alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
"Ci.rfCIPIF 

NRO APRIROVED

. 

 FOR 

F*CEASE 1 JUN' 2015 

§ANIStall via BYEMAN 

eSPITROU SYSTEM ONIX 

A 

Honorable Charles I'Schultze 

Director 

IBurt of the Budget. 

Dear Charlie: 

 The comparison studies between the present MOL Program and 

 a similar development of .a wholly unmanned system of 

 equivalent resolution have been completed. 

 Comparisons have been made between a 30 day manned mission 

 capability and a 60 day unmanned mission caoability. These 

studies have focused on the achievement of-resolution an 

each case and a weighing of reliability, time on orbit, 

quantity of intelligence take and development costs.' 

Improvements the man can make in quantity of pictures taken 

in a 30 day mission can be approximately equaled in the 

unmanned system by a 60 day mission. This point of 

equivalent quantity might occur as early as 45 days.It 

is clear to me, however, that the manned system offers 

maximum assurance that the development cycle can be minimize 

■ ••••1■••10 by using his on-orbit knowledge of system performance to 

rapidly converge on the precision subsystems problem areas 

which must be solved to attain resolution in the photographs. 

The wholly unmanned system would require additional flights 

to bring it to equivalent reliability on resolution to 

the present MOL program. The development cost as estimated. 

 in the studies is $1.5 billion for the 60 day system. The 

present. MOL Program is estimated to cost $1.818 billion 

'for the combined unmanned and manned options. This 

 difference of $318 million in total program costs is offso 

, set somewhat by higher confidence in the present MOL 

 Program definition costs which have been developed over 

us

_ the past 2 1/2 years. 

us 

 Although contract negotiations have not bean completed 

 is my belief at this time that the MOL program as now 

 defined will cost approximately $2.0 billion. I am also 

quite certain that at least this difference of $182 million 

would be additive to the wholly unmanned development, in 

the same way I am estimating it for the current MOL Program. 

DORIAN :: -13YE 5532-66 

HANDLE VIA BYE1ViAl1 

-CONTROL SYSTEM ONLY 

1 114 t ; Or! II; 1 .1 .1:: 1. 

e-I 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 C 0 PY 

My review of these studies have led to the conclusion 

that there is a 10 to 15% cost difference in favor of the 

wholly unmanned' development. At •this point in time, 

the confidence I have in man assisted. achievements of 

Illiresolution is higher than I could have in the wholly 

unmanned development of achieving resolution at the same 

pace because of the engineering development problems in 

precision subsystems. 

I intend to proceed with the present MOL Program at the 

optimum engineering development pace as dictated by the -

development cycle required for the optical payload. The 

optical payload is presently on schedule for delivery 

of the first flight unit in last quarter of CY-1969. I 

will be glad to discuss my conclusions with you in more 

detail if you desire. 

DORIAN Sincerely, 

HANDLE VIA BYEMAN 

• CONTROL SYSTEM ONLY 

7r. - I1 w ,;!FT-T. „
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 139 

AN ACT 

To permanently allow an exclusion under the Supplemental 

Security Income program and the Medicaid program for 

compensation provided to individuals who participate in 

clinical trials for rare diseases or conditions. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 139 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ensuring Access to 

3 Clinical Trials Act of 2015’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF SUNSET PROVISION. 

5 Effective as if included in the enactment of the Im6 proving Access to Clinical Trials Act of 2009 (Public Law 

7 111–255, 124 Stat. 2640), section 3 of that Act is amend8 ed by striking subsection (e). 

Passed the Senate July 16, 2015. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 139 

AN ACT 

To permanently allow an exclusion under the Suprare diseases or conditions. individuals who participate in clinical trials for Medicaid program for compensation provided to plemental Security Income program and the
#### Racine Puttyless Window Company, Respondent, vs. Chas. Guetzkow Company, Appellant.

*March 2*

March *23, 1915.*

*Sales: By corporation or agentf Setoff.*

Findings of the trial court that certain goods were bought by defendant from the plaintiff corporation through its agent, and not from the agent himself, against whom defendant claimed an offset, are *held*to be sustained by the evidence.'

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: OscaR M. Ebitz, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

This action was brought in the civil court of Milwaukee county by the respondent to recover for goods, wares, and mer*299chandise alleged in the complaint to have been sold and delivered to the appellant. Judgment was rendered in the civil court for $130.60 damages and $14.'79 costs in favor of the respondent and against the appellant. Appeal was taken to the circuit court and the judgment of the civil court affirmed.

The errors relied upon are (1) that the circuit court erred in affirming the judgment of the civil court; and (2) that the circuit court erred in failing to reverse the judgment of the civil court.

*Leon B.*Lamfrom, for the appellant.

Eor the respondent the cause was submitted on the brief of *Alexander & Burke.*

Kebwih, J.

The controversy here turns on whether the sale of the goods, wares, and merchandise was made by the respondent to the appellant, or whether it was made by one Mertz personally to the appellant. Mertz was tenant of appellant and was indebted to it. In the suit by plaintiff in this case the appellant set up the claim that it bought the goods from Mertz and not from respondent and sought to set off a claim which it had against Mertz individually. Mertz was in the employ of the respondent and soliciting manufacturing companies to handle the articles manufactured by respondent, a patented article called puttyless windows. The appellant delivered to Mertz an order to make certain sash. Some correspondence occurred between appellant and respondent respecting the sale, and the only question here is whether the contract of sale was made between respondent and appellant through the respondent’s agent, Mertz, or whether the contract was made between appellant and Mertz individually.

Both the civil and the circuit courts held that the contract was made between the respondent and the appellant and we are satisfied that the findings below are well supported by the evidence.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In  connection  with  the  accompanying Annual Report of Consortium Service
Management  Group,  Inc.,  (the  "Company")  on  Form  10-KSB for the year ended
December  31, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Gordon W. Allison, Chief Financial Officer
of  the  Company,  hereby  certify  that  to  my  knowledge:

     (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.  78m or  78o(d)); and

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


                              /s/  Gordon  W.  Allison
Dated:  May  5,  2004         --------------------------------------------------
                              Gordon  W.  Allison
                              Chief  Financial  Officer


     The  above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350) and is not being filed as part of
the  Form  10-K  or  as  a  separate  disclosure  document.














                                                                    Exhibit 32.1
Amendment to Excess Benefit Plan, dated as of July 10, 2008



 EXHIBIT 10.2 
 AMENDMENT TO 
 EXCESS BENEFIT PLAN 
 Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated (the “Corporation”) hereby amends the Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated Excess Benefit Plan
as follows: 
 1.    Effective July 14, 2008, Section III, Participation in the Plan, shall be amended by adding the
following paragraph to the end thereof: 
 “Notwithstanding any provision of the Plan to the contrary, effective
July 14, 2008, (i) MSCI Inc. and Barra, Inc. (collectively, “MSCI/Barra”) shall cease to be participating Employers in the Plan and (ii) MSCI/Barra employees who are participating in the Plan as of July 14, 2008 shall
continue to accrue benefits under the Plan, based on compensation paid by MSCI/Barra and service with MSCI/Barra, as provided in Section IV of the Plan, following July 14, 2008. Effective August 31, 2008, MSCI/Barra employees shall cease
to accrue benefits under the Plan.” 
  
 *   *  
*   *   *   *   *   *   * 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Amendment to be executed on its behalf as of
the 10th day of July, 2008. 
  

			
	MORGAN STANLEY & CO.
INCORPORATED
		
	By:	 	/S/ KAREN JAMESLEY
	Title: Global Head of Human Resources
refuted). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion,

and we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.



# D - Z Douglas cc: Hon. Michael Montero, District Judge Humboldt County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Humboldt County District Attorney Humboldt County Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 2
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1162/2006

of 28 July 2006         

amending Regulation (EC) No 796/2006, as regards the list of Member States where buying-in of butter by tendering is open for the period expiring on 31 August 2006         

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2006 of 29 May 2006 suspending the buying-in of butter at 90 % of the intervention price and opening the buying-in by tendering for the period expiring on 31 August 2006 (2), and in particular Article 2(2) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 796/2006, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

‘1.   Buying-in of butter by tendering, as provided for in the third subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999, is hereby open from 29 July to 31 August 2006 in the following Member States, under the conditions provided for in Section 3a of Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999: Spain, Ireland, Poland and Portugal.’

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 July 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2).

(2)OJ L 142, 30.5.2006, p. 4. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1096/2006 (OJ L 195, 15.7.2006, p. 17).

----
Exhibit 8.1

List of Subsidiaries of SK Telecom Co., Ltd.

(As of December 31, 2012)



|                                          |  |                              
|----------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Subsidiary Name                           |  | Jurisdiction of
Incorporation
|SK Telink Co., Ltd.                       |  | Korea                        
|SK Communications Co., Ltd.               |  | Korea                        
|PAXNet Co., Ltd.                          |  | Korea                        
|Loen Entertainment, Inc.                  |  | Korea                        
|Stonebridge Cinema Fund                   |  | Korea                        
|Commerce Planet Co., Ltd.                 |  | Korea                        
|SK Broadband Co., Ltd.                    |  | Korea                        
|Broadband Media Co., Ltd.                 |  | Korea                        
|K-net Culture and Contents Venture Fund   |  | Korea                        
|Fitech Focus Limited Partnership II       |  | Korea                        
|Open Innovation Fund                      |  | Korea                        
|PS&Marketing Co., Ltd.                    |  | Korea                        
|Service Ace Co., Ltd.                     |  | Korea                        
|Service Top Co., Ltd.                     |  | Korea                        
|Network O&S Co., Ltd.                     |  | Korea                        
|BNCP Co., Ltd.                            |  | Korea                        
|SK Planet Co., Ltd.                       |  | Korea                        
|Madsmart, Inc.                            |  | Korea                        
|SK Telecom China Holdings Co., Ltd.       |  | China                        
|SKY Property Mgmt., Ltd.                  |  | China                        
|Shenzhen E-eye High Tech Co., Ltd.        |  | China                        
|SK Global Healthcare Business Group, Ltd. |  | China                        
|SK China Real Estate Co., Ltd.            |  | Hong Kong                    
|SK Planet Japan                           |  | Japan                        
|SKT Vietnam PTE., Ltd.                    |  | Singapore                    
|SK Planet Global PTE. Ltd.                |  | Singapore                    
|SKT Americas, Inc.                        |  | U.S.A.                       
|SKP America LLC                           |  | U.S.A.                       
|YTK Investment Ltd.                       |  | Cayman Islands               
|Atlas Investment                          |  | Cayman Islands               
|Technology Innovation Partners, L.P.      |  | Cayman Islands               
|SK Telecom China Fund I L.P.              |  | Cayman Islands
*-- MPS MKS

kJ.L.0

mummaggimmos

Lir

•

01PARTIAIDITOFTHIAIRPORCE

WASHOSOTON

arras or vow Wawa Socutooty 30 April 1969

•

MORMON FOR DR. RAM •

One of the items which I think we need to look at

has to do with how to reduce the cost of bringing back

pictures from space. The way we are operating now we

build a high-priced camera, throw it into space, and dump

it in the Pacific Ocean a few days later.

There are at least three ways to avoid this waste of

expensive cameras: (1) to bring the camera back and re-'

launch it; (2) to leave the camera up and resupply it in

orbit with expendables such as fuel, batteries, and film;

and (3) to design a camera whose only required input is

electrical power whidh we can get from solar panels and

leave it there for a few years. I would like to see some

analysis done on the merits and demerits of these three

possibilities.

We can stimulate such studies a kheed,

etc., with just a little effort on

j!!!!!!!!Lucas
ACCEPTED 01-15-00484-CR FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/21/2015 8:32:37 AM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 29, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135846 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135846 

 COA: 280442 

Wayne CC: 01-008679 

CARL HALL,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 27, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0721 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 29, 2008 

 Clerk
#### YANCY BALLINGER *v.*STEPHEN ELLIOTT.

A citizen of another State, voluntarily attending one of our Superior Courts as a witness, is privileged from arrest in civil cases although no subpoena has been served on him.

MotioN to vacate an order of arrest, heard by his Honor, Judge *Tourgee,*at Chambers in Guileoed county, on the 25th day of January, 1875.

The defendant lived in Indiana, and had come to Greensboro’, at the request of counsel to give evidence in a certain action then pending in the Superior Court of Guilford, wherein

*597Hittle was plaintiff, and Ballinger, the plaintiff in this action, was defendant. He, the defendant Elliott, was under no subpoena, summons or other judicial process requiring his attendance, nor was any ever issued.

The plaintiff had commenced a civil action against the defendant, and obtained an order of arrest, under which he was held to bail four days before the commencement of the Eall Term of the Court, for his appearance, &c., at the March Term ensuing.

The defendant soon after his arrest, moved before the Clerk of the Court to vacate the order, upon the ground that he was a witness in attendance upon the Fall Term of the Court, in the action above stated, and was therefore protected under the law from the service of civil process. The Clerk refused his motion to vacate the order, and the defendant appealed to his Honor.

On the hearing at Chambers, his Honor reversed the Clerk’s order, and the plaintiff appealed.

*Scott dc*Caldwell, *Scales <&*Scales, *Mendenhall &*Staples, and *Shipp &*Bailey, for appellant.

*J. T.*Morehead, *Jr.,*and *Dillard*cfe Gilmer, contra.

RodmáN, J.

The defendant was arrested upon an order made by the Clerk of the Superior Court of Guilford county, in an action brought against him by the plaintiff for deceit, &c. The defendant resides in Indiana, and at the time of his arrest, which was a few days before a term of the Superior Q ourt of said county, he had come to said county at the request of one Hittle, who was a plaintiff in an action pending in that Court agaiust the present plaintiff (Ballinger,) as a witness for Hittle in that action. His attendance was voluntary, and he was not served with a subpoena after his arrival in Guilford county.

The authorities cited for the defendant establish that he was privileged from arrest, notwithstanding he was attending vol*598untarily and not under a *sicipama.*There is no way to compel the attendance of witnesses from other States, and it would be against public policy, and to discourage their attendance, if' upon their arrival here they could be arrested. The plaintiff is put in no worse condition by the discharge of the defendant than he was before. The principal authorities on the privilege of witnesses, suitors, &c., from arrest may be found cited in 1 Greenl. Ev., sec. 316. Those most to the point in the present case are *Walpole*v. Alexander, 3 Doug., 45, (26 E. C. R.,) and *Norris*v. *Beach,*2 Johns., (N. Y.) 294.

Pee CueiaM. Judgment of the Superior Court affirmed.
ContiMortgage
                            500 Enterprise Road
                             Horsham, Pa. 19044
                               (215) 957-3700




                                  March 24, 1997




ContiSecurities Asset Funding Corporation
277 Park Avenue
New York, NY  10172


RE:  CMC Home Equity Loan Trust 1996-2


Dear Sirs:

In  accordance  with  Section 8.16 of the Pooling and  Servicing  Agreement,
ContiMortgage  Corporation,  as Servicer,  confirms  that as of December 31,
1996:

      (i)  we  have  completed  a  review  of  the  activities  of the
           Servicer  during the year ended  December 31, 1996,  and of
           performance  under the Pooling and Servicing  Agreement has
           been made under my supervision;

      (ii) to the  best of my  knowledge,  based on such  review,  the
           Servicer  has  fulfilled  all  its  obligations  under  the
           Pooling  and   Servicing   Agreement  for  the  year  ended
           December 31, 1996.


                                  Sincerely yours,



                                  /s/ Margaret M. Curry               
                                  Margaret M. Curry
                                  Sr. Vice President - Servicing
". .',.. ." f' to. C' ..... s ... ·.. . . NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

DECLASSIFIED ON:· 1 OCTOBER 2012 

OF~ICE OF THE.LJ)j?~~li~~·§9·~!~~RY OF DEFENSE 

June 18. 1963 

\. 

• 

.. 

- ~ ' . 

. .. , ~ . '.'.';: ~ 

.~. . " 

.' .... ' ," 

.... , 

• ". '. :-:J 

, ,.' .,:.;.' ',' ,,' 

, .' .. 

Naco FOR __ .!!M:!.:r~.~G:=.:i:::.lpa:::a::.it::.::r:..:i:.::c:....-_________ _ 

t 

As a 're suIt of the Purcell Committee 

study, the general interest of all concerned 

people in a covcart satellite c~pal,)ility l~" 

greatly decreased. , In· addition to this, the 

amount of money originally budgeted for 

. , of an over-all deficit of .abou 

the purpose may have to be allWlle 

.... ..: '. ":-".,. in 1964. For these reasons, lt mgt 

" " .,.::-'. :. ~,. It better not to call a meeting to make a 

. .', ,." , ~ .. :': ' .. ,' c:1J ~ decision regarding the assignment. of 

~', ' .. , "':.'. '.'~ ... ':.' ...... " responsibilities before ~e have convinced· 

,:: .:. ", '. . ourselves that we intend to go ahead with 

,',' '~.-t the project . 

•. " . ';. : 4_~_ ~ c\ 

";"':;?~0 

.' · '; " ft/ ,t!J .,." 0 SI=GRrT ' ~. 11 J I \ ~ r: '. .. Ii v .. ~ __ ,' - .~..!. 

.. ',' 

Gene Fubini 

BYEMAN 

. • ~.. t • " ... - -.. -.-.. ~. -.. -... ---.. ~.,- .... --:---"--- .. , .. - ~--:;.- ...... --

, '-

" 

. ',' 

., ~. . 

.-' 

.. '" 

\ 

. \~ .. 

'." I,
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 27, 2021

No. 04-20-00151-CV

John PORTERFIELD,

Appellant

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,

Appellee

From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18-366

Honorable Kirsten Cohoon, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Because the panel has issued a different opinion, appellee’s motion for en banc 

reconsideration is DENIED AS MOOT. 

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of October, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court