alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Soar higher with NRO NRO satellites provide global coverage, carry out research and development, and assist emergency and disaster relief efforts in the U.S. and around the world.MissionsNROL-70 Mission Emblem NROL-70 April 9, 2024 Cape Canaveral SFS, FloridaNROL-123 Mission Emblem NROL-123 March 21, 2024 Wallops Island, VirginiaNROL-107 Mission Emblem NROL-107 September 10, 2023 Cape Canaveral Space Force StationNROL-68 Mission Emblem NROL-68 June 22, 2023 Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, FloridaNROL-91 Mission Emblem NROL-91 September 24, 2022 Vandenberg Space Force Base NROL-199 Mission Emblem NROL-199 August 04, 2022 Mahia Peninsula, New Zealand NROL-162 Mission Emblem NROL-162 July 13, 2022 Mahia Peninsula, New Zealand NROL-85 Mission Emblem NROL-85 April 17, 2022 Vandenberg Space Force Base NROL-87 Mission Emblem NROL-87 February 02, 2022 Vandenberg Space Force Base NROL-111 Mission Emblem NROL-111 June 15, 2021 Wallops Island, Virginia NROL-82 Mission Emblem NROL-82 April 26, 2021 Vandenberg Space Force Base NROL-108 Mission Emblem NROL-108 December 19, 2020 Kennedy Space Center NROL-44 Mission Emblem NROL-44 December 10, 2020 Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida NROL-101 Mission Emblem NROL-101 November 13, 2020 Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida NROL-129 Mission Emblem NROL-129 July 15, 2020 Wallops Island, Virginia NROL-151 Mission Emblem NROL-151 January 31, 2020 Wallops Island, VirginiaLaunch Vehicles NRO selects the appropriate launch vehicle for getting a satellite payload into its intended orbit. See The Vehicles Rocket being prepped for launchThe Viewfrom above For more than 60 years, the NRO has leveraged innovation and strategic partnerships to develop, acquire, launch, and operate America's intelligence satellites. More on the mission
 National Reconnaissance Office

Launch your Career Do Business With Us search Menu

Home
 About
 Careers
 Launches
 Work With Us
 News & Media
 Resourcesfacebook
 twitter
 youtube
 instagram
 linkedinContact Us NRO SealNational Reconnaissance Office

facebook
 twitter
 youtube
 instagram
 linkedinContact Us

Who We Are

Mission Partners & Customers
 Our Leadership
 A Declassified History

Careers

Working at the NRO
 Career Fields
 Job Listings
 Student Opportunities

Launches

Missions
 Launch Vehicles

Do Business With Us

How To Do Business With Us
 Director's Innovation Initiative
 Acquisition Research Center

News & Media

Featured Stories
 Press Releases
 Podcasts
 Speeches and Testimony

Resources

NRO Multimedia
 Request a Speaker



USA FlagAn official website of the United States government. Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil

Policy

Site Policies
 Privacy
 No FEAR Act
 Inspector General
 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
 Accessibility
#### Michelle Anderson, Appellant, v House of Good Samaritan Hospital et al., Defendants, and David T. Gavan, M.D., Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[773 NYS2d 687]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Jefferson County (Peter A. Schwerzmann, A.J.), entered December 6, 2002. The order granted the motion of defendant David T. Gavan, M.D. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him as time-barred in a medical malpractice action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court. Present—Wisner, J.P., Hurlbutt, Kehoe, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.
# C_2005143EN.01000501.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 26 April 2005

in Case C-494/01: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Waste management - Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EC - Articles 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14)

(2005/C 143/02)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-494/01, action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 20 December 2001, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Wainwright and X. Lewis) v Ireland (Agent: D. O'Hagan, assisted by P. Charleton SC and A. Collins BL) — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann (Rapporteur), C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, J. P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič, J. Malenovský, U. Lõhmus and E. Levits, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 April 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to ensure a correct implementation of the provisions of Articles 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, Ireland has failed to comply with its obligations under those provisions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to ensure a correct implementation of the provisions of Articles 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, Ireland has failed to comply with its obligations under those provisions;

| 2. | Declares that, by failing to respond to a request for information dated 20 September 1999 in relation to waste operations at Fermoy, County Cork, Ireland has failed to fulfil the obligations which it has pursuant to Article 10 EC; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that, by failing to respond to a request for information dated 20 September 1999 in relation to waste operations at Fermoy, County Cork, Ireland has failed to fulfil the obligations which it has pursuant to Article 10 EC;

| 3. | Orders Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 56 of 02.03.2002.

1

---
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1




               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-95007) and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-40466)
pertaining to the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, 1999 Equity Incentive Plan, 1999
Employees Stock Purchase Plan and the 1999 Non-Employees Directors' Stock Option
Plan of Caliper Technologies Corp. and in the Registration Statement (Post
Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form S-1 on Form S-3 No. 333-45942) of our report
dated January 26, 2001, with respect to the financial statements of Caliper
Technologies Corp. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2000.


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 14, 2001
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00628-CR

Hansome Ferguson Jr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 61497, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Hansome Ferguson Jr. seeks to appeal a judgment of conviction for robbery. The

trial court has certified that: (1) this is a plea bargain case and Ferguson has no right of appeal,

and (2) Ferguson waived his right of appeal. The appeal is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P.

25.2(a)(2), (d).

___________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: November 28, 2007

Do Not Publish
From: Angus Crane <acrane@naima.org>

To: Susan Fairchild/RT P/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 08/02/2011 03:30 PM

Subject: NAIMA Documentation on Conversion to Non

- Formaldehyde Binder and Possible Meeting

Dates

Dear Susan,

Please find attached NAIMA’s letter and documentation setting forth the fiber glass industry’s

conversion to non

- formaldehyde binders.

I greatly appreciate your willingness to meet with NAIMA. The week of August 8, 2011 did not work for

my members, but I can offer you three dates during the week of Augu st 29th

– Tuesday, August 30th;

Wednesday August 31st; or the first half of the day on Thursday, September 1st . Please tell me if any

of these dates will work. I assume we will meet with you in Research Triangle Park. If you can give me a

date, I will notify my members so they can make travel arrangements.

Sincerely,

Angus E. Crane

Angus E. Crane

Executive Vice President, General Counsel

North American Insulation Manufacturers Association

Ph: (703) 684

- 0084 ext. 123

Fax: (703) 684

- 0427

Visit NAIMA online at:

www.NAIMA.org

www.PipeInsulation.org

# Copyrighted page(s) removed. Copyrighted

material is not available in Regulations.gov since

it may not be reproduced without consent of the

copyright holder.

Removed pages can be viewed at the USEPA

Docket Center, Public Reading Room.

Address: 1301 Constitution Ave, NW

Room 3334

Washington, DC 20004

Telephone: 202-566-1744

Email: docket-customerservice@epa.gov
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2154 

To rename the Red River Valley Agricultural Research Center in Fargo, 

North Dakota, as the Edward T. Schafer Agricultural Research Center. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2017 

Mr. CRAMER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To rename the Red River Valley Agricultural Research Center in Fargo, North Dakota, as the Edward T. Schafer 

Agricultural Research Center. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RENAMING OF THE RED RIVER VALLEY AGRI4 CULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER IN FARGO, 

5 NORTH DAKOTA AS THE EDWARD T. SCHAFER 

6 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER. 

7 (a) RENAMING.—The Red River Valley Agricultural 

8 Research Center in Fargo, North Dakota, shall hereafter 

9 be known and designated as the ‘‘Edward T. Schafer Agri10 cultural Research Center’’. 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 2154 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, map, 

2 regulation, map, document, paper, or other record of the 

3 United States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) 

4 shall be considered to be a reference to the Edward T. 

5 Schafer Agricultural Research Center. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our 
report dated March 31, 1999 (and to all references to our firm) included in or 
made a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 
1998 of American Residential Services, Inc. (the "Company") and to the 
incorporation by reference of such report (and to all references to our firm) 
in the Company's registration statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-31815), Form S-3 
(No. 333-27785) and Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-13299, 333-33479, 333-44913 and 
333-67989).


ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Houston, Texas
March 31, 1999
Argued and submitted May 28,

affirmed July 14, 1993

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*ELISEO GUARADO GUZMAN, *Appellant.*

(C 9111-35836; CA A73914)

855 P2d 1140

David K. Allen, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.

Thomas H. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and John Payne, Certified Law Student, Salem.

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

PER CURIAM

*674PER CURIAM

Defendant was found guilty of delivery of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992, after a trial before ajury. He appeals from the departure sentence imposed, arguing that the sentencing court erroneously considered his immigration status as a basis for imposing the departure. *See State v. Zavala-Ramos,*116 Or App 220, 840 P2d 1314 (1992). Defendant failed to preserve the claimed error.

Defendant’s only objection at sentencing was that the statement in the presentencing investigation report (PSI) that he had been deported was “not [the] most credible evidence.” That objection did not alert the sentencing court that defendant objected to consideration of his immigration status as a basis of departure. It also did not alert the court to defendant’s argument that the evidence in the PSI will not support the conclusion that he was illegally in the United States.1*See State v. Orsi/Gauthier,*108 Or App 176, 813 P2d 82 (1991). We decline to address that argument, which was made for the first time on appeal.2

Affirmed.

1

 That evidence could support a departure sentence by showing that defendant is unwilling to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. *State v. Zavala-Ramos, supra,*116 Or App at 223.

2

 We note, however, that the PSI contained defendant’s admission that he had reentered the country illegally the day after he was deported.
Conservation Stewardship Program - Grassland Conservation Initiative Fiscal Year 2024 United States Department of Agriculture

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Code Practice Component Units Unit Cost

E300GCI Grassland Conservation Initiative Grassland Conservation Initiative Activity AC $18.00

CSP-Grassland Conservation Itiative Page 1 of 1 Pennsylvania - Fiscal Year 2024
July 2021

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Helping People Help the Land 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Conservation Practice Overview

Precision Land forming and Smoothing (Code

462) 

Regrading a field to remove surface irregularities with

earth-moving equipment 

Practice Information 

This practice applies to fields where depressions, mounds,

old terraces, turn-rows, and other surface irregularities

interfere with or adversely affect surface drainage, erosion

control, and equipment operation. 

The precision land forming and smoothing practice provides more effective use of rainfall, facilitates

installation of more workable drainage systems, reduces mosquito infestations, controls erosion,

improves water quality, and prevents damage to land from water logging. 

The pPrecision land forming and smoothing practice is used on any land suitable for the planned use,

and where the practice is feasible. The soil in fields where this practice is applied must be of sufficient

depth and suitable texture to accommodate the planned land use after the practice is applied. 

Precision land forming and smoothing should be planned as an integral part of a conservation plan

that provides for the wise use of the natural resources. 

Precision land forming and smoothing will require maintenance over the expected life of the practice. 

Common Associated Practices 

NRCS Conservation Practice Standard (CPS) Precision Land Forming and Smoothing (Code 462) is

commonly applied with other conservation practices, such as NRCS CPS Access Control (Code 472),

Access Road (Code 560), Critical Area Planting (Code 342), Diversion (Code 362), Drainage Water

Management (Code 554), Grade Stabilization Structure (Code 410), Land Clearing (Code 460),

Nutrient Management (Code 590), Open Channel (Code 582), Structure for Water Control (Code 587),

Surface Drain, Field Ditch (Code 607), and Water and Sediment Control Basin (Code 638). 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
HANDLE VIA 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/21 C051 07896 I I c ••• 'WIi BYEMAN 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111/1111111111111111111 

~ NATIONAL RECON NAI55AN-CE "O;:;;;ICE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 

Dear Noel: 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

l-r 

I /./'\ 

. e-." ~ 

T think thai the arrangement we have had since the I 

Ihas demonstrated the positive value of jO'---i-n-t -N-'R-O-/-:-N---Si-\-~ '----------~ 

satellite operations. I have been pleased with reports on the results 

of our initial manning at NSA (SSSC) and think that we should develop 

an even closer relationship in satellite operations. Toward this end, 

I suggest that our staffs work out details and report to us by the end 

of May. During the interim, we are proceeding with plans to increase 

our manning at the SSSC. 

Vice Adm. Noel Gayler, Director 

National Security Agency 

Ft. Meade, Maryland 20755 

Yours truly, 

John L. McLucas 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/21 C051 07896 

I 

I 

I .! 

, 

i 

j 

I 

! 

-f 

-
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2258 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2258

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 27, 2017

    Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To require that certain standards for commercial driver's licenses 
  applicable to former members of the armed services or reserves also 
      apply to current members of the armed services or reserves.

    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 ``Active Duty Voluntary Acquisition of 
Necessary Credentials for Employment Act'' or the ``ADVANCE Act''.

SEC. 2. COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE STANDARDS FOR SERVICE MEMBERS AND 
              VETERANS.

    Section 31305(d) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Veteran 
        Operators'' and inserting ``Service Members, Reservists, and 
        Veterans'';
            (2) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``subparagraph (A) 
        during'' and inserting ``subparagraph (A)--
                            ``(i) while serving in the armed forces or 
                        reserve components; and
                            ``(ii) during''; and
            (3) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting ``current or'' before 
        ``former'' each place the term appears.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 26, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
qmpli9 Pr.!:!rm L:

j13,7 9, 1968

MI FOR 0IIRRAL MRIGt 1.11111.1111111 .

Colon contact mes with the special OSD review committee

hW Strategie Recommaisaance Wing program (primarikv

I.e. bet some fends for SIC base 11.2 support), hes been

like 'Who authorised the preeminent of D.Ws? What

vas the basis for the requirements? Pampa were the airman fUnded?" etc.

I had told bin before that if they /aimed question on the 1621 s, be should

contacts.rather thma to try to answer thou Anoreingly, I asked Dr. Tlec

for guidance on8 July, and his reaction that they bed the right to ask

questions and Ms remnendations (anon liberal interpretation than sin.--

I feel that their responsibility should be limited to the 100th SW cost

°overage).

I have passed Dr. Plea' reaction on tohe #11

tall the review sommittee to send their question C.1°118111 to , /1over General

Carroll's sit. These Pa oome in before I return from leave, so I

told Dr. Flu I'd alert you end Fmk Bartley.

I still feel that the answers should be like "Deputy Secretary Situ,

DCI Helms, and Mr. Hornig, as an Namoutive Committee, approved the UmaR

Procurement. Secretary Ifolarra approved the aircraft allnation, based

on a reemendation rm.*. Isles. their basis for appraval we to

maintain a viable U..2 program. 'amain is within the Ur progree." etc...-

generalities rather tabu specifies, with anomgh to indicate the high level

of consideration end approval. It be that if they have to get General

Carroll's sigmature, the gentle= will go any, or be limited to 100th

SRW cost coverage.

The recent MR fir the 100th SEW goofed on the D.2 portion, in that

o attrition we ferment them IT 1974 and sons PT 1970 and subsequent

year increases were questionable. Esther than re-do the POE, it was gabBitted as is, with qualifying footnotes, and Dr. Plae said he put qualifying

remarks in a transmittal sm. 0150 could be critical in this oonnestion.

ces Colonel Hartley

VIM

SECRET

1 I n "MI Isn't

L :
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.9(a) FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
STERLING CHEMICALS, INC.
PENSION BENEFIT EQUALIZATION PLAN WITNESSETH WHEREAS, Sterling Chemicals, inc. (the Employer) presently maintains the Sterling Chemicals,
Inc. Pension Benefit Equalization Plan, effective as of October 1, 1987 (the Plan); and WHEREAS, the Employer, pursuant to Section 6 of the Plan, has the right to amend the Plan from
time to time subject to certain limitations: NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended in the following manner: Effective as of January 1, 2005, the Plan is amended to freeze benefit accruals. Benefit
accruals will cease for all Participants, by computing their Accrued Benefits as of January 1,
2005, as if they had terminated from service on such date. This amount shall be referred to as the
Frozen Benefit. Each Participant may continue to accrue Vesting Service after January 1, 2005,
in accordance with the existing provisions of the Pension Plan, in order to vest in his Frozen
Benefit and for benefit eligibility purposes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Employer has executed this Amendment, this day of , 2005. STERLING CHEMICALS, INC.ByName:Title
##### 



Exhibit 10.12(b)
 Second Amendment to the  Seventh Amended and Restated Savings and Investment Plan
 Whereas Corporation Existing Plan
 Whereas Committee
 Now, Therefore
 Amendment of Section 1.03 of the Existing Plan Company Stock Fund
 Amendment of Section 2.03 of the Existing Plan
 Notice of Eligibility; Election of Participation




---



##### 



provided, however,
 . Effective as of January 1, 2008,
 Notice of Automatic Deferral Election
 -2-




---



##### 



Amendment of Section 4.02(b) of the Existing Plan
  Amendment of Section 4.02(d) of the Existing Plan
  Amendment of Section 5.02 of the Existing Plan
 Pre-Tax Matched Contributions
 Further Amendment of Section 5.02 of the Existing Plan
  Amendment of Section 6.02 of the Existing Plan
 After-Tax Matched Contributions provided, however plus
 -3-




---



##### 



Further Amendment of Section 6.02 of the Existing Plan
  Amendment of Section 7.01 of the Existing Plan
  Amendment of Section 9.01 of the Existing Plan
 Investment Funds
 -4-




---



##### 



provided, however
 Amendment of Section 9.02 of the Existing Plan
 provided,
however
 Amendment of Section 10.03 of the Existing Plan
 provided, however
 Further Amendment of Section 10.03 of the Existing Plan
  Installment Payments
 -5-




---



##### 



1 2
 Partial Distributions to Retired or Terminated Participants
 Amendment of Section 10.06 of the Existing Plan
  Amendment of Section 10.07 of the Existing Plan
 Eligible Retirement Plan provided,
however Eligible Retirement Plan provided, however
 Distributee
 -6-




---



##### 



qualified domestic relations order
 Direct Rollover
 Qualified Distributee
 Amendment of Article XI of the Existing Plan
 Hardship Withdrawals Immediate and Heavy Financial Need
      -7-




---



##### 



Amendment of Exhibit A to the Existing Plan
 Effect of Amendments
 Binding Effect
 -8-




---



##### 



Severability
 Governing Law To The Extent Not Superseded By The Laws Of The United
States, This Amendment Shall Be Construed and Enforced in Accordance With, and the Rights of the Parties Shall Be Governed By, the Internal Laws of the State of
Texas, Without Reference to Principles of Conflicts of Law.
 In Witness Whereof
 Sterling Chemicals, Inc./s/
Richard K. CrumpRichard K. Crump, President and ChiefExecutive Officer
 -9-