alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Above and Beyond

The National Reconnaissance Office makes the world a better, safer, stronger place and ensures America remains the undisputed leader in space.
Launch your Career

PlayPause

## Global Leader in Space-Based Intelligence

Since the dawn of the space age, NRO has been at the forefront of innovation, bringing the farthest reaches of the planet into grasp.
More on the Mission

## We Develop

We build the most advanced intelligence vehicles

## We Acquire

We work with government and commercial partners to obtain innovative tools and technologies

## We Launch

We deploy our nation's intelligence satellites into space

## We Operate

We ensure our intelligence vehicles are functional and operational

## We partner with industry

NRO is advancing our nation's capabilities in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance with a diverse community of industry and academic partners committed to innovative mission solutions.
Do Business with NRO

## Launch your future

Do you have a passion for excellence and want to join a great team in support of America's national security?
Career opportunities
Also explore Student Opportunities

## News &Media

Read and learn about how the NRO is shaping our future.

 
More News & Media

National Reconnaissance Office
Launch your CareerDo Business With Us- Home
- About
- Careers
- Launches
- Work With Us
- News & Media
- Resources

- facebook
- twitter
- youtube
- instagram
- linkedin

Contact Us

National Reconnaissance Office

                                    - facebook
                                    - twitter
                                    - youtube
                                    - instagram
                                    - linkedin
Contact Us

Who We Are                                    - Mission Partners & Customers
                                    - Our Leadership
                                    - A Declassified History

Careers                                    - Working at the NRO
                                    - Career Fields
                                    - Job Listings
                                    - Student Opportunities

Launches                                    - Missions
                                    - Launch Vehicles

Do Business With Us                                    - How To Do Business With Us
                                    - Director's Innovation Initiative
                                    - Acquisition Research Center

News & Media                                    - Featured Stories
                                    - Press Releases
                                    - Podcasts
                                    - Speeches and Testimony

Resources                                    - NRO Multimedia
                                    - Request a Speaker
·~--ff~·llrnJA_ .. • .1'..IJJ""r --- -.: - L' !:I . • 

USCDa S/liJB 

2 Janua17 1953 

24 

Ccinftnd.ag intoimal notit.l.oaUan the 82ncl USCD Keet.= 

1ng9 mlob ~ walcl be held en 9 Janua17 19538 hu been 

ponpaned. A clafild.te date tor the aeet;lng hu not been eat.. 

1JSCD: S/ltlS 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 08-18-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

RESTRICTED
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1487 

To require notice and comment for certain interpretative rules. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 3, 2015 

Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. LANKFORD, and Mr. BLUNT) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To require notice and comment for certain interpretative 

rules. 

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 ‘‘Regulatory Predict5 ability for Business Growth Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REQUIRING NOTICE AND COMMENT FOR CERTAIN 

7 INTERPRETATIVE RULES. 

8 Subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United States 

9 Code, is amended— 

10 (1) in section 551— 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1487 IS

1 (A) in paragraph (13), by striking ‘‘and’’ 

2 at the end; 

3 (B) in paragraph (14), by striking the pe4 riod at the end and inserting a semicolon; and 

5 (C) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(15) ‘longstanding interpretative rule’ means 

7 an interpretative rule that has been in effect for not 

8 less than 1 year; and 

9 ‘‘(16) ‘revise’ means, with respect to an inter10 pretative rule, altering or otherwise changing any 

11 provision of a longstanding interpretative rule that 

12 conflicts, or is in any way inconsistent with, any pro13 vision in a subsequently promulgated interpretative 

14 rule.’’; and 

15 (2) in section 553— 

16 (A) in subsection (b), following the flush 

17 text, in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘inter18 pretative rules’’ and inserting ‘‘an interpretative 

19 rule of an agency, unless the interpretative rule 

20 revises a longstanding interpretative rule of the 

21 agency’’; and 

22 (B) in subsection (d)(2), by striking ‘‘in23 terpretative rules’’ and inserting ‘‘an interpreta24 tive rule of an agency, unless the interpretative 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1487 IS

1 rule revises a longstanding interpretative rule of 

2 the agency, and’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9739-9740]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03632]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Complementary & Integrative Health; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Complementary and 
Integrative Health Special Emphasis Panel, Center of Excellence for 
Natural Product Drug Interaction Research (U54).
    Date: March 19-20, 2015.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate cooperative agreement 
applications.
    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, 
MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Peter Kozel, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Nat Ctr for Complementary and Integrative Health, 6707 Democracy 
Blvd., Suite 401, Bethesda, MD 20892-5475, 301-496-8004, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#264d495c434a56664b474f4a08484f4e08414950"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94fffbeef1f8e4d4f9f5fdf8bafafdfcbaf3fbe2">[email protected]</span></a>.


[[Page 9740]]


(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.213, 
Research and Training in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 18, 2015.
Michelle Trout,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-03632 Filed 2-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
##### 



Exhibit 32.01
 Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant To
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 result of operations of
the Company for the periods presented therein.
 Date: August 8, 2007
    /s/ Steve TiradoSteve TiradoPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
Opinion filed Octobe r 3 1 , 2014



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________

No. 11

- 1 4

- 00 082

- C V

__________

JOSEPH SCANLON , Appellant

V.

REAL STAR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3
Bell County, Texas
Tri al Court Cause No. 76,683

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant’s brief in this case was originally due on July 28, 2014. After this
appeal became unduly stalled due to the failure of A ppellant’s retained counsel to
file an appellate brief , we extended the deadline on our own motion and attempted
to contact Appellant’s retained counsel several times after being informed in
August that he would be filing the brief “in the next few days.” On Septemb er 30,
2014, this court issued an order directing counsel to file a brief on behalf of2 Appellant on or before October 10, 2014. In the September 30 order, we informed
Appellant that, if his brief was not received by 3:00 p.m. on October 10, this appeal
could be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1)

and 42.3. As of today, Appellant has yet to file a brief or a motion for extension

and has not responded to this court’s order or the inquiries rega rding his brief

. Accordingly, w e conclude that the appeal should be dismissed based upon
Appellant ’s failure to prosecute the appeal. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8 (a)(1) , 42.3.
The appeal is dis missed for want of prosecution.

PER CURIAM

October 3 1 , 2014

Panel c onsists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J. , and Bailey, J.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

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

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Cornell Companies, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), IJames E. Hyman, Chief Executive Officer, President and the Chairman of theBoard, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.               The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
|   |   | /s/  James E. Hyman                       |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|   |   | James  E. Hyman, Chief Executive Officer, |
|   |   | President  and Chairman of the Board      |
|   |   | August  14, 2009                          |

 

Note:      The certification theregistrant furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to theliabilities of that Section. Registration Statements or other documents filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission shall not incorporate this exhibitby reference, except as otherwise expressly stated in such filing.

 

----
#### JOHN OSBORN *vs.*ENOCH H. CUNNINGHAM.

If two joint obligors be sued and one of them give bail, such bail cannot, upon being compelled to pay the debt by proceedings against him as such, sustain an action against the other obligor for money paid to his use, there being no privity between the bail of one obligor and his co-obligor.

Assumpsit for money paid by the plaintiff for the use of the defendant, tried at Buncombe, on the last circuit, before his honor Judge Picarson.

The plaintiff read in evidence anote under seal for about $300, signed by the defendant and one Patton as joint obli-gors; and then proved that after one half of the note had been paid, a writ was issued against Patton and the defendant for *424the balance, and the plaintiff became the bail of Patton in sll^i that judgment was rendered against Patton and the defendant; that Patton left the country, and thereupon pro-cee<^ngs ^ere regularly taken against the plaintiff as his bail; upon which judgment was rendered against him for $162, which he was compelled by execution to pay. This action was brought to recover the amount so paid from the-defendant, the co-obligor. The defendant offered to prove that he had paid one half of the debt before the creditor brought suit; but his Honor was of opinion that the plaintiff, had not made out a case to entitle him to recover, for that there was not such a privity existing between the plaintiff, as the bail of Patton, and the defendant, as the co-obligor of the latter, as would sustain an action at law for money which he had been compelled to pay as bail. Upon this intimation, the plaintiff submitted to a nonsuit and appealed'.

Dec. 1839

No counsel appeared for the plaintiff in this Court.

*Clingman*for the defendant.

Daniel, Judge.

The plaintiff declared in assumpsit for money paid to the use of the defendant, at his request, and the enquiry is, whether the law would, in a case like this, imply a request. It is settled law, that if one pays the debt of another without his request, express or implied, he cannot recover in an action for money *paid;*for the supposed debt- or may have a good reason to resist the payment of the money. *Stokes*v. Lewis, 1 T. R. 20, 2 Saund. 264. Leigh’s N. P. 70. The plaintiff became bail only for Patton, at his request, and for his personal benefit. In consequence whereof, he has been by process of law compelled to pay the whole debt, for which the creditor had recovered a joint judgment against Patton and the defendant on their joint obligation. Had Patton, merely from his relation of co-obligor, any agency or authority to request the plaintiff to pay the joint debt, so as to subject the defendant to this action for money paid to his use? We can find no authority for such a position. The law will certainly imply a request to pay on behalf of Patton, who was the principal in the bail bond; but not on behalf of the defendant, who was not a privy, but is a mere *425.stranger to that transaction. It. seems to ns that the opinion of the Judge was correct, and therefore the judgment must be affirmed.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.
#### Hackett and another, Respondents, vs. Van Dusen, imp., Appellant.

*May 4*

May *21, 1907.*

*Mortgages: Lien for taxes paid,: Purchase of tax certificates: Foreclosure.*

Where a mortgagee, for protection of his lien, has obtained tax certificates by purchase from others and at tax sales of the premises, such acts amount to payment of the taxes and give him a further lien, under secs. 1158, 1160, Stats. (1898), so that a subsequent tender of merely the amount due on the mortgage with interest, though made before action and kept good, will not defeat foreclosure of the mortgage.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Price county: Johw K. Pabish, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Action to foreclose a mortgage of land. The appeal is by the mortgagor from a judgment of foreclosure and sale.

*G. B. Schwindt,*for the appellant,

cited *Stwrdevcmt v. Mather,*20 Wis. 576; *Bur chard v. Roberts,*70 Wis. Ill; *Mamnig v. Mueller,*82 Wis. 235; *Mill v. Buffington,*106 Wis. 525; *Fischel v. Thompson,*126 Wis. 73; Cooley, Taxation (2d ed.) 503, 504; *Maxfield v. Willey,*46 Mich. 252, 9 N. W. 271.

For the respondents the cause was submitted on the brief of *Barry & Barry.*

Timlik, J.

This appeal presents the single question whether an action for foreclosure of a mortgage can be de*205feated by prior tender, kept good, of tbe amount due on the mortgage with interest, in a case where the mortgagee had prior to such tender purchased from others and hid in at tax sale certificates of tax sales on the mortgaged premises in order to protect her lien under the mortgage. This question we are compelled to answer in the negative, because it has been decided by this court that such, acts on the part of the mortgagee amount to a payment of the taxes. *Hill v. Buffington,*106 Wis. 525, 82 N. W. 712; *Heller v. Neeves,*93 Wis. 637, 67 N. W. 923, 68 N. W. 412; *Fisk v. Brunette,*30 Wis. 102; *Burchard v. Roberts,*70 Wis. 111, 35 N. W. 286; *Endress v. Shove,*110 Wis. 133, 85 N. W. 653. Secs. 1158, 1160, Stats. (1898), cover the. case of a mortgagee having paid taxes on the mortgaged real estate.

It is unnecessary to decide what the defendant’s procedure must have been had she desired to contest the validity of the tax certificates because no such contest is made, but it will be sufficient to suggest that there are other statutes relative to tender covering such contest. Sec. 1210k, Stats. (1898).

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
# CE2004070EN.01026602.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/266 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/266

---

(2004/C 70 E/290)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3538/03

by Edward McMillan-Scott (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 November 2003)

Subject:   Pensions

Subject:

Apart from Belgium, which other Member States operate a discretionary pension scheme based on means testing?

Answer given by Mme Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2003)

(15 December 2003)

All current 15 Member States have some forms of minimum income provision for older people. These may take the form of a flat-rate pension based on residency (Netherlands, Denmark), a minimum contributory pension (subject to a minimum number of contribution years) or a fully means-tested social assistance type benefit. Various provisions may co-exist within a single Member State.

The joint report of the Council and the Commission on adequate and sustainable pensions adopted in March 2003 (1) summarises in table 1 information obtained from the Member States' authorities on such minimum income guarantees for older people. The table indicates for each Member State whether the provision of such guaranteed income is conditional on a means test or not. More information can be obtained from the Missoc report 2001 ‘Social protection in the EU Member States and the EEA’, European Commission (2).

1

2

---

(1)  Available on: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-prot/pensions/index_en.htm

1

(2)  Available on: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/missoc/index_en.html

2

---
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .gov**
A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

National Security Agency/Central Security Service

Search
Search

Search

-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Mission & Combat Support             
  -  Cybersecurity             
  -  Signals Intelligence             
  -  Central Security Service             
  -  Locations             
  -  Research             
  -  Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Accessibility             
  -  Cybersecurity Collaboration Center      -  Collaborative Partnerships             
    -  Enduring Security Framework             
    -  DIB Cybersecurity Services             
    -  Standards and Certifications             
    -  Artificial Intelligence Security Center 
-  Press Room    -  Press Releases & Statements             
  -  News & Highlights             
  -  Declassification & Transparency Initiatives             
  -  Cybersecurity Advisories & Guidance             
  -  Telework and Mobile Security Guidance             
  -  DoD Microelectronics Guidance             
  -  Research Publications 
-  Careers    -  Unique Pathways             
  -  Innovation 
-  History    -  National Cryptologic Museum             
  -  Cryptologic History             
  -  National Cryptologic Memorial 

# Current Images

HomeHistoryNational Cryptologic MuseumExhibits & ArtifactsCryptologic MuseumCurrent Exhibits

Search

Search

                              - All Images 
                              - Design Elements 
                              - NSA Historical Photographs 
                              - Other 

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

----

Download Image: Full Size (0.44 MB)

Tags:National Cryptologic Museum, NCM

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6678

WILLIAM THOMAS POPE, III,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SAM PRUETT, Warden; GENE JOHNSON, Director of

Department of Corrections,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (CA-05-384-1)

Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 25, 2005

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Thomas Pope, III, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

William Thomas Pope, III, seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the

district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pope

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Pope’s

motions for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED