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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6233

PERRY L. COLTER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

OFFICE OF THE STATE’S ATTORNEY FOR BALTIMORE

CITY; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF

MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA01-1327-CCB)

Submitted: June 18, 2002 Decided: July 3, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Perry L. Colter, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Perry L. Colter seeks to appeal the district court’s order (1)

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2001); and (2) denying his motion filed under 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). Colter has already filed two

prior appeals from this same district court order, and now seeks to

raise the identical claims that he raised in the previous appeals.

Because we have already considered and dismissed these claims with

regard to the same order in the prior appeals, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See Colter v.

Office of the State’s Attorney for Baltimore City, No. 02-6124(L),

2002 WL 440394 (4th Cir. Mar. 21, 2002) (unpublished). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Approved for Release: 2022/02/10 C05134202 

· lllP SECRET 

%NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

BYEMAN 

CONTROS snuw 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIJl-!'11111111 

OFFICE 

THE NRO STAFF April 19, 1972 

BYEMAN 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD 

SUBJECT: Canadian Proposed Registration Convention 

On April 14 I accompanied Mr. Dwayne Anderson to the 

State Department where members of State were meeting with 

Canadian representatives to discuss the Canadian initiative 

for registration of space objects. Mr. Hosely Han<lyside, 

Mr. Frank Perez, Lt Col Dick Campbell, and }tr. John Armitage 

were present from State. Mr. David Cooper, who is the 

Canadian representative to the UN Legal Subcommittee 

represented the Canadians and was accompanied by Mr. Seymour. 

Based upon Mr. Spiers 1 recent conversation with the 

Canadian Ambassador, the U.S. reservations to the proposed 

initiative were understood by both parties. The purpose of 

the meeting was to clarify for the Canadians the reasons for 

the U.S. objections. The discussion centered primarily about 

the amount of detail which would be required under Section II, 

and the Canadians' reasons for asking for such detail versus 

the U.S. reservations about furni.shing it. The bulk of the 

U.S. argument was presented by Mr. Anderson. The Canadians 

backed off considerably in many of their positions and 

offered interpretations which would considerably facilitate 

reporting of space objects. For example, they readily 

agre_ed that reporting could be after-the-fact and not beforethe-fact; that orbi.tal parameters could be limited to those 

elements of information now furnished in the monthly report 

to the United Nations; that descriptions of objects in space 

could be very gross, and not truly indicative of their size, 

exact shape or mission. 

IBP SEBREJ [,ClUC[C r•oM AUTOMATIC "'""'"'"" 

000 DIHC"V( '200 10 DOCS NOlH>L, 

Approved for Release: 2022/02/10 C05134202 
BYEMAH 

Approved for Release: 2022/02/10 C05134202,f 

1 or Jturu:. BYEMAH 

The tone of the meeting was cordial and informal. In 

concluding, Mr. Handyside pointed out that there are parties 

in the U.S. Government that seriously object to any space 

object registration convention, and question the need for it. 

The Canadians replied that they are well aware of this and, 

while they did not expect their proposal to be readily accepted, 

still believe that it is required. They base their argument 

in large part on the fact that the Space Liability Convention 

was recently signed and they feel that the Registration 

Convention is needed in order to make the Liability provisions 

workable. 

FREDERICK L, HOFMANN 

Lt Colonel, USAF 

l"BP SE6REl" 

HCCUOEO cao~ ,u,oM•llC ••G"'"'"" 

OGO o:o,cr:., ""° ,o DOES"°'""" 

Approved for Release: 2022/02/10 C05134202
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         244,346
<SECURITIES>                                 1,750,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,893
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    103,142
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,452,303
<PP&E>                                       3,876,918
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,628,404
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,135,859
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,182,755
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  6,000,000
<COMMON>                                       103,784
<OTHER-SE>                                  (2,553,904)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,135,859
<SALES>                                      2,632,213
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,632,213
<CGS>                                        2,463,940
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,577,034
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               306,112
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             251,566
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,846,792
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,846,792
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,846,792
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.81
        

</TABLE>
# CA2004193EN.01000301.xml

| 29.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 193/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 193/3

---

CALL FOR APPLICATIONS ACER-B-2004

CALL FOR APPLICATIONS ACER-B-2004

(2004/C 193 A/02)

The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) seeks candidates with a view to filling certain posts. Detailed information on these vacancies, the missions of the Centre and the procedure to be followed to prepare an application are published on the EUMC Internet site at the following address : http://eumc.eu.int.

---
<PAGE>   1

                                EXHIBIT 10.32 (b)

                                                                January 12, 2001
VIA HAND DELIVERY

Mr. David W. Johnson, Jr.
300 Harwell Drive
Columbia, SC  29223

Re:      Employment Agreement

Dear David:

         We refer to that certain employment agreement entered into by and
between you and us, dated as of June 3, 1993 (the "Agreement"). All initially
capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed
to them in the Agreement.

         As you know, the term of your employment terminated according to its
terms on December 31, 2000 (the "Termination Date"). In connection therewith,
there had been some question regarding the application of the provisions of
Section 4(e) on and after the Termination Date. This letter shall serve to
confirm our mutual understanding and interpretation of the effect and
application of said section.

         Section 4(e) provides, in relevant part, that we shall purchase and pay
all premiums on life insurance policies providing for coverage, cash value
accretion and other terms commensurate with your position with us and that this
obligation shall survive termination of the Agreement. As you know, the policies
described on the attached Exhibit A are in force and premiums therefor have been
paid through the dates specified in such exhibit.

         We believe, and it is our understanding that you concur, that the
application of Section 4(e) presents certain ambiguities. Therefore, you and we
have agreed, in effect, to amend the Agreement to provide that by paying
premiums through the Termination Date for the policies described on Exhibit A we
have complied fully with all our obligations under the Agreement relating to the
payment of premiums for life insurance policies, including the provisions of
Section 4(e). Finally, you and we agree to execute and deliver any further
documentation necessary to carry out the terms of this letter as may be
requested by our counsel.

         If the foregoing accurately sets forth our mutual understanding with
respect to the matters set forth herein, kindly countersign the enclosed
duplicate original of this letter in the space provided and return it to me.

                                                  Very truly yours,

                                                  /s/ Douglas K. Freeman

                                                  Douglas K. Freeman
                                                  Chairman and CEO

The foregoing is hereby accepted and agreed to
this 12 day of January, 2001

/s/ David W. Johnson, Jr.

David W. Johnson, Jr.
AFS-10-406-E Oct 14 2010

Exemption No. 8794B Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26039

Captain Lyle Hogg Vice President, Flight Operations US Airways, Inc. 4000 East Sky Harbor Boulevard Phoenix, AZ 85034

Dear Captain Hogg:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8794, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated September 21, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of US Airways, Inc. (US Ai rways), for an extension of Exemption No. 8794, as amended. That exemption from § 121.434 (c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows US Airways to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in §121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to US Airways.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8794, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8794, as amended, to October 31, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8794, as amended, remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8794.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service
r - • 

E-'1 

*.* ••••••••• *"' •• *.*.****.*. 

RourINE '" .. ."' •••••• * ••••••• *.** •• '***.'" 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 25 JULY 2012 

MO 8 00534 01 219 211311+ 

.AFlN:11729 (6 Oct 71) L/wtp 

'\ 

ACTICli~ SAFSS-3, INFO: RD-4 (aD) 

RTlSZYUW RUW~EB~3519 2792008-SSSS--RUEFHGA. 

lNY SSSSS 

R 061730Z OCT:71 061730 

fM SAMSO LOS ANGELES AfS' CALIf 

TO RUEFHGA/OSAf/SAfSS 

-_._,-------" RUEK~CSIOSO/ARPA 

RUEF~QA/HQ USAf/ROPM 

RUEOAWA/AFSC/DO/ANCREWS AFB MO RUW~ABA/SAMSO/RN/NORTON AfB CA 

RUWMFHA!AFSCf/DET '1 DOlA/SUNNYVALE CA 

INFO RUClBQH/AFETRJOOOT/PATRqCK AFB FLA 

RUE8NHA/MIT/l GHANSCOM FLO MA 

BT 

sEc RET lIMOIS CCOS. 

T~E ~OlLOWING MSG IS A RE-TRANSMITTAl Of OUR 291630Z S(P 71 

AMENDED T () I NCtUDE AD01 TIONA LA.DDR[SSE ES. 

SUBJECT: TRAP/PRESS SPECIAL MISSION REQUEST. 

1. IN JULY 71 TR.P AND PRESS RESPONDED TO AN URGENT REQUEST BY 

THIS O~fIC[ TO CONDUCT HIGH RESOLUTION PHOTOGRAPHY or A DATA 

CAPSULE ANDPARACHUT[ IN THE HAWAIIAN AREA. WE ARE PLANNING 

TO CONDuer UP TO fOUR SIMILAR TESTS IN THE NEAR FUTURE FOR 

WHICH WE REQUEST TRAP/PRESS SUPPORT. CURRENT PLANNING IS TO 

PAGE 2 RUW~EBA3S19 5 e @ RET lIMDIS 

CONOUCT ALL fOUR'TEST DURING THE PERIOD 23 NOV 71 TO 7 .... AN 12. 

SAFSS SHOULD MAKE aRRANGEMENTS FOR THE APPROPRIATE 

PRIORITv. 

2. A~ OPERATIONS PLAN IS 8EING DRAFTED ~HICH WILL COVER 

TEsr DESCRIPTION. KEY PERSONNEL. COMMUNICATIONS AN£: 

TIME LINE. THIS WILL BE AVAllABE FOR REVIEW BY 18 OCT 71. 

SUGGEST A MEETING~T SAMSO. BLDG 110. R~ 2213 AT 0900 ON 

19 OCT 71 TO; CONDUCT MISSION PLANNING AND REVIEW T~E OPS 

PLAN DRAfT. PROSPECTlVE ATTENDEES SHOULD SUBMIT 

CLEARANCES TO SA~SO'fSPOV' WITH AN INfO COpy TO MA~OR M. 

BUCHEN (SAMSO/CCSO)~ PROJECT OffICER IS MAJOR M. 8UCHEN 

fA U T 0 VON· 8 3 3 -1 594 J' (GP -1 ) • 

8T 

#3519 

NNNN 

..................... * ........... . ROUTINE .. : 5 E e ~ ET • 

..... "''''« ..... * .............. ..
1St NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE •

WASHINGTON. D.C.

OFFICE O F THE D:RECTOR June 3, 1970

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Meeting with Mr. Packard, 2 June 70

We discussed several classified subjects:

NRO Budget. I told Packard that I had been reviewing

our NRO budget and that there were several items in it which

amounted to quite a bit of money; that we were not going to

operate at the level which we had in mind earlier, and•that

I therefore felt we could take a fairly sizeable cut without

being hurt too much. He said that this was good to know

because we probably will have to take those cuts.

TAGBOARD. I told Dave that the drone would be ready

to go in aweek s time and that we were in the process of

trying to draw up a mission plan which would cover the target

area in the optimum fashion. He expressed gratification that

the flight had been approved by the "40 Committee."

-2R. I told him that we had terminated the U-2R

tivity in Southeast Asia, that we had a few minor

which we didn't feel were fundamental but which were

compromising our ability to make a good evaluation. I indicated we would fix the equipment and complete the evaluation

later.

Briefing to Disarmament Committee. We reviewed the

briefing which Bob Naka gave to the General Advisory Committee

on Arms Control and Disarmament. The most significant item

to come out of that session was the strong stand taken by

Dean Rusk that we should do nothing to compromise the security

of the NRP. Rusk feels very strongly. He mentioned that he

did not accept the fact that the Russians are as dependent on

IDEALIST TAGBOARD

TOPSECREF VIC:A.01D 0000 00 •0%., Oecipac.o

COO 0 Of et 1100 '0 001$ O. 01.14.•

mom No

"
overhead photography as we are, because they have maintained •

a very extensive espionage system; where/AO we have gotten away

from that kind of thing, except for our overhead photography .

and SIGINT. Rusk also mentioned that he-had briefed many

foreign ministers during his term of office and that he wasn't

too sure that all those people would continue to keep quiet if

the cur it restrict were modified. Another e

s. Packard reac

in view of the fact that Mr. Laird plans to brief some of the

NATO Ministers, he would like to get Dean Rusk's views in front

of Laird before he goes over. He will try to get a review of the

proceedings from John McCloy and pass it to Mel.

John L. McLucas

-TOPSECRET MIAMI" /111011 111/1101111TIC oconsotos

MO onocson silo to son stow ones

Monfto0

no, moon

1051-12-—op.-2-- Pans
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 Puerto Rico - Fiscal Year 2024
NRO APPRQVEO f OR RELEASE 

DECI.ASSIFIEO BY: CnART 

OECLASSIFIED ON: 28 JULY 201 2
# Amendments for Treatment of Agricultural Waste (au) (591) Conservation Practice Standard

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Amendments for Treatment of Agricultural Waste (au) (591) Conservation Practice Standard 

Download the national Amendments for Treatment of Agricultural Waste (au) (591) conservation practice standard and supporting documents.

## National Standard Document

NOTICE - National conservation practice standards should not be used to plan, design or install a conservation practice. To find these documents at the local level, visit our FOTG website.

Conservation Practice Name (Units) (Code) (Date Issued)

Amendments for Treatment of Agricultural Waste (au) (591) (9/2020) Standards Document(69.31 KB)

###   Supporting Documents

Amendments for Treatment of Agricultural Waste Conservation Practice Overview (418.73 KB)

Amendments for Treatment of Agricultural Waste Conservation Practice Physical Effects Worksheet(25.47 KB)

Amendments for Treatment of Agricultural Waste Network Effects Diagram(81.24 KB)

##   Additional Information

### Conservation Practice Standards

On this page find links to national conservation practice standards and supporting documents.
Learn More

### Conservation Practice Standards Information

Learn about the information provided in conservation practice standards and supporting documents, such as overviews, worksheets, and network effects diagrams.
Learn More
March 24, 2015

Mr. Brandon Batie

1373 Emerson Lane

Milford, OH 45150

Dear Mr. Batie:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your February 3, 2015 exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

0293), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of 

the relief you seek.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9521.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
# C_2005019EN.01000701.xml

| 22.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/7

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 2 December 2004

in Case C-48/04: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (1)

1

(Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/76/EC - Incineration of waste - Failure to transpose)

(2005/C 19/12)

Language of the case: Portuguese

In Case C-48/04: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: A. Caeiros and M. Konstantinidis) v Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes and F. Andrade) – ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 6 February 2004 – the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President of Chamber, N. Colneric and E. Levits (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 December 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, in particular those under Article 21(1) thereof; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, in particular those under Article 21(1) thereof;

| 2. | Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 20.3.2004.

1

---
# .



# . ~ 

# ALBEMARLE® 

# J )1C O R P O R A T I O N 725 Cannon Bridge Road Telephone : 803-534-5781 P .O . Box 1028 Facsimile: 803-536-0981 Orangeburg, SC 29116-1028 

## April 16, 2007

Ms . Catherine Roman Project Manager Chemical Information and Testing Branch United States Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave ., NW, 7407M EPA East, Room

6428 Washington, DC 20004 Dear Ms. Roman:

SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTlON 

### This letter is to document my conversation with you regarding the use of acetyl chloride (CAS No. 75-36-5) at Albemarle Corporation's Orangeburg site. Please accept this letter as f'- .' confirmation that acetyl chloride manufactured and/or imported to the Orangeburg site is onN ; used to make pharmaceuticals. To the extent this changes we understand it may have implications for our TSCA inventory list. If you have any questions, please call me at (803) 539-5283 . Sincerely

M . G . Clisby MGC :dw - MAIL 7006 0100 l N Complete items 1, 2, and 3 . Also complete item 4if Restricted Delivery Is desired. CERTIFIED 

### cc : Kim Boudeaux - Albemar " Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. m Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1 . Article Addressed to: 

# CONTAINS NOCBI Ms. Catherine Roman TSCA CBiC USEPA EPAEast, Room

6428 1200 Pennsylvania Ave . . Washington, DC

. Acetyl Chloride to EPA MV. 7407M

2 . Article Number (T ransferfromservice label) 

### p



## - i



## R 1A COMPLETE THIS SECTIOti' ON DELIVERY A . si9rlature 

## Xf 7 ., : ,., .. 0 Agent 0 Addressee C . Dale qf.,DAlivery D . Is delivery address different fromitem 1? O Yes it YES, enterdelivery address below : O No

3 . Service TYPO gcerttiled mail O Express Mail Registered [3 Return Receipt for Merchandise I] insured mail O C .O .D . 4 . Restricted Delivery? (Exba Fee) OYes 

### 7006 0100 0005 3008 5654 PS Form3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540