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

Page

Zantrol

Copies ":

MINX 7Rier

110V t NU

111310E4RDUE FOR DIRICTOR, MGM *

SUBJECT: Problems is Data Submissions and lb:changes

In recent months I have become concerned about the

increase of inadequate responses to requests for submission

of important data. Currently outstanding are the following

examples:

Quarterly Prosras Review Report

Program B Quarterly Report for the first ghat ter .

of FY 1966 is now overdue. Late submission of these reports

defeat the important objective of data currency.

Racine Research and Development 

Is a 24 June 1964 program approval memorandum .

to your directorate, a statement was made with respect to

Engine Research and Development, "A presentation by your

directorate to ilOORRO is expected after initial negotiations

with the contractor, at which time we may be in a position

to establish a firm figure."

In a 14 August 1964 progran approval memorandum to

your directorate, a statement was made, "Is a previous dismission on this program', you asked tha

be held open, pending discussions with

would like to be informed as to the s

and as estimate of when the costs will be

To date,. no presentations or memoranda have been furnishe

which address the preceding points. Os the other

As of 30 September 1964 Fund Status Report indicates

Daetemisigobligation against this account, with no stmt

.AVViiii'Wois for this obligation.

Also, in August a verbal request was made to your office

for an approximate costing of a PT 1966 Amine RAID program

under assumptions developed by ne. To date, so response has

been made.

•••••n ••••••••• T.. • • .•••n••••n ••n •nn••nn•••••••IMOVII..

” “

••••• :

•
---"""EtKCAIMIL VIA

C. MAST Airborne Ilectromics lquipmest.

In a 14 August 1244 program approval

statement use made, "The revised program approval 1

less than your basic submissions, and in a general

than specific ream t is requested that a revised

program against I be submitted as mom as

possible." Tb da laved program has not been received.

d. toss

made, "....

against t

To date, the

same 14 August mssorandes, a statues! loss

it is requested that a revised program

1 be submitted as secs as possible.*

program has not been received.

Although your June-due quarterly report vas not received

until October, the initial submission included data on 4101110

fund status as of 30-Jume by contract by project/task. &mover,

several days later, your °n ice monstituted a brochure which

deleted all of this contract funding data. This information

is required by the-(1)220 Comptroller, and I request that the

fund status by contract and by project task be resubmitted

immediately.

To reverse the undesirable tread indicated by the preceding illustrations, I desire that (1) existing and future

requests for data be complied with on a timely basis, (2) that

material now overdue as indicated be furnished as rapidly as

possible, and (3) that a positive cooperative relationship be

developed.

Your personal interest is requested.

as:tofu

Mena McMILLAX

Director

Decossaissance Office

77-7751111111111
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60167

Summary Calendar

JERRY LEE QUINN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

NOVA G. STOKES,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Mississippi

(1:96-CV-22-S-D)

November 27, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jerry Lee Quinn appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights suit

against Special Agent No va G. Stokes of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms. For the reasons assigned, we vacate and remand.1 Blackburn v. City of Marshall, Tex. , 42 F.3d 925 (5th Cir. 1995).

2 Rankin v. City of Wichita Falls, Tex. , 762 F.2d 444 (5th Cir. 1985).

2 Background

On May 12, 1995 Stokes executed a search warrant at Quinn’s residence.

The warrant authorized the search & seizure of listed as searc h items firearms,

firearms purchase receipts, warranties, parts lists, and othe r indicia of receipt or

possession of firearms and/or ammunit ion. During the search Stokes seized two

postal receip ts addressed to Thomas Gardner and William Hammack, one legal

envelope, and one regular long envelope addressed to Quinn.

Quinn, pro se and in forma pauperis , filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

alleging that Stokes violated his fourth amendment rights by exceeding the scope

of the search warrant. The district court dismissed Quinn’s suit under Rule 12(b)(6)

reasoning that Stokes’ seizure of the paper s was reasonable under the circumstances

because the agent believed that they constituted evidence of other crimes.

Analysis

We revi ew the district court’s dismissal of a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) d e

novo

, 1 accepting all well-pleaded averments as true and viewing them in the light

most favorable to the plaintiff. 2 Dismissal is not proper unless it appears, based

solely on the pleadings, that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his3 Id.

4 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

5 Enplanar, Inc. v. Marsh

, 11 F.3d 1284 (5th Cir.), cert

. denied , 115 S.Ct. 312 (1994).

6 See Creamer v. Porter , 754 F.2d 1311 (5th Cir. 1985).

3 claim that would entitle him to relief. 3

Quinn’s complaint, although brought under 42 U.S.C. § 19 83, names a

federal agent rather than a state officer. His claim must be considered under B ivens

v. Six Unknown Named Agents

. 4 To state a B ivens claim the plaintiff must allege

the deprivation of a constitutional right by a federal agent. 5

C onstrued liberally, Quinn’s complaint states a claim. He alleges that

Stokes, a federal agent, exceeded the scope of the search warrant in violation of the

fourth amendment by seizing items not described therein. 6 This complaint passes

Rule 12(b)(6) muster.

The judgment appealed is VACATED and this cause is REMANDED for

further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
# C_2004179EN.01000102.xml

| 10.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/1

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 27 May 2004

in Case C-398/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 75/442/EEC - Environment - Management of waste)

(2004/C 179/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case C-398/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and M. Konstantinidis) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: L. Fraguas Gadea) — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure, as regards the landfill located at La Baneza (Spain), the implementation of Articles 4, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and  F. Macken, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 May 2004, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure, as regards the landfill located at La Bañeza (Spain), the implementation of Articles 4, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure, as regards the landfill located at La Bañeza (Spain), the implementation of Articles 4, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 323, 21.12.2002.

1

---
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Release # 03-13

Contact: (703) 808-5050 August 28, 2013

NROL-65 Lifts Off on August 28

A National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) payload was successfully launched aboard a 

United Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy rocket from Space Launch Complex-6, 

Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), California, at 11:03 a.m. PDT, on August 28, 2013. 

“Today’s launch culminates years of hard work. I am extremely proud of our talented, 

dedicated, and hardworking NRO, Air Force, and contractor team!” said Colonel James 

D. Fisher, NRO Office of Space Launch Director. 

The launch was dedicated to the brave men and women who serve for our nation’s 

freedom. 

NROL-65 is the first of two NRO launches for 2013. The next NRO launch is on 

schedule for December from VAFB. 

-NROThe NRO is a joint Department of Defense-Intelligence Community organization responsible for 

developing, launching, and operating America’s signals, imagery, and communications 

intelligence satellites to meet the national security needs of our nation.

Photo by United 

Launch Alliance
<PAGE>





                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                        As adoptedpursuant to Section 906
                        of the Sarbanes-oxley act of 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report of Cell Tech International
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Form 10-K/A"), I, Marta C. Carpenter, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(3) The Form 10-K/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(4) The information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                             /s/ Marta C. Carpenter
                             -------------------------
                             Marta C. Carpenter
                             Chief Accounting Officer

                             DATED: August 14, 2003

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 Cell Tech International
Incorporated and will be retained by Cell Tech International Incorporated and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




<PAGE>
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE '1 JULY 2015 

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AMISS 

0-e/‘ilo t1Oka--/ 

" (A"411111 , MM.1111-6 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

WASHINGTON 25, D.C. 

2 April 1964 

Refer to: 1-4720/64 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD 

SUBJECT: Public Affairs Plan for Manned Orbital Laboratory (MOL) 

In a letter to Mr. McNaughton, dated 25 'March 1964, Mr. Jeffrey C. Kitchen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs, requested that the Department of Defense institute preliminary consideration 

of public affairs guidelines for the MOL; and that such guidelines be coordinated with his office so that any foreign policy issues which might be 

posed could be adequately handled. 

By memorandum for Col. Heasty, OASD/PA, dated 27 March 1964, I requested 

to be informed of any existing public affairs guidelines on the MOL program 

or preliminary thoughts on the future handling of public releases on this 

program. Lt. Col. Mahoney of Col. Heasty's office advised me that the Air 

Force Director of Public Information had prepared and approved an information 

plan to cover the MOL program but that Mr. McMillan, Under Secretary of the 

Air Force, had requested delay in the further processing of this plan pending the determination of management responsibilities for the program, which 

is expected to be made in the near future. In conversations with Col., 

}Worthman of Mr. McMillan's office I was informed that Mr. McMillan is :lap' cer ain as o e a visa• y o exemptR the public information aspects 

et 5)- of the MOL program from the provisions of DOD Directive S-5200.13, subje6t: 

vti 4 "BecuritY-F6TIcy for 

anagement responsibility is made it is Mr. McMillan's intention to call 

oggar those responsible foiaiscussion of the • blic affairs considerations. After these discussions a recommendatioliwill be made concerning 

the applicability of the referenced DOD Directive to the MOL program, and 

an appropriate information plan will be forwarded to ASD/PA for approval. 

Qt.e,. In a telephone conversation with Mr. Raymond Garthoff of State, who authored 

the Kitchen letter of 25 March, I outlined the status of the information • 

plan for the MOL program. I assured him that upon approval of the information plan within Defense. our public affairs personnel would be in touch 

with their counterparts in State and that I-would be in touch with him -

directly or through PA channels to insure that any foreign policy issues 

which might be of concern to his office are properly considered. It was 

agreed that an interim response to the Kitchen letter would not be necessary. 

A copy of this M/R is being made available to the following personnel 

so that they will be alerted to the commitment which I made to Mr. 

1 1 ar •ace •ro rams • and that when ass nment of 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Garthoff: Lt. Colonel Mahoney, OASD/PA; Colonel Worthman, SAFSS; 

and Lt. Colonel Angel, SAFOIX. 

Marshall E. Sanders 

Colonel, USAF 

Chief, Coordinating Division 

Policy Planning Staff 

2
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fifth Circuit

No. 03-30365 JENIFER ARBAUGH, Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS Y&H CORPORATION, d.b.a. The Moonlight Café;

and YACLIN HATIPOGLU, Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal From the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: On August 2, 2004, we affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Arbaugh’s suit for lack of subject matter jurisdictionunder our binding precedent, which held that a failure to qualify as an “employer” with fifteen employees under Title VII deprives a district court of subject matter jurisdiction. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 380 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir. 2004). The Supreme Court granted2

certiorari andon February22, 2006, reversedandremanded, holding that the thresholdnumber of employees for application of TitleVII is an element of a plaintiff’s claim for relief, not a jurisdictional issue. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 126 S. Ct. 1235, 1245 (2006). Thus, the Supreme Court has overruled the basis for the district court’s dismissal and our affirmance. Accordingly, we REVERSE the decision of the district court andREMAND this case for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

PRIORITY =. STAFF MESSAGE DIVISION
AF IN: -49448 (20 Mar 60) L/ab
ACTION: pc.

INFO

QB) fp moo, COS, OGM, :XPD, XDC, SAFS, OCR, OAC

AC ~ PARAPHRASE NOT JUIRED EXCEPT PRIOR TO CATEGORY B ENCRYPTION
PHYSICALLY REMOVE ALL, SREERNAE REFERENCES BY DATE TIME GROUP PRIOR
TO DECLASSIFICATION-NO UNCLASSIFIED REFERENCE IF THE DTG IS QUOTED

FROM: SAC OPFUIT AFB NEER
TO : COFS.USAF WASH DC
NR 3 DPL 2505 1917452 Mar 60

Subject is SAMOS.
This message in 4 parts.

Part I. The following message from SAC to Headquarters
SAC is quoted for your information. "Seeret poe DSSP 441. 14
March 1960. Quoted for your information is message transmitted
12 February 1960 by AFEMD to Headquarters USAF concerning the 6
megacycle data link: "Reference your secret letter subject:
Interstation- Communications Requirements for SAMOS System, dated
2 October 1959. GOR 80 has been clarified and does not include a
requirement for real time data transmission. Therefore, there is
no requirement in the operational SAMOS Program for the Com System
presently under CBA Western Union Telegraph Company. Recent
presentations by the SAMOS Program Office to AF/BMC and DOD Officials
the gteen Severely criticized due to the inelusion of the system in

headquarters deleting all requirements for the 6 megdcycle video
chamel between New Boston, Ottawa, Offutt, and Vandenberg. This

system has been deleted fram all programming documents includ:
latest development plans and commnications budgetary estimates."

Part II. “SAC does not concur with the AFEMD statement that
there is no operational requirement for the six (6) megacycle ground

(Uepredvation of thia message in whole ec in part i prohibited without ‘approval of
THE OFFICE OF PRIMARY INTEREST.)

SECRET, soryne.



: - DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

: ; STAFF MESSAGE DIVISION .
AF IN: 49418 (20 Mar 60)
NR + DPL 2505 fr SAC OFFUTT AFB NEBR (Cont 'a)

data link. “18 AFEND statement was not coordinated with Headquarter
SAC. The Operational requirement for the ground data link is
essential to any operational SAMOS Program.

Part IIT. It is requested that:
A. No agtion be taken on the AFEMD recommendation.

the 4 ds te at crete be instructed to gmediately reeeate
: groun ely programiing plans, deve: opment plans
and budgetary estimate. oer ,

C. That ‘henceforth ARDC (AFEMD) be required to
svcordinate all recommendations for changing operational requirements
With ‘the designated coumand before ‘forwarding such recommendations
to Headquarters US Air Porse, . :

Part IV. Request Headquarters SAC be adyised as soon as
Possible as to the exact status of the ground data link for SAMOS.

(Reproduction of thie massage in whole or in part ie prohibited without approval of

THE "ICE OF PRIMARY INT! REST,,
Page 2 "ot 2 Pages

AFHQ "mt 0-309) +SEECRET, sory No.
PREWOUS EDITIONS oF :

HS Ponsa May we use,
. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
Orrics oF THm CHIEF OF STAFF
Unrrep States Air Force
WASHINGTON, D.C.
REPLY TO

arm oe: AFCCS

_n December 1960
(Cael) Basie Policy Concerning saws ( 2 eee i)

DEPUFIES, DIRECTORS, AMD CHIEFS OF COMPARABLE OFFICES (NO. 25)

1. Reference is made to: (u) .
a. Secretary of the Air Force Onter Ho. 115.1, 31 August 1960.
b. Bearetary of the Air Faree Order No. 116.1, 31 August 1960.

- @» AFCSS letter, subject "Missile and Satellite Systems",
1s October 1960.

@. SAFOI~3c message, 1506/60, 15 December 1960.

of the Secretary of the Air Force. It provides that the Director of.
the Office of Missile and Satellite Systens is primarily responsible
for assisting the Secretary in discharging his responsibil4‘ for the
direction, supervision end control of the BAM06 project. ( :

3. Secretary of the Air Force Onier No. 116.
directed the organization of a SAMOS Project Office as a field

4. In recognition of the ciel managenent procedures ani the
necessity of achteving the progran objectives at the eatiiest date,
the following policy is established for the SAMOS program: (U)

a. No information concerning this progrem will be initiated by
Aix Force organizations. -(6}

» This program is an RAD effort aimed at the development of
various promising reconnaissance techniques. (U)

c. The RD Will include all the necessary elements to
insure that the dsta which is obtained can be efficiently and promptly
exploited, -{s)-

a. The nature and character of an ultimate operational system
be eqoitel 12 the mae  secondingly, teceren to tate in
ie
the R&D program does not warrant operational planning, However, as

DS 60-4537 Ly
annecg 9 ~/
—SECRET-


Spratt pom 2eOprts i mateo surety etrective .
Operational planning, specific instructions will be issued - insure
tinely integration of this aysten in Air Force operetionsl lavewo, (6)-

. SAME for the time being will not be inelnied in the Program
Documents (exemple: Pa, PD) described in AFM 27-1, (0)

de SINE project. information will be furnished as necessary for

@- The GMOS Working Group vill be dissolved. (Uv)

ft. Air Force Regulation 375 series vill not epply to this
program. (U)

R. ‘i. MORTOOMERY
Major General, U. 8. Force
Assistant Vice Chief of Staff
MORI DocID: 1366041

•

• •

416

"r!.:•••n

IL. 1

11 March 1959

MEMORANDUM FOR: Brigadier General A. J. Goodpaster

The White House

SUBJECT : Project CORONA

1, Herewith, slightly edited but otherwise unchanged since you

read it, is the paper on CORONA which summarizes its history and

proposes the extension of the Project. This paper has been seen by

Dr. Herbert York, and he confirms that the Department of Defense

concurs in this proposal.

2. The proposal has been reviewed with Dr. Glennan and Dr.

Killian, and I believe that the tatter is favorable to it. Dr. Killian has

not seen this actual paper since he is away for a few days,

RICHARD M. BISSELL, JELY

Deputy Director

(Plans)

Attachment:

COR-0372 (Cy 1)

ED 12958 3.3(b)(1)>25Yrs

APPROVED FOR RELEASE

DATE: OCT 2006

COR-037-?

Copy No./
O, Redacted by DIM

tin !1P rt4.

SECREf

PM! VANN

'1t MEN

InstRUNala

IN

N

RUXQBA

1E RUXQAA 129 2161436

aIT XXXXX SSS

R 11314352

N

228

PAUtita

MIME AUG 72 CITE111.11118.

FOR

CONCERN OVER TIC CAIENCY AND

DETAILS WITH WHICH LAUNCHES OF RECONNAISSANCE SATELLITES

ARE REPORTED IN THE PRESS. 111E11 THE INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THESE ARTICLES REFLECTS AN ACTUAL LEAK

OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, OUR CONCERN IS COMPOINCED.

ON THE OTHER HAND, THE MERE RECORDING OF TIE

LAUNCHES OF SATELLITE RECONNAISSANCE VEHICLES DOES NOT

GIVE US ANY TREAT PROBLEM MEN NOT OFFICIALLY ACKNOSLEDGED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. YOU WAY RECALL THAT

THE NATIONAL POLICY ON CONDUCTING RECONNAISSANCE

OPERATIONS FROM SPACE RECOMMENDED THAT WE WORK TOWARD

"

PNiE 111111111nrs-t-c-R-E4-

PUSLIC ACCEPTANCE OF SPACE RECONNAISSANCE. WE THINK

THIS HAS BEEN ACHIEVED TO A OREAT EXTENT BECAUSE WE

DO NOT SEE THAT THE PRESS IS OPPOSING OUR OPERATIONS;

.UST THE OPPOSITE SEEMS TO BE THE CASE. WE BELIEVE THAT

IE HAVE WIDER ACCEPTANCE THAN EVER BEFORE AND POINT TO

maims RELATING SATELLITES TO POLICING THE STRATEGIC

ARMS LIMITATION TREATY AS AN EXAMPLE. TO TRY TO

RETRENCH AND NOLO BACK THE INFORMATION WHICH IS NOW

1• LEGITIMATELY MADE PUBLIC TO THE NEW MEDIA WOULD, WE

BELIEVE, CAUSE UNNECESSARY CRITICISM AND CLAISM OF OVERCLASSIFICATION. RE SUGGEST THAT WE CONTINUE TO WORK

TOWARD MAINTAINING THE TIGHTEST SECURITY ON THAT WHICH

IS TRULY CLASSIFIED.

SECRET

N

tUP -
National Reconnaissance Office Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Release #01-18

Contact: (703) 808-5050 January 12, 2018

NROL-47 kicks off 2018 for NRO

A National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) payload was successfully launched 

aboard a United Launch Alliance Delta IV rocket from Space Launch Complex-6,

Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), California, at 2:11 p.m. PST, on Jan. 12, 

2018.

“We are very happy to begin the new year with a successful launch,” said 

Colonel Matthew Skeen, USAF, Director, NRO Office of Space Launch. “As with 

every launch, our success is rooted in teamwork, and we would not be able to do 

what we do without our government and industry team members. We are grateful 

for their continued drive to get our critical assets on orbit and their commitment 

and dedication to our national security mission.” 

NROL-47 is the first of two planned NRO launches for 2018. 

-NROThe NRO is a joint Department of Defense–Intelligence Community organization responsible for 

developing, launching, and operating America’s intelligence satellites to meet the national 

security needs of our nation.