices into a conservation system, which is how most conservation practices are applied at the field level. Data for the worksheet comes from the land user, conservation planner, technical specialist and local agricultural supply vendors and contractors.  See Economics Technical Note: TN 200-ECN-1, Basic Economic Analysis Using T-Charts (August 2013) for more information.
# C_2005031EN.01001602.xml

| 5.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/16

---

Action brought on 15 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-515/04)

(2005/C 31/33)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by C. O'Reilly and R. Troosters, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| 2. | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the Directive into national law expired on 31 December 2002.

---

(1)  OJ L 212, 7.8.2001, p. 12.

1

---
# C_2005115EN.01002201.xml

| 14.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/22

---

Action brought on 30 December 2004 by Arturo Ruiz Bravo-Villasante against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-507/04)

(2005/C 115/42)

Language of the case: Spanish

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 December 2004 by Arturo Ruiz Bravo-Villasante, residing in Madrid, represented by Jose Luis Fuertes Suárez, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

| 1. | annul the decision of the appointing authority, namely the Director of the European Personnel Selection Office, of 23 August 2004, dealing with the complaint against the decision of the selection board in Competition COM/B/2/02, concerning the marks awarded in the oral test and his exclusion from the list of successful candidates in the competition of 22 April 2004; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the decision of the appointing authority, namely the Director of the European Personnel Selection Office, of 23 August 2004, dealing with the complaint against the decision of the selection board in Competition COM/B/2/02, concerning the marks awarded in the oral test and his exclusion from the list of successful candidates in the competition of 22 April 2004;

| 2. | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in these proceedings contests the decision of the selection board in Competition COM/B/2/02, excluding him, as a result of the marks awarded in his oral test, from the list of candidates finally selected.

In that respect, the applicant requested the chairman of the selection board to review his oral test; the chairman replied that the selection board had confined itself in his case to applying the assessment criteria (‘grille d'évaluation’) used for all the candidates and that the manner in which the selection board had applied the classification procedure was protected by the requirement of confidentiality.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges infringement of the principle of transparency and disregard of what constitutes a ‘document’, for Community purposes, basing its decision to exclude the applicant on an existing document (la grille d'évaluation), the contents of which are not specified and which remain confidential.

---
# C_2005100EN.01003402.xml

| 26.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/34

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/3769 — The Coca-Cola Company/Coca-Cola Hellenic Bottling Company/Multon)

(2005/C 100/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 15 April 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 32005M3769. 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 32005M3769. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-3435

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Terrell Simpson

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

 Submitted: May 6, 2016

Filed: May 17, 2016 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Terrell Simpson challenges the district court’s finding that he violated the

1

conditions of his supervised release and argues that the district court abused its

The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the

1

Western District of Missouri.
discretion in sentencing him to two years in prison. Additionally, his counsel has

moved to withdraw. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in its

factual findings, or abuse its discretion in sentencing Simpson. See United States v.

Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 914-917 (8th Cir. 2009) (standards of review); United States

v. Meyer, 483 F.3d 865, 869 (8th Cir. 2007) (discussing reliability of sweat-patch

results).

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the

judgment of the district court.

______________________________

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR BILLING CONCEPTS CORP. AND
SUBSIDIARIES AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                              (156)
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      5,038
<ALLOWANCES>                                          25
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   6,457
<PP&E>                                               912
<DEPRECIATION>                                      (292)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    97,103
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              3,489
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                             417
<OTHER-SE>                                        92,628
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      97,103
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     410
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        349
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     3
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (31,294)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       4,715
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (26,579)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (15,842)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (42,421)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (1.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (1.06)


</TABLE>