alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Release #01-11

Contact: (703) 808-5050 January 20, 2011

NRO SATELLITE SUCCESSFULLY LAUNCHED ABOARD DELTA IV HEAVY

A National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) payload was successfully launched aboard a 

United Launch Alliance Delta IV Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) from 

Space Launch Complex-6, Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), California, at 1:10 p.m., 

PST, on January 20, 2011.

This is the third in a series of six launches that will take place during the 50th 

anniversary of the NRO. This is also the first Delta IV-Heavy mission to launch from 

VAFB, and is the third Delta IV vehicle to launch from United Launch Alliance’s Space 

Launch Complex-6.

“I’m grateful to everybody who worked so hard to make this mission happen, the launch 

team, the satellite vehicle team, and our mission partners. It is always a great feeling to 

have hard work culminate in success. When the satellite becomes operational, it will

assure the US continues to enjoy superior vigilance from above,” remarked Col Alan 

Davis, Director of Office of Space Launch.

The NRO is a joint Department of Defense-Intelligence Community organization 

responsible for developing, launching, and operating America’s signals, imagery, and 

communications satellites to meet the needs of our nation. 

-NRO-
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


               EXHIBIT 21.1 SCHEDULE OF SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT


1.   Dynamex Operations East Inc., a Delaware corporation 10,000 authorized
     shares of common stock, $0.01 par value, 1,000 of which are issued and
     outstanding and registered in the name of Dynamex Inc.

2.   Dynamex Operations West Inc., a Delaware corporation 10,000 authorized
     shares of common stock, $0.01 par value, 1,000 of which are issued and
     outstanding and registered in the name of Dynamex Inc.

3.   Dynamex Canada Inc., a Canadian federal corporation (formerly Parcelway
     Courier Systems Canada Ltd., an Alberta corporation) Unlimited number of
     authorized common shares, one of which is issued and outstanding in the
     name of Dynamex Inc.; Unlimited number of authorized preference shares,
     3,750,000 of which are issued and outstanding in the name of Dynamex Inc.

4.   Alpine Enterprises Ltd., a Manitoba corporation Unlimited number of 4
     Classes of Voting and 4 Classes of Non-voting common shares, 290 Class A
     Voting shares which are issued and outstanding in the name of Dynamex
     Canada Inc.

5.   Road Runner Transportation, Inc., a Minnesota corporation 25,000 authorized
     common shares (consisting of 7,000 voting, 5,000 non-voting and 13,000
     undesignated), no par value; of which 4,363.9998 non-voting are issued and
     outstanding in the name of Dynamex Inc., and of which 6,545 voting are
     issued and outstanding in the name of Dynamex Inc.

6.   New York Document Exchange Corp., a New York corporation 200 shares of
     common stock are authorized, no par value, of which 150 shares are issued
     and outstanding in the name of Dynamex Inc.

7.   Cannonball, Inc., an Illinois corporation 71,450 authorized shares of
     common stock, par value $1.00, of which 69,350 are issued and outstanding
     and registered in the name of Dynamex Inc. 2

8.   Dynamex Dedicated Fleet Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation 10,000
     authorized shares of common stock, par value $0.01, 1,000 of which are
     issued and outstanding and registered in the name of Dynamex Inc.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED September 8, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41660 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SALVADOR RAMOS-RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:05-CR-689

-------------------- Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Salvador RamosRuiz raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
##### 



Exhibit 99.1 Independent
Auditors Consent We consent to the
incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
on Form F-3 (File Nos. 333-7284, 333-14102,
333-91034 and 333-99073) of SK Telecom Co., Ltd. of our report
dated April 2, 2004 (May 31, 2004 with respect to the
contingency described in Note 21 (k)), which expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to
the issuances of domestic and
overseas bonds in 2004, appearing in this annual report on
Form 20-F of SK Telecom Co., Ltd. for the year ended
December 31, 2003. Deloitte & Touche LLC (Hana), a member firm of Deloitte Touche
Tohmatsu
Seoul, Korea May 31, 2004
# C_2005115EN.01003601.xml

| 14.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/36

---

Action brought on 8 March 2005 by Andreas Knaul and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-120/05)

(2005/C 115/64)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 March 2005 by Knaul Andreas, residing in Riga (Latvia), Márquez Camacho Antonio, residing in Brussels, Reina Cantalejo María Teresa, residing in Brussels and Tejada Fernández Miguel, residing in Zaventem (Belgium), represented by S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| 1. | annul the Appointing Authority's decisions rejecting the applicants' complaints, taken together with the Appointing Authority's decisions of 1 May 2004 changing the applicants' grades to Grade A*8 or B*8; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the Appointing Authority's decisions rejecting the applicants' complaints, taken together with the Appointing Authority's decisions of 1 May 2004 changing the applicants' grades to Grade A*8 or B*8;

| 2. | annul the applicants' pay slips implementing the Appointing Authority's decision to change the applicants' grades to Grade A*8 or B*8 from 1 May 2004; |
| --- | --- |

2.

annul the applicants' pay slips implementing the Appointing Authority's decision to change the applicants' grades to Grade A*8 or B*8 from 1 May 2004;

| 3. | invite the Commission to recognise the applicants as being eligible for promotion to Grade A*10 and B*10 on their next promotion; |
| --- | --- |

3.

invite the Commission to recognise the applicants as being eligible for promotion to Grade A*10 and B*10 on their next promotion;

| 4. | order the Commission to make good the loss suffered by the applicants as a result of their not having been placed in Grade A*9 or B*9 from 1 May 2004; |
| --- | --- |

4.

order the Commission to make good the loss suffered by the applicants as a result of their not having been placed in Grade A*9 or B*9 from 1 May 2004;

| 5. | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in case T-114/05 Joerg Peter Block and Others v Commission.

Joerg Peter Block and Others

Commission

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          76,807
<SECURITIES>                                    47,713
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,008
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               171,905
<PP&E>                                         106,153
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,369
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 390,683
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,678
<BONDS>                                        356,262
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (18,654)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   390,683
<SALES>                                         25,686
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,686
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   76,701
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,876
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (71,101)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (71,101)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (71,101)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2005143EN.01004402.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/44

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-142/04 (1)

1

(2005/C 143/82)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 11 March 2005, the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-142/04, Cargill B.V. v Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 168 of 26.6.2004.

1

---
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS



I, Mark Buckrey, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of STEN Corporation;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|Date  August 11, 2006 | /s/ Mark Buckrey       
|--------------------- | -----------------------
|                      | Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 7035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02577]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Proposal Review; Notice of Meetings

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces its 
intent to hold proposal review meetings throughout the year. The 
purpose of these meetings is to provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to the NSF for financial support. The 
agenda for each of these meetings is to review and evaluate proposals 
as part of the selection process for awards. The review and evaluation 
may also include assessment of the progress of awarded proposals. The 
majority of these meetings will take place at NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 
Arlington, Virginia 22230.
    These meetings will be closed to the public. The proposals being 
reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, 
including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) 
of the Government in the Sunshine Act. NSF will continue to review the 
agenda and merits of each meeting for overall compliance of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act.
    These closed proposal review meetings will not be announced on an 
individual basis in the Federal Register. NSF intends to publish a 
notice similar to this on a quarterly basis. For an advance listing of 
the closed proposal review meetings that include the names of the 
proposal review panel and the time, date, place, and any information on 
changes, corrections, or cancellations, please visit the NSF Web site: 
http://www.nsf.gov/events/. This information may also be requested by 
telephoning, 703/292-8687.

    Dated: February 4, 2015.
Suzanne Plimpton,
Acting Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-02577 Filed 2-6-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Certification of CEO Pursuant to Securities Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14 as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Duane Poliquin, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Almaden Minerals Ltd.;



2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.             The Companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:



(a)           Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)           Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and



5.             The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)           All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)           Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting.



|Dated: May 11, 2004 | Signed:  /s/Duane Poliquin           
|------------------- | -------------------------------------
|                    | Duane Poliquin                       
|                    | President and Chief Executive Officer
September 2020

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Helping People Help the Land 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Conservation Practice Overview

Spoil Disposal (Code 572) 

Spoil disposal is the process of disposing of surplus

excavated materials. 

Practice Information 

This practice applies to sites where spoil material is

available from the excavation of open channels, ponds,

other conservation practices, or other construction sites. It

can also apply to sites where sediments are excavated

from channels or ditches. 

Excess soil from construction activities are disposed in an environmentally sound manner that

minimizes soil erosion, protects water quality, and fits with the land use and landscape. The spoil

material is placed in a designated area and then graded to blend with the surrounding topography.

Spoil placement areas are selected to facilitate the use of the site. 

Grading is done so that runoff is not trapped by the spoil placement. Flat slopes are maintained for

stability and reduction of erosion. Spoil areas are revegetated as soon as possible after construction. 

Spoil dispoal will require maintenance over the expected life of the practice. 

Common Associated Practices 

NRCS Conservation Practice Standard (CPS) Spoil Disposal (Code 572) is commonly applied with

other conservation practices, such as NRCS CPS Open Channel (Code 582), Grade Stabilization

Structure (Code 410), and Critical Area Planting (Code 342). 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
ex4_8.htm


    
      

    

    Exhibit
4.8

    


    


    Section
5(g) of the Master Trust Agreement was amended, effective August 29, 2008, and
now reads as follows:

    


    (g)  Interest
Income Fund

    


    All
transactions involving the Master Trust Investments in the Interest Income Fund
shall be in accordance with a separate agreement between the Master Trustee or
its affiliate, and Galliard Capital Management.
#### Louis Feldschau, Respondent, vs. John Zpustcinski, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Kenosha county dated April 2, 1927: E. B. Belden, Judge.

Personal injuries. Automobile accident. Order in favor of plaintiff, from which defendant appeals.

For the appellant: *Shaw, Muskat & Sullivan*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent: *George W. Taylor*of Kenosha..

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed.
Exhibit
10.3


 


OEM
Agreement Number: 4905S10262


 


IBM OEM Software Agreement: 4905S10262


Amendment 8 to Transaction Document 02


 


This
Amendment (Amendment) to the IBM OEM Software Agreement and Transaction
Document (TD) specified above is entered into between International Business
Machines Corp. (IBM) and Information Technologies Inc. (you). This Amendment
will remain in effect until such TD terminates or expires. If there is a
conflict, the terms of this Amendment shall prevail over the terms of the TD. Except
as modified herein, all other terms of the TD remain in full force and effect.


 


1.0            Section 3, Term: The term of this
transaction document is hereby renewed for one additional year per the contract
renewal terms, until September 14, 2009.


 


2.0            Section 6: Miscellaneous
Terms/Conditions - add this term to this section as item (s):


 


IBM reserves the right to
change the part numbers and/or pricing metrics for the Programs and/or
Subscription and Support listed in Section 1, upon written notice to you.
Changes to either part numbers or pricing metrics will not cause a change in
the effective OEM Prices for either Programs or Subscription and Support.


 


Once
signed and completed, both parties agree any reproduction of this Amendment
Number 8 (TD#02) made by reliable means (for example, photocopy or facsimile)
is an original.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed
by their respective duly authorized representatives.


 


ACCEPTED
AND AGREED TO:


 


	
  INTERNATIONAL
  BUSINESS

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  MACHINES
  CORPORATION 

  	
   

  	
  LAWSON
  SOFTWARE AMERICAS, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/
  Rebecca Solter 

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Terry Plath

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Name:
  Rebecca Solter 

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
    Terry Plath

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Title:
  Contracts Administrator 

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
    VP-Business Dev,

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date:

  	
    August 18, 2008

  	
   

  	
  Date:

  	
    Aug 18 2008

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  IBM
  Address:

  	
   

  	
  Lawson
  Software Americas Inc. Address:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  11400
  Burnet Road 

  	
   

  	
  380
  St. Paul Street

  
	
  Austin,
  TX 78758 

  	
   

  	
  St.
  Paul, MN 55102

  
	
  Attn:

  	
  OEM
  Software Contracts

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Internal
  Zip 0411E034