alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
—C-ONRDENTht-- ?4LICY4": isitalto Lockhe.

15 June 1961

MEMORANDUM FOR TIE cams OF STAFF, USAF IINNIMPosig

SUBMIT: Visits to LMDContractor Facilities

During a recent review of Air Force space project

activities being conducted at Lockheed Missile & Space Division

Sunnyvale, California, it was pointed out that literally

thousands of visits per month are being made to this facility.

Of these, a major portion are of USAF origin. The time and

effort required of top echelon management and engineering

personnel in coping with this influx of visitors is seriously

interfering with their primary efforts in meeting contractual

commitments on highest priority USAF space projects. It is

recognized that USAF personnel with specific project responsibilities must periodically visit USD; however, visits by others

for orientation, information or simple curiosity must be

eliminated.

To this end, it is desired that all Air Staff agencies

and appropriate major commands be informed that only personnel

having specific project responsibilities and senior USAF personnel

exercising command or staff supervision in the space systems

field will be cleared for visits to LMSD, Sunnyvale, California.

Until further notice, this office will be the approval authority

for all proposed visits to LMSD of USAF personnel other than

those with direct project responsibilities.

/signed/

e JOSEPH V. CRARTK

Under Secretary of the Air Forte

COPY

• CONFIDENTIAL /05-6 7
#### Ryan, Administrator, Appellant, vs. Estate of Jones, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Edward H. Ryan*of Janesville.

For the respondent: *Nolan, Dougherty, Grubb & Ryan*of Janesville.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
HomeRadioactive WasteLow-Level Waste DisposalLow-Level Waste Disposal Regulations, Guidance, and Communications

# Extended Storage of LLRW - Reference Material

The table is a database of reference material related to the storage of LLRW. Here, users can find the most up to date bibliography of reference material related to extended storage of LLRW with regard to all licensing circumstances. Links or ADAMS accession numbers are provided for references as well as a brief description of applicability to LLRW storage. Where applicable the reference is tied to particular elements contributory to safe, secure LLRW storage as provided in attachment.

*This page includes links to files in non-HTML format. See Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools for more information.*

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, March 11, 2024

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - Low-Level Waste Reference Documents
          - Extended Storage of LLRW - Reference Material

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

#### Related Information

            - 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart N, "Conditional Exemption for Low-Level Mixed Waste Storage, Treatment, Transportation, and Disposal," U.S. EPA
            - DOE Manifest Information Management System 
            - FSME LLRW Toolbox
            - "Guidelines for Operating an Interim On-Site LLRW Storage Facility," Rev. 1, EPRI, 2/2009
            - "Tools for Decommissioning Funding Plans", Washington Department of Health
            - Tx Administrative Code Title 30, Part 1, Ch. 336, Subchapter M

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, March 11, 2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR TO DATE FOUND ON PAGES 3-6 INCLUSIVE OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR
THE FISCAL QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         101,743
<SECURITIES>                                     6,903
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,847
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,561
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               140,081
<PP&E>                                         133,686
<DEPRECIATION>                                  56,328
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 228,286
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           83,263
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                     130,468
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   228,286
<SALES>                                         79,244
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                79,244
<CGS>                                           52,246
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   52,246
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                51,969
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,740
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (23,482)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (23,482)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,482)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.26)
        

</TABLE>
**Conservation Practice Effects**

**Commonly Associated Practices:**Agrichemical Handling Facility, Irrigation Pipeline, Lined Waterway or Outlet, Livestock Pipeline, Nutrient Management, Pumping Plant, Roofs and Covers, Solid/Liquid Waste Separation Facility, Waste Storage Facility, Waste Utilization.

**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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2024 ND 61

In the Interest of S.S.C., Child

State of North Dakota, Petitioner and Appellee

v.

S.S.C., child; and

G.S.C., father; Respondents

and

L.S.C., mother, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20240053

Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial 

District, the Honorable Kelly A. Dillon, Judicial Referee.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Rozanna C. Larson, State’s Attorney, Minot, ND, for petitioner and appellee; 

submitted on brief.

Erica L. Chisholm, Wahpeton, ND, for respondent and appellant; submitted on 

brief. 

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

APRIL 4, 2024 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

Interest of S.S.C. 

No. 20240053

Per Curiam.

[¶1] L.S.C. appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental 

rights to S.S.C. The court found it was undisputed S.S.C. had been in foster 

care for a total of 724 continuous nights at the time of the hearing, and:

“That the totality of circumstances in this case, including the 

history of drug use, the lack of consistent involvement in treatment 

and cooperation with the Human Service Zone, the length of time 

before a possible reunification can take place, and the prognostic 

evidence of the likelihood that the parents’ current inability to care

for the child will continue into the foreseeable future, force the 

Court to the conclusion that the only real solution in this matter is 

a termination of parental rights.”

[¶2] L.S.C. argues the evidence does not support findings that S.S.C. is in 

need of protection and the conditions and causes of the need for protection are 

likely to continue. After reviewing the record, we conclude the juvenile court’s 

findings are not clearly erroneous and the court did not abuse its discretion 

when it terminated L.S.C.’s parental rights. See Interest of A.C., 2022 ND 123, 

¶ 5, 975 N.W.2d 567 (the clearly erroneous standard of review applies to factual 

findings made in a termination of parental rights proceeding); see also Interest 

of A.P., 2022 ND 131, ¶ 2, 976 N.W.2d 244 (whether terminating parental 

rights would promote the child’s welfare is left to the court’s discretion when 

the required elements are proven by clear and convincing evidence). We 

summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (4). 

[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. 

Daniel J. Crothers 

Lisa Fair McEvers 

Jerod E. Tufte

Douglas A. Bahr
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL


OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION


906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Annual Report (the "Report") of Digerati Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending July 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Antonio Estrada Jr., the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,




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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




By
/s/ Antonio Estrada Jr.Antonio Estrada Jr.Chief Financial OfficerJuly 30, 2014
# C_2005143EN.01003502.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/35

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 12 January 2005

in Case T-268/04 Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa v the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2005/C 143/67)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-268/04: Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa, established in Spa (Belgium), represented by L. de Brouwer, E. Cornu, E. De Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: O. Montalto), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM having been Cottee Dairy Products Pty Limited, established in New South Wales (Australia) — action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 April 2004 (Case R 148/2002-1) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N. J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 12 January 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the application. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the application.

| 2. | The parties shall each bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The parties shall each bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217 of 28.8.2004.

1

---
#### Collignon, Respondent, vs. Baker and another, Appellants.

For the appellants: *Hanitch, Hartley, Johnson & Fritsch-ler*of Superior.

For the respondent: *Cadigan & Cadigan*of Superior.

*By the Court.*

Order affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<CIK>          0001004539
<NAME>         AIRPLANES LTD.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             217
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       23
<ALLOWANCES>                                        13
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   226
<PP&E>                                           4,192
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,219
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,243
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              191
<BONDS>                                          3,589
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,187)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,243
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   147
<CGS>                                             (22)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       59
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     8
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   (4)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  95
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (41)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (41)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (41)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        



</TABLE>
Wyoming Sulfate Contribution to Sula Peak

Worst

site Year modelrun param N SReg PT AF MV Nat Area Total

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 24 WY 0.007225 5.42E-05 0.0003583 0.0007917 0.0008375 0.0092667

Wyoming's 2002 Contribution (20% Worst) to Sulfate at Sula Peak = 0.009 divided by 0.6, or 2%

Best

site Year modelrun param N SReg PT AF MV Nat Area Total

SULA1 2002 plan02c36k PS4 23 WY 0.0003739 0 1.30E-05 0 8.70E-05 0.0004739

Wyoming's 2002 Contribution (20% Best) to Sulfate at Sula Peak = 0.0005 divided by 0.3, or < 1%
# C_2005143EN.01002402.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/24

---

Action brought on 30 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-144/05)

(2005/C 143/35)

Language of the case: Dutch

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by K. Simonsson and W. Wils, of its Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that by not taking all necessary legal and administrative measures to comply with Directive 2002/59/EC (1)of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system and repealing Council Directive 93/75/EEC, or by not notifying the Commission of such measures, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that by not taking all necessary legal and administrative measures to comply with Directive 2002/59/EC (1)of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system and repealing Council Directive 93/75/EEC, or by not notifying the Commission of such measures, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| 2. | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for implementing the directive in national law expired on 5 February 2004.

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 208, p. 10

1

---
Approved for Release: 2019/05/21 C05108050 

TOP SECRET BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

~TIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE 

WASHINGTON, D .C. 

THE NRO STAFF 

HANDLE V I A 

BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

1 March 1968 

IvLEMOP.ANDUM FOR COLONEL liTORTHMAN 

SUBJECT: NRO Switching Center 

BACKGROmill: Although mnVAC does not have a contract in support 

of the NRO S,,,i tching Center Program, UNIVAC b.as continued to develope 

hardware and software for our program. Their effort has continued as 

long as they saw evidence that the Air Force ,,,as continuing '''i th the 

program. 

CURRENT STATUS: UNIVAC has developed the follov!ing software and plans 

to debug starting March 11, 1968. 

TITLE MAN 1flEEKS MACHI:NE TIME 

Comm Interrupt answer and analysi s 13 20 hours 

8c Tape handler 9 30 hours 

Data Clock Timer 11 25 hours 

Phase 1 Data generator 14 30 hours 

In addition to the software UNIVAC has temporarily installed !!ourH 

primary computer in their Hashington Office. UNIVAC has asked for 

shipping instructions for the processor for "our" back-up system with 

delivery at Andrews on March 6) 1968. UNIVAC is arranging for office 

space for training and software work for our personnel. Tenta ti ve plans 

are for six of our Andrews Staff to work with mrrVAC on Nlarch 4) 1968. 

PROBLEM: If I do not accept delivery of the processor this would 

indicate to UNIVAC tl'lat they were wasting their time working with us. 

In thout support from mrrVAC we would be forced to stop work on the 

Switching Center, and reassign our personnel to other units where 

they can work in their primary career fields. I can not legally accept 

deli very of the processor '·!ithout a contract with UNIVAC. 

RECOMMENDATION: That the DNRO obtain the necessary waivers and that 

I have AFCS contract with UNIVAC for the computers. 

'/~4~ Major, USAF' 

NROjCornm 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/21 C05108050 

COPY ___ OF COPIES 

PAGE ___ OF ____ PAGES
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6848

WILLIAM E. ALTON, III,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOSEPH P. SACCHET; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-05-147-AW)

Submitted: September 27, 2005 Decided: October 3, 2005

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William E. Alton, III, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

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

OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

William E. Alton, III, a Maryland prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as untimely under the Antiterrorism

and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. An appeal may not be

taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the

district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by

the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Alton

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 3 -

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
# C_2005019EN.01001502.xml

| 22.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/15

---

Action brought on 22 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-483/04)

(2005/C 19/30)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Knut Simonsson and Enrico Traversa acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by having failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/6/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 February 2002 on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States of the Community or, in any case, by having failed to communicate them to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by having failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/6/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 February 2002 on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States of the Community or, in any case, by having failed to communicate them to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of that directive;

1

| — | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for the transposition into national law of the directive expired on 19 September 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 67 of 9.3.2002, p. 31.

1

---