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

•

• •

.• • •

•

. •

r.

: .

PAS

IPCEN PA

7 OPEN 549

-•

ill RUXONA RUXQOA RUEIVC

OE RUKOAA 257 2261316 • '

ZNY XXXXX XXX

R 8713152

Br

44

INFO 

el AUG 72 107.

IEFS %Ira, 24 JUL 72

2. 4132, 2.A

SE NA ONSIDERED OGGESTION (REF 1)

THAT THE NRO STAFF OE THE ORO OF HISTORICAL

DATA FOR CORONA AS ELL AS ALL OTHER ON•GOING PROJECTS.

IE BELIEVE IT IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR EACH PROGRAM

DIRECTOR TO MAINTAIN TIE HISTORICAL FILES FOR EACH OF

HIS ONGOING AND TERMINATED PROJECTS. THE LOCATION OF

PROGRAM HISTORICAL FILES CAN OE PROVIDED INDIVIDUALS

MEN THEY COORDINATE THEIR ACCESS REQUESTS THROUGH

THE NRO STAFF (REF 1 PARA 1)

a FOR TH4EigION OF THE CORONA HISTORY, OE

OFFER TO REF 2.

TOPSE ET

ff

LOSTRIBUTION

SAFSS A 1

Dr Mducas

Dr Harr

•

: • • . •

10-7.:RF

FILE

• •• • *.V.

-

• r.

• ••n•••• ‘. ' ,L

N

. . •
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2



                           STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 906
                                     OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         The undersigned hereby certifies as of the March 31, 2003 to the UNITED
STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to the best of my knowledge, as follows:


         1.       The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Intelligent Systems
Corporation for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 which accompanies this
statement fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2.       Information contained in such quarterly report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Intelligent Systems Corporation.



Date: May 15, 2003                           /s/ Bonnie L. Herron
                                             -----------------------
                                             Bonnie L. Herron
                                             Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Intelligent Systems Corporation and will be retained by Intelligent
Systems Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
\NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.C.

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR 15 December 1975

21313RANDIRI FOR NH. RO1AND IIVi, CHAIRMAN, CCMIREX

SUBJECT: Budget Justification

With the presentation of the President's FY 1977 Budget to the Congress,

the NEW will be required to develop budget justification for the first time

which relates substantive intelligence to the requirements established by the

USIB for the 118P. The comsittees recognize that the NRO neither develops

collection requirements nor in the past has defended than. However, the

defense of the NRP must ultimately rest an the validity of those requirements.

I solicit your assistance in preparing the NRP budget justification by

providing to us two levels of analysis which address the imagery collection

requirements against which NRP systems are tasked. The first of these should

relate substantive intelligence production to the categories of Lawry

needed and the frequency and priority structure of COMER objective satisfaction goals. This would be used as a general introduction to our budget

justification.

• The second analysis should treat each system in the NEW and relate that

'yam, based on the ExCom-approved schedule, to the specific satisfaction of

MUREX requirements in defense of the FY 1977 President's Budget.

Our FY 1977 budget justification must be =plate by 8 January for

review by the IC Staff and ASD(I), and submission to the Congress by

1 February. I recognize that this request for your support to meet a

5 January milestone creates a significant workload at this time of the year.

however, in the presence of greatly. increased Congressional scrutiny, I adi

convinced that it is in our uutual best interest to be as responsive and

prompt as possible in satisfying their expressed desires.

It toigtkt be appropriate for you to transmit your analysis of MUREX

objective goals to the EtR) over the signature of the Chairmen of USIB. We

046. to incorporate system collection perforoence into the individual system

bons.

Director of the NRO Staff will discuss this with you within the

several days.

CONTROLCOPY,_14_ 1ES

PAGE_LOF PAGES

.1111n•••n•• •••••••••••••••n
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5

<LEGEND>
         The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
         consolidated financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by
         reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
         <MULTIPLIER>1



<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-2001
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                   23,000
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                           250,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        343,000
<PP&E>                                1,983,000
<DEPRECIATION>                          964,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        1,830,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 1,005,000
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 7,520,000
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          1,830,000
<SALES>                                 962,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        962,000
<CGS>                                   723,500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           944,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       29,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          41,500
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      41,500
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                             41,500
<EPS-BASIC>                                   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0



</TABLE>
(logo) TRANSWORLD
                      M 0 R T G A G E  C 0 R P 0 R A T I 0 N



           Management's Assertion on Compliance With Minimum Servicing
                           Standards Set Forth in the
             UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS



                              Report of Management

We,  as  members  of  management  of  Transworld   Mortgage   Corporation   (the
"Corporation"),  are  responsible  for  complying  with  the  minimum  servicing
standards as set forth in the Mortgage Bankers  Association of America's UNIFORM
SINGLE  ATTESTATION   PROGRAM  FOR  MORTGAGE  BANKERS  ("USAP").   We  are  also
responsible for  establishing  and maintaining  effective  internal control over
compliance  with  these  standards.  We  have  performed  an  evaluation  of the
Corporation's  compliance with the minimum  servicing  standards as set forth in
the USAP as of December 31, 1996,  and for the period then ended.  Based on this
evaluation,  we assert  that  during  the year  ended  December  31,  1996,  the
Corporation complied with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the USAP.

As of and for this same period,  the  Corporation  had in effect a fidelity bond
and errors and omissions policy in the amount of $3.6 million.


                              /s/ Linda J. Shelton
                             Linda J. Shelton, Vice President of Quality Control



       13111 NORTHWEST FREEWAY HOUSTON, TEXAS 77040-6311  (713) 895-6600
                     P.O. BOX 1529 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77210-1529
Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

MANDATE

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 5 OF DALLAS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas, on the 9

th day of March, 2018, the 

cause on appeal to revise or reverse the judgment between

CHANELLE DEROUEN, Appellant

No. 05-18-00137-CV V.

WILFORD ASHMORE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 5, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-00055-E.

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright, 

Justices Evans and Brown participating.

was determined; and this Court made its order in these words:

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of the Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth District of Texas, in this behalf, and have it duly obeyed and executed.

WITNESS the HON. CAROLYN WRIGHT, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals, with 

the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Dallas, this 21st day of May, 2018.

5 L M

LISA MATZ, Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 35 (Monday, February 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 9480]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03579]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLNMP00000 L13110000.PP0000 15XL1109PF]


Notice of Public Meeting, Pecos District Resource Advisory 
Council Meeting, Lesser Prairie-Chicken Habitat Preservation Area of 
Critical Environmental Concern (LPC ACEC) Livestock Grazing 
Subcommittee New Mexico

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Bureau of Land Management's 
(BLM) Pecos District Resource Advisory Council's (RAC) Lesser Prairie-
Chicken (LPC) Habitat Preservation Area of Critical Environmental 
Concerns (ACEC) Livestock Grazing Subcommittee will meet as indicated 
below.

DATES: The LPC ACEC Subcommittee will meet on March 31, 2015, at the 
Roswell Field Office, 2909 West Second Street, Roswell, NM 88201, at 
1:00 p.m. The public may send written comments to the Subcommittee at 
the BLM Pecos District Office, 2909 West 2nd Street, Roswell, New 
Mexico, 88201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Ortega, Range Management 
Specialist, Roswell Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 2909 West 
2nd Street, Roswell, New Mexico 88201, 575-627-0204. Persons who use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8229 to contact the above 
individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours 
a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above 
individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 10-member Pecos District RAC elected to 
create a subcommittee to advise the Secretary of the Interior, through 
the BLM Pecos District, about possible livestock grazing within the LPC 
ACEC. Planned agenda includes a discussion of management strategies for 
the ACEC.
    For any interested members of the public who wish to address the 
Subcommittee, there will be a half-hour public comment period beginning 
at 2:30 p.m. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak and 
time available, the time for individual comments may be limited.

Michael H. Tupper,
Deputy State Director, Lands and Resources.
[FR Doc. 2015-03579 Filed 2-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-FB-P
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

111111111111M14 mempulffil 

Rade is WM 

Wart Sista% 

IP, 2 

TSBA2 12/091818Z ZEA 

BT 

XXXXX ZEA 

SEVEN FIVE TWEE 

091802Z 

WHIG CITE 5712 

DOR IAN 

FOR COL IICRTINAN FROM LT COL KNOLLE 

PER COWER SAT ION WITH C(IL FORD, THE FOLLOWING IS FORWARDED TO YOU. 

1. TWOIMH CONTACTS WITH THE. MOL OFFICE, IT IS OUlt UWERSTAWING 

THAT THE NAVY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR SEA StRVEILLANCE EXPERIMENT (P"13) 

FOR Mal IS RECOMMEND IM A NEED FOR A GROUM) RESOLUTION OF EZEJEET. 

IT IS APPARENTLY THE NAVY POSITION THAT A SENSOR OF THIS QUALITY IS 

NEEDED TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED SHIP RECOGNITION CAPABILITY. IF 

SUCH A REQUIREMENT IS APPROVED, THE MOL OFFICE IS PLANNING TO 

HAVE. ITEK LOOK AT A FOOL LENGTH SYSTEM_ AS THE COUPLED 

EIBA JO _St INCORPORATED U4THE IMAGE mocity SENSOR NOW UNDER 

ST MI tlY IBM/ ITEK. 

2. A COUPLED CAMERA OF THIS SIZE WOULD SEEM. TO BE CONTRARY TO 

THE DIRECTION THAT PHOTOGRAPHY OF RECONNAISSANCE QUALITY WOULD NOT 

BE USED IN ROL. 

3. YOU ARE PROBABLY WELL AWARE OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS SINCE THEY 

SUPPOSEDLY HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO DR. MC MILIAN; HOWEVER, WE ARE 

PASSING ON THE INFORMATION IN TEE EVENT IT HAS NOT COME TO YOUR 

ATTERrION. 

SCCIICT 

CFN: 5712 COL WORTFAIAN LT COL KNOLLE 1. MOL NAVY (P-13) MOL NAVY 

MDL ITEK IBM/ITEK 2. NOT BE MOL 3. DR. MC MILLAN NOT COME 

BT 

SAOSS fi 

SS.1 I r 

.ss...2 

SS-3 f---1 

SS-4 1 

SS-5 

SS-7j 

SS-8 

SS-9 

PINNN IL 

„ ggET-

,„ 

Ciotti 

remktrol
#### Dawsey *v.*Davis.

Motion to dismiss a cause by the Plaintiff in a *certiorari,*who had been Defendant in the court below, upon the ground mat the Pl.umiff in the suit below had not given security in (his court for costs, in pursuance of a notice served upon him tor that purpose: *Per*cu-nan!, if the suit is now dismissed, we must order the court below to proceed to judgment. Where a cause is removed by *certiorari*granted by Judge out of coutt, it must be placed upon the ogu-m-nt docket, and Defendant’s-affidavits will be received to show the impropriety of granting a new trial. If the *certiorari*be obt. ved in court upon a rule made upon the other party to shew cause, the case when removed, shall be put upon the trial docket without further argument.

Stated to the court to be a *certiorari*to remove a cause from an inferior jurisdiction, and that a rale had been *324made on the Plai. iff in the cause below, to give security in ibis cou"t for costs ; otherwise this cause t» be dismissed, it was also stated, that this notice had been seurdon him, and that he had not given the security required: whereupon the counsel for Davis, the Defendant below and Plaintiff here in the *certiorari,*moved that <lie case should be dismissed.

*Per curiam*

if the cause be now dismissed' from this qpurt, a *procedendo*must, issue to enforce the execution of' the judgment below: because the, obtaining a *certiorari*was for the purpose of having it determined by the court here, whether it was proper to grant a new trial, and the judgment below remains in force until an argument, be had here,& the new trial granted; and if the cause should be dismissed before the new trial is granted, the obstacle to the execution of judgment being removed, it remains to be executed : and the court here ought to certify the court below of this proceeding, which is done by a *pro-cedendo.*The counsel for the Defendant then moved*' that the cause should be set aside for trial at the, next tei m.

*Per curiam*— When a cause is removed by *certiorari*granted by a Judge out of court, it must bo placed on, the argument docket; and the affidavits of the Defendant may be received, to shew the impropriety of granting the new trial. The court therefore will not order a new trial, until the affidavits on .both sides be rereii ed. The affidavits were then produced on the [tart of the Plaintiff in the *certiorari*— the Defendant had none: but, these being not sufficient to grant a new trial upon, the court ordered the cause to itand over for other affidavits, which it was said could be procured.'

It, was further laid down by the court in this case as the rule of practice, that if the *certiorari*was obtained in this court upon a rule made, on the oilier party to shew cause, and upon argument had upon that rule, that then the cause when removed, should be placed immediately on the docket of causes for trial, without any further argument to be had ; but if obtained before a Judge out of court, the • it w s subject m t>>«j rule a|u>\. mentioned.

*Note.*— Vicie *Anonymous, post*367. *Rearden*v. *Guy,*2 *Hay. 245.*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7979
ELLIOTT GAINES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN B. METZGER, III; JAMES S. GILMORE, III; RON ANGELONE; JOHN JABE; GEORGE ALLEN, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-1468-AM) Submitted: June 28, 1996 Decided: July 26, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Elliott Gaines, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief without prejudice on his complaint regarding his parole denial. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm in part as to any habeas corpus claims that Gaines raised challenging the actualdenial of parole and seeking release on the reasoning of the district court. Gaines v. Metzger , No. CA-95-1468-AM (E.D. Va. Nov. 9, 1995). We dismiss the appeal of any claims made under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) challenging the procedures used by the state in making parole determinations. The district court's dismissal without prejudice of these claims is not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers' Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). In ascertaining whether a dismissal without prejudice is reviewable in this court, we must determine "whether the plaintiff could save his action by merely amending the complaint." Id. A dismissal without prejudice is a final, appealable order only if "no amendment [to the complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiff's case." Id. at 1067. Because Appellant could amend his complaint to specify only challenges to parole procedures under § 1983, see Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Correctional Complex , 442 U.S. 1 (1979), we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because we find that portion of the order is not appealable.3 We deny Appellant's motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
Exhibit
        32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
        OF CORPORATE CONTROLLER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT
        TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
 AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
        connection with the Annual Report of ATSI Communications, Inc. on Form 10-KSB
        for the period ending July 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
        Commission on the date hereof, I, Antonio Estrada, Corporate Controller and
        Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C,
        ss.
        1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
 
 1)
              the
                  Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
                  of the
                  Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 2)
              the
                  information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
                  the
                  financial condition and result of operations of the
                  Company.
 
 By
/s/
        Antonio Estrada
 Antonio
        Estrada
 Corporate
        Controller and
 Principal
        Financial Officer
 October
        24, 2005
# C_2005143EN.01002601.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/26

---

Action brought on 5 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

(Case C-153/05)

(2005/C 143/39)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Gerald Braun, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive;

1

| 2. | order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 28 September 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 85, 28.03.2002, p. 40.

1

---
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

WAG ACQUISITION, LLC,

Appellant

v.

WEBPOWER, INC., FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS 

INC., STREAMRAY INC., WMM, LLC, WMM 

HOLDINGS, LLC, MULTI MEDIA, LLC, DUODECAD 

IT SERVICES LUXEMBOURG S.A.R.L., ACCRETIVE 

TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC., ICF TECHNOLOGY, 

INC., RISER APPS LLC,

Appellees

______________________

2018-1619

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-

01239.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

RONALD ABRAMSON, Liston Abramson LLP, New York, 

NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by ARI JASON 

JAFFESS. 

 JONATHAN L. FALKLER, Venable LLP, Washington, DC, 
argued for all appellees. Appellees WebPower, Inc., 

FriendFinder Networks Inc., Streamray Inc., WMM, LLC, 

WMM Holdings, LLC, Multi Media, LLC also represented 

by FRANK M. GASPARO, TODD M. NOSHER, New York, NY. 

 KEVIN MICHAEL O'BRIEN, Baker & McKenzie LLP, 

Washington, DC, for appellee Duodecad IT Services Luxembourg S.A.R.L. 

 BRIAN G. BODINE, Lane Powell PC, Seattle, WA, for appellees Accretive Technology Group, Inc., ICF Technology, 

Inc., Riser Apps LLC. Also represented by ALAN D. MINSK.

 ______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 August 26, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court