alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(,) NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.C.

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

20 September 1976

MEMORANDUM FOR ADMIRAL MURPHY, D/DCl/IC

SUBJECT: Modification of the Classification and Dissemination Controls for

the Products of Reconnaissance Satellites

I have had the opportunity to informally review the paper prepared

for Mr. Bush to sign to the President on the above subject. I had the

distinct impression from my discussions with Mr. Bush at the NFIB meeting

that I would be given an opportunity to resolve a number of concerns I

d with the paper. I note here three points which I believe merit modifcation before the paper goes forward.

First, the paper states that there is no evidence that removal of

of the products of satellite reconnaissance from special security

ntrols has in any way jeopardized the ability of the Program to continue

provide intelligence. I believe this overstates the case, for there

in that e Soviets are working in the area of

so, there has been observed somewha

Since we do not know the motives behind

that this statement would be better left

t of the paper.

The second point is that I do not believe the pro and con arguments

re sufficiently well articulated.

The third point, which I consider very important, is the omission of

statement which appeared in the 1 July 1976 draft of this paper. The

last sentence assured that if the President granted the requested authority,

there would still be an airing of objections before policy changes were

implemented. I believe this statement should be retained in the final

memorandum. By virtue of point two, I believe additional discussion is

4arranted before a final decision is reache

Charles W. Cook

Deputy Director

Men PROM IMPIMIAIIIIMPC/MOULE Of

exacuTive ORDER SIM EXEMPTION CATE• GORY OW DECLAMIPY ON OAP 0E7.

IIIP—SfetEr OONTIIIL

COPY30

PAGE 1 OF I PAGES
n•S.

. •

•

•

It • .1, •

•

•

•••"

• 4

0.

••* • • • .• •

aoir}pN, SLIP .•

Colonel Hofmann 1

•

1; •

. . I 11

•••

".••n

Lt Colonel Cullinane

dl

Major Peyton

Copt Meaner

Marilyn 1•

▪

 • n 1 :•••

Loris . •

' Comments

••n ••••=1 •••••••• • • • •

.f

•
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Conservation Crop Rotation, Contour Farming, Integrated Pest Management, Irrigation Water Management, Nutrient Management.

**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.
Exhibit 10.3



                               Promissory Note
$ 75,000.00 USD                 Temple, Texas                Date April 4, 2001


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, after date, without grace, in the manner, on the dates, and
in the amounts so herein stipulated, the Undersigned, Communicate Now.com Inc.

PROMISE TO PAY TO THE ORDER OF : David Hancock, At Temple, Texas in Bell County 

              THE SUM OF SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000.00)

In lawful money of the United States of America, which shall be legal tender, in
payments of all debts and dues, public and private at the time of payment, and
to pay interest thereon from the date until maturity at the rate of 6.5% per
annum, payable as stipulated herein.

THIS NOTE IS DUE AND PAYABLE AS FOLLOWS TO WIT:

SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000.00) principal due in one year (on or
before April 04, 2002). Interest of 4,500.00 per year payable in monthly amounts
of $375.00 on the 04th of each month

IT IS AGREED that time is of the essence of this agreement, and that in the
event of default in the payment of any installment of principal or interest when
due, the holder of this note may declare the entirety of the evidenced herby due
and payable without notice, and failure to exercise said option shall not
constitute a waiver on part of the holder of the right to exercise the same at
any other time.

IN THE EVENT of default in the making of any payment herein provided, either or
principal or interest, or in the event the entirety of said note evidenced
hereby is declared due, interest shall accrue at the rate of 10.0% per annum
from such time.

THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY AGREES to pay all expenses incurred, including an
additional 10.0% on the amount of principal and interest hereof as attorney's
fees, all of which shall become part of the principal hereof, if this note is
placed in the hands of an attorney for collection, or if collected by suite or
through any probate, bankruptcy or other legal proceedings,

EACH MAKER, SURETY and endorser waives demand, grace, notice, presentment for
payment, and protest and agrees and consents that this note an the liens
securing its payment, may be renewed, and the time of payment extended without
notice, and without releasing any of the parties.


                             CommunicateNow.Com Inc.

                            David Hancock, President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         879,170
<SECURITIES>                                 6,007,182
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,957,131
<PP&E>                                         234,163
<DEPRECIATION>                                 108,984
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,248,631
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          214,068
<BONDS>                                      2,600,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        54,142
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,380,421
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,248,631
<SALES>                                            396
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               652,658
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,650,415
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             118,060
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,471,252)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,471,252)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,471,252)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.46)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    Exhibit 20.2



                             SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE

                      MELLON BANK (DE) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

                      MELLON BANK CREDIT CARD MASTER TRUST

                  The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Mellon
Bank (DE) National Association, as Servicer ("Mellon Bank (DE)"), pursuant to
Section 3.5 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1, 1995
(as may be amended and supplemented from time to time, the "Agreement"), among
Mellon Bank (DE), as Transferor and Servicer, and The Bank of New York, as
Trustee, does hereby certify that:

         1.       Mellon Bank (DE) is, as of the date hereof, Servicer under the
                  Agreement. Capitalized terms used in this Certificate have
                  their respective meanings as set forth in the Agreement.

         2.       The undersigned is a Servicing Officer who is duly authorized
                  pursuant to the Agreement to execute and deliver this
                  Certificate to the Trustee.

         3.       A review of the activities of Servicer during the fiscal year
                  ended December 31, 1998, and of its performance under the
                  Agreement was conducted under my supervision.

         4.       Based on such review, Servicer has, to the best of my
                  knowledge, performed in all material respects its obligations
                  under the Agreement throughout such year and no default in the
                  performance of such obligations has occurred or is continuing.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this
Certificate this 26th day of March, 1999.



                                          MELLON BANK (DE) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
                                            Servicer



                                          By     JOHN L. KLINCK, JR.
                                             ----------------------------
                                             Name:  John L. Klinck, Jr.
                                             Title: Senior Vice President
# C_2004219EN.01000101.xml

| 1.9.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 219/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 219/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

31 August 2004

(2004/C 219/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2111 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 133,05 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,438 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,6755 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1263 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5428 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 87,60 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,401 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9559 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5774 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 31,878 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 249,25 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6576 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4262 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4582 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 40 984 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,98 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 40,22 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 823 500 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7298 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5958 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,4466 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8596 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0754 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 395,01 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,089 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2111

JPY

Japanese yen

133,05

DKK

Danish krone

7,438

GBP

Pound sterling

0,6755

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1263

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5428

ISK

Iceland króna

87,60

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,401

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9559

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5774

CZK

Czech koruna

31,878

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

249,25

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6576

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4262

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4582

ROL

Romanian leu

40 984

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,98

SKK

Slovak koruna

40,22

TRL

Turkish lira

1 823 500

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7298

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5958

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,4466

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8596

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0754

KRW

South Korean won

1 395,01

ZAR

South African rand

8,089

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CATHERINE A. FERDETTA, *

* No. 15-835V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: May 10, 2016

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorney’s fees and costs.

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

*

Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Daniel R. Gage, Gage Fiore, LLC, Lawrenceville, NJ, for Petitioner;

Glenn A. MacLeod, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS1

On March 17, 2016, petitioner filed a motion for attorney fees. Upon review 

of petitioner’s motion, respondent filed a response. After a status conference on 

May 6, 2016, to discuss petitioner’s attorney fees motion, the Court awards these

amounts.

On August 5, 2016, Catherine A. Ferdetta filed a petition for compensation, 

alleging that the DTaP vaccine, which she received on August 16, 2012, caused 

development of a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”). 

Petitioner received compensation based upon the parties’ proffer. Decision, issued 

January 1, 2016. Because petitioner received compensation, she is entitled to an 

award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). 

 

1 The E-Government Act, 44 § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. 

Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of 

medical information or other information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any 

redactions ordered by the special master will appear in the document posted on the website.
2

In compliance with General Order #9, petitioner has filed a signed statement 

indicating petitioner incurred no out-of-pocket expenses. 

After reviewing the petitioner’s request, the Court awards the following:

A lump sum of $19,958.40, in the form of a check made payable to 

petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, Daniel R. Gage, for attorneys’ fees and 

other litigation costs available under 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e).

The Court thanks the parties for their cooperative efforts in resolving this 

matter. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

Any questions may be directed to my law clerk, Dan Hoffman, at (202) 357-

6360.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master
•

5 April 1973

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

SUBJECT: Scheduling of Reconnaissance Flights

(Meeting with ASD(I), 4 April 73)

1. We agreed that, whenever possible, requests for approval

of special flights would be handled through the current quick reaction

procedures of the 40 Committee. For a CIA-generated IDEALIST

request, DDS&T/OSA, with DCI approval, will notify NRO and JRC

by existing procedures of the proposed flight plan and then members

of the 40 Committee by appropriate expeditious means:

Z. DOD also expressed concern about the situation in which

a more general report is submitted to higher authority which embodies

recommendations which are likely to lead to immediate requests for

action. In such cases, e.g. the Carver committee report to WSAG.

ASD(I) would like the DCI to judge if action is imminent and notify

DOD so planning could commence, e.g. SR-7I overflight or IDEALIST

support. This request is motivated by frustration with the occasions

in which CIA is better informed than DOD regarding likely action requests

and gets a major head start on planning. While this frustration is

understandable. I stated I could not commit the DCI to such notification

HANDLE V

CONTROL S

.0 .1% .1.

• •

ALI

I10211/73 •

• WHIM ifilAY
ipp 2 o. 110211/73

TIP. 

•

• 1;:"• "

Ir I

as a practical .

 matter. .We will attempt to insure that DOD

representation is appropriate on such committees and that the DOD

member is kept informed of progress and estimates of outcome.

DDS&T, when appropriate, will inform the DNRO and the JRC when

initiating such anticipatory flight planning.

Lew Allen, Jr.

Major General, USAF

HANDLE V

CONTROL Se i nr

--.'"".!".:-"T- •

•
----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 17 February 2005

in Joined Cases C-453/02 and C-462/02: (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof) Finanzamt Gladbeck v Edith Linneweber and Finanzamt Herne-West v Savvas Akritidis (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Exemption for games of chance - Determination of the conditions and limitations to which the exemption is subject - Liability of games organised outside public casinos - Respect for the principle of fiscal neutrality - Article 13B( f) - Direct effect)

(2005/C 93/02)

Language of the case: German

In Joined Cases C-453/02 and C-462/02: references for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by decisions of 6 November 2002, received at the Court on 13 and 23 December 2002, in the proceedings Finanzamt Gladbeck v Edith Linneweber (C-453/02 and Finanzamt Herne-West v Savvas Akritidis (C-462/02) – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.F. Contet, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 February 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

----

(1)OJ C 70 of 22.03.2003.

----
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Access Control , Critical Area Planting, Fence, Forage and Biomass Planting, Forest Stand Improvement, Heavy Use Area Protection, Herbaceous Weed Control, Recreation Land Grading and Shaping, Trails and Walkways, Tree/Shrub Establishment, Tree/Shrub Pruning, Windbreak/Shelterbelt Establishment, Windbreak/Shelterbelt Renovation.

**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.
#### Freeman-Beddow Shoe Manufacturing Company, Respondent, vs. White and another, Appellants.

For the appellants: *George A. Garrigan*of Beloit.

For the respondent: *Woolsey, Arnold & Johnston*of Beloit.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
# C_2005123EN.01001201.xml

| 21.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/12

---

FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME FOR JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CIVIL MATTERS

FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME FOR JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CIVIL MATTERS

Call for proposals for financial support for the activities of non-governmental organisations 2006

(2005/C 123/09)

A call for proposals concerning the FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME FOR JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CIVIL MATTERS is currently launched. The priorities, the full text of the call, the application forms and the guidelines can be found on the website:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/funding/civil_cooperation/funding_civil_cooperation_en.htm

You must return the completed application form and all its annexes to the Commission by 29 July 2005, at the following address:

29 July 2005

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate General Justice Freedom and Security (Unit C.4) |
| Office LX 46 00/151 |
| B-1049 Brussels |

European Commission

Directorate General Justice Freedom and Security (Unit C.4)

Office LX 46 00/151

B-1049 Brussels

Your envelope must be marked ‘APPLICATION UNDER THE FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME FOR JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CIVIL MATTERS’

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-30758

Summary Calendar

 

ANTHONY RAINES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BARON KAYLO; RABAYLA, Warden; UNKNOWN OFFICER,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(01-CV-458)

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

October 15, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Anthony Raines, Louisiana prisoner

#350255, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. §

1983 complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), as

frivolous. Raines contends that the district court erred in

refusing to appoint counsel to represent him in this suit. He also

asserts that the district court improperly dismissed his claims

against prison officials for violating the Eighth Amendment by

failing to protect him from injuries incurred during an attack by

another inmate.
2

As Raines’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint did not involve any

exceptional circumstances, and as the documents filed by Raines

indicate that he was able to present his claims to the court

adequately and intelligently, the district court was not compelled

to appoint counsel for Raines. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d

209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982).

Not every injury “by one prisoner at the hands of another

. . . translates into constitutional liability for prison officials

responsible for the victim’s safety.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

825, 834 (1994). Raines has not shown that he was “incarcerated

under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm and that

prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his need for

protection.” Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, the district court was within its discretion in

dismissing Raines’s Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims as

frivolous. Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997).

The district court’s dismissal of Raines’s complaint as

frivolous counts as a “strike” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385 (5th Cir. 1996). Raines

is warned that if he accumulates three “strikes,” he will no longer

be allowed to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while

he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g).

AFFIRMED. SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.