alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
tr111141 or( '

—TOP-SECRET-

-0-NATIONALRECONNAISSANCEOFFICE

WASHINGTON. O.C.

THE NRO STAFF March 10, 1974

NOTE FOR GENERAL KULPA

SUBJECT: Briefing for Dr. Currie

Attached is an M/R of the General Penney briefing along

with a copy of the view graphs. The session went very well

and might be used as a model for your session with Dr. Currie.

You will note that I took 25 minutes to give the briefing itself. This was partly due to the need to structure the present

environment and to explain the limits of decompartmentation.

This detail might not be needed with Dr. Currie.

Also attached are prepared questions and answers which

AF/RDS is planning to present to Dr. Currie on Wednesday

morning.

SS-5 will be happy to backstop you in the session with

Dr. Currie.

E, JR.

Lt Colonel, USAF

NAND VIA cum MN CONTROL NO Internal 

"nost 

if

oessoua. ""meows OP _lopiicia_ COPV OF COPIES $XICUTIVS MKS Exuantou CATE.

GONY aaa OROUIONPV ON NAP MT. PAGE OF FAG ES
What is'the relationship.between the NASA TORS and Air Force and Navy

satellite programs?

The NASA tracking and data relay satellite program is designed to support

the unique NASA requirements of data relay for the Shuttle, Spacelab, and

automated spacecraft. These data relay requirements include receiption of

telemetry, yr:ice, and video from mission spacecraft and_ transmission

of commands and voice to mission spacecraft at low and medium data

rates (250 KBS to 50 MBS). The system will supplement the NASA ground

network by providing data directly to large ground terminals located in

the continental United States. It will be capable of supporting earth orbiting

spacecraft re 5000KM. If can not support synchronous missions,

deep space missions or launch operations. It is not planned to be survivable,

0".. nor will it be anti-jam protectedeer have secure data links. These latter

requirements are fundamental and unique to most Air Force and Navy satellite

programs. Because of these limitations, coupled with the inability to service

synchronous missions, there is little utility to Air Force and Navy programs.
Hov/ do you coordinite e between DOD di NASA on the broad area of data relay?

•

There has been a continuing close coordination between the DOD and NASA

in the area of data relay since 1970. This coordination ranges from frequent

and continuing contact of the working levels up through formal participation

in the Unmanned Spacecraft Panel of the Aeronautics and Astronautics

Coordinating Board (AACB). This coordination includes exchange of technology

data as well as review of systems having mutual interest and advanced

planning concepts. The prime goals of this coordination activity are to

provide a common ground for the exchange of information and to assure

coordinated efforts between the DOD and NASA in the area of technology

stud systems for data relay.
Exhibit 23.1


                    Consent of Independent Public Accountants

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  to  the  Registration
Statement  on Form S-8 of River  Valley  Bancorp  (the  "Company"),  File Number
0-21765,  of our report dated  February 23, 2001 on the  consolidated  financial
statements  of the Company  which  report is  incorporated  by  reference in the
Company's 2000 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB filed pursuant to the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934.



/s/ Olive LLP
OLIVE LLP

Indianapolis, IN
March 29, 2001
## 2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
1-18-2006 

# U S A v . Ki a m P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-1384

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du
. 

## Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . Ki a m " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1670. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1670

## PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-1384
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. LONG TONG KIAM Appellant On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal No. 04-cr-0436) District Judge: Honorable Stewart Dalzell Argued December 5, 2005 Before: RENDELL, FISHER, and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges

ORDER AMENDING OPINION VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judge

. IT IS ORDERED that the published Opinion in the above case filed January 3, 2006, be amended as follows: On page 2, line 36; page 3, line 2; page 3, line 8; and page 9, line 2, “Customs and Border Patrol” should be “Customs and

## 2 

## Border Protection.”

By the Court, /s/ Franklin S. Van Antwerpen Circuit Judge Dated: January 18, 2006
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1361 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend and improve the 

Indian coal production tax credit. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 18, 2015 

Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. TESTER, Mr. MORAN, and Ms. 

HEITKAMP) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

and improve the Indian coal production tax credit. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT OF INDIAN 

4 COAL PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT. 

5 (a) REPEAL OF LIMITATION BASED ON DATE FACIL6 ITY IS PLACED IN SERVICE.—Section 45(d) of the Inter7 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘(10) INDIAN COAL PRODUCTION FACILITY.— 

9 The term ‘Indian coal production facility’ means a 

10 facility that produces Indian coal.’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1361 IS

1 (b) REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON PERIOD DURING

2 WHICH COAL MUST BE PRODUCED AND SOLD; TREAT3 MENT OF SALES TO RELATED PARTIES.—Section 

4 45(e)(10)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

5 amended by striking ‘‘per ton of Indian coal—’’ and all 

6 that follows and inserting the following: ‘‘per ton of Indian 

7 coal— 

8 ‘‘(i) produced by the taxpayer at an 

9 Indian coal production facility, and 

10 ‘‘(ii) sold (either directly by the tax11 payer or after sale or transfer to one or 

12 more related persons) to an unrelated per13 son.’’. 

14 (c) REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON TREATMENT AS A

15 SPECIFIED CREDIT.— 

16 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 38(c)(4)(B) of the 

17 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redes18 ignating clauses (iv) through (ix) as clauses (v) 

19 through (x), respectively, and by inserting after 

20 clause (iii) the following new clause: 

21 ‘‘(iv) the credit determined under sec22 tion 45 to the extent that such credit is at23 tributable to section 45(e)(10) (relating to 

24 Indian coal production facilities),’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1361 IS

1 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

2 45(e)(10) of such Code is amended by striking sub3 paragraph (D). 

4 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

5 this section shall apply to coal produced and sold after 

6 the date of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years 

7 ending after such date. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2005143EN.01002903.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/29

---

Removal from the register of Case C-395/03 (1)

1

(2005/C 143/48)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 25 February 2005, the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-395/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.

---

(1)  OJ C 264 of 01.11.2003.

1

---
• •

1.3

,

..- • 0 : •

se._

.•

•

n

N BFTA238

132055ZZ ZEA ZPO

sr

. •

•

e

ID? Ow

Dante vib

. Control

?;44 ...., l;:;

.

 • 1.1 ; v

'

. • •

C •••.• :`C

EDI AT

03R0

ROM GENERAL CARTER

Y DECISIONS HAVE BEEN REACHED BETVEEN SECRETARY VANCE

;.%3 3CI, NOR HAVE DISCUSSIONS BEEN HELD. NORMAL PROCEDURES IN

EFTECT :t.0 NOV 64 FOR CORONA WILL CONTINUE TO BE FOLLOZED. THIS

raUDES YOUR PERSONAL CONTROL AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR PAYLOAD AS

'ILL AS ON ORBIT CAMERA OPERATIONS IN CONFORMANCE CITH YOUR CURRENT

S3?°S. YOU ARE TO MAINTAIN STRICT CONTROL OF CONTRACTOR SUPPORT

IN MIS AREA AND INSURE THEIR SPECIFIC RESPONSIVENESS TO YOU AS

CIA REPRESENTATIVE.

5! C P.

CFN 91". ' NERAL CARTER NO POLICY VANCE DCI NOR HAVE'

Z3 64 S

BT

C 8535

00%

os,";311:,i

1.13 71)***0•••.

s 1,4Pe

(41

ti4

i tint*

Randle

. Control Systes

N
# C_2005019EN.01001701.xml

| 22.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/17

---

Removal from the register of Case C-330/02 (1)

1

(2005/C 19/33)

(Language of the case: English)

(Language of the case: English)

By order of 14 October 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-330/02: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.

---

(1)  OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.

1

---
#### STATE v. THOMAS M. MOORE.

*Appeal by State*— Refusal *to mark one as proseados.*

The right of the state to appeal in criminal actions has been recognized in but four cases: 1. Where judgment has been given for defendant upon, a special verdict. 2'. Upon a demurrer. *3.*Motion to qua'sh. 4. Arrest of judgment. The state therefore has no right of appeal from, the refusal of the court to mark one as prosecutor of record,

*(State*v. *Swepson,*82 M. O., 541; *States. Padgett, lb.,*544; *States. Lanef*78 ÍT. 0., 547; *State*v *Bobbitt,*70 M. C,, 81, cited and approved.)

Motion in a criminal action to- make a prosecutor of rec*-. *725ord, heard at Fall Term, 1880, of Perder Superior Court, before *Gudger, J.*

The indictment which was found in the criminal eourt of New Hanover county charged the obtaining of certain money from -one C. 0. Stevens by false pretence. The case was removed to Pender for trial, and placed on the docket of the superior eourt of that county at spring term, 1878; and at fall term thereafter the following order was made by the presiding judge; “Defendant discharged, cause continued.” At fall term, 1879, on motion of the solicitor the court ordered that a *mpias*issue, and the defendant by virtue thereof was again arrested. At spring term, 1880, on motion, it was ■ordered by the court that said C. C. Stevens be notified to show cause at the ensuing term why he should not be made the prosecutor of record, and the respondent accordingly appeared by counsel and answered the rule. His Honor found that it was at the respondent’s instance that the indictment was instituted, but said Stevens was not marked as prosecutor at the time of sending the bill to the grand jury, and being of -opinion that the act of 1879,' ch. 49, providing for ascertaining and marking a prosecutor *after bill found*could only be made to apply to indictments commenced after the passage of the act, refused to grant the motion, and disebarged the rule to show cause, from which ruling the solicitor for.the state appealed

*Attorney*General, for the State.

No counsel for respondent.

Ashe, J.

We are not called upon to decide the question of law raised upon the ruling of His Honor in the eonrt below, for the case is not properly constituted in this court. The state has no right of appeal in a case like this. Its right of appeal in a criminal action is not derived from the common law or any statute of this state, but has obtained *726under the sanction of the courts by a long practice, and has-been recognized in but four cases, to-wit: where judgment has been given for defendant upon a special verdict; upon a demurrer; a motion to quashand arrest of judgment. *State*v. *Swepson,*82 N. C., 541; *State*v. *Lane,*78 N. C., 547; *State*v. *Bobbitt,*70 N. C., 81; *State*v. *Padgett,*82 N. C., 544.

The appeal must be dismissed. Let this be certified to the superior court of Pender .county.

Per Curiam. Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                  Exhibit 9(c)

                ADDENDUM TO PROXY AGREEMENT/SHAREHOLDER AGREEMENT

         THIS  ADDENDUM TO PROXY  AGREEMENT/SHAREHOLDER  AGREEMENT  is made and
entered  into as of the 10th day of February,  1999, by and among MICHAEL W.
GULLION  ("Gullion"),  ALLEN D. PETERSEN  ("Petersen"),  WILLIAM F. WRIGHT
("Wright") and THE LIFEBOAT FOUNDATION (the "Foundation").

         WITNESSETH:

         1. Existing Proxy Agreement/Shareholder Agreement. Gullion, Petersen
and Wright previously entered into a Proxy Agreement/Shareholder Agreement
regarding certain voting rights in connection with stock owned by Petersen and
Wright, respectively, in Gold Banc Corporation, Inc. The Foundation became a
party thereto as a result of the assignment of shares of stock in Gold Banc
Corporation, Inc. to the Foundation by Petersen and the execution of a Consent
and Agreement by the Foundation and Gullion on May 28, 1997. Such Proxy
Agreement/Shareholder Agreement and such Consent and Agreement are collectively
referred to herein as the "Agreement".

         2. Amendment of Section 7 of the Agreement. Section 7 of the Agreement
shall be amended by deleting therefrom the second sentence of such section and
inserting in lieu thereof the following:

                  Likewise, if at any time during the ten (10) year term from
                  the Effective Date, Gullion for any reason ceases to be
                  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, then
                  the proxy rights referenced in Section 2 above shall terminate
                  concurrent with the date he ceases to serve as Chairman and
                  Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, but the rights of
                  first refusal set forth above shall remain in full force and
                  effect for the duration of the term of the Agreement.

         3. Remainder of Agreement Unchanged. Except as modified herein and
consistent with the terms of such modification, the terms of the Agreement shall
remain in full force and effect and for said purpose the terms thereof are
incorporated herein by reference.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto set their hands as of the day
and year first above written.


/s/ Michael W. Gullion                              /s/ Allen D. Petersen
-----------------------------                      ----------------------------
Michael W. Gullion                                  Allen D. Petersen



/s/ William P. Wright                              THE LIFEBOAT FOUNDATION
------------------------------
William P. Wright

                                                   By:  /s/ Jeremy Hobbs
                                                      -------------------------
                                                        Jeremy Hobbs, Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<MULTIPLIER>          1
<CURRENCY> U. S. Dollars
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                     SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                               604,110
<SECURITIES>                          31,666
<RECEIVABLES>                         36,991
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  22,367,505
<PP&E>                             1,013,613
<DEPRECIATION>                       307,988
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   118,032,295
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             60,117,135
<BONDS>                           55,138,950
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                       36,248,075
<COMMON>                          27,956,207
<OTHER-SE>                        (6,289,122)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     118,032,295
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     132,461
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  (4,274,617)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 1,782,270
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (4,142,156)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (4,142,156)
<DISCONTINUED>                     2,142,704
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                      (1,999,452)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (0.14)
        

</TABLE>
*April 29, 1930.*

#### Thomas, Respondent, vs. Schrum and another, Appellants.

For the appellants: *James E. Coleman*of Milwaukee, attorney, and *V. J. O’ICelliher*of Oconto of counsel.

For the respondent: *Allan V. Classon*of Oconto.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on June 23, 1930.
-rSi- NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WAShMGTON. D.C.

•

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHAIRMAN, U. S. INTELLIGENCE BOARD

SUBJECT: USIB Guidance for the

National Reconnaissance Program (NRP)

REFERENCES: a. USIB-D-46.4/12, 1 March 1968

b. Memo for Holders of USIB-D46.4/12,

10 March 1970

•

I believe that the NRO can derive more benefits from

the annual update of USIB SIGINT and PHOTINT requirements

if they are received in time to be considered at the

commencement of the NRP budget cycle in mid-February.

Submission of a five-year guidance document by the end of

January each year would allow ample time for consideration

of any changes in the established requirements. The basic

guidance could appropriately reflect both near-term and

long-range functionally oriented requirements. The above

procedure is consistent with arrangements recently initiated

between the SIGINT Committee and the NRO.

In order to simplify the effort, only changes in the

projected intelligence requirements would need to be identified and the one year guidance currently furnished

separately would be included in the five-year guidance

projection. This procedure would not preclude the identification of new requirements at any time of the year as '

intelligence needs change.

The fiScal . calendars contained in the references are

no longer valid and should be rescinded with adoption of

the revised statement of changes in requirements.

WORKING CCP?

C081.001 1111P 506-72

c...

,

► is

ILCwX r1100 30100I11t 014001004

300 0011.00,11 1.N 10 0011 001 MPhil ,e e'
#### O‘Neal *v.*Owens.

Ah attachment bond is good without attestation. An attachment mm’ issue, if the Plaintiff makes the proper affidavit, whether it be true or not.

Attachment, and plea in abatement, that the attachment bond was unattested, and no suit could be brought upon it. 2nd, that the Defendant was not about to remove, nor bad shewn any symptom of such disposition, but was at home at the time, when the attachment was levied.

*Per curiam*

Although the Defendant was not about to remove, if the. Plaintiff suspected it, so that in conscience, he could swear tin Defendant was about to do so, he may take the oath; and it is the duty of the Justice of Peace to issue the attachment. If the Defendant sustains damage thereby, he has remedy upon the attachment bond. *420or if the oath be false and malicious, he may indict foj* perjury; but the proceedings shall go on. This has been often decided. As .to the bond being unattested, if was decided lately at Fayetteville, that an action of debt will lie on an unattested bond ; and as to the condition being only to pay in case of failure, such costs and damages as shall accrue thereon — these are not the vv ordsprescribed by the act, but this variance is not pleaded — the only defect alleged by the plea, is non-attestation ;. but had it pointed out the variance, it would not have been fatal; because, the act allows all forms agreeing in substance with that prescribed in the act, to be valid — then what is the meaning of the words used in the condition, “damages thereon” — surely damages to accrue in or by this attachment, and for such damages relief may be had by a suit on this bond. But it is not necessary to give any opinion upon this point — let the pleas be overruled. Á *respondeas ouster*was awarded.

*Note.*— Vide *Ingram v. Hall, ante*193.
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS- NETWORK DIAGRAM October 2017

Stripcropping (585) Start

D.5 (-) Field

crop

acreage

I.18 (+/-) Net

return to

producer

D.6. (+) Change

in equipment (if

needed) 

D.7 (+) Cost of

installation and

maintenance;

time and skills

required by 

farmer

D.4 (+) Water 

infiltration

I.10 (+)

Soil organic 

matter

I.4 (+)

Wildlife

food and

cover

I.12 (-) Greenhouse gases

C.1 (+) Air quality

C.4 (+/-) Income and income stability

(individuals and community)

Initial setting: Sloping cropland where 

annual crops are grown and sheet and 

rill erosion are concerns

I.5 (-) Wind 

erosion

I.13 (+) Soil

quality

I.15 (-) Sediment

and adsorbed

contaminants

I.14 (-) Sheet and rill

and ephemeral gully

erosion

I.16 (+)

Water-borne 

contaminants to 

groundwater

I.8 (+) Field

crop

productivity

D.3 (-)

Runoff

velocity

C.3 (+/-) Fishable and

swimmable waters

C.2 (+/-) Quality of

receiving waters

Nutrient Management (590)

I.11 (+)

Carbon

storage

I.2 (+) Upland

wildlife

I.6 (-)

Particulates I.7 (-) Crop

damage

I.1 (-) Wildlife 

habitat

fragmentation

Integrated Pest Management (595)

I.9 (+)

Potential

income

I.3 (+)

Recreational 

opportunities

D.1 (+) Wildlife habitat

I.17 (-)

Production/ 

potential 

income

D.2 (+) Production

of forage/sod-based

crop strips

1. Establishment of cross-slope strips of grass, herbaceous

vegetation, or close-growing crops between strips of field crops 

with modification of row grade and direction

LEGEND

#. Created by practice

D. Direct effect

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Pathway

Mitigating practice

Associated practice

Notes: 

Effects are qualified with a plus 

(+) or minus (-). These symbols 

indicate only an increase (+) or a 

decrease (-) in the effect upon 

the resource, not whether the 

effect is beneficial or adverse.

Residue and Tillage 

Management, Reduced Till (345)

Residue and Tillage 

Management, No-Till (329)
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4182

_____________________________

RICHARD HANNAHS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Kevin A. Blazs, Judge.

March 29, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and BILBREY and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Richard Hannahs, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.