alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
yre •n ,10

27 Deonber 1954

The lionorable

Allen V. Dulles

Di...otor of Oentral latagligaie

2450 Street, S. I.

Washington 25,, D. C.

Dear Ur. Dullest

I an familiar with the proposed agneenent with Leaked Aircraft Cbrporation in behalf of the devernment. Althoue)t the aircasft

onverect tbaleb7 are veettived so urgently that neither you nor we hays

been able to enemine the lost estimate in doteil a fined prise am.. sent with a price redetendnation dame and a atlpzlatsdrodeos

priae appears to afford adequate protection to the Clowennent, and to

be the most suitable fan of oonteact from an administrative and

security standpoint. As Ina undoubtedly are image, the einstructian

and tasting of aircraft of new design is nest sepensims, sops

ithen tine is a vital factor and the production of so limited raZer

as here corteeplated readers the aircraft virtually henthsda.

The fact that lassie structural and aerodynamic k.-has Ia ts.

oorpozsted in the design proposal doss not preclude pionming problem

associated with an entirely nes area of performin g* and altitode.

Therefore, on ito basis of oar knowledge of andlar Air Plaice oantiacts

for rower& and development and for procurement, I believe that the

tame and the estimated oast are reasoodels.

Although the requirements both of speed and eenmrity sate it

necessary to give the supplier ooidsrebla freedom of action to proceed without detailed superwision at every step, our opinion, based

an a large anoint of business over • period of may years, is that

Lockheed is a reliable and efficient predator aosustaned to beeping

its books and records in accerdenee with standard Cloversont aoestating

psactioes.

It is understood that the also of this prominent program is

lased in part on the assumptioo that the results upended to be obtained

with these aircraft will be of interest to ot rots and Agendas

of the Gavement, and that the aircraft will pzvbebly be metal their

various purposes in addition to the sissies for Aida they are primarily

•
• • :

• ••

Intended. I aims gal that the Air Nora Is Warily interested In

this dovolopesnt free the point of vim of its eon itemise as veil

ae yenno and to that end is fueolaidlig the engines as part at its

sontribnUen end will provide sash other sesistense as rosairod,

eineerely pares

Speedal Aselatent (Sesser& and Zevelopeent)

.• :111.
#### Kirchner (Edward), Respondent, vs. Fairmont Ice Cream Company and another, Appellants.

For the appellants : *Bouck, Hilton & Dempsey*of Oshkosh.

For the respondent: /. *E. O’Brien*of Fond du Lac, and *William J. Geenen*of Appleton.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
# C_2004314EN.01000102.xml

| 18.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/1

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 26 October 2004

in Case C-406/03: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 - Substances that deplete the ozone layer - Incomplete implementation)

(2004/C 314/02)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-406/03: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 29 September 2003, between Commission of the European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and M. Shotter) and Ireland (Agents: F. O'Dubhghaill and D. O'Hagan, assisted by D. McGrath) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann and J. Makarczyk, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 October 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to provide the reports referred to in Article 16(5) and (6) and Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer, and by failing to take all precautionary measures practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of methyl bromide and to define the minimum qualification requirements for the personnel involved in accordance with Artic1e 17(2) of the Regulation, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(5) and (6) and Article 17(1) and (2) of the Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to provide the reports referred to in Article 16(5) and (6) and Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer, and by failing to take all precautionary measures practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of methyl bromide and to define the minimum qualification requirements for the personnel involved in accordance with Artic1e 17(2) of the Regulation, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(5) and (6) and Article 17(1) and (2) of the Regulation;

| 2. | Orders Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-27-1996
<CASH>                                      11,689,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,454,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 16,786,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            31,413,000
<PP&E>                                       3,259,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,178,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,866,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,808,000
<BONDS>                                        205,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        64,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,866,000
<SALES>                                     19,723,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,723,000
<CGS>                                       15,119,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,401,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,454,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   566,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   869,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

9 November 2015 

COMMITTEE ON PVEjtHEAD RECONNAISSANCE (COMDR 

Authorized By: DCID 2/7 1960 

Membership: Chairman -- Appointed by DCI with U5113 okay. 

Representative CIA 

Representative NSA 

Representative State 

Representative DIA/ICS 

Representative ACS/I Army 

Representative ACS/I Air Force 

Representative ACS/I Navy 

Representative FBI 

Representative AEC 

Function: Provide a focal point for USIB information re 

overhead reconnaissance activities -- viz requirements priorities, dissemination and security 

controls. 

Relationship: Formal -- Written agreement. NRO (SAFSS-4) 

represented as consultant/observer at meetings. 

Examples: Since mid-September 1962, 45 COMOR meetings — 

NRO attended 30. -- Gave NRP briefings. 

Receive USIB (COMOR) objectives for each satellite 

launch. 

fieeelve-agendas 

Reeelve-telautes- 

*Con-Chat1VC: Etick4 meetialp, paperwork, philosophy on those-items we 

vitikaccept direct-from COMOR -- in writing.
Order entered April 7, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01488-CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

TABATHA S. NEALY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 366-02723-2015

ORDER

We GRANT appellee’s April 4, 2016 unopposed second motion for an extension of time 

to file a brief. Appellee shall file a brief by May 4, 2016. No further extension of time will be 

granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 8.1



Significant Subisdiaries



|                                                |  |                              
|----------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                              |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|Telefónica Multimedia S.A.C.                    |  | Peru                         
|Telefónica Servicios Integrados S.A.C.          |  | Peru                         
|Transporte Urgente de Mensajería S.A.C.         |  | Peru                         
|Telefónica Servicios Comerciales S.A.C.         |  | Peru                         
|Telefónica Soluciones Globales Holding S.A.C.   |  | Peru                         
|Telefónica Servicios Digitales S.A.C.           |  | Peru                         
|Servicios Editoriales del Perú S.A.C.           |  | Peru                         
|Servicios Globales de Telecomunicaciones S.A.C. |  | Peru                         
|Telefónica Servicios Técnicos S.A.C.            |  | Peru
HANDLE VIA 

BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

_ Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112120 llllllllllllllllllfflll!l!!bt~fJYllfflllllllllllllllOfl ... 

TOP SECRET - / HANDLE VIA ; = vb ~!I~.~~ 

November 19, 1969 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD 

Major~--~called and wanted to discuss the November 13 

letter from Mr. Froehlke. I returned Major ~---~call and 

found that the 13 Nov letter Maj~~-was speaking of was not 

the one we have been working on, but rather was concerned with 

an additional 5% reduction in FY 71 funding. Major~-~ also 

wanted to discuss how "we are going to handle the FYDP." I 

told Maj~-- we would call him back. 

I discussed Major~ ___ call with~ ______ and he told 

me that an answer to the Froehlke letter concerning the 5% reductions 

had been forwarded to Dr. Mc Lucas for signature. He also stated 

that a package containing the FY 71 budget and the options which will 11 automatically determine the out year costs" was forwarded to Mr. 

Froehlke yesterday. I called Maj~-- and stated that a letter on 

the 5o/o reduction would be forthcoming. I also stated that we would 

forward the package to Mr. Froehlke and that we will now be looking 

to the ExCom for our direction. I believe Major~ ___ understood 

my between-the-lines comments concerning looking to the ExCom 

for direction. I consider the item now closed. 

TOP SECRET EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING 

DOD DIRECTIVE 5200 10 DOES NOT APPLY 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05112120 

CONTROL NO. ______ _ 

COPY ___ OF ___ COPIES 

PAGE ___ OF ___ PAGES
HALIFAX,

APRIL TERM, 1796.

#### Minge *v.*Gilmour.

Tenant in tail sells land in 1778, and dies leaving a larger estate of land to his son, the present Plaintiff .- he is bound by the warranty of his ancestor and assets descended. He is also bound by the express words of the act of 1784, *Rev. c.*204, *s.*5.

Old *Minge*held this'land in tail *•,*in 1778, he sold to *Gilmour*— then died, leaving lands, of eight or ten thousand pounds value, to his son, lite present Plaintiff, who is tiie heir in tail.

*Per curiam*

After much argument at the bar, he is barred b> the warranty of his ancestor, and the assets descended to him, being of as much and indeed grea’er value, than the lands in tail. Secondly, he is barred by the express words of 1784, *c.*22, s. 5, that declaros all sales and con\cj anees made *bonajide.*and for valuable consideration, since tiie first day of January, in the, ><>ar 1777, by any tenant in tail, in actual possession of any real estate, where such estate hath been conveyed iri fee simple, shall be good and effectual in law to bar any tenant or tenants in tail, and tenants in remainder, of and. from ail claim and claims, action and actions,Knd right of entry whatsoever, of, in and to such entailed esiarn, against any purchaser, ids heirs, and assigns, now in actual possession of such eslate, in the same manner as if such ten .nt m tail had possessed the same in fee. But as to the warranty, the Plaintiff’s counsel contended, that warranty and assets cannot bar the estate fail, because that had not been turned to a rigid befoie or ai the time when warranty descended. He cited *Co. Litt.*388 *b.*There was a verdict and judgment for the Defendant.

*Note.*— Vide *Wells*v. *Newbold, Conf. Rep.*375.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
CHARLES DORNS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-4684 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed February 6, 2019 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Nancy Moate Ley, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Jean-Jacques A. Darius, Assistant Public Defender, (withdrew after briefing) Bartow; Jeremy S. Clark of Clark Law, Saint Petersburg (substituted as counsel of record), for Appellant. Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee; Wendy Buffington and Cynthia Richards (substituted as counsel of record), Assistant Attorneys General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
VILLANTI, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
*October 8, 1935.*

#### Kaczmierek and another, Plaintiffs and Respondents, vs. Wilkins and another, Appellants: Literski and another, Impleaded Defendants and Respondents.

For the appellants : *A. L. Smongeski*of Stevens Point.

For the respondents : *W. E. Atwell*of Stevens Point.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 113 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 113

To ensure that Federal Register notices submitted to the Bureau of Land 
              Management are reviewed in a timely manner.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 7, 2015

  Mr. Heller introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To ensure that Federal Register notices submitted to the Bureau of Land 
              Management are reviewed in a timely manner.

    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 ``Public Land Job Creation Act of 
2015''.

SEC. 2. REVIEW OF CERTAIN FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES.

    If, by the date that is 45 days after the date on which a State 
Bureau of Land Management office has submitted a Federal Register 
notice to the Washington, DC, office of the Bureau of Land Management 
for Department of the Interior review, the review has not been 
completed--
            (1) the notice shall consider to be approved; and
            (2) the State Bureau of Land Management office shall 
        immediately forward the notice to the Federal Register for 
        publication.
                                 <all>
```
#### The Governor *v*. Col. Thomas Bell.

From Wake.

Action of debt for 2SI. the penalty incurred by a Colonel of the militia, for not making a return to the Brigadier-General, as directed by the act of 1806, relative to the militia. The certificate of the Adjutant-General, is evidence under that act, only of *the delinquency*of the offi. cer. It is not evidence, that the person sued, was an officer at the time, and bound to make the return, ,

This was an action of debt to recover the sum of twenty-five pounds^ the penalty incurred by a Colonel of the Mi-*332Ktia, for failing to make a return to the Brigadier-General. Upon the trial, the Plaintiff offered in evidence the following certificate of the Adjutant-General, to-wit: ° *.*

*"*STATE 0E NOKTH-CAROLINA.

*“*I do hei’cby certify that Thomas Bell was Lieutenant-Colonel Com- “ manda.it of the regiment of militia in Camden County for the year *“*1815 : and that he the said Thomas Bell did not as' such, mate his mili- “ tary return to the Brigadier General of the brigade in which Camden “ County was included for the said year, as directed by the law in such *“*cases made and provided. Given under my hand and seal at Raleigh, “ this 15th day of October, A. D. 1818..

c- ROBERT WILLIAMS, *Jtdjutant-Genertd*

*of the Militia of North- Carolina.*(Seal.)

And no other evidence was offered on behalf of the Plaintiff. On behalf of the Defendant, it was insisted that under the act of 1806, relative to the militia, the certificate of the Adjutant-General was evidence only as to *the delinquency ;*that it was no evidence of the Defendant’s being the Lieutenant-Colonel commandant as stated in the certificate — and of this opinion was the Court; and the Plaintiff was nonsuited. A rule for a new trial was obtained, which upon argument was discharged, and the Attorney-General on behalf the Plaintiff appealed.

By the Court

The act of 1806, makes the certificate of the Adjutant-General, proof of the delinquency only of the officer. To render the Defendant liable to the penalty, it is necessary further to prove that he ivas an officer at the time, and hound to make the return. — The nonsuit was properly awarded, and the rule for a new trial must be discharged»
This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in 

the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the 

citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computergenerated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of 

Appeals.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-41150

STEPHEN ROBERT FABREY,

Petitioner-Appellee,

v.

HANNAH ROSEMARY BECKER,

Respondent-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TAOS COUNTY

Emilio J. Chavez, District Court Judge

Wiseman Legal Group, P.A.

C. Joseph Wiseman

Isabella N. Zayani

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

L. Helen Bennett

Albuquerque, NM

Merrie Chappell Law, PC

Merrie L. Chappell

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MEDINA, Judge.

{1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 

proposed summary disposition. Appellant has filed a notice with this Court informing us 

that they will not be filing a memorandum in opposition. No memorandum opposing the 
proposed disposition has been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. Accordingly, 

we rely on the reasoning contained in our notice of proposed disposition. AFFIRMED.

{2} IT IS SO ORDERED.

JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge

WE CONCUR:

MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge

SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Conservation Crop Rotation, Contour Farming, Diversion, Grassed Waterway, Integrated Pest Management, Nutrient Management, Underground Outlet.

**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 99.1



SPEEDCOM Wireless Corporation

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 Annual Report of SPEEDCOM Wireless Corporation
(SPEEDCOM) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael Sternberg, Chief Executive Officer of SPEEDCOM, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.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 SPEEDCOM.
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/    MICHAEL STERNBERG                                             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|Michael Sternberg Chief Executive Officer and Director April 11, 2003