alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
USCIB: 5.7/ll 

_,y _:4 

1 November 1954 ~ 

g.guNpUK FOR THE MEMBERS Of USCIB: 

Subject: Conduct of CCUINT Liaison with the U.K. and Canada. 

1. The SUSLO, London has pointed out that considerable embarrassment 

is being created by insufticient prior notice of visits to the UK by u. s. 

personnel ·dealing in COMINT matters. He states that a British JIB 

official has indicated they are considering requiring 3 weeks advance notification as is their practice in notifying Washington offices. 

2. The SUSLO asks that visits possibly involving CWINT contacts be 

advised a minimwn of ten days in advance for all intelligence visitors. 

3. For the in.formation of members, correspondence between this 

office and SUSLO, Ottawa indicates similar difficulties occasionally arise 

With the Canadians. 

4. In order to assist in alleviating these difficulties it is requested that notices of visits to the UK or Canada indicating clearance 

status of the individuals involved be personally certified by the USCIB 

Member concerned if there is any likelihood that such notification 

cannot reasonab-47 be expected, it transmitted by telecommunication, to 

reach ~he SUSLO at least ten days in advance of the planned visit. 

5. Notices involving visits to CB or GCHQ should, of course, be 

addressed to the Director, National Security Agency, with a copy to this 

office. Others should be addressed to the Executive Secretary for action. 

USCIB; 5e7/ll 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 03-24-2014 pursuant to E. 0. 1352B 

SECRET
.. REF~099 e 

USCIB: 12./5 

COM:IEC: 2-/7 

10 September 1954 

8!10fl3gif 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE: U.S. COMMUNICATIONS INTELLIGENCE BOARD 

U.S. COMMUNICATIONS SECURrrY BOARD 

Subject: Procedures for Dealing with Requests by Foreign Nations 

for Cryptographic Assistance. 

Refereno&: USCIB 12./4 (COM3EC 2-/6) or 20 August 1954. 

1. Vote Sheet replies to the recommendations contained in the 

reference indicate general approval subject to the following speci:f'ic 

comments: 

DEFENSE: 

"Recommend these procedures be extended to apply as per the 

comment of the Chairman or the Ad Hoc Committee (Reference 

paragraph 2 or the document.)" 

"Inclosure 1 of the Memorandtnn from the Chairman, Combined Ad 

Hoc Committee, dated 20 August 1954: 

a. In paragraph 1 change last two lines to read: 'advice 

pertaining to communication security .QL the use, 

development, or improvement or communication security 

equipment' • 

b. Change •cryptographic' to read 1 conununication security• 

in the following places: 

(1) Paragraph 2, line 2 

(2) Paragraph 2c, end of line 2, beginning of line 3 

(3) Paragraph 5, line 1 

(4) Paragraph 7, line 1 

(5) Paragraph 8, line 5 

c. In paragraph 6, line 2, delete 'crypto- 1 before 

•material.'" 

USCIB: 12./5 

COM3ID: 2-/7 

SECRET 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 02-12-2014 pursuant to E. 0. 1352B 
... .. 

• 

SEeft!'l' 

USCIB: 12./5 

COOEC: 2-/7 

TRliiASllRY: 

REF ~~~099 

"It is assumed that procedure in cases where it is decided to 

release classif'ied military communications security in:f'ormation 

will be such that release will not be without prior kno'Wledge or 

the appropriate agencies. 11 

2. The ef':f'ect or the comment by the Navy Member is to rewrd the 

proposed procedures so as to extend their application in the manner 

suggested by the De!' ens a Member and in 'contorma.nce with the opinion 

expressed by the Ad Hoc Committee. 

3. With regard to the comment by the Treasury Department member 

it is suggested that the phraseology in para.graph 4 of the "Procedures", 

namely, "the Director, NSA, will if' current policy permits, take 

appropriate'action to !'ul:f'ill the request" be construed to include an 

obligation on the part or the Director, NSA to insure that prior knowled.Eie ot a decision to release is furnished to appropriate agencies. 

In addition the Executive Secretary will normally inform the Members of 

USCSB and tBCIB or any !oreign requests which are noti:f'ied to his of!ice 

even though not specif"ically instructed to do so. 

4. In view of the above, it is suggested that the Secretariat 

reissue Inclosure 1 o! the Memorandum from the Chairman, Combined Ad 

Hoc Committee dated 20 August 1954, uiider title "Procedures tor Dealing 

With Requests :f'rom Foreign Governments !'or Communication Security 

Assistance" and otherwise make changes as recommended in the above 

quoted Navy comment. 

5. In the absence of objection on the part of any- Member by 

the close ot business Thursday, 16 September 1954, the suggestion 

contained in paragraph 4 above will be considered adopted. 

USCIB: 12./5 

COMSl!U: 2-/7 

SECRET
<PAGE>






                                                 EXHIBIT 23












              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors
Research Engineers, Inc.:


We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration  Statement (Nos.
333-29747) on Form S-8 of Research  Engineers,  Inc. of our report dated May 17,
1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Research Engineers, Inc. and
subsidiaries  as of March 31, 1999, and the related  consolidated  statements of
operations,  stockholders' equity and comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows
for each of the years in the two-year period ended March 31, 1999,  which report
appears  in the  March  31,  1999  annual  report  on Form  10-KSB  of  Research
Engineers, Inc.



                        /s/ KPMG LLP




Orange County, California
June 29, 1999
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21




                                  SUBSIDIARIES


      The Company's active subsidiaries at March 23, 1998 were as follows:

      1.   NBase Communications, Inc., a Maryland corporation.
      2.   NBase Communications, Ltd., an Israeli corporation.
      3.   NBase UK Ltd., a United Kingdom corporation.
      4.   NBase Europe, GMBH, a German corporation.
      5.   NBase Fibronics, Limited, an Israeli corporation.
      6.   EDSLANSRL, an Italian corporation.
      7.   NBase Xyplex, Inc., a Delaware corporation.
      8.   Xyplex, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (d/b/a Xyplex Networks).
      9.   Netsoft Solutions Ltd., a French corporation.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of MRV Communications, Inc. ("MRV") on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer (principal executive
officer) of MRV, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
knowledge:



Date: March 16, 2010

/s/ NOAM LOTAN Noam Lotan Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


---



QuickLinks
**Exhibit
      32.2**




WRITTEN
      STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




The
      undersigned, Roy Swan, is the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
      Officer of Carver Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”).




This
      statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of
      the
      Company’s Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
      March 31, 2006 (the “Report”).




By
      execution of this statement, I certify that:




a)
            the
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
                78o(d)); and




b)
            the
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company
                as of the dates and for the periods covered by the
                Report.







February 28, 2007
              
              Dated
            /s/
                Roy Swan
              
              Roy
                Swan






This
      certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended.





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 the Company and will be retained by the
      Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
      upon request.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1415 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the definition 

of large employer for purposes of applying the employer mandate. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 21, 2015 

Ms. HEITKAMP (for herself and Mr. KING) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 

the definition of large employer for purposes of applying 

the employer mandate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business Sta5 bility Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1415 IS

1 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF LARGE EMPLOYER DEFINITION 

2 FOR PURPOSES OF THE EMPLOYER MAN3 DATE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 

5 4980H(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amend6 ed— 

7 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘50 full8 time employees’’ and inserting ‘‘101 full-time em9 ployees’’; and 

10 (2) in subparagraph (B)— 

11 (A) in clause (i)— 

12 (i) by striking ‘‘50 full-time employ13 ees’’ each place it appears and inserting 

14 ‘‘100 full-time employees’’; and 

15 (ii) in subclause (II), by striking ‘‘in 

16 excess of 50’’ and inserting ‘‘in excess of 

17 100’’; and 

18 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

19 ‘‘(iii) ELIGIBLE TO PURCHASE IN

20 SMALL GROUP MARKET.— 

21 ‘‘(I) IN GENERAL.—This section 

22 shall not apply to a small employer 

23 that is eligible to purchase a qualified 

24 health plan in the small group health 

25 insurance market. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1415 IS

1 ‘‘(II) DEFINITIONS.—In this 

2 clause, the terms ‘small employer’ and 

3 ‘small group market’ shall have the 

4 meanings given such terms in section 

5 1304 of the Patient Protection and 

6 Affordable Care Act.’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

8 this section shall apply to months beginning after Decem9 ber 31, 2013. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEMOCRACY COUNCIL OF

CALIFORNIA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

WRN LIMITED, PLC, a Private Limited

Company; WRN MEDIA LIMITED, a

Hong Kong Company,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-56540

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-05088-PSG-SH

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 7, 2012

Pasadena, California

Before: PREGERSON, GOULD, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

This diversity action arises from a dispute between plaintiff-appellant

Democracy Council of California (“DCC”) and defendants-appellees WRN Ltd.,

PLC, which is based in London, and WRN Media Ltd., which is based in Hong

FILED

MAR 15 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Kong (together, “WRN”). The district court dismissed the case for improper venue

under Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We have jurisdiction,

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court correctly determined that DCC consented to a Hong Kong

forum selection clause under California’s incorporation-by-reference doctrine. See

Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc., 171 Cal. App. 4th 1305, 1331 (2009). Although

DCC’s attorney indicated early in negotiations that he needed to give the Hong

Kong forum selection clause “some thought,” any ambiguity regarding DCC’s

consent was resolved when—almost two months later and without any further

comment—DCC signed the Amendment to Service Order Form, which expressly

ratified all other terms and conditions “not explicitly amended hereby . . . .” The

Amendment thus confirmed that the parties agreed to the General Terms and

Conditions, including the Hong Kong forum selection clause. See Roth v. Malson,

67 Cal. App. 4th 552, 557 (1998) (“Contract formation is governed by objective

manifestations, not subjective intent of any individual involved. The test is what

the outward manifestations of consent would lead a reasonable person to believe.”

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that enforcement

of the Hong Kong forum selection clause is not unreasonable. See Argueta v.
3

Banco Mexicano, S.A., 87 F.3d 320, 325 (9th Cir. 1996). There is no evidence of

fraud or overreaching by WRN. And DCC will not be deprived of its day in court:

DCC has appeared through counsel (at least for limited purposes) in the ongoing

litigation in Hong Kong.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-25-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-27-1999
<CASH>                                           8,706
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   80,122
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,577
<INVENTORY>                                     21,130
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               131,571
<PP&E>                                          71,103
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,796
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 409,044
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,950
<BONDS>                                        333,908
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           320
<OTHER-SE>                                    (18,767)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   409,044
<SALES>                                        146,348
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               146,348
<CGS>                                           85,586
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   85,586
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                55,192
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   649
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,941
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,590)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,110)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,480)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,173
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,653)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
* 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. 96-40582

Summary Calendar

_______________________________

RICHARD JAMES RANDLE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

 JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

( 6:96-CV-246 )

_________________________________________________________________

April 3, 1997

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Richard Randle, Texas prisoner # 648432, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for abuse of the

writ. We hold for essentially the reasons stated by the magistrate

judge and adopted by the district court that Randle’s petition was

properly dismissed. Randle v. Johnson, No. 6:96cv246 (E.D. Tex.

Apr. 16 and May 10, 1996). Further, any error regarding the

district court’s failure to provide Randle with notice concerning
the possible dismissal for abuse of the writ was harmless. See

Johnson v. McCotter, 803 F.2d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 1986).

The appellee’s motion for reconsideration of its motion to

dismiss is DENIED. See Else v. Johnson, ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir.

Jan. 27, 1997, No. 96-40404) 1997 WL 8835, at *1. Randle’s motion

for appointment of counsel is also DENIED. See Schwander v.

Blackburn, 750 F.2d 494, 502 (5th Cir. 1985).

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


<TABLE>
<S>     <C>
SUBSIDIARY                             LOCATION              BUSINESS            DATE                 % OWNED
Research Engineers, Europe Ltd.        Bristol, UK           Software Sales      1986                  100%
Research Engineers, Pvt. Ltd.          Calcutta, India       Software Sales      1986                  100%
(renamed NetGuru Limited)
Research Engineers, GmbH               Herne, Germany        Software Sales      November, 1995*       100%
Research Engineers International       Singapore             Software Sales      April, 2001           100%
Pte. Ltd.
R-Cube Technologies, Inc.              Yorba Linda, CA       IT Services         February, 1999*       100%
PacSoft Incorporated                   Woodinville, WA       Software Sales      March, 1999*          100%
NetGuru Systems, Inc.                  Waltham, MA           IT Services         September, 1999*      100%
NetGuru Consulting, Inc.               Waltham, MA           IT Services         September, 1999*      100%
Allegria Software, Inc.                Yorba Linda, CA       Software Sales      April, 2000*          100%
NetGuru India Pvt. Ltd.                Calcutta, India       e-commerce          May, 2000*            100%
----------------------------------------
* Acquired; balance of subsidiaries were created.

</TABLE>
S. 1596 

One Hundred Fourteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and sixteen 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2082 

Stringtown Road in Grove City, Ohio, as the ‘‘Specialist Joseph W. Riley Post 

Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SPECIALIST JOSEPH W. RILEY POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 2082 Stringtown Road in Grove City, Ohio, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Specialist Joseph W. Riley Post 

Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Specialist Joseph W. Riley Post Office Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-15-00454-CV

THE CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD, Appellant

V.

WIGHT REALTY INTERESTS, LTD., Appellee

Appeal from the 212th District Court of Galveston County. (Tr. Ct. No. 09-CV-2123).

After due consideration, the Court grants appellant The City of Friendswood’s 

motion to dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the appeal.

Costs are taxed against the party incurring same. 

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered July 23, 2015.

Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Brown.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                             ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
The Netplex Group, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-
19115) on Form S-8 of The Netplex Group, Inc. of our report dated April 19,
1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of The Netplex Group, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the
years in the two-year period ended December 31, 1998, and the related schedule,
which report appears in the December 31, 1999, annual report on Form 10-K of The
Netplex Group, Inc.


KPMG LLP

McLean, VA
March 30, 2000
_ f ScuRiTy Classinrcation —

2 raggpecl

+ | SEcuaMy cLassimication

By : e

) 00x messace

DD onteinan nzssace

“ay 1 wuerirys zvonnas: i

‘|: SREPTOPRECAUTION_~
ves

Ono

MESSAGE:

a TeRAIEATION

aD a2 me, RE Cok, mcm Somes, Sno LL Me PRE OF CET POR at
MX Se RAND ACG SEO WTAE YOO GATED APG, cot

LAT 3
-DECUSSHED APLER ip

, Dod piR 52001 10:

‘CLASSIFICATION,

YEAR INT; ERVALS,

YEARS,

iicemdaeal

a

REPLACES. HME FoRW #73, 1 MAY 49;
WHICH: MAY BE USED,

PASR OOF pags.