alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
r":ENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY -::~~~c. .... .,... __ iJWIlt~ WASHINGTON 25. D. C. NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DECLASSIFIED ON: 1 OCTOBER 2012 

Honorable David E. Bell 

Director 

Bureau of the Budget 

Washington 25, D. C. 

Dear Mr. Bell: 

The purpose of this letter is to set forth procedure s to 

govern CIA's responsibility for funding covert projects for which 

it has management re~ponsibi1ity under the NRO agreement: 

(1) The budget for the programs of NRP 

for which CIA has management responsibility will 

be initially formulated within CIA and will then be 

coordinated with NRO and be approved by DNRO. 

(2) CIA will continue .to include in its budget 

submission a request for new obligational authority 

adequate to finance those covert overhead reconnaissance progranis for which the Agency has management 

responsibility under the NRO. 

(3) The DNRO with appropriate CIA representation 

will explain and justify to the Bureau of the Budget the 

over-all budget for NRP. Within the program levels 

approved by DNRO and in coordination with DNRO, CIA 

will provide detailed explanation and justification of the 

budget request for those programs for which it has 

managelnent responsibility under NRO. 

Copy IA of 8 Copie s 

BYE 4285~62 
r 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DECLASSIFIED BY: CIIART 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 1 OCTOBER 2012 

(4) CIA \vill continue to secure appropria.tions 

from Congress to fund those covert overhead reconnaissance programs for which it has management responsibility 

under NRO. CIA will cX1Jlain and justify these programs 

to the special subcommittees of Congress concerned \vith 

the CIA budget in accord with existing procedure s. 

(S) Funds appropriated to CIA which were justified 

for covert progra.ms included within the NRP will not be 

diverted to purposes not related to the NRP. 

SEGliE, 

Sincerely, 

\ ) -!J 

.-_.- t· ·.J'i~ JJ~J 1\ .4.. . .4 • lJ o~n A. McCone 

Dit-ector of Central Intelligence 

Robert S. McNamara 

Secretary of Defense 

Copy 1 of 3 Copie s
**Memorandum to Docket EPA -**  **R09 -**  **OAR -**  **2012 -**  **0904**

**Date:** May

15, 2013 **From:** Francisco Dóñez **Re:** EPA
- ADEQ meetings on Arizona Regional Haze SIP action EPA Region 9 and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) held a series of meetings between January 31, 2013 and May

2, 2013 to discuss EPA’s pending action on the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the state of Arizona. The main issue under discussion was how ADEQ could modify its submitted Regional Haze SIP to avoid EPA partial d isapproval of certain elements of the SIP. Staff members from both agencies invited to these meetings were as follows. ADEQ: Eric C. Massey , Trevor Baggiore, Steven M. Calderon, Lisa M. Tomczak , Balaji Vaidy anathan, Bryan Paris, Ry an Templeton EPA: Col leen McKaughan, Gregory Nudd, Charlotte Withey , Eugene Chen, Scott Bohning, Geoffrey

Glass, Katherine Hoag, Shaheerah Kelly , Francisco Dóñez, Thomas Webb Call dates : Thursday , January

31, 2013, 12:00 noon to 1:00 PM

– See docket item C
- 3 for more informat ion. Thursday , March 28, 2013, 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM Thursday , April 11, 2013, 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM Thursday , April 18, 2013, 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM Monday , April 29, 2013, 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM Thursday , May

2, 2013, 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM
__,__...__ .... ""°""' 

Approved for ~Rel~ase~ 2020/02/07 C05111723 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON ;/.0330 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllmllUllllllllllllllll 14 00078309D 

November 4, 1969 

MEMORANDUM FO AFSPP 

SUBJECT: Request for Removal of Materials 

This memorandum responds to your request for a formal 

statement of our requirement for removal of material produced 

at Kawecki-Berylco, Hazelton, Pennsylvania. 

Kawecki-Berylco is producing several beryllium sheets for 

Hughes Aircraft Company for shipment to Republic Aviation, 

Farmingdale, L. I., New York for subsequent fabrication. It is 

our understanding that the prospects for a near-term settlement 

of the strike at Berylco are not good; therefore, we request your 

assistance in obtaining the removal of the following materials: 

Purchase Order No. 

186 240 

186 241 

186 242 

186 256 

Status 

4 sheets ready for shipment 

4 sheets to be ready on November 5 

4 sheets to be ready on November 5 

2 sheets to be ready on November 5 

This material is urgently required in the accomplishment of 

Program 390, which is in the BRICKBAT category on the Master 

Urgency List. 

Hughes Aircraft Company, with government concurrence, waives 

the requirement for in-plant inspection of this material. 

EXCLUDED I•'R0:1! AUTOUATIC RF.GRADIUG; 

DOD DIR. 5200.10 DOES NOT APPLY 

OS 69-5654 Ad -SECRET 

SAFSS 0012-69 

Copy Z 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111723 
Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111723 

;,,~J);\:_ L -

In addition to the above material, Kawecki-Berylco has produced 

two (2) central shaft blanks under Job No. 58-8269 (25 3 / 4 inches 

long by 6 1 / 2 inches in diameter, 8 lbs each) for shipment to American 

Beryllium Corporation. We understand that the blanks are ready for 

shipment. These blanks are also urgently required for Program 390. 

The Kawecki-Berylco contacts on this item are Mr. John Carroll or 

Mr. Michael Hawk, phone 717 455-4913. The contact at American 

Beryllium Corporation is Mr. Ron Murray, phone 813 355-5105. 

American Beryllium Corporation is located at: 

U.S. Highway 301 

Pollevas t Road 

Sarasota, Florida 

We request that you arrange with the appropriate contract administration agency for the removal and shipment of the above materials. 

Please contact this office if any further information is required. 

2 

Captain, USAF 

Asst Deputy Director 

for Plans & Policy 

Office of Space Systems 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111723
SIRED:

1.17.22 1.

Catrat %• a.

CePT—Lof--1•—Coplos 2 iaczes •

Csaroi

7, r=0:7-i•

'•, r••

Lisla 1.3 .

n••••••

tt

• • .

.

%•n••

Oa

WASIONOTON

OFFIGIC Of TAM ASIMSTANT TAIRY

December 7, 1965

DNRO ACTION MEMORANDUM NO. 6

SUBJECT: Terms of Reference for Task Group on Status of Effort

on Photographic Sensor Subsystem for

I. PURPOSE: 

a. To provide information to the DNRO which he can use to assist'

him in determining actions at the camera contractors both before and

during source selection. In accomplishing this purpose, the present

and projected status of the effort on each of the designs of a photo- .

r subs stem under consideration for all111111111 '

e determined.

a. The results of this review will be summarized in a written

report. This report will include, in a form which permits easy

comparison, at least the following:

Background: The funding, project objectives, direction

and authorization, manpower, etc. , given to date. .This background

should only go back as far as pertinent (for example: prior effort

on alternative design concepts is not required).

Present Status: The state, as of the date of the review,

of system design, contractor analyses (lens, focus, film handling,

synchronization drives, thermal, error budgets, etc); of tests,

experiments, and/or breadboard demonstrations; hardware being

assembled, etc. The report should clearly differentiate between

tasks already completed, in progress, and those to be initiated.
^74-'1

u. • t'

.• • • -. I:

L!

Paw)

-8-65 Control IMAM OI— ON*

•• .! t.!.

$74,w-ern

1110 Wes •••I ‘•

•

411

-• 

• •

'

(3) Projected Status: The projected state of the project on

January 1, February 1, March 1, and April 1, under conditions of

level effort, previously planned effort (if up or down), and an

acceleration of the contractor effort.

III. PROCEDURE:

This task will be accomplished by an ad hoc group composed

of the following personnel:

Colonel D. L. Carter, NRO Staff, Chairman

Colonel H. C. Howard, NRO Staff, Member

Mr. L. C. Dirks, OSP CIA, Member

Mr. James CIA, Member

Maj • FSP, Member

Mr SA P Member

The group will meet at the call of the chairman at places he

may designate. Participation by members in the activities of this

Task Group will take precedence over all other assignments.

Task Group members may use other Government personnel

as consultants, during the review, if desired.

The Task Group should keep in mind that this is a fact-finding

undertaking. It is not a preliminary source selection, a technical

analysis of the competitive designs, nor a judgment on the appropriate-

,:

: - • ness of direction given to the contractor, or of contractor competence.

„ .

•

•

e. The Task Group will submit its report to the DNRO not later

than 1500 hours, December 13, 1965.

exander H. Flax

Director

National Reconnaissance Office

Distribution:

; SA FSS f-! Dir, CIA Rec Pgms

SA FSP
# C_2005084EN.01000501.xml

| 6.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/5

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3753 — Kodak/Creo)

(2005/C 84/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | On 29 March 2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Eastman Kodak Company (‘Kodak’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Creo Inc. (‘Creo’, Canada) by way of purchase of shares. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 29 March 2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Eastman Kodak Company (‘Kodak’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Creo Inc. (‘Creo’, Canada) by way of purchase of shares.

1

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for undertaking Kodak: to produce and sell images printing equipment, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for undertaking Kodak: to produce and sell images printing equipment,

| — | for undertaking Creo: active in lithographic printing industry. |
| --- | --- |

—

for undertaking Creo: active in lithographic printing industry.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.3753 — Kodak/Creo, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition, |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Brussels |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.3753 — Kodak/Creo, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition,

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Brussels

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
J -A24018-19 

2020 PA Super 130 

TRUST UNDER WILL OF AUGUSTUS 

T. ASHTON, DECEASD DATED 

JANUARY 20, 1950 

APPEAL OF: PNC BANK, N.A. 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

: No. 3609 EDA 2018 

Appeal from the Order Entered July 9, 2018 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Orphans' Court at 

No(s): No. 1039 of 1952 

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and COLINS, J.* 

DISSENTING STATEMENT BY COLINS, J.: FILED JUNE 03, 2020 

I respectfully dissent. I would affirm on the opinion of the trial court. 

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
# C_2005140EN.01000601.xml

| 9.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3785 — TPG/APAX/TIM Hellas)

(2005/C 140/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 26 May 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 32005M3785. 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 32005M3785. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

EDDIE RAY GRAY,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 357 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of February, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-95007, Form S-8 No. 333-40466 and Form S-8 No. 333-69722)
pertaining to the 1996 Equity Incentive Plan, 1999 Equity Incentive Plan, 1999
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1999 Non-Employee Directors' Stock Option Plan
and the 2001 Non-Statutory 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 25, 2002, with respect to
the financial statements of Caliper Technologies Corp. included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 26, 2002
Order entered August 27, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00662-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.I.M., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 219-56047-2009

ORDER

Before the Court is the August 26, 2014 motion of Rebecca Tillery to withdraw the brief 

filed by appellee Brent Blackmore. On July 7, 2014, we granted Ms. Tillery’s motion to 

withdraw as counsel for appellee Brent Blackmore. In her August 26, 2014 motion, Ms. Tillery 

explains that the brief was erroneously e-filed on August 26, 2014. We GRANT the motion and 

STRIKE the brief tendered to this Court on August 26, 2014.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
.26 February 1974

MEMDRANDIR4 FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Visits of Mr. Jim Holt (OMB)

Mr. Jim Holt has replaced Mr. Charlie Sorrels in the Office

of Management and Budget and has been assigned the responsibility of following NRP affairs. From time to time he will be

contacting lumbers of the Staff for information and requesting

contacts with other members of the NRO. As with Mr. Sorrels,

I request that we provide Mr. Holt with our fullest cooperation.

However, in order that Mr. Bolt's requests are not disruptive

to our normal operations and to be of maximum assistance in

providing the information that he desires while assuring that

this information is not misinterpreted, there are.guidelines

which should be followed.

The following provides the terms of reference for arranging

visits by Mr. Holt to the NRP Program Offices, contractors,

launch bases, etc.

The sole point of contact for arranging visits

will be the NRO Staff. Visit notifications and security

clearances will be passed only by the Staff.

It will be the general practice on visits to

Program Offices that Mr. Holt will be accompanied by a member

of the NRO Staff. On visits to contractors and other facilities

he should be accompanied by a member of the NRO Staff and/or a

representative from the Program Office.

Mr. Holt will provide the NRO Staff a written (may

be handwritten) list of those topics and questions he wishes

to obtain information on. This list will be reviewed by the

Staff and the Program Office prior to the visit and may be

adjusted as appropriate.

There will be no funding information dismissed

diring any of the visits. The sole source of funding information will be the NRO Comptroller.

CONTROL NO Internal

COPY OF COF 1ES

PAGE 1 OF -T--- PAGES 110/10as. Wien I VP VISONSWIt 110101111 IISSIVROgemse

UM INVAINVI1 Vs NM We

•
%/411111111

5. In the event Mr. Holt requests written information

or copies of information presented to him during briefings

from NRO Program Offices or contractors, such information will

be provided to the NRO Staff and forwarded to Mr. Holt by the

Staff. When possible, a verbal report on briefing and discussion information given to Mr. Holt will be provided to the

Staff. If a memo for the record is written on his visit we

should request a copy.

These items, although not explicitly discussed with

Mr. Holt, have been discussed in general and we will assure

that he understands the terms of reference pertaining to

visits as contained in this memo.

, Jr.

rigadier General, USAF

Director, NRO Staff

cal1111111111 SPAN' Mae op

ILINCIOW• IMMO Ma MoinfftrAm

Yaw INNINCialliMir NInoNf

CONTROL NO

COPY OP COPIES

PAGE--2-OF -7- PAGES
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1171 

To establish a moratorium on oil and gas-related seismic activities off the 

coastline of the State of Florida, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 30, 2015 

Mr. NELSON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To establish a moratorium on oil and gas-related seismic 

activities off the coastline of the State of Florida, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Seismic Moratorium 

5 Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1171 IS

1 SEC. 2. MORATORIUM ON OIL AND GAS-RELATED SEISMIC 

2 ACTIVITIES IN THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC 

3 ZONE OFF THE COASTLINE OF THE STATE OF 

4 FLORIDA. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection 

6 (b) and notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 

7 person may conduct geological or geophysical activities (as 

8 those terms are described in the final programmatic envi9 ronmental impact statement of the Bureau of Ocean En10 ergy Management entitled ‘‘Atlantic OCS Proposed Geo11 logical and Geophysical Activities, Mid-Atlantic and South 

12 Atlantic Planning Areas’’ and completed February 2014) 

13 in support of oil or gas exploration and development in 

14 any area located within the exclusive economic zone (as 

15 defined in section 107 of title 46, United States Code) 

16 located off the coastline of the State of Florida. 

17 (b) TERMINATION OF MORATORIUM.—The morato18 rium described in subsection (a) shall only be terminated 

19 if the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmos20 pheric Administration determines that the reasonably 

21 foreseeable impacts of the geological or geophysical activi22 ties described in subsection (a) to individuals or popu23 lations of marine mammals, sea turtles, or fish are mini24 mal. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Denied; and Opinion Filed May 15, 2015

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-00622-CV

IN RE PROGRESSIVE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-06233

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang, Fillmore, and Brown

Opinion by Justice Lang

Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus complaining that the trial court has not 

ruled on its motion to allow the late designation of a medical expert. Relator requests that the 

Court order the trial court to allow it to designate its expert witness and to allow any related 

discovery necessary to fairly allow the parties to prepare for trial. Relator further requests that 

the Court order the trial judge to continue the date of trial to a time that will accommodate its 

expert designation and related discovery. 

The mandamus record demonstrates that the trial court conducted a hearing on the motion 

on April 13, 2015, but has not yet advised the parties of its ruling on the motion. Thus, at this 

juncture, there is no ruling of the trial court that we may evaluate for abuse of discretion and 

adequacy of appellate remedy. The case is set for trial on May 18, 2015. The mandamus record 

does not demonstrate that the trial court does not intend to rule on this matter before trial 

commences.
–2–

Because the trial court has not yet ruled, the relief relator requests in its petition is not 

consistent with relator’s complaint that the trial court has abused its discretion in failing to rule. 

While the Court may, by mandamus, direct the trial court to make a decision, we may not tell the 

trial court what that decision should be. Crofts v. Court of Civil Appeals, 362 S.W.2d 101, 104

(Tex. 1962); State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 n.3 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2001); In re Tasby, 40 S.W.3d 190, 191 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, orig. 

proceeding); O'Donniley v. Golden, 860 S.W.2d 267, 269–70 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1993, orig. 

proceeding). Because the relief the relator seeks is not consistent with a complaint that the trial 

court has failed to rule, relator has failed to establish a right to the relief requested. 

We deny the petition. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8.

150622F.P05

/Douglas S. Lang/

DOUGLAS S. LANG

JUSTICE