alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NANDI E VIA 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 443P4EGRET BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

May 28, 1969 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD 

SUBJECT: The Rivers Committee and MOL 

At Attachment 1 is a copy of testimony before the House Armed 

Services Committee on May 8, 1969, showing Mr. Hansen and Mr. 

Blanford in a scene which would be best forgotten. Shortly after 

this date, as one would predict, Mr. Rivers' committee members 

demanded a full-blown4 briefing on MOL. 

On May 22, Colonel Allen was discussing this matter with Dr. 

McLucas and volunteered my services to suggest possible courses 

of action. On May 23, I briefed Dr. McLucas along the lines outlined in Attachment 2. 

Actually, the situation is impossible and we cannot "solve" this 

problem. There is some hope that the request may "go away, " if 

we drag our OSD feet, but I consider that a slender reed on which to 

rest the security integrity of the NRP. 

PAUL E. WORTHMAN 

Colonel, USAF 

HANDLE VIA 

BYEMAN -TOP-S.E6RET-- 

CONTROL SYSTEM EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING 

DOD DIRECTIVE 5200.10 DOES NOT APPLY 

CONTROL NO 

COPY 

PAGE 

OF COPIES 

OF PAGES
O APPROVED FR 

ELEASE 1 JULY 015 

vuTT TO 

MIN Oh AFCCS 

(:)DEPArit•A' 

( "1/11,I 

EYV.5 ONI,Y 

1111 Air IC)Pri: 

C 

• 1 ,, 

■1 , 11 if ( 

Selection of Aerospace Research Pilots for Assignment to the 

MOL Program 

AFSG (General Schriever) 

1. Reference your letter-of 8 February 1965 on the above subject, your 

interest in the early selection of officers to provide astronaut type 

input in the early phases of engineering development on the MOL system 

is appreciated. In view of the importance of the selection of the best 

possible officers to be astronauts and the sensitive nature of the public 

release of the names of the selectees, this headquarters must retain central authority for these actions. As you know Air Force candidates for 

the previous NASA astronaut programs were selected by board action in this 

headquarters. We would expect to follow this precedent in the MOL program. 

2. We note your intent to nominate your selectees to this headquarters at 

the appropriate time. These will be given full consideration. Meanwhile, 

we would be interested in your opinion with respect to the approximate 

time when the selections should be made and public announcements released. 

McGONNELL 

Ger eral, U. S. Air, Forco 

lief of Staff - 

EYES ONLY
AC = PAREPIUASE BOT REQUIRED 1 EXCEPT Prion
‘20 CATZ3007 B ENCRYPTION = PHYSICALLY
Abb INTHItAL REVERENCRS BY DATE-TIME GROUP
PRIOR 0 DECLASSIFICATION = - HO EACLASSIFIED
Pra ws we DATETIME Cro

‘7vPR uso " re
soon man | ones

io 610 OVERS AVS GGA TERR j : ’ ;
| AYARP-7
IMFO: ARDC ANDREWS AFB MD arDar
, AFEMD (ARDG) LOS ANGELES CALIF AYCGM
‘ SBOREE FROM AFARF 70071 “em
Reference your DIXP-1490 vith reapect to molification to amen (050) |

' ouber plant to be utilised for T06/1FC, This constitutes approval
Of this project for necessary develogment and ultimate operations)
pve So meet Aix Force reyuirenents for the S406 program. Fonds
are being issued to the construction agent.

{

i!
t

ne>arAs

mifepter of Bideet -110=-

é ‘DDFOTM.173 AEPLAces £0 Pome 17a 40. WIECH WALL. Be USED UNL AUSTEREO Fiyt



o

—- a

' Row
, ahr ed ny ler snag dee ‘Changes te the doctipticn fedditons, withdsuwels, ots.) will be shown with the date and initials af
‘

at ee OOTL, mag, 3 pa, 2 aya, Gy #10 & fll
RCS Number 206-03a

Bar Code Number 1400041722

Photograph

Launch of DISCOVERER- 3 (CORONA) on 3 June

1959. The mission was unsuccessful because the

AGENA failed to orbit.

Note: The above text was created in November 1997 to describe this CAL-related

photograph
#### The State ex rel. Butler, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Butler v. Indus. Comm.*(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 381.]

(No. 98-2086

Submitted June 22, 1999

Decided September 8, 1999.)

*Lester S. Potash*and *Martha H. Krebs,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Fedele DeSantis,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.

*Kelly E. Drushel,*for appellee SIFCO Industries, Inc.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed. The cause is returned to the Industrial Commission for relief consistent with *State ex rel. Gay v. Mihm*(1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 315, 626 N.E.2d 666.

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting. I dissent and would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., and Cook, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 11


                       Service Systems International, Ltd.
                         Computation of Per-Share Income
                              Treasury Stock Method
                            As Modified for 20% Test


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 Period Ended August 31, 2000
                                                                 ----------------------------
<S>                                                              <C>
Weighted average number of shares outstanding                                    18,230,118
                                                                              =============


Total common and common equivalent shares                                        22,307,523
                                                                              =============


Net income (loss) for the period                                               $ (2,101,604)
                                                                              =============


Loss per common and common equivalent shares                                   $      (0.12)
                                                                              =============
</TABLE>





Earnings per share:

The earnings per share is computed by dividing the net income (loss) for the
period by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the
period. Common stock equivalents are excluded from the computation if their
effect would be anti-dilutive.
*

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

published and is not precedent except underthe limited circumstancessetforth inLocalRule

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 Nova G. Stokes of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

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

2Rankin 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 search items firearms,

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

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

postal receipts 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

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

reasoning that Stokes’seizure ofthe papers was reasonable under the circumstances

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

Analysis

We review the district court’s dismissal of a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) de

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 his
3

Id.

4

 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

5Enplanar, Inc. v. Marsh, 11 F.3d 1284 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 312 (1994).

6See 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. § 1983, names a

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

v. Six Unknown Named Agents.

4

 To state a Bivens claim the plaintiff must allege

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

Construed 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.
#### State ex rel. Bessie vs. Halsey, Circuit Judge.

*January 9*

January *30, 1912.*

*Change of venue: Demand,: Sufficiency.*

Where, under subd. 6, sec. 2619, Stats. (1898), the county in which the sole defendant resided was the only proper place of trial of an action, a demand by him that the trial be had within said county, naming it, “for the reason that the said defendant, at the time of the commencement of the action and for many months prior thereto, resided and still resides in such county,” was sufficient under sec. 2621, although it did not in terms state that said county was “the proper county.” *Anderson v. Arpin H. L. Co.*131 Wis. 34, distinguished.

Mandamus to the Judge of Branch No. 1 of the circuit court for Milwaukee county.

*Peremptory writ awarded.*

The cause was submitted for the relator on the brief of *'Rusting •&*Rusting, and for the respondent on that of *Gliclcs-man, Cold & Corrigan.*

Per Curiam.

Within twenty days after the service of a summons and complaint in an action for slander and libel the *172defendant served upon tbe plaintiff’s attorneys a demand for a change of tbe place of trial of said action to Winnebago county, “for tbe reason that tbe said defendant, at tbe time of tbe commencement of said action and for many years prior thereto, resided and still resides in said county of Winnebago.” There was no consent to tbe change. Tbe defendant moved for an order changing tbe place of trial and tbe court denied tbe motion, apparently upon tbe authority of *Anderson v. Arpin H. L. Co.*131 Wis. 34, 110 N. W. 788. Tbe cases are, however, distinguishable. In tbe *Anderson Gase*there were two counties to either of which tbe defendant was entitled by statute to remove tbe cause for trial. Tbe instant case is of such a nature that tbe statute gives tbe defendant tbe right to remove it to only one county, namely, Winnebago county, named in tbe demand. Under tbe facts in tbe instant case Winnebago county is by statute tbe proper county, and it would be quite a technicality to bold that tbe movant must ratify tbe statute by again declaring in bis demand what tbe statute has already declared. Tbe demand must be held sufficient. Tbe circuit judge will therefore vacate bis order denying tbe motion to change tbe place of trial and enter an order granting said motion as provided by statute. A peremptory writ of *mandamus*is awarded to that effect against tbe respondent, but without costs.
**Exhibit 99.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form F-3 (File Nos.333-14102, 333-91034, 333-99073 and 333-126120) of SK Telecom Co., Ltd. of our reports dated June8, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements and management’s report on theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in the annual report on Form20-F of SK Telecom Co., Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2006 and to the reference to us underthe heading “Experts” in the Prospectus, which is part of these Registration Statements./s/ Deloitte Anjin LLCSeoul, Republic of Korea
#### City of Reynoldsburg, Appellee, *v.*Licking County Budget Commission et al., Appellants.

[Cite as *Reynoldsburg v. Licking Cty. Budget Comm.*(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 559.]

(Nos. 98-2544 and 98-2545

Submitted August 25, 1999

Decided September 22, 1999.)

*Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, Ronald W. Gabriel, Cynthia Butler Carson*and *Aaron A. Dryer,*for appellee.

*Teaford, Rich, Grites & Wesp*and *James R. Gorry,*for appellants.

*Per Curiam.*

We reverse these decisions on the authority of *Lancaster v. Fairfield Cty. Bridget Comm.*(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 137, 712 N.E.2d 719.

*Decisions reversed.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Unified Western Grocers, Inc. (the Company) for
the fiscal quarter ended June 26, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard J. Martin, Executive Vice President, Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify 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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: August 3, 2004



/s/    RICHARD J. MARTINRichard J. Martin Executive Vice President, Finance and Administration and Chief Financial
Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)




A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### KELLY W. DAVIS v. SAMPSON B. GLENN and others.

*Bond*— *Evidenee — Confederate Currency.*

On the trial of an action brought upon a bond dated August 19th, 1864y. ■ and payable six months after date and expressed “to be paid in current. funds when called for,” it is not competent to prove that there was an. agreement at the time the bond was executed that it was not to be paid in Confederate money.

Civil Actiok, to recover tbe Value of a Note, tiled at-December Term, 1876, of Guilford Superior Court, before-*Kerr, J.*

(Eor the facts in this case, see same case, reported in 72. N. C. 519.)

*Messrs. Scott Caldwell,*for plaintiff.

*Messrs. J. A. Gilmer*and *Mend,enhall Staples,*for defendants.

Reads, J.

The,words of the bond are that it is “to be-paid in current funds when called fordated 19th August*. 1864, and due six months after date.

When this case was before us heretofore (72 N. C. 519) we-held that it was payable in Confederate Treasury notes and subject to the scale as of its date.

Upon the last trial the plaintiff offered to 'show that it was expressly agreed at the time the bond was given that, it was not to be paid in Confederate money. That would, make no difference because it would contradict the express-words of the bond.

His Honor correctly instructed the jury according to the^ decision *supra,*that current funds meant Confederate money...

No error.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 33 (Thursday, February 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 8949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03510]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone Line 
Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone 
Line Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel 
is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving 
customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, March 18, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Rivera at 1-888-912-1227 or 
(202) 317-3337.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Toll-Free Phone 
Line Project Committee will be held Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 2:30 
p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make 
oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to 
limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be 
made with Linda Rivera. For more information please contact: Ms. Rivera 
at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-3337, or write TAP Office, 1111 
Constitution Avenue NW., Room 1509, National Office, Washington, DC 
20224, or contact us at the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The committee will be discussing Toll-free issues and public input 
is welcomed.

    Dated: February 12, 2015.
Otis Simpson,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2015-03510 Filed 2-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C
Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Unified Western Grocers, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended July 1,
2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard J. Martin, Executive Vice President, Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify 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 results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods
presented in the Report.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 15, 2006



/s/    RICHARD J.
MARTINRichard J. Martin Executive Vice President, Finance and Administration andChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Certification of CEO Pursuant to Securities Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14 as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Duane Poliquin, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Almaden Minerals Ltd.;



2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.             The Companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:



(a)           Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)           Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and



5.             The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)           All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)           Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal control over financial reporting.



|Dated: July 25, 2005 | Signed:  /s/Duane Poliquin           
|-------------------- | -------------------------------------
|                     | Duane Poliquin                       
|                     | President and Chief Executive Officer