alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1U?-SECRET tate: v 3 

•

FO? YOUR:

SIGTATURE RETURN TO

APPROVAL FILE COMMITS

COORDINATION

INFORMATION _id IFICKLMI

SUBJECT: SOy 

M ePA 0 AM. Z4 iqV

FA ... 1YeakAsi— Pee4wspe

BY lot,t 

TOUR CONNEETS/DIRECTION:

Top_sfoRET SSD SPO 11113
1- -CONFIDENTIAL- KO IMP al I

orrict OF THE INICECIARY

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

WASHINGTON 20330

March 7, 1973

MEMORANDUM FOR COLONEL GRANGER, OSD(ISA)

SUBJECT:, General Comments on NSSM-72 Draft

The thrust of the paper is that the U.S. is attempting

to find the best combination of policies and tactics for

openly acquiring and disseminating data obtained from space

which can be used to further U.S. economic interests.

Tangential to this goal appears to be a goal of assisting

other countries in their own earth resource interests - . This

thrust implies that the U.S. is desirous of admitting to

open economic espionage and is not truly interested in

cooperative efforts.

A paradoxical situation exists whereby if the U.S.

steadfastly maintains its contention that space is free and

the U.S. therefore is free to conduct any and all observation activities, other countries may move to place restrictions on the use of space. On the other hand, if the U.S.

seeks permission of other countries for earth resources

operations, then there is an implication that the U.S.

doesn't consider space to be free, thus validating the

sovereignty issue.

The options presented are rather superficial. For

example, there may be merit to abandoning the ERS program

for the time being. Also, there may be additional options

available, such as not ever employing "operational" systems,

but, alternatively, flying missions tailored to specific

kinds of data acquisition for specific countries for each

mission, such as those incorporated in SKYLAB and ERTS.

SKYLAB is not mentioned in NSSM-72. It should be since

certain of SKYLAB's data quality will be high and the imagery
ioNFIDENiuti

concept differt from ERTS. Data dissemination problems may

be different for SKYLAB than those experienced with ERTS.

There is no specific ERS operational program mentioned

in NSSM-72. There are a variety of options available for

ERS data acquisition which create differing kinds of problems.

For example, meteorological data present a different set of

problems than do 10-meter photographs of the earth. Is a

series of operational ERS programs to evolve from this policy

or should the national policy be geared to cover specific

programs following their inception?

The classification of this discussion should be raised

to CONFIDENTIAL or SECRET since it is beginning to border on

some sensitive issues beyond those specifically discussed in

the draft NSSM at the "LIMITED OFFICIAL USE" level.

HAROLD S. COYLE, jR.

Major, USAF

Assistant Deputy Director

for Plans and Policy

Office of Space Systems

2
#### Kleinsmith, Respondent, vs. Roloff and another, Appellants.

For the appellants: *Reilly & Cosgrove*of Fond du Lac and *Lloyd D. Smith*of Waupaca.

For the respondent: /. *L. Kelley*of Fond du Lac.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
#### STATE v. M. C. DIXON and another.

*Practice*— New *Indictment*— Several *Defendants and Separate Def enees*— Discretionary *Power of Court.*

1. In the prosecution of criminal actions, the Solicitor is not restricted' to the first bill of indictment found, but may at any time before entering upon the trial send another bill to the Grand Jury and require the defendants to answer that.

2. On the trial of a criminal action, where there are two or more defendants and their defences are separate and antagonistic, the Court must regulate the order and manner in which the defences are to be presented, and the exercise of such discretion is not reviewable in this Court.

INDICTMENT for an Affray tiied at Spring Term, 1877, of Guilford Superior Court, before *Gox,*J.

The defendants, M. C. Dixon and J. B. Gretter, were indicted for an affray and put upon trial on a new bill substituted for that upon which they had been arrested, and differing from the first, only in the order in which their n.ames appeared on the bill. When the evidence offered for the State was concluded, the Court directed the defendant’, Dixon, to introduce anfl examine his witnesses, and then the other defendant to do the same. Some of .the evidence offered by the defendant, Gretter, tended to the inculpation of Dixon, and the latter was .offered an opportunity to meet and rebut it, which was declined. The jury found both defendants guilty and the Court pronounced judgment, from which Dixon appealed.

*Attorney General,*for the State.

*Messrs. J. A. Gilmer*and *J. T.*Morehead, for defendant.

Smith, C. J.

(After stating the facts as above.) We find *559nothing in the conduct of the cause of which the appellant can rightfully complain. The Solicitor is not restricted to the first bill, but may at any time before entering upon the trial send another bill to the grand jury, and require the defendants to answer that. It is equally plain that where several persons are charged, whether they unite in a common defence, or as in this case where their defences, are separate and antagonistic, the Court must regulate the order and manner in which the defences are to be presented ; and the exercise of this discretion cannot be reviewed in this Court. But as far as any rule of practice is to be found, it was observed in this case, by calling on the defendant whose name first appeared on the bill, to begin his defence. This was done in the case of *Regina*v. *Barber,*1 Car. & Payne, 434, where the defendants’ counsel were unable to agree among themselves.

No error.

PeR Cukiam. Judgment affirmed.
. 

. 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

• 22 June 2015 

: ftJLLi 

Policy: PeanriTtrses 

Policy: Space Law 

w 

Z-5319/65 

12 2ay 115 

Dr. 7'ward 

E::ocative Secretary 

Ilitional Aeronautics and Space Council 

eutive Office Building 

1 7.n and 'enqsylvoc4 Avenue, N.W., 

Washiton, D.C. 

Dear Dr. Walsh: 

In response to your 19 hpril memorandum concerning Possible U.S. emer 

ancy recovery support for Soviet manned space flights, I believe that 

further staff talks would be desirable; to e:plore several issues of 

concern to the Danartment of Defense. 

Foy e'-,

:amPle, the Soviets might consider the initial 'offer as only a 

aria gesture if it yore limited; as your memorandum sU7crests, to 

3. ::1'20,2,217CC.3 no-mnlly involved in air-sea rescue. We would have to 

,o.far beyond these units to provide an adsonate recovery capability. 

Yet any more ambitious offer .:3-p.2.d have to be studied to insure that the 

a,Darational missions of car forces would not 'be compromised by it, and 

for cent implications. In addition; the dlooarity between the landoriented recovery operations of the USSR and our ova tochnicuan; which 

az=113:2aoize recovery at sea, suggests that true reciprocity veuld be difficult to achieve. • 

I also believe that any additional U.S. move on this subject Should 

await the result of our efforts in. the UN (Committee on Peaceful Uses 

of Cuter Space), and our related talks with the Soviets, toward worldwide agreement on assistance to and return of, astronauts and space 

objects 

I WertWernten of the Defense ac search and Engineering Staff, and 

Marshall Sanders of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 

Intuaticnal Security .fairs have been desizaated to represent Dcen the staff discussions; in accordance wi'S.a your suggestion. 

Sin-ear-1y, 

ROT S. 1,::CKAI,a1P. 

--,-,,--,-- 

7''OD 5200.10
[Letterhead of Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.]

                                                                    Exhibit 99.3

                REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We have examined the accompanying management's assertion that, as of December
31, 1997, Bank One, Arizona, N.A. maintained effective internal control over the
servicing of motor vehicle retail installment sale contracts for the Banc One
Auto Grantor Trust 1996-B.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
obtaining an understanding of the internal control over the loan servicing
process, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of the
internal control, and such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for
our opinion.

Because of inherent limitations in any internal control, errors or
irregularities may occur and not be detected. Also, projections of any
evaluation of the internal control over the loan servicing process to future
periods are subject to the risk that the internal control may become inadequate
because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the
policies and procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Bank One, Arizona, N.A. maintained
effective internal control over the servicing of motor vehicle retail
installment sale contracts for the Banc One Auto Grantor Trust 1996-B as of
December 31, 1997, is fairly stated, in all material respects, based upon
criteria established by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the
Treadway Commission (COSO) as described in Internal Control--Integrated
Framework.

                                                    /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.


Columbus, Ohio
March 27, 1998


<PAGE>

                      Assertion by Bank One, Arizona, N.A.


Bank One, Arizona, N.A. services the motor vehicle retail installment sale
contracts for the Banc One Auto Grantor Trust 1996-B. Bank One, Arizona, N.A.
maintained effective internal control over the loan servicing for the Banc One
Auto Grantor Trust 1996-B as of December 31, 1997, based upon criteria
established by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission (COSO) as described in Internal Control--Integrated Framework.





/s/ Tom Lewis            /s/ Paul H. Jones          /s/ Joseph A. Pietrangelo
--------------------     ----------------------     ---------------------------
Thomas Lewis             Paul H. Jones              Joseph A. Pietrangelo
Vice President           National Consumer Loan     Senior Vice President
                         Servicing Manager          National Operations Manager
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2183 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2183

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a reduced excise 
     tax rate for portable, electronically-aerated bait containers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2017

  Mr. Bilirakis (for himself, Mr. Kind, and Mr. Crist) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a reduced excise 
     tax rate for portable, electronically-aerated bait containers.

    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 ``Fishing Equipment Tax Relief Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. THREE PERCENT RATE FOR PORTABLE, ELECTRONICALLY-AERATED BAIT 
              CONTAINERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 4161(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5) and by 
inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:
            ``(4) 3 percent rate for portable, electronically-aerated 
        bait containers.--In the case of portable, electronically-
        aerated bait containers, paragraph (1) shall be applied by 
        substituting `3 percent' for `10 percent'.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to articles sold by the manufacturer, producer, or importer after 
December 31, 2017.
                                 <all>
```
<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-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                   82,000
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                           212,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        368,000
<PP&E>                                  924,000
<DEPRECIATION>                          422,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        1,154,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   266,000
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 7,400,000
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          1,154,000
<SALES>                                 782,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        782,000
<CGS>                                   655,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           747,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       18,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           7,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       7,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                              7,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Annual Report of The Houston Exploration Company
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, James F. Westmoreland, Chief Accounting 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, 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.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.


/s/ John H. Karnes, Jr.
--------------------------
Name:  John H. Karnes, Jr.
Title: Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
       The Houston Exploration Company

February 20, 2003
•

DEPARTMENT Of THE MR FORCE

WASHINGTON WM

•

°SPICE 011 THE MOOR SECRETARY

riti.061

7 - 041CrlikaffirS410

MEMORANDUM FOR PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF

DEFENSE. INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS

SUBJECT: Coherent National Space Policy

As you may know, I have recently been nominated to

be Under Secretary of the Air Force. Raving just spent

eight years working for NASA and prior to that having

spent some time in military space programs. I am very

interested in the outcome of the deliberations to develop

a coherent space policy.

I would-very much like to meet with you in the near

future to discuss this matter. If that is agreeable, I

will ask my secretary to call you in a day or two to

arrange a mutually convenient date.

Bans Mark

Under Secretary Designate
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

NOV 16 2001

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

DARYL L. KINGSOLVER,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

CHARLES RAY; ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

COLORADO,

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 01-1115

(D.C. No. 00-D-1102)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY , BALDOCK , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

Daryl Kingsolver, a state prisoner convicted on two counts of sexual

assault, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s

denial of his habeas corpus petition. To obtain a COA, he must make “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c).

Kingsolver alleges various constitutional violations arising from his

convictions. This court has reviewed his request for a COA, his appellate brief,

the district court’s order, and the entire record before us. Our review convinces

us that Kingsolver’s § 2254 petition is not deserving of further proceedings,

debatable among jurists of reason, or subject to different resolution on appeal. 

His request for a COA is DENIED. His motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis is GRANTED. The motion to file an expanded brief is DENIED. This

appeal is accordingly DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
ex10-4.htm


    Exhibit
10.4

    


    First
Amendment

    To

    Change
of Control and Severance Benefits Agreement

    


    This
First Amendment (the
“First Amendment”) to Change of Control and Severance Benefits Agreement is made this 27h day of
September, 2008, by and between ImageWare Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), on the one hand, and David Harding, Vice President of
Engineering and Chief Technical Officer, on the other hand (the “Executive”).
 

    


    WHEREAS, the Company and the
Executive entered into a Change of Control and Severance Benefits Agreement
dated as of May 21, 2007 (the “Severance Agreement”); and

    


    WHEREAS, the Executive
continues to perform valuable services for the Company and the Company desires
to assure itself of the continuing services of Executive; and

    


    WHEREAS, in consideration of
the foregoing and in order to amend the terms of the Agreement and to provide
for the continued services of the Executive in accordance with the present
intent of the Company and the Executive.

    


    NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration,
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in further consideration of the
mutual covenants contained in the Severance Agreement, the parties do hereby
agree that the Severance Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

    


    Section “2. Term of
Agreement”  strike the
language “continue until the second anniversary of the Effective Date” and
replace it with “continue until June 30, 2009”.

    


    


    


    


    
      	
              _________________________________

            	
              _________________________________

            
	
              ImageWare
      Systems, Inc.

            	
              David
      Harding
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 55135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21872]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8454]

Waiver of Restriction on Assistance to the Central Government of 
Turkmenistan

    Pursuant to Section 7031 (b)(3) of the Department of State, Foreign 
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2012 (Div. I, Pub. 
L. 112-74) (``the Act''), and Department of State Delegation of 
Authority Number 245-1, I hereby determine that it is important to the 
national interest of the United States to waive the requirements of 
Section 7031 (b)(1) of the Act with respect to Turkmenistan, and I 
hereby waive this restriction.
    This determination and accompanying Memorandum of Justification 
shall be reported to the Congress, and the determination shall be 
published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: April 23, 2013.
Thomas R. Nides,
Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources.
[FR Doc. 2013-21872 Filed 9-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-03-P
```
COPY NO.

COPCS

TOP gCRET

r. .

TO. SECRET

rffsatigiaga •

THE WHITE HOUSE

WAS M I NOTON

May 22, 2964

NEWSMAN FOR THE SECRETARY 1:* DEFENSE

THE DIRECTOR OP =ORAL IN

SUBJECT: National Reconnaissance Program

At the President's direction there is enclosed a

report and recommendations on the subject which was

submitted by the President's Foreign Intelligence

Advisory Board under date of May 2, 1964.

The major importance cf the intellisence activity

treated in the report, and the nature of the problems

identified, indicate the need for early action.

Accordinzly, in order that the President may have the benefit of your views in giving further consideration

to the courses of action which the Board has proposed,

it is requested that your preliminary comments and

reco=endations on the report be submitted to this

office at the earliest convenient date, and, in any

event, not later than June 1, 1964. It is requested

further that copies of the reports prepared in response

to this memorandum be provided simultaneously to the

President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board in order

that they may be given appropriate consideration at the

meeting of the Board which is scheduled for June 4, 1964.

114Ly

McGeorge Bundy

cc: President's Foreign Intelligence

Advisory Board (Attention: Mr. Clark Clifford)

Enclosure (SC-06513/64).

L SS . thmak.

117r! 

v r nyzym ea.. *6 LLitu too::
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 11, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

135926 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 135926 

 COA: 282253 

Wayne CC: 06-012351-FH

DAROLD RODGERS a/k/a RICHARD

RODGERS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 11, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

CAVANAGH, J., would grant leave to appeal. 

KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in her dissenting 

statement in People v Conway, 474 Mich 1140 (2006). 

p0604 

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

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

June 11, 2008 

 Clerk