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

-(9)-NATIONALRECONNAISSANCEOFFICE

WASHINGTON, D.0

sonatiless

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOG 30 October 1974

MEMORANDUM FOR DIRECTOR, PROGRAM C

SUBJECT: NRO Research & Development Advisory Council

I have reviewed your request for membership on the NRO

R&D Advisory Council.

As you noted, the Navy is active in some R&D areas of

interest to the NRP. I am aware of Navy participation in the

Support R&D Program through the annual R&D Review and recognize that your office has been the point of contact for Navy

"White" R&D efforts.

The NRO R&D Council is chartered to provide broad guidance to the NRP and as such could benefit from information on

Navy efforts of related or common NRP interest. As such, I

believe your participation on the Council would be of mutual

benefit and thereby concur in your participation. As a

matter of policy the Council does not allocate near-term

resources or approve specific R&D efforts. Specific R&D

efforts are reviewed on a yearly basis by the NRO Staff and

are submitted to me for approval.

cc: Gen Bradburn, SAFSP

Mr.• Le ks, CIA/OD&E

SAFSS

•

Cl AINOVIAIllipaxnev PEW

COMENAI SEREOULE Of

GORY SO2 DECLASSIFY OR IMP OCT. EXECUTIVI OMER I El OPTION CATE -H-SEPRET- P• Ol II S

PACK , 1. OF 1 PAGES
#### In *Adrian*v. Shaw, from Cumberland.

’Smith, C. J.

When this cause was before us at January-term, 1880, (82 N. C., 474,) it received the careful consideration of the court, and its members were unanimous in the conclusion announced in the opinion. We have, after another exhaustive argument upon the re-hearing, reconsidered the point then decided, with a desire to correct any error into which we may have then fallen when pointed out, and our convictions remain unchanged. The cases called 'to our attention are from states in which the homestead is deemed to be land occupied as a place of residence or dwelling, and losing its exemption from liability to forced sale as soon as it ceases to be so occupied. The adjudications upon the provisions contained in the constitution of this state proceed upon the idea of an exemption of land of limited value, that not only now is, but may become the home of the insolvent debtor, and that it may be improved as a permanent residence; hence, the pre-existent homestead right may attach to land wholly unoccupied. *Martin*v. Hughes, 67 N. C., 293; *Mayho*v. Cotton, 69 N. C., 289. Even a fraudulent conveyance, void as to creditors, is void also as to the homestead right. *Crummen*v. *Bennett,*68 N. C., 494. In the former opinion, Mr. Justice Ashe says ; “The law, when it authorizes one to sell his homestead, would be untrue to itself and the obligations of justice, if it were to allow the owner to sell'it, receive a full and fair price, and then leave it subject, in the hands of his vendee, to the satisfaction of *833his debts. We cannot believe that to be the law.” Again, in *Watkins*v. *Overby,*83 N. C., 165, it is declared that “ the Constitutional exemption looks to the protection and preservation of the land upon which the debtor has made, or *may make his home*for himself and his family,” etc. The decisions in other states (the scope of whose statutory provisions on this subject are not altogether like our own, as heretofore interpreted,) are unsafe guides in determining the present question. We must adhere to our own exposition of the constitution and laws enacted to subserve its policy, unless clearly erroneous; for the unsettling of prior adjudications is often more fruitful of mischief than the error proposed to be corrected. We must, therefore, adhere to our former ruling on this point. The case sent up states that a jury trial was waived and the facts found by His Honor, and is directly repugnant to the record, which shows a verdict to have been rendered by the jury, subject to the opinion of the court upon the point reserved, the facts of which are set out in the case ; and if the court should be of opinion with the plaintiff, judgment was to be entered on the verdict:: otherwise the verdict to be set aside and a nonsuit entered. As the record must prevail in this conflict, and we must-render such judgment as ought to have been rendered in the-court below, the verdict must be set aside and a nonsuit entered, and it is so adjudged. The former judgment-wherein it differs from this must be reversed.

Per Curiam. Judgment accordingly..
#### Dickey *v.*Hoodenpile.

in an Ejectment, the first grant is the only thing to be enquired into, without any regard to the entry or survey.

Ejectment for two hundred and forty acres of land.— *Dickey*claimed under a grant from the State, dated the 10th of September, 1778, and proved thé land surveyed *411the place mentioned in his declaration. *Hoodenpile*claimed under *McDowell,*who obtained a grant from the State, dated 7tli August *\7%7,*which included the same land. *McDowell*had first entered this *land*— Dickey some time after, entered his two hundred and fifty acres on the middle fork of Cain river, but surveyed this tract of two hundred and forty acres on another prong of that rivet* upon *McDowell’s*entry — and the question was, whether this grant was valid It was argued for *Hoodenpile,*that the act of *1777,*c 1, *s.*9. declares void all grants otherwise obtained than that act directs ; and that the entry-taker had not by his warrant, nor indeed could he authorize th< surveyor to survey those lands for Dickey, which lie had not entered, to the prejudice of *McDowell,*who had entered them ; and consequently, that whatever the surveyor had done in surveying these lands, and returning plats of them to the Secretary’s office, had been done without authority, and otherwise than the act directs, and so was void, as were also all the proceedings subsequent to that period, the grant inclusive.

Judge Wixuiams

When a grant once issues for a tract of vacant land, it becomes the only evidence of title, and we cannot afterwards look further back than the grant. We must admit all antecedent proceedings to have been reguiar, otherwise we should introduce the practice of invalidating grants by parol testimony. The grant may be suspended and a trial had, where a claimant proceeds to survey ami return plats of other land than those he has entered, to the prejudice of another who has entered them : ami *McDowell*should have proceeded this way — ns lie has not done it he has slipped his time, and cannot, now object to the grant. It seems unjust that he should lose his land by the mistake of the surveyor, who has surveyed the lands entered by him, for the lands entered at another place by *Dickey*— but *Dickey*by that mistake has lost the land he entered : for it is said, that another person has since obtained a grant for it. It. is possible, that *Mr, McDowell*might obtain redress in a Court, of Equity, but I am clearly of opinion, he has no remedy in this court. Our Courts of Law have uniformly decided, that whoever obtains the first grant shall he the legal proprietor, without any regard had to the first entry or survey; and indeed without regarding whether there was any entry or not — the court will not go back to these circumstances.

*412Judge Haywood was silent, having been concerned in the cause whilst at the bar. The Plaintiff had a verdict and judgment.

*Note.*— Vide *Reynolds*v. *Flinn,*and the note thereto *ante*106.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



April 5, 2001

U.S. Plastic Lumber Corp.
Boca Raton, FL


As Independent Certified Public Accountants we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in each Prospectus constituting a part of the
Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-32148, 333-86533, 333-76845),
Form S-4 (File No. 333-84047), and Form S-8 (File No. 333-76277) of our report
dated March 28, 2000 in this Form 10 K/A.


/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
--------------------
Arthur Andersen LLP



West Palm Beach, FL
April 5, 2001
••

,

4 •••111..

Y. P••

•

•

1 • i

91 AA(14 441-• .1447

11110. a

ma tovrt SECRETARY OF DEFB4S1 . . °I.4

„,... 

CIAL 1:4;113Uriti • ::

;

WASNINGTON U, 114. .. .,

... : S.AFSS . •

. : Hanle via BYEMAN ' •

...I

::•: ....:, •:....• . ...• ,•••••••••••:•••••••.::?• ,..2.•••••,•••••..

..

•••• — - .. • • : i••• •• •::. •••.. ••• ...:.::..: : ....Ls! :•;;;;;;;...... .... .. . ..

.

..

f.,...,,.....:,....,......„........ . .i..,

.

. •

. ..

rt • • : ... :••:- ::::.:;:.••:.::••.: • ; ez MEMORANDUM ...• • .

FOR DR. SCOVILLE • :.., • •• • . • . '.....

•

:

. . . •

.• .: It has come to my attention that according to you= .

, . ....'.. • • : .-.• ••.:..

. • •.....:...Z• 

:. .•

party to any such understanding and have .. .• . :

found no record of it in thellienoinutes or other papers. ....:•.•:-

... • -

• . • . •

. .

I certainly did no intend in any agreenienta reached dating •-.:. - ....... • the FY 164 NRQ budget 

mission. 

review to commit Dark to any.such. , .• :. i...... ... • aassignment..

-

. . . - : . • • -. -:: • : - - -.: . It is not my purpose in this memorandum to deal wIth.„...., . the .;•• • ** .... ••• :

It

of a proposal that CIA have the responsibility • ..- • •

..

for a lIllbsatellite development. I only want to make : - ..; • clear that the Issue is one that remains to be resolved. ' .; ? •

To that end Dr. McMillan, Dr. Fubini and I will be happy '. ; • • •

to sit down and disiussthe matter with you Ancl • .Mr.. Mc .

. .. ,

J .

lb . . .

.. ••••••• ., '.. .:.• ••• • •:••:.ist:, -- ::'......:

•

:•:.• ,• • •1 15 :.:.• '—: •i..1:•••••'... •• :.". :: • .. •• , •:•t : . r., • •,- •• •:,.A. t ...•

.. : .'., :: :.: : (... „ • • • *:;•••:.: .•••• • • ._ • • • • •,.. • • ; . • ••:••••••:.:1••••.. . ..

... 1.., ...: ::••••••.:- ::: ....,:-: •• ...... •

• •• • . • • .

C . • . • •..• • -* • • : . • .

.• .

. •

: base via BYEMAN

Cott SAM

:

.

- - •

II,

:•4 •

... ...... .... . ...I.;

:.C.„ 7.1 .....4".....' 1,...• • .:..::: • •• ..:.: • . • ; .: • • ..• . • .:•. • : .• : : -.. L.:. • ,. 1 %.,•:•;,:•.* ......• • -

. ..

- .: • •••• -*..:,. • Sune'l. 1963 • • CIS"' Side!. • Eg • • • •

. 1963 4141 :'3.: . 099)431) .• G725•43 .., • .• -•••••••-•'•:* :••:. ••

.

7 : .....

— : ' '''.

1 • • .. •••.. • ..,...• :-

ik. "...• •••• ." ••••;•. •

.• :.. ••:-...-.- •-•:—:•74 :•• ,.

.::.%::•.••••;'•:;•:- .:•:••••:,:1:;.t.••:7::'1 • •......? :::::: • • " ••— • - ... ..

. -

.• • Deputy Director. NRO • . • .• • .. • •

:.. ... uuderstar.dIng the 5412 Group has:aiiid to CIA the - •1,.1. ... • .

not r call being e

responsibility for development of satellite) I do j.

;

•

▪

.•

.

A • ,(*. .• . • • . .• LL.t `. • • 1 • . '.•

F••IS; flo. '4 •

. **•-•

WOO

• 7n:: V.
Argued and submitted June 27,

remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed September 12, 1990

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*RAY WILLIAM EDWARDS, *Appellant.*STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*RAY WILLIAM EDWARDS, *Appellant.*

(88-CR-2020; CA A51227)

(88-CR-2040; CA A51228)

(Cases Consolidated for Opinion)

797 P2d 402

Irene B. Taylor, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. *411With her on the briefs was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem.

David L. Runner, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the briefs were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Newman, Judges.

NEWMAN, J.

*412NEWMAN, J.

In case number A51227, defendant appeals his convictions for rape in the third degree, ORS 163.355, and tampering with a witness. ORS 162.285. In case number A51228, he appeals his conviction for tampering with a witness with a firearm. ORS 162.285; ORS 161.610.1 We affirm the convictions and remand for resentencing.

The court sentenced defendant to imprisonment for each of the convictions. He assigns as error in each case the portion of each sentence that orders “that upon release the defendant have no contact with the victims in this case,”2 arguing that the court had no authority to make such an order. The state responds that we should refuse to consider the errors, because defendant did not object to the sentences below.

In *State v. Braughton,*28 Or App 891, 893 n 2, 561 P2d 1040 (1977), we stated:

> “Where * * * it is alleged that a sentencing court has exceeded its statutory authority in imposing a specific sentence, an objection below is not a prerequisite to the challenging of the sentencing order alleged to be void.” (Citations omitted.)

We will consider that assignment of error.

A court’s sentencing authority “exists solely by virtue of a statutory grant of power and therefore cannot be exercised in any manner not specifically authorized.” *State v. Braughton, supra,*28 Or App at 893 n 2. ORS 137.010(7) provides:

> “When a person is convicted of an offense and the court does not suspend the imposition or execution of sentence or when a suspended sentence or probation is revoked, the court shall impose the following sentence:

> “(a) A term of imprisonment;

> “(b) Afine;

> “(c) Both imprisonment and a fine; or

> “(d) Discharge of the defendant.”

*413A trial court has no authority to impose conditions of parole, including the one imposed here. *State v. Kipp,*52 Or App 1011, 630 P2d 394 (1981). The state urges us to construe the court’s orders precluding contact with the victims as recommendations to the parole board for a special condition of parole. We decline to do that. On remand, the court may, if it deems it appropriate, make an express recommendation to the parole board for a special condition of parole.

Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.

1

 We consolidate the two cases for opinion.

2

 Defendant’s other assignments of error are without merit.
OFFICE OF **THE** AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

.iIG23Xi)iQ JO!2 C. Xzzbur~er, Pn~o 2

*%nce t3c.Co!~titutio2 a& the S~u~lore=lo CoILIt. msoifiaaily bold thut 3ahool districtdhavo ~0 z&i-d OL‘authoritjr to.enter i;ltoouch contraots, ruch contracts. cm alearly ultra viras. R. . l . n
Your l&tar continues by citing 10 Tax. Jur. pp. 135 to 1.87an& by slotiug your **c~xCtz3fon that**  **a** Sire **in- ~.~y~:;CC**  **pcllcy iasus8**  by a inutwl ooqmny on property be- -lo= -.*-i U,+-g to c 3ohcol district could not be cr.fozced by tho ~:~.~,~~c$actor 1% &6 suflered **3** fire 1033 on tiuohproperty.a ~cwX.~f, of tko sciiooldistziotts crocit. ?ho Opinion

r~-dc~&zcu thc.tthe llabillty of t&e nolic?rLiolearla ttot ti*uasp3aii%xl La the policy. _ Cara w.tiihit8d t0 thG ?re

03 the ccatrury auoh 

### doci3133. ic bzsed equsrely or&t:o ~rort?C that tho.polioyholk - iana mutual inr?umnce ccri1;_3az;T

besoms in efToct a stookholC!er ar~dthe oonstitu- :io;?;lprovision quoted by you prohibits a retool blstrict Snx beomin~ such a stoo'kholifsr. It follo:~3 that the oere Scot that p,-etikim nero paid by third parties would not aSrect ths cc~ool.~istrict~s r&-&t or lack of right to beoom a px- -*+cyhol&or in a~nutual insurance ompany. 38 therefore agree that the coatYaot of iwmxnoe is illegal evea though . et.- wa~ pYZiW9 is not paid by thG OChOoi GiStYfOt.

As ve un&xstunU your,lettor no.policy h& as yi3t $xz2 ItcUOd by the mtual Cori~ to tha SOhOOl aif3w0t and thmofore tiioquo&loo.-& towhether or not there is any 3r5rciplo 'ormthozI by wh&h the distrfot Could .OOilGCt~fO* rt;,loss a3xr.a.Sire oooua*reU in purely hypothotLoal and ~$8Co zot bvlieve this,depE+.Uent should czp,ress an opinion thorooix. %'Ghopa.thGt thiG'&siOn viii1be htip,fUi t0 pOU IX ",~adc~omimtion of your problen.

. DonaldGay .Assistant
V •

:.'e. 4

ri

tow .tiltat.:,

911:Riag0ial4 *44,•Thf.iosip 14.05 .PST AT T..55 TO PERT IT. TRAINS

TO CLEAR 'TES 110 'VAS *POSED: DOR* TASK DuRnia

THE ti* • PAD •PROGRICiaiD THROUGH : TASKS 15 AND 16. INF

HOW VASH NELEASKD .4. 116 PST AT :T-55 ,.WITH Tqac Escpume ON TASK

1. 1 si0014):,oP1427.914 Hov nR jams:114s neosim AT 11:58

/1ST: AT- .1. 15, 1 CH WAS NNIZÁSiD AT 1211. PST: . 113101tif WAS TURNED AT . •

121 j351.' 411 18i-aEoprib iEop.:448..:pirOdp skim muisE

ARP ..„,. .1)** * 0$ Tlig: **11:Nit Tipariu,taiiTritia

WA.1112.,/** AND 1.8-sEdomy

pitid#*

• ' *poop airpatir iPRASIC32 AND

.
Exhibit32.2






Chief
Financial Officer’s Certification required under Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002






In
connection with the annual report of TIB Financial Corp. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Stephen J. Gilhooly, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that, to my knowledge, the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operation of the Company.




/s/Stephen J.
      GilhoolyDate:
      March 16, 2009
            Stephen
      J. Gilhooly
              Executive
      Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer




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 TIB Financial Corp. and will be retained by
TIB Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.

















Exhibit 32.2






Chief
Financial Officer’s Certification required under Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002






In
connection with the annual report of TIB Financial Corp. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Stephen J. Gilhooly, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that, to my knowledge, the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operation of the Company.




/s/Stephen
      J. GilhoolyDate:
      April 16, 2009
            Stephen
      J. Gilhooly
              Executive
      Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer




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 TIB Financial Corp. and will be retained by
TIB Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 August 15, 2017

Order 

Clerk

August 15, 2017

154764(80)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant, SC: 154764

v COA: 325407

Monroe CC: 13-040406-FH

LONNIE JAMES ARNOLD, Defendant-Appellee.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the second motion of defendant-appellee to extend 

the time for filing his brief is GRANTED. The brief will be accepted for filing if 

submitted on or before August 16, 2017.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE REGISTRANT,
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 Annual Report of Dynamex Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the COMPANY), on Form 10-K for the period ended July 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the REPORT),
Richard E. McClelland, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge,
that: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 2. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ RICHARD K. McCLELLANDRichard K. McClellandPresident and Chief Executive OfficerOctober 14, 2004
 This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT
32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with this annual report of Braintech, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the period December 31, 2008 (the “Report”), I, Edward A. White the
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of
the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, section 1350 of
the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and




(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the consolidated financial condition and result of operations of
      the Company at the dates and for the period
  indicated.





This
Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
Exchange Commission.





/s/
      Edward A. WhiteEdward
      A. White


Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer


March
      26, 2009