alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C0511177 4 

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 14 00078450D 

June 12, 1969 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD 

SUBJECT: Support of Value Engineering 

After talking wit ~------~ I called~-----~ on 

the attached memo and asked if he would have any objections to 

~------~alling him and explaining SAFSP's procedures 

with respect to the value engineering clauses in certain contracts. 

!welcomed the idea and I called ~---~again to 

~s_u_g_g_e_s_t_t_h_a_t_h~e talk wit~ I 

I had a call from this date in which he indicated 

tha had in fact called him and discussed the value 

engineering clause matter with him. He explained that while Col 

I !discussion provided him a better understanding of 

SAFSPY s procedures, I I had promised him several 

pieces of correspondence which would more specifically relate 

SAFSP' s approach to satisfying this type of requirement in their 

contracts. ~------~said he also planned a visit soon to the 

West Coast and had promise di I to stop by and discuss 

the matter further. 

'20nsiders that we have responded to his memo. 

Copy to General Berg 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C0511177 4 
Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C0511177 4 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON 20330 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY JUN 1 0 1969 

MEMORANDUM FOR BRIGADIER GENERAL RUSSEL A. BERG, SAFSS 

SUBJECT: Support of Value Engineering 

Twice I have been asked to explain why the contracting 

officers for certain programs under cognizance of OSAF 

do.not support the DOD Value Engineering program. The 

following is one example. 

Lockheed Missile and Space Company requested that a 

VE clause be included in contract AF 04(695)-896, but this 

requested clause was rejected with the statement, 11 ••• the 

cost penalty provision of the incentive plan will provide 

sufficient emphasis on cost control to assure sound financial 

program management." This reason for not incorporating a 

VE clause in the contract is contrary to ASPR Section I, Part 

17. 

Can you help me understand why these apparent conflicts 

with policy exist or provide me with information to satisfy 

the contractors who contact me? 

~~~-------------~ 

v.\ 

L/'Assistant Deputy for 

Engineering 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C0511177 4
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          21,847
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,435
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,492
<INVENTORY>                                     64,735
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               191,556
<PP&E>                                         873,985
<DEPRECIATION>                                  89,080
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,956,016
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          132,103
<BONDS>                                      1,014,716
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,005,795
<OTHER-SE>                                   (201,866)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,956,016
<SALES>                                        738,113
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               738,113
<CGS>                                          202,224
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  721,994
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,515
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             101,930
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (91,326)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,294
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (98,620)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (8,207)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (106,827)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This 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 26 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

SAMUEL BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant,
v. WILLIAM A. PERRILL, Respondent-Appellee. No. 97-1186 (D.C. No. 96-D-2096) (District of Colorado)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR , Chief Judge, PORFILIO and MURPHY , 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.- 2 -

We hold the district court did not err in dismissing without prejudice appellant’s habeas corpus petition. We AFFIRM for the reasons stated by the district court in its order adopting the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. The motion to proceed without prepayment of fees is GRANTED . The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT
John C. Porfilio Circuit Judge
**Exhibit 32.1**

MICROS SYSTEMS, INC.

Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, A.L. Giannopoulos, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of MICROS Systems, Inc. (“Registrant”), certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 of the Registrant (the “Report”):

          (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

          (2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

| Date: May   10, 2006 | /s/ A.L.   Giannopoulos |
|----------------------|-------------------------|
|                 |                         |
|                 | A.L.   Giannopoulos     |
# C_2005069EN.01000702.xml

| 19.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Administrative (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) by judgment of that court of 11 January 2005 in Cynthia Mattern and Hajrudin Cikotic v Ministre du travail et de l'emploi

(Case C-10/05)

(2005/C 69/15)

Language of the case: French

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Cour administrative (Higher Administrative Court) (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) of 11 January 2005, received at the Court Registry on 14 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Cynthia Mattern and Hajrudin Cikotic and the Ministre du travail et de l'emploi on the following question:

Do Community rules concerning freedom of movement for workers apply to the situation of a national of a non-member State married to a Community national who has attended a vocational training course and professional training in a Member State other than her own, and may the non-Community spouse therefore be exempt from the requirement to obtain a work permit on the basis of rules guaranteeing to Community nationals and members of their families who are non-member country nationals the right to freedom of movement as workers?

Do Community rules concerning freedom of movement for workers apply to the situation of a national of a non-member State married to a Community national who has attended a vocational training course and professional training in a Member State other than her own, and may the non-Community spouse therefore be exempt from the requirement to obtain a work permit on the basis of rules guaranteeing to Community nationals and members of their families who are non-member country nationals the right to freedom of movement as workers

---
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

In connection with the Annual Report of Charles & Colvard, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, James R. Braun, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ James R. Braun                                   
|James R. Braun                                       
|Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
|March 11, 2008
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.’

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision * *

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

AP/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GILBERTO VELASCO SANCHEZ;

BERTHA ARREGUIN CONTRERAS,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-70193

Agency Nos. A079-572-703

 A079-572-704

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 16, 2010**

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Gilberto Velasco Sanchez and Bertha Arreguin Contreras, husband and wife

and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration

FILED

FEB 26 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
AP/Research 2 07-70193

Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen based on ineffective

assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th

Cir. 2007), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to

reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than 21 months after the

BIA’s December 2, 2004, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must generally be filed within 90 days of the final

administrative order), and petitioners failed to establish grounds for equitable

tolling. Singh, 491 F.3d at 1096-97. 

Petitioners’ remaining contention is unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<PAGE>


                                                               Exhibit 32.1

                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 Executive 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:

(1) 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

(2) 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 Executive 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>
#### STATE v. RICHARD COOLEY and others.

*Peaee Warrant*— Costs.

1. A peace warrant, in. which is alleged no threat, nor fact or circumstance, from which the Court can determine whether the fear of the prosecutor is well founded or not, should be quashed.

*2.*In such case, *it was held,*to be error to tax the defendant with costs.

PROCEEDING under a Peace Warrant liearcl at November Term, 1877, of Wake Criminal Court, before Strong, *J.*

A peace warrant, (in which the prosecutor alleged that he-had reason to fear, and did fear that defendants would do him private injury, &c.) was obtained at the instance of one Paschal], and the defendants were arrested and held to answer before a Justice of the Peace, .who after hearing the evidence adjudged that the warrant be dismissed at the costs of defendants. And in the Court below, their counsel moved to quash the proceeding, which motion was denied ; and after hearing the evidence on the part of the State and defendants, His Honor ordered the defendants, then in 'Court in obedince to their recognizance, to pay the costs of the proceeding, and the defendants appealed.

*Mr. T.P.Devereux*who prosecuted in the Court below appeared with the *Attorney*General, for the State.

*Mr. W. S.*Pace, for the defendants.

Faircloth, J.

¥e do not know what sort of a case was-' disclosed by the evidence, but we can see'that the warrant ought to have been quashed on defendants’ motion, on the-ground that it, or the affidavit alleged no threat, fact or circumstance from which the Court could determine whether the “ fear” of the prosecutor was well founded or not, nor for which the prosecutor if swearing falsely could be prosecu*539ted. There being no charge against the defendants, of course they could not be taxed with the costs.

Error. Let this be certified and the proceedings quashed below.

Pee'Curiam. Judgment reversed.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

MEMORANDUM FOR MR. REBER 

1 1965 

SUBJECT: MOL-USIB Relationship 

I gave some thought to your question as to what 

should be the relationship of MOL to USIB. I found 

I had to go back to a more basic question: What is 

MOL - is it a manned orbiting laboratory or is it 

reconnaissance? 

Notwithstanding the fact that MOL was justified 

based upon a requirement for improved high resolution 

photography, MOL is still essentially a manned 

orbiting laboratory. One of the most significant 

factors it will demonstrate is man's ability to 

perform designated, militarily useful tasks in space 

for periods up to 30 days operating in a shirt sleeve 

environment. That the basis of the demonstration 

is reconnaissance is not germane. We shouldn't at 

this time prejudge his ability to perform other 

useful military tasks. 

Intelligence, therefore, is only a passenger on 

MOL. It should not control the stock, because in so 

doing it might stifle national imagination and 

ingenuity. But as today's principal customer, it 

should express its preferences with respect to the 

sandwiches, drinks, and movies. 

In summation, I feel that the management of MOL 

should allow that reconnaissance-related R&D stem 

from USIB requirements. However, should the occasion 

arise when there must be a trade-off between reconnaissance and some other militarily useful function, 

the intelligence community should be only a contributor 

to that decision. 

Cozitl ca 1.1) . 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

I have examined several alternative methods 

whereby the present situation might be corrected and 

I am convinced that for practical reasons it would 

be preferable if the initiative were taken by the 

DCI. 

C ief Security Officer 

N Staff 

f'• 7, ,,, 7-94* 7
**Exhibit 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-78843, 333-113659and 333-120000 on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-106836 on Form S-4 and RegistrationStatement No. 333-36977, 333-47370, 333-75264, 333-99799, and 333-117789 on Form S-8 of The HoustonExploration Company of our report dated February 22, 2005 (whichreport expresses an unqualifiedopinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption of Statement of FinancialAccounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 143, “Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations,” and SFAS No.148, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation – Transition and Disclosure,” on January 1, 2003),relating to the financial statements of The Houston Exploration Company and management’s report ofthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report onForm 10-K of The Houston Exploration Company for the year ended December 31, 2004.    /s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP    DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP    
Houston, Texas
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   8-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          59,837
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,523
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,922
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                97,207
<PP&E>                                          26,254
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,073
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 209,277
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,850
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            94
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,307
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   209,277
<SALES>                                         15,010
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,149
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,847
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   396
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,252
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,996
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,319
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,677
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,677
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18


</TABLE>
# C_2005132EN.01001302.xml

| 28.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 132/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/13

---

Action brought on 21 March 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-126/05)

(2005/C 132/26)

Language of the case: English

An action against United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 March 2005 by Commission of the European Communities, represented by N. Yerrell, acting as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | find that the United Kingdom has failed its obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/34/EC (1) of 22 June 2000 amending Directive 93/104/EC (2) concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to cover sectors and activities excluded from that directive and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof; |
| --- | --- |

1.

find that the United Kingdom has failed its obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/34/EC (1) of 22 June 2000 amending Directive 93/104/EC (2) concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to cover sectors and activities excluded from that directive and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof;

1

2

| 2. | condemn the United Kingdom to bear the costs of the procedure. |
| --- | --- |

2.

condemn the United Kingdom to bear the costs of the procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 1 August 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 195, 01.08.2000, p. 41.

1

(2)  OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.

2

---
.. NRO APPROVED FOR RELEAS~ DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART. 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 25 JULY 2012 

Wx 5iCRET 

WORKING P,\PER, DE~JROY 

OR CONTROL BY '-II I 

( 

OPTICAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION. 

OPTO-MECHANICAL DESIGN ENGINEERING 

Memorandum ME 49 

TO: Project File - Recovery of RV #3vi DATE: August 5, 1971 

FROM: L.B. Mo1askey 

SUBJECT: Penetration of the RV Into the Ocean Bottom 

~ccording to the data provided by the Navy with regard to the penetration of the RV into the ocean bottom," a revised ~sttmate is herein presented. 

Not knowing the assumptions upon which the Navy's "estimates were made, we can" 

only compare the parameters stated. They are weight and velocity. All other 

parameters considered equal, the penetration into the ocean bottom should be 

proportional to the kinetic energy at impact with the bottom. 

Therefore if ~ 1000 pound body penetrates the bottom 35 to 80% of its 

volume when impacting at 20 ft/sec a 1051 pound body traveling at 14 ft/sec will 

penetrate the bottom the same amount multiplied by the ratio of theirkenetic 

energy or 

or 

since 

KE 

P2 = PI C ~where subscripts 

P

2 

M 

P

2 

P

2 

1 denotes conditions of first estimate an~ 

2 denotes conditions of updated estimates. 

= (35 to 89) 

1/2 l)Yrl 

2 

1/2 MjV, 

W = - and G is constant G 

= 35 to 80 ( 1051(142

2 

) 

1000(20)2 

= 35(.51499) to 80(.51499) 

P2 = 18 to 41% 

._' :! 
r'i;\ l·!;~."L~; 

" 1"'<--1''''0'' ." ... ..-~ -r:. ~r' 1 i";' ;.~ P ;\7 if"" ~. s:. ~~: .. r·o 1 (" 

NROAPPROVEDFORRELEAst ,t'C().'{Li:Gi.. JY _~::..­ DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART "'" 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 25 JULY 2012 

Memorandum 49 (Continued) -2- August 5, 1971 

Therefore if the estimates of descent velocity are correct it can be 

concluded that the penetration of the RV into the bottom is probably not as 

bad as originally estimated. 

LBM/cj 

cc: M.F. Maguire 

H.W.Robertson 

R.W. Jones 

C. Karatzas 

L!.B. Molaskey 

' •. " ,', t:C '( .-, 

l'/il