alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11111111111111-7 1111111111r

COM NM SYSTEM

•

NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.0

THE NRO STAFF JUni 8, 1973

MEMORANDUM FOR DR. MCLUCAS

SUBJECT: OMB Staff Report

. •

You will recall that General Allen recently sent to you

a copy of an OMB Staff Report, titled "An Evaluation. of the

Collection, Analysis, and Distribution of Intelligence Data

on Soviet ICBM, SLBMs, ABM System, and Space Programs,"

October 1972 (Atch 1). We proposed that the NRO respond

directly to General Allen and further expressed the desire

to be a participant in the cross budget resource analysis

area (Atch 2).

Dr. Hall sent you a memorandum on May 18 suggesting a

consolidated reply to General Allen from DOD (Atch 3). Subsequently your memorandum to Dr. Hall on May 21 suggested

that he either send your memorandum forward to General Allen

or include the gist of it in his memorandum (Atch 4). Dr. Hall

forwarded an interim reply to General Allen on May 21. He has

now returned your memorandum to General Allen, commenting that

he believes the gist of it was incorporated in his response and

that he feels its important to make a coordinated response

(Atch 5). Dr. Hall's response to Gen Allen is at Attachment 6.

I believe that it is still important to respond to

General Allen directly at this time for the following reasons:

a. Your memorandum made the point that NRO participation in intelligence community efforts should be extended into

the cross budget resource analysis area. This was intended to

provide an autonomous NRO voice where NRO assets are being

represented or considered, rather than relying on any other

agency to speak for us. This is, of course, similar to your

role as a member of the USIB for matters affecting the NRP,

and NRO participation on USIB committees.

CLASSIFIE

C 

DAiWAM' S FNMA

GENERA& ICNIOULE OF

EXECUTIVE moan 111114 EXEMPTION CAT& Copy

Or COP' CS

WNW ItOlt OICLAIIINW ON NAP OET.

CONTROL NO Internal

_

Plit.l.--r-OT 2 , PAGES
•

The IC Staff considered it appropriate for

individual program managers to respond directly to General

Allen's letter.

We are working with Dr. Hall's staff toward a

consolidated response and we will continue to do so. In order

to maintain an independent voice, however, and to respond to

General Allen's letter addressed to you, I believe that a

direct reply to General Allen is still required.

At the right are two letters. At TAB A is a revised

memorandum to General Allen for your signature. At. TAB B is

a memorandum to Dr. Hall for your signature which will-transmit

to him a copy of your memorandum to General Allen.

RECOMMENDATION: That you sign the two memoranda at the right.

CLAM MEDodipt 1 NIPT Ma IXO w

e nema not IIIEMPIION CATS

C

00NY NO D*CLAtIIPY ON NW OCT.

CONTROL NO Intern.

COPY 01 COPIES

PAGE---rOF 2 PAGE!,
. • ...Noma!

..;e.ADTMG•

1 DOD D1D. 5200.20 DOES NO APPLY

Joseph V. Charyk

Director

lerNational Reconaissance Office

kw:it;

Iserf

. submpans •

20 July DU

MEMORANDUM TOR The Secretary of the Navy

SUBJECT: Program Director for the-(2)-Natioaal Reconnainmence

Office

I refer to my memorandum el 21 Jur NU requestiag

nomination d as ladividnal within the Navy to be POPPY project

director, sad your memoreadom of 21 Jude iNS nombetiss Rear

Admiral Y. L. Lowman for this task.

I am inclosing a copy of a mot meseormulum for NRO

Program Directors sad the Under, 1150 outlining the

organisation and booties of the NRO. I would be happy to accept

Rear Admiral Lawrence as Director, Preston C, in which capacity

be would be responsible br the NW work to be accomplished by the

Naval Research Laboratory, incleding the present POPPY project

and such follow-on dfort as may be added is the future.

Vildle the NRO will, of come, make Noe of qualified personnel to provide necessary assistance in the nada* el the POPPY

project, many of the function previously accomplished by the

Technical Operating Grasp CT(XG) will be hurdled by the permanent

NRO stall, as outlined in the inclosed memorandum

I scold be happy to discuss this matter with you after yes

have had an opportunity to review the inclosed memorandum.

sigma

I loci

/demo for NRO Program

Directors & Director,

41111110--

2, cy 3)

C:py---.1 Popies.

-Pages.

10P SECRET 1732-4 2-7

-777
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 127 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 127

 To prohibit Federal funding for motorcycle checkpoints, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 8, 2015

 Mrs. Shaheen (for herself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Manchin, Ms. Collins, and 
  Ms. Ayotte) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit Federal funding for motorcycle checkpoints, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Stop Motorcycle Checkpoint Funding 
Act''.

SEC. 2. GRANT RESTRICTION.

    Notwithstanding section 153 of title 23, United States Code, the 
Secretary of Transportation may not provide a grant or any funds to a 
State, county, town, township, Indian tribe, municipality, or other 
local government that may be used for any program--
            (1) to check helmet usage; or
            (2) to create checkpoints that specifically target 
        motorcycle operators or motorcycle passengers.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18. U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2006

The
undersigned executive officers of the Registrant hereby certify that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



By:

/s/ Michael J. DeeName: Michael J. DeeTitle:   President, Chief Executive Officer andChief Financial Officer


November 13, 2006
# CA2005110EN.01000901.xml

| 5.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 110/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 110/9

---

RESERVE LISTS
   (1)

RESERVE LISTS

1

OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/A/22/04

OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/A/22/04

HEADS OF UNIT (A5/A4 - A*9)

HEADS OF UNIT (A5/A4 - A*9)

of Cypriot, Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Slovenian and Slovak citizenship in the field of information, press and public relations

(2005/C 110 A/03)

Cypriot NO SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES

Czech HUK RICHARD

Estonian NO SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES

Hungarian HALMAI KATALIN JUDIt (ex aequo)

SZALAI ZOLTAN (ex aequo)

Lithuanian NASTOPKAITE AGNE

Latvian LIEPINS VALDA

Maltese NO SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES

Polish SAFUTA JACEK MICHAL

Slovenian GORSEK NATASA (ex aequo)

ZUPANCIC MIHAELA (ex aequo)

Slovak HAJSEL ROBERT

The lists will be valid until 31 December 2005 and may be extended.

31 December 2005

---

(1)  At a candidate's request, his/her name will not be published.

1

---
EXHIBIT 99.1
                                                                    ------------



               ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS LIMITED

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Asia Satellite Telecommunications Holdings Limited (the
"Company") Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Peter Jackson, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

June 23, 2003


                                          /s/ Peter Jackson
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Peter Jackson
                                         Chief Executive Officer
# OAR Box 

# 1828

Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 230 ) ll-K - (I ) -4 3 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:56

AM Sheet 230of 325 P. 1P. 2 

# au g II-K-(I)-4 3
TECHNOLOG Y ASSESSMEN T REPOR T FO R INDUSTRIA L BOILE R APPLICATIONS : COAL CLEANING AND LO W SULFU R COAL . Versar , Inc . an

d Teknekron , Inc . Decembe r 1979 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(I)-4 3
THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

WASHINGTON 0 C. 20301

NON ViA

CONTROL' SYSTEM ONLY

DL

IDEAlair

MEMORANDUM FOR SECRETARY OF THE NAVY

SUBJECT: U-ZR Aircraft for the EP-X Test Program

I have directed that the Air Force make available two

U-2R aircraft to the Navy for use in the EP-X Ocean Surveillance

Test Program. Current plans call for these aircraft to be

transferred, on a loan basis, no later than 1 February 1974

and returned no later than 31 July 1977.

The Air Force's ability to make these aircraft available

is contingent upon 40 Committee approval to terminate the

IDEALIST Program and subsequent consolidation of all U-2R

aircraft under centralized management of the Air Force. However,

I am confident that these arrangements will result in the Navy

being provided suitable aircraft for the EP-X Program and,

therefore, am directing that no new U-ZR aircraft be procured

for this program.

Classified b71111111, 1

=TIM FRO'...' GENERAL DECLASSIFICATIO SCEMW&E OF

EYECUTI71 C7272 11032. EXE.7ZIOZI C:L177.73-v.. 4"ara 5B (2)"3)

DEcur::--y Irn.possibloto Determine MST

NM= vflt

tOlffROC SYSTEM ONLY,
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44194

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

VONNIE LYNN HARKINS ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 385

Filed: March 1, 2017

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Juneal C. Kerrick , District Judge.

Judgment of convi ction and unified sentence of four years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years , for battery upon a law enforcement officer

, affirmed

. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; MELANSON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________
PER CURIAM Vonnie Lynn Harkins was found guilty of battery upon a law enforcement officer , Idaho

C ode § § 18

- 915, 18

- 903(a) . The district court imposed a unified four

- year sentence, with two years determinate, suspended the sentence, and placed Harkins on probation

. Harkins appeals,
contending that her underlyi ng sentence is excessive. Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and
need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.
1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing2 the length o f a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record
in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.
Therefore, Harkins ’ judgment of conviction and underlying sentence are affirmed.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                   Exhibit 20.3



                      [Letterhead of KPMG Peat Marwick LLP]

                         Independent Accountants' Report



Mellon Bank Credit Card Master Trust
c/o The Bank of New York, as Trustee

Mellon Bank (DE) National Association, as Servicer

We have examined the accompanying assertion made by management on Mellon Bank
(DE) National Association's ("MBD") compliance, as Servicer, with Article IV,
Section 4.3, of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the Mellon Bank Credit
Card Master Trust, dated as of November 1, 1995, including the Supplement
(Series 1995-A) dated November 1, 1995 (collectively, the "Agreement") for the
year ended December 31, 1997. Management is responsible for MBD's compliance
with the aforementioned section of the Agreement. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on management's assertion about MBD's compliance based upon
our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about MBD's compliance with the
aforementioned section of the Agreement and performing such other procedures as
we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a
legal determination on MBD's compliance with the Agreement.

In our opinion, management's assertion that MBD was materially in compliance
with the aforementioned section of the Agreement for the year ended December 31,
1997 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

                                                  /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick
                                                  ----------------------------


March 24, 1998




<PAGE>   2







              [Letterhead of Mellon Bank (DE) National Association]

    Management Report on Mellon Bank (DE) National Association's Compliance,
          as Servicer, with the Servicing Requirements of the Pooling
                            and Servicing Agreement



Management of Mellon Bank (DE) National Association ("MBD"), as Servicer, is
responsible for compliance with the servicing requirements in Article IV,
Section 4.3, of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the Mellon Bank Credit
Card Master Trust, dated as of November 1, 1995, including the Supplement
(Series 1995-A) dated as of November 1, 1995 (collectively, the "Agreement").

Management has performed an evaluation of MBD's compliance with the
aforementioned section of the Agreement for the year ended December 31, 1997.
Based upon this evaluation, management believes that, for the year ended
December 31, 1997, MBD, as Servicer, was materially in compliance with the
aforementioned section of the Agreement.






/s/ Donna M. Coughey                           /s/ John L. Klinck, Jr.
-------------------------                      ----------------------------
Donna M. Coughey                               John L. Klinck, Jr.
Chairman and President                         Senior Vice President


March 24, 1998
NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D.C.

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

. . cririv I .0,

I er.,1 Mr' %V

June 20, 1974

MEMORABDUM FOR DIRECTOR, PROGRAM A

DIRECTOR, PROGRAM B

DIRECTOR, PROGRAM C

DIRECTOR, PROGRAM D

SUBJECT: Policy on External Review of the NRP

Since the National Reconnaissance Program operates under

streamlined management procedures the military departments and

agencies provide support as required. They do not subject NRO

project matters to normal review or otherwise participate in

NRO project matters except as specifically requested by the %

DNRO. In return for this managerial freedom, the NRO Program

Directors conduct their projects under the highest ethical

and moral standards with regard to the letter and intent of

applicable directives and regulations.

I believe that NRO Program Directors must be provided

whatever external support is necessary not only to manage

their projects but also to satisfy themselves that the managerial and fiscal aspects of their projects are being conducted

in accordance with the high standards required.

At present, the only agency external to the NRO having

a continuing review responsibility on NRP affairs is the

DCAA. This was established to provide the DNRO assurance

that funds expended in support of the NRP are fully accounted

for and appropriately utilized. In separate correspondence

I plan to request DCAA to provide me with periodic reports on

those portions of their operations involving the NRP. Other

ad hoc groups have been convened at the request of the DNRO

to examine particular aspects of NRP operations. One example

was the Morgan Board which was convened to determine whether

the rash of Agena failures could be attributed to any defi--

ciencies in NRO management policies. Another example of an

FI 41111LONONPT

MOW IMO INSPIPTION CATO• lerlECia--

C OISCLAIONIN ON NAP ONT. PAGES

•
equally acceptable method of review was the employment of

the CIA IG to examine a problem uncovered at an NRO contractor

facility.

Such ad hoc groups, composed of individuals specifically

selected for their expertise in a particular problem area,

offer a definite advantage to NRP management. I encourage

the employment of this type of managerial resource when

necessary. You may rely on my support whenever a . particular

situation warrants the use of.this type of resource.

PAPr—•

ET cumems• I MIMI

II OP

, 11111001ffil ION* IIIIIMIINIMINIC108

NM IMP •116411110. Ow at•

CONTROL N 3403-74

OOP," O COPIES

PACES
CE OFFICE

October 10, 1972

SSISTANT S REM OF DEFENSE (INTELLIGENCE)

DIRECTOR, DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING

of a

to do

burn to

MASSIMO BY

•:IFICATIZN

MOM Olt L O. iraz aretzmou CATECOM

OW, (2). (21 er (4) WWI hs *r 41414)

AIROXATICALLY OULtSSIAND ON

Impossible to Determine

(dm impossible, heat daft is mat)

.NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

Unauthorized Disclosure Subject to

Criroirtal Sanctions.

-TOP-SERET-

(10.011111 MN, sylOwent

IkalCilet MO Is SOH NOT M.P.•

r•

40P-SECRET--

SUBJECT: atellite System

In response to your memorandum on

satellite-bo I have nominate.

the Air Force pe techniques, and nera

prepare the NRO options for satellite systems.

General Bradburn has already arranged two meetings of

the principals (DIA, AF, NRO) on the 11th and 15th of September.

At the latter meeting, some of the NRO work relative to s telas presented by re resentatives of SAFSP an

ged from actua ssion studies to spec is

satellite system options c ve been developed over the last

several months.

We are proceeding with consideration of budgetary estimates,

dev lo s and o • rational concepts for vario

These considerations also

u essments of the system options for

several postulated missions as well as comments on several

technology areas. We are looking toward mid-October for the

results.
#### The State of Ohio, Appellant, *v.*Pilgrim, Appellee.

[Cite as *State v. Pilgrim*(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 619.]

(No. 98-497

Submitted August 25, 1999

Decided September 29, 1999.)

*P. Eugene Long II,*Pickaway County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *State v. Hughes*(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 424, 715 N.E.2d 540.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s judgment for the reasons set forth in my dissent in *State v. Hughes*(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 424, 715 N.E.2d 540.
#### Anonymous.

if a *certiorari*bo obtained to remove a cause upon the ground that an appeal mid been refused in tío- court below, the case shall be placed upon the trial docket, without shewing- any other cause.

This suit had been commenced by a warrant issued by a Jíntico of the Peace. There was an appeal from the judgment of the Justice to the County Court, where a trial by jury was bad. There an appeal was moved for, which the County Court denied. lie then obtained a certiorari to remove the proceedings into this court, upon an affidavit stating the above facts. 'Phis *certiorari*was set down on the argument docket in this court, and now the Plaintiff in the *certiorari,*stated ihe reasons for obtaining it as *above;*and it was argued on his behalf, that wherever the County Court refuses an appeal,where by law the party is entitled to it, and moves for it in proper time, and offers to perform the requisites for obtaining an appeal, arid a *certiorari*is obtained for that cause, the court here will grant a new» trial without inquiring further than whether an appeal was refused — and asrit is admitted in the present case, that the appeal was refused, it is not incumbent upon the Plaintiff in the *cer-*tiorari, to shew any other cause in order to obtain a new trial here. Ami of this opinion were the court clearly; and the other side admitting that an appeal had been re* *350fused, thóugh the party meu. ug ¡t offer.-d to assign reason-, & give security for prosecuting with effect, ¡hey or-dried iík» cause to he set down for trial, and to I»,* ¡dared amongst those for trial at the nest term. And it was done accordingly.

Note.—*Vide Chambers*v. *Smith, post*366.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 28 (Wednesday, February 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 7620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02757]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Amended 
Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel, 
March 16, 2015, 08:00 a.m. to March 17, 2015, 06:00 p.m., Bethesda 
North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, Montgomery County Conference 
Center Facility, 5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, MD 20852 which 
was published in the Federal Register on January 23, 2015, 80FRN3613.
    The meeting has been changed to a teleconference meeting. The date 
and time remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: February 5, 2015.
Carolyn Baum,
 Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-02757 Filed 2-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P