alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111800 

tOP SECRET 

, v,. -c. ., 'l ~- "-

HANDLE VIA M .. -t,h.'I 

BYEMAN 11 . CONTROL SYSTEM 

1s(J NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE 

/ • WASHINGTON, D.C. 

I IHill 11111 ill~liill 11111 lllllllllllllll lilliiilll illlllll llll 14000791110 

THE NRO STAFF July 10, 1969 

MEMORANDUM FOR COLONEL ALLEN 

SUBJECT: NRO Annex to the STG Report 

I met withl I this morning, to show him our NRO 

Annex to the STG Report and obtain his (and Ambassador U. Alexis 

Johnson's) concurrence in that portion of the report which discusses 

the Arms Control Satellite. 

proposed changes are at Tab A. Our experience here is 

rath~e_r_h~.k-e~that with Don Steininger on the aircraft/ satellite issue: 

we cap mention aircraft but shouldn't expand on how good they are. 

~---

Jhinks it's all right for us to mention an Arms Control Satellite 

but we should drop those sentences which explain why we think it's 

a good idea ("You pre-judge the findings of the Committee"). 

I think we have no choice but to follow desire and will 

make changes as indicated in Tab A to our hard copy of the report. 

I ~hinks Ambassador Johnson would be willing to hold· an 

NSAM 156 Ad Hoc Committee meeting right after the final NSSM 28 

Committee meeting. Of considerable more importance, I think, is 

~--~ 

open hostility to the Arms Control Satellite idea ("I believe 

HANDLE VIA 

it will cause us more problems than simple disclosure! 11 ). This 

means that Ambassador Johnson has not been and will not be exposed 

to our rationale, unless we take special action to make that possible. 

As I see it, we have a situation like this: 

CONTROL NO ______ _ 

BYEMAN TOP SECRET COPY ___ OF ___ COPIES 

CONTROL SYSTEM EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING 

DOD DIRECTIVE 5200.1D DOES NOT APPLY 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111800 

PAGE. ___ OF ___ PAGES 
HANDLE VlA 

BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111800 HAND! F '-./IA 

TOP SECRET BYEMAN 

Mr. Packard 

Mr. Helms 

Dr. DuBridge 

Thought we knew how he felt, but 

not sure now. Has never had our 

briefing. 

Not sure he has had anything except 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

a quick phone call from Ambassador 

Johnson. Has never had our briefing. 

Didn't even want us to write about it. 

Has never had our briefing. 

I recommend that, in accordance with Dr. DuBridge' s comment, 

Dr. McLucas should call a luncheon meeting of the ExCom, with 

Ambassador U. Alexis Johnson and Dr. Tom Paine as special guests 

(no aides or camp-followers to be present). At that luncheon, you 

should brief the group as to why we feel so strongly about an Arms 

Control Satellite. This will prepare the key participants for the NSAM 

156 Ad Hoc Committee meeting. 

PA WORTHMAN 

Colone 1, USAF 

. ~ ~ ~ 

TOP SECRET EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING 

DOD D!RECTlVE 5200.10 DOES NOT APPLY 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111800 

CONTROL NO. ______ _ 

COPY ___ OF ___ COPIES 

PAGE. ___ OF ___ PAGES
---

EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Braintech, Inc. (the
"Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Owen
L.J. Jones the Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 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; and

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





/s/ Owen L.J. JonesOwen
L.J. Jones Principal Executive Officer March 22, 2007

---
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .gov**
A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

National Security Agency/Central Security Service

Search
Search

Search

-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Mission & Combat Support             
  -  Cybersecurity             
  -  Signals Intelligence             
  -  Central Security Service             
  -  Locations             
  -  Research             
  -  Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Accessibility             
  -  Cybersecurity Collaboration Center      -  Collaborative Partnerships             
    -  Enduring Security Framework             
    -  DIB Cybersecurity Services             
    -  Standards and Certifications             
    -  Artificial Intelligence Security Center 
-  Press Room    -  Press Releases & Statements             
  -  News & Highlights             
  -  Declassification & Transparency Initiatives             
  -  Cybersecurity Advisories & Guidance             
  -  Telework and Mobile Security Guidance             
  -  DoD Microelectronics Guidance             
  -  Research Publications 
-  Careers    -  Unique Pathways             
  -  Innovation 
-  History    -  National Cryptologic Museum             
  -  Cryptologic History             
  -  National Cryptologic Memorial 

# Employee Spotlight

HomeCareersEmployee Spotlights OLDEmployee Spotlight View
Motion Granted; Order filed March 24, 2015.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00481

- CV

____________ LUCIDALIA CHAVEZ , Appellant

V.
WALTER CHAVEZ , Appellee

On Appeal from the 309th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 60726



### ABATEMENT ORDER

After a non

-

jury trial, appellant Lucidalia Chavez brings this appeal from a
final decree of divorce signed March 17, 2014. Appellant timely requested findings of fact and conclusions of law and timely reminded the trial court when the findings and conclusions were overdue. Our record does not contain the reque sted findings and conclusions. On January 29, 2015, appellant filed a brief complaining of the trial court’s failure to make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law. On March 18,2015, appellee filed a motion to abate the appeal so that the trial court may make

and file findings of fact and conclusions of law . Appellee avers in the motion that
he cannot properly respond to appellant’s issues withou t the findings and
conclusions. Because the trial judge continues to serve on the district court, the
error in this case is remediable. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.4.

We GRANT appellee’s motion, ABATE the appeal, and ORDER the trial court to file findings of f act and conclusions of law on or before April 13, 2015. Within ten days after the trial court has filed findings of fact and conclusions of law, any party may file a request for specified additional or amended findings or
conclu sions. The trial court shall file any additional or amended findings that are appropriate within ten days after such a request is filed. The trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and any additional and amended findings or conclusions, shall be included in a supplemen tal clerk’s record to be filed with this
court on or before May 8, 2015

. The appeal is abated, treated as a clos ed case, and removed from this c ourt’s
active docket. The app eal will be reinstated on this c ourt’s active docket when the supplemental record o rdered herein is filed in this court. The c ourt will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the

c ourt may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. Appellant’s brief shall be due thirty days after the appeal is reinstated.

PER CURIAM
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1400 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1400

To amend the Small Business Act to direct the task force of the Office 
 of Veterans Business Development to provide access to and manage the 
   distribution of excess or surplus property to veteran-owned small 
                              businesses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 20, 2015

  Mr. Durbin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Small Business Act to direct the task force of the Office 
 of Veterans Business Development to provide access to and manage the 
   distribution of excess or surplus property to veteran-owned small 
                              businesses.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Small Business Enhancement 
Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. ACCESS TO EXCESS OR SURPLUS PROPERTY FOR VETERAN-OWNED SMALL 
              BUSINESSES.

    Section 32(c)(3)(B) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
657b(c)(3)(B)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (v), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a 
        semicolon;
            (2) in clause (vi), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
                            ``(vii) providing access to and managing 
                        the distribution of excess or surplus property 
                        owned by the United States to small business 
                        concerns owned and controlled by veterans, 
                        pursuant to a memorandum of understanding 
                        between the task force and the head of the 
                        applicable state agency (as defined in section 
                        549 of title 40, United States Code).''.
                                 <all>
```
ex4_3.htm


    
      

    

    Exhibit
4.3

    


    


    The
following is a summary of an amendment to the Ford Motor Company Tax-Efficient
Savings Plan for Hourly Employees, effective January 1, 2008:

    


    


    
      	
               
      

            	
              ·

            	
              Allow
      a distribution of elective deferrals (pre-tax deferrals) upon severance
      from employment, effectively eliminating the "same-desk
    rule."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-03-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-01-2000
<CASH>                                          12,311
<SECURITIES>                                    44,711
<RECEIVABLES>                                  242,760
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,412
<INVENTORY>                                    224,555
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               438,711
<PP&E>                                         263,207
<DEPRECIATION>                                 140,848
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 744,932
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          287,105
<BONDS>                                        268,636
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        77,600
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,440
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   744,932
<SALES>                                      1,561,702
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,561,702
<CGS>                                        1,395,928
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,547,666
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,508
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,030)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,016)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,014)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,014)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 977/2006

of 29 June 2006         

fixing the maximum export refund for butter in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 581/2004

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), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the permanent tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 581/2004, for the tendering period ending on 27 June 2006, the maximum amount of refund for the products referred to in Article 1(1) of that Regulation shall be as shown in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 30 June 2006.

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

Done at Brussels, 29 June 2006.

For the Commission

J. L. 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 90, 27.3.2004, p. 64. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 409/2006 (OJ L 71, 10.3.2006, p. 5).

(3)OJ L 90, 27.3.2004, p. 58. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1814/2005 (OJ L 292, 8.11.2005, p. 3).

----

ANNEX

----
EXHIBIT 32.b



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of BCTC IV Assignor Corp. (the "registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Principal Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                  
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                        
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.



|                |  |                            
|--------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:           |  |                            
|August 14, 2006 |  | /s/ Marc N. Teal           
|                |  |                            
|                |  | Marc N. Teal               
|                |  | Principal Financial Officer
|                |  |                            
|                |  |                            
|                |  |                            

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jack Rutigliano, Appellant.

[771 NYS2d 907]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), rendered January 7, 2002, convicting him of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to support his conviction because the testimony of the arresting officers was inconsistent and incredible is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not specify those grounds in his motion to dismiss at trial *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10 [1995]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245 [1989]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]). Smith, J.P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Release 11-11

Contact: (703) 808-1198 December 13, 2011

NRO Achieves Third Consecutive “Clean” Audit on Its Annual Financial Statements

For a third consecutive year, the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) received an unqualified 

audit opinion on its Annual Financial Statements, a unique accomplishment within the 

Intelligence Community. 

DNRO Bruce Carlson remarked, “The entire organization contributed to this achievement and 

we will continue to maintain our focus on financial and management controls while working 

toward continuous process improvement for mission success.” 

An unqualified opinion means that the financial statements present fairly the financial position 

and the results of the organization’s operations in accordance with U.S. generally accepted 

accounting principles. NRO managers can confidently use this information in day-to-day 

decisions knowing it is accurate and reliable. 

In accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards as required by the Chief Financial 

Officer Act of 1990, the NRO Office of the Inspector General contracts an independent public 

accounting firm, Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC), to conduct an annual audit of financial 

statements. PWC evaluated the reliability of financial data supporting financial statements, the 

accuracy of the statements, and the accuracy of footnote disclosures in accordance with guidance 

issued by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, the Office of Management and 

Budget, and other authoritative guidance. 

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-
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

WASHINSTON

OVPICE Or TM thioot SCICASTAINV

19 May 1910

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

SUBJECT: Meeting with Laird and Packard on 19 May

Tagboard. I said that we had had a successful Tagboard

flight over the Hawaiian Islands and that based on this we

would now like to run one over Alaska because we felt the need

to get more coverage over land rather than over water. We

cannot evaluate our systems very well flying over water. I

told him that we had approval of the FAA and had selected a

route which would minimise the probability of any failure which

might result in this overflying a populated area. Before Laird

could answer, Packard said, well now before you waste a flight

flying over Alaska, let's see if we don't have another mission

for it, and we'll know within the next 10 days or so.

Meeting with Senator Ellender and Company. I told them

that Senator Ellender gave me a 10-minute lecture on how we

should have never gotten involved in Southeast Asia and that if

people have been listening to his speeches over the last ten

years they know that he has proved right so far and more right

as time goes on. We then described our NRO program to him; he

seemed impressed with it, although he had a little trouble

keeping all the systems sorted out; but he did much better

following it than I thought he would. Then when we described

our new systems he said, but you are already doing such a good

job with the current systems, I don't see why you need all these

new ones. We did the best we could with this type question.

But when it was all over said that he had been shocked to find

that we were spendi intelligence; that he was not sure

that there was any ing wasted here but that was an awful

lot of money and it was hard for him to believe that we really

needed to spend that much. He said that we had better start

looking for places that we can cut because he's pretty sure that

when this thing goes on the floor there are going to have to be

cuts made. With respect to our program he said he wasn't sure
--abitcr

•

that we had to take any cuts but we certainly had to take them

somewhere in the intelli ield. On the way out Woodward

suggested that we take a t and see if that wouldn't

take care of the Senator lens. I reviewed with

Laird and he said that he agreed with me that t 8 not

the only problem we t, that we ly to

end up with about a t in the Air Force. I said

that in that case I ld take a 5% cut in the NRO

and that we could do that without too much trouble. Dave said that

before agreeing to that he would have to take a much closer look.

John L. HCLucas
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 645/2006

of 27 April 2006         

fixing the maximum export refund for butter in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 581/2004

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), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the permanent tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 581/2004, for the tendering period ending on 25 April 2006, the maximum amount of refund for the products referred to in Article 1(1) of that Regulation shall be as shown in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 28 April 2006.

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

Done at Brussels, 27 April 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(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 90, 27.3.2004, p. 64. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 409/2006 (OJ L 71, 10.3.2006, p. 5).

(3)OJ L 90, 27.3.2004, p. 58. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1814/2005 (OJ L 292, 8.11.2005, p. 3).

----

ANNEX

----