alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
f

S

V

ie C

19 August 1.970

1UNdLI vt

QOlRl1o3.

XDMNDUM Pot THE

•

.

SUIJPJCT: Minutes of the Meeting of the 40 Co ittee, 18 August 1970

'P*ESEWf: Mr: Kissinger, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Packard, Mr. Johnson,

Admiral Hooter, and Mr. Helms

Mr. Cord Mayer and Mr. Yy.berley Cderr were present for

the entire meeting.

Sear Admiral James C. Donaldson, Jr.., Mr. Carl Duckett,

and Mr. Pobert Singe]. were present for Item .2.

illumination of the Earth's Surface 24-70) 

utble uses cited were for crises, for veriflcatioo,

and for less sophisticated countries.

c. The Coae:ittse did not rul. out continued development 9f the •

concept pepding detailed review at a later pre-operational date.

IDEALIST Progre '-70) 

There was a lively discussion of the budgetary merits of the

various IDEALIST solutions outlined in the paper, i.e. who should run

what and why and how could monies be saved.

The Committee agreed to continue on the present basis for one

year adopting va r Mode of Operation, i.e., continuing the

split fleet ing,5 in CIA and S in SAC at a cost

o 4sttna split fleet oeration_of_ 6_ in

t o , savings o

vere approved.

'peter Jessup

. I,

Distribution

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Packard

Mr. Johnson

' -+-- Admiral !borer

Mr. Helms

^^ ^..:r..•...L r.. • .^.Y

,, .i•,.^

:) IDEALIST

Yi

%'f1kG-1opy

•. ^.:

•

l .L» 

f . 

^ j
14 JAN 1959

iy He

Ht; A

on £3 Septesber
sears 7
tho
Sentry
otatt
covvestt:
wi
ORIGINAL SIGNED:
B. A. .SCHRIEVER
SCHRIEVER
Generel, USAF
la
sore see OO 4

ble 950m
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BOYKIN LODGING COMPANY AS OF JUNE 30, 1997,
AFTER BEING RESTATED FOR THE IMPACT OF ADOPTING SFAS 128, AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             301
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,633
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         153,455
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 160,162
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     116,197
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   160,162
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,167
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,730
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,072
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 611
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,754
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,754
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,754
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .81
<FN>
<F1>Registrant utilizes an unclassified balance sheet, therefore Total Current
Assets and Total Current Liabilities are not applicable.
</FN>


</TABLE>
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: In the Matter of Approximately $80,600.00

Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00424

- CV; 01

- 15

- 00874

- CV

Trial court case number: 1417446 ; 1210228

Trial court: 351st District Court of Harris County

On July 7, 2017, Regina Criswell filed a motion to substitute counsel for Abraham Fisch. On July 17, 2017 R. Scott Shearer, Fisch’s attorney of record, filed an objection to Criswell’s

motion. Criswell filed a response to Shearer’s objection on July 18, 2017.

Tex. R. App. P. 6.5(d) governs the procedure for substitution of counsel. The Rule contemplates that the attorney of record file a motion in this Court seeking to withdraw before

substitution of new counse l may be permitted. Lewis v. State , 07

- 15

- 00061

- CR, 2015 WL 1143188, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo Mar. 13, 2015, no. pet.)

. The Rule provides that, if a new attorney is substituting for the withdrawing attorney, the motion to withdraw must state “the

substitu te attorney’s name, mailing address, [et cetera].” The withdrawing attorney must then notify the Appellant. Tex. R. App. P. 6.5(b) , (d)

. By her motion to substitute filed July 7, 2017, Criswell seeks to be substituted for Shearer as Fisch’s attorney of re cord. This motion was not filed by Shearer and does not otherwise comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Neither Appellant nor Shearer signed the motion. In fact, Shearer has filed an objection in which he refuses to withdraw. Absent a withdra wal by Shearer, Criswell’s motion is deficient.

We deny Appellant’s motion to substitute Criswell for Shearer as the attorney of record in this appeal.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s / Laura C. Higley

Acting individually

Date: July 20 , 2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                    5
<MULTIPLIER>                 1,000
       

<S>                                                  <C>    

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                         SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                                    17,828
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             94,763
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                               12,577
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         134,157
<PP&E>                                                 1,740,875
<DEPRECIATION>                                           656,801
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         1,258,122
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    108,411
<BONDS>                                                  589,395
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                   3,678
<OTHER-SE>                                               457,888
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           1,258,122
<SALES>                                                  281,640
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         281,640
<CGS>                                                     26,974
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            220,949
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           7,224
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        33,435
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           20,032
<INCOME-TAX>                                               9,460
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       10,572
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                              10,572
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                               0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               0.29
        



</TABLE>
# C_2005019EN.01001402.xml

| 22.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie van België by judgment of 22 October 2004 in the case of Plumex v Young Sports N.V.

(Case C-473/04)

(2005/C 19/27)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of 22 October 2004 by the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgian Court of Cassation), which was received at the Court Registry on 9 November 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Plumex v Young Sports N.V. on the following questions:

| 1. | Is the service defined in Articles 4 to 11 inclusive [of Regulation No 1348/2000] (1) the principal method of service and service directly by post, as defined in Article 14 [of Regulation No 1348/2000], a secondary method of service, with the proviso that the first method takes precedence over the second method when both are effected in accordance with the legal provisions? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the service defined in Articles 4 to 11 inclusive [of Regulation No 1348/2000] (1) the principal method of service and service directly by post, as defined in Article 14 [of Regulation No 1348/2000], a secondary method of service, with the proviso that the first method takes precedence over the second method when both are effected in accordance with the legal provisions?

1

| 2. | In the case of a combination of methods of service in accordance with Articles 4 to 11 inclusive [of Regulation No 1348/2000], on the one hand, and directly by post in accordance with Article 14 [of Regulation No 1348/2000], on the other, does the period within which the addressee of the service may lodge an appeal commence on the date of the service effected in accordance with Articles 4 to 11 inclusive and not on the date of service effected in accordance with Article 14? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the case of a combination of methods of service in accordance with Articles 4 to 11 inclusive [of Regulation No 1348/2000], on the one hand, and directly by post in accordance with Article 14 [of Regulation No 1348/2000], on the other, does the period within which the addressee of the service may lodge an appeal commence on the date of the service effected in accordance with Articles 4 to 11 inclusive and not on the date of service effected in accordance with Article 14?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 37).

1

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 8, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41518

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE GUADALUPE HERNANDEZ-URBINA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

No. 5:04-CR-498-ALL

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

Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Hernandez-Urbina appeals the 30-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction of illegal reentry into the

United States after being deported. He contends that his sentence

is illegal under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),

because it was imposed pursuant to a mandatory application of the
No. 04-41518

-2-

United States Sentencing Guidelines. He thus alleges a “Fanfan”

error. See United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d 461, 463 (5th Cir.

2005). Fanfan error is not structural error, id., but the government concedes that Fanfan error was preserved, so we review for

harmless error, see id. at 464. 

The government fails to carry its burden of showing beyond a

reasonable doubt that the Fanfan error had no effect on HernandezUrbina’s sentence. See id. We therefore vacate the sentence and

remand for resentencing in accordance with Booker. See id.

Hernandez-Urbina contends that the sentence-increasing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional and that this

court should remand for resentencing to no more than two years in

prison under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). As he concedes, this contention

is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224,

235 (1998). 

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR

RESENTENCING.
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 'SPECIAL HANDLING 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD 

SUBJECT: Aerospace Support for MS-285 

1. The subject of Aerospace support for the MS-285/MOL effort 

was brought up by Dr. Getting during discussions on 7 April 1964 

with the Secretary, General Greer, General Martin, Colonel Berg, 

Colonel Strand and the undersigned. 

2. In the discussion, Dr. Getting presented the position that 

approximately 20 MTS should be applied to this problem over the 

next three months to aid EKC and the Air Force in the definitive 

definition of the payload and payload/MOL interface prior to the 

starting of MOL Phase I in September. Such an effort would 

supposedly eliminate costly mistakes in the critical definition phase 

of MOL. He did qualify the number of 20 by stating that his people 

presently working with us had recommended a number of six. 

3. The following thoughts on this subject are presented for 

consideration. 

a. It is difficult to envision how a level of 20 MTS could be 

profitably applied to this effort at this time unless we are considering actually attempting to integrate a design into MOL by a 

September date. I did not get this impression from the comments 

made in this meeting. If we are still thinking of "experiments" 

initially in MOL, I don't think we should attempt to overpower the 

problem under consideration at EKC at this time with a large 

number of cleared people. 

b. The present modest pace would appear to offer the soundest 

approach. It would seem that as areas are identified that may need 

more assistance or depth of investigation, they can either be passed 

over to the "white" side or additional personnel brought in as needed. 

Many things are already known and identified that could be actively 

explored and investigated in the "white" by the Aerospace MOL 

people. For example, the LMSC simulator effort could be immediately 

expanded with meaningful results. Likewise the radar aspect as it 

pertains to MOL. 

SPECIAL HANDLING 
YRON F. KNOLL , JR. 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 SPECIAL HANDLING 

c. I feel that the number of six MTS actively engaged in the 

"black" side of this effort would represent the maximum need at this 

time and perhaps even this number could be questioned. 

4. The direction to Dr. Getting from the Secretary on this subject 

was for Aerospace to present a proposal of their desired support 

activities for consideration. 

Lt Colonel, USAF 

2 

SPECIAL HANDLING
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,313
<SECURITIES>                                     1,680
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,506
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (781)
<INVENTORY>                                        499
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,073
<PP&E>                                          21,637
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,236
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  27,119
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,279
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           14,013
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            60
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,236
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    27,119
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,503
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,161
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,161
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   781
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,041
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (31,149)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (30,258)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,149
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.50


</TABLE>
National Reconnaissance Office Release 04-19

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 5, 2019

Contact: (703) 808-5050 

Dr. Christopher Scolese Sworn in as New NRO Director

The Honorable Dr. Christopher Scolese was sworn in as the 19th Director of the 

National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) by the Honorable Joseph Kernan, Under

Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, August 5, 2019, at the agency’s headquarters 

in Chantilly, Virginia. Hon. Dr. Scolese is the first Director of the NRO appointed by 

the President and requiring Senate confirmation. Hon. Dr. Scolese previously 

served as the Director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s

Goddard Space Flight Center.
“I am truly honored to have this opportunity to serve the nation as Director of the 

NRO. I am looking forward to fulfilling the great responsibility ahead of me and 

helping the NRO accomplish its mission to provide innovative overhead intelligence 

systems that help keep our nation safe and secure,” said Scolese.

The Director of the NRO provides direction, guidance, and supervision over all 

matters pertaining to the NRO and executes other authorities specifically delegated 

by the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence.

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

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

and communications intelligence satellites to meet the national security needs of our 

Nation.
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 10-20658

In the Matter of: DAVID ORLANDO COLLINS, Debtor. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * WELLS FARGO BANK, Appellant, versus DAVID ORLANDO COLLINS, Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(09-CV-2483)

Before SMITH, SOUTHWICK, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Wells Fa r go B ank argues that it is entitled to attorneys’ fees for the U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D August 15, 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion s houldnot * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-20658 Document: 00511571846 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/15/2011No. 10-20658

expenses it incurred while filing a proof of claim to correct th e a m o u n t it was owed as part of the chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding of its debtor, David Collins. Collins owed approximately $100,000 to the bank under a promissory note dated March 1, 2001. The note was secured by a deed of trust that was executed the same day and gave the bank a lien on the house Collins purchased with the loan. The deed of trust also obligated Collins to “pay when due the principal of, and interest on, the debt evidenced by the Note.” After missing ten mo nth ly payments, Collins filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy protection. The bankruptcy court approved his confirmation plan, inclu d

ing a provision for ongoing mortgage payments to the bank while the bankruptcy
case was pending. Consistently with the plan, Collins submitted a proof of claim evidencing the amount he owed the bank under the note. The bank thought Collins had understated the amount owed, however, so, it hired an attorney to prepare its own proof of claim in the correct amount

. It submitted an application for the attorneys’ fees it incurred to prepare the proof of claim, citing a provision of the deed of trust. The bankruptcy court rejected the fee application, and the district court affirmed. Each of those courts issued a detailed opinion explaining its reasons. See In re Collins , No. 07-38246, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 1554 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. June 8, 2009), aff’d sub nom. Wells Fargo Ba n k, N.A. v. Collins , No. H:09-2483, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8 5195 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2010). Under these limited and specific facts, we affirm for want of reversible
error. We express no view on the various holdings and observations of the bankru p tcy and district courts. We also observe that this is essentially a matter o f cont r a c t i nt e rpretation and that any unresolved issues can be fixed in subsequent contracts. The judgment of the district court, affirming the order of the bankruptcy court, is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 10-20658 Document: 00511571846 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/15/2011