alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Contact Information for Submitting a Privacy Question or Complaint

If you have a privacy question or complaint, please submit your response to the address below and include the following information:

Full Name Contact Information: Complete mailing address, phone number, and email address Description of the privacy question or complaint

### Send to:

National Reconnaissance Office Privacy and Civil Liberties Program 14675 Lee Road Chantilly, VA 20151-1715

### NRO Privacy and Civil liberties program

 

The program also engages in pertinent discussions with experts in privacy and civil liberties groups, the public and additional organizations to provide individuals with a holistic and comprehensive approach when assessing an individual's concerns. The NRO PCLP works to ensure the organization's approaches encompass the best privacy and civil liberties practices from both government and industry, adapting to meet unique mission needs when necessary. The program also ensures that privacy and civil liberties are integrated into the day-to-day activities of the organization's workforce, mission, and culture.

Systems of Records Notices (SORNs)
#### Milwaukee Elevator Company, Appellant, vs. Feuchtwanger, imp., Respondent.

*December 9, 1909*

January *11, 1910.*

*Appearance: General or special?*

Appearance by a defendant specially for tlie purpose only of moving tliat the service of summons be set aside and the action dismissed with costs, does not constitute a general appearance.

Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: W. J. TiteNee, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

For the appellant there was a brief by *Olwell & Drought,*and oral argument by A. *A. dwell.*

*267For the respondent the cause was submitted on the brief of *F. G.*Bschweiler. ,

Wikslow, C. J.

The defendant is a nonresident of the’ state, and the summons herein was served upon him while he was temporarily in the state, in actual and necessary attendance upon court in an action to which he was a party, and hence exempt from the service of process. Upon motion the service was set aside and an order made dismissing the action with motion costs. From this order the plaintiff appeals on the' ground that, although the defendant stated that he appeared specially, his motion was not merely to vacate the service, but to dismiss the action with costs.

It is undoubtedly true that in some jurisdictions such a motion constitutes a general appearance, but this court, in *Kingsley v. G. N. R. Co.*91 Wis. 380, 64 N. W. 1036, held that the identical motion made here did not constitute a general appearance. Following that case, the order appealed from must be affirmed.

*By the Court.*— It is so ordered.
#### Winkler, Respondent, vs. O’Donovan, Appellant.

*March 16*

April *5, 1910.*

*Counterclaim in tort action: Requisites: Oral demurrer.*

In a tort action a counterclaim must arise out of the transaction set forth, in the complaint as the foundation of the plaintiff’s claim, or he connected with the subject of the action; and as ■ against an oral demurrer this connection must appear from the counterclaim itself or from it and the complaint taken together, and cannot he shown by extrinsic evidence which has been offered by plaintiff in support of his case.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Pond du Lac county: Ohestee A. Eowlee, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*James Murray,*for the appellant,

cited *Pelion v.*Powell, 96 Wis. 473, 71 N. W. 887; *Tilas v. Mason,*25 Wis. 310; *McArthur v. Green Bay & M. C. Go.*34 Wis. 139; *Gilbert v. Lob erg,*86 Wis. 661, 57 N. W. 982; *GolUns v. Mom-son,*91 Wis. 324, 64 N. W. 1000; *Ainsworth v. Bowen,*9 Wis. 348, and other cases.

Eor the respondent the cause was submitted on the brief of *O. E. Hooker.*

He cited *Wood v. Noack,*84 Wis. 398, 54 N. W. 785; *Scheunert v. Kaehler,*23 Wis. 523; *Rowlands v. Voechting,*115 Wis. 352, 91 N. W. 990.

Timxim, J.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant, averring that plaintiff was the owner of an undivided one-half interest in seven acres of corn in the shock and four acres of corn in winrows, situate on the farm of defendant, and that defendant owned the other half interest; that plaintiff demanded that defendant divide the corn and deliver to the plaintiff one half of the same, which demand was refused; and that the defendant unlawfully, wilfully, and maliciously took, carried away, and converted to his own use said property. In addition to a general denial the answer contained a counterclaim which set up the execution by plaintiff and defendant of a written agreement or lease, a *413copy of which was attached to the counterclaim, and averred certain breaches by the plaintiff of the covenants of said lease. It was not averred that the plaintiff claimed title to the corn in question under said lease or that said lease was in any way related to the demand of the plaintiff as pleaded by the latter. After appeal to the circuit court the cause was tried. The plaintiff put in evidence of his title to the com, which evidence showed that he claimed it under this lease. The plaintiff having rested, the defendant offered evidence under his counterclaim, which upon objection by the plaintiff was rejected.

It is sufficient to say that the counterclaim did not on its face show that it arose out of the contract or transactions set forth in the complaint or that it was connected with the subject of plaintiff’s action. Sec. 2656, Stats. (1898). This connection, necessary where the plaintiff’s action is not upon contract, cannot upon oral demurrer to the counterclaim be supplied by extrinsic evidence, but it must appear on the face of the counterclaim, or from the complaint and counterclaim taken together.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1471 

To require declassification of certain redacted information from the Joint 

Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the 

Terrorist Attacks of September 2001 and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 1, 2015 

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, and Mrs. GILLIBRAND) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Select Committee 

on Intelligence 

A BILL 

To require declassification of certain redacted information 

from the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001 and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Transparency for the 

5 Families of 9/11 Victims and Survivors Act of 2015’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 1471 IS

1 SEC. 2. DECLASSIFICATION AND PUBLIC RELEASE OF CER2 TAIN REDACTED PORTIONS OF THE JOINT IN3 QUIRY INTO INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AC4 TIVITIES BEFORE AND AFTER THE TER5 RORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 2001. 

6 (a) DECLASSIFICATION AND PUBLIC RELEASE OF

7 THE JOINT INQUIRY INTO INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY

8 ACTIVITIES BEFORE AND AFTER THE TERRORIST AT9 TACKS OF SEPTEMBER 2001.—Not later than 60 days 

10 after the date of the enactment of this Act and subject 

11 to subsection (b), the President shall declassify and release 

12 to the public the previously redacted portions of the report 

13 on the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activi14 ties Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 

15 2001, filed in the Senate and the House of Representa16 tives on December 20, 2002, including all the material 

17 under the heading ‘‘Part Four—Findings, Discussion and 

18 Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security 

19 Matters’’. 

20 (b) EXCEPTION FOR NAMES AND INFORMATION OF

21 INDIVIDUALS AND CERTAIN METHODOLOGIES.—Notwith22 standing subsection (a), the President is not required to 

23 declassify and release to the public the names and identi24 fying information of individuals or specific methodologies 

25 described in the report referred to in subsection (a) if such 

26 declassification and release would result in imminent lawmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•S 1471 IS

1 less action or compromise presently ongoing national secu2 rity operations. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Space Technology Experiment Satellite 

Completes Mission

June 18, 1999 

The National Reconnaissance Office's Space Technology Experiment Satellite, known as STEX, 

successfully tested over two dozen advanced technology subsystems for satellite before being 

turned off in early June. 

The STEX satellite was launched from a Taurus rocket in October 1998 from Vandenberg AFB, 

Calif. It successfully tested 28 advanced technologies that offer potential for future satellite 

systems to operate more effectively and cost less. 

Some of the advanced technology subsystems successfully tested on STEX include: 

• Shockless separation mechanisms that will pave the way for future satellites to be 

designed for extremely low shock levels, saving cost and weight. 

• Lightweight, high accuracy autonomous star trackers provided valuable data on their 

operation in low earth orbit and how to mitigate radiation effects. 

• A 20 MHz RAD 6000 processor, the fastest in space, performed flawlessly and required 

no reboots. 

• The largest solid state recorder in space (51 Gbits) was fully checked out and also 

performed perfectly. 

• An electric propulsion engine from the Naval Research Laboratory was the first use of a 

Hall Effect thruster on a U.S. spacecraft. 

• The advanced lightweight batteries had a 35% greater capacity than conventional 

batteries. 

• High efficiency solar array concentrators focused 70% more light on the arrays than 

standard systems. 

• Advanced dual junction solar cells provided 23% more power than standard solar cells. 

The STEX spacecraft was turned off in early June due to degradation of its conventional solar 

arrays. 

"STEX provided a number of valuable lessons to the space community," said Capt. Trey Spetch, 

the STEX program director for the NRO. "Future NRO, civil and commercial spacecraft will use 

many of the systems tested on STEX. And they'll do so with confidence that those systems will 

work because of what we learned from the STEX mission."
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION - CFO

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Plains Resources Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Stephen A. Thorington, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

To the best of my knowledge, after reasonable investigation:



| | (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 result of operations of the
Company.

Dated: November 13, 2003.



| | /s/ Stephen A. Thorington
Stephen A. Thorington
Chief Financial Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Report
or as a separate disclosure document.

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.
exv10w7







Exhibit 10.7




AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT





     This Amendment (“Amendment”) is made as of October 7, 2008 to the Employment Agreement
(“Agreement”) dated as of the 12th day of December 2007 between Alkermes, Inc., a Pennsylvania
corporation (the “Company”), and                      (“Executive”).



     WHEREAS, the Company and Executive have entered into the Agreement and now wish to amend
certain terms of the Agreement pursuant to this Amendment (capitalized terms used but not defined
herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement);



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged,
the parties agree as follows:



     1. The second sentence of Section 5(b)(i) of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety
and replaced with a new sentence which shall read as follows: “The Severance Amount shall be paid
out in substantially equal bi-weekly installments over twelve (12) months, in arrears beginning on
the first payroll date that occurs after thirty-five (35) days from the Date of Termination.”



     2. The phrase “on the Date of Termination” shall be inserted into Section 6(b)(i) of the
Agreement as follows: “If within twenty-four (24) months after a Change in Control occurs, the
Executive’s employment is terminated by the Company without Cause as provided in Subparagraph 4(d)
or the Executive terminates his employment for Good Reason as provided in Subparagraph 4(e), then,
the Company shall pay Executive a lump sum in cash on the Date of Termination equal to the sum
of...”



     3. Except as specifically amended herein, all provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect in accordance with their terms.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment effective on the date and year
first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	ALKERMES, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	 	 
	 	 	Title: 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	[Executive name]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BOYKIN LODGING COMPANY AS OF MARCH 31,
1997, AFTER BEING RESTATED FOR THE IMPACT OF ADOPTING SFAS 128, AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             476
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,172
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         133,395
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 138,604
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     116,106
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   138,604
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,439
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,451
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   446
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 161
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,381
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,381
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,381
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35
<FN>
<F1>Registrant utilizes an unclassified balance sheet, therefore Total Current
Assets and Total Current Liabilities are not applicable.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### THOMAS G. LYTLE v. JOHN LYTLE and other.

*Appeal*— Justification *of Bond.*

1. An appeal will be dismissed on motion if the appeal bond is noi unless the record shows that the npp dlec has waived th ‘ s un.* in «> *A*i ij;.

*6482. An affidavit of ¡1 surety to stick bond is fatally defective if it does not state that the affiant is worth double the amount specified in the bond.

MOTION by plaintiff to dismiss an appeal heard at February Term, 1884, of The Supreme Court.

*Mr. W W. Flemming,*for plaintiff.

*Messrs. Sinclair & Sinclair*and *J. B. Batchelor,*for defendants.

MerrijjoN, J.

The appellee moved to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the undertaking upon appeal had not been justified as required by the statute.

It does not appear in the record, or otherwise, that the undertaking, or a deposit of money with the clerk, ordered by the court, was *'waived*by a “written consent on the part of the respondent,”*the plaintiff. An affidavit of the surety accompanies the undertaking upon appeal, but it is fatally defective, in that it does not state that'the affiant “is worth double the amount specified therein.” The statute is peremptory in requiring this fact to be stated. *Harshaw*v. *McDowell,*89 N. C., 181; *Morphew*v. *Tatem, Ib.,*183; *Hemphill*v. *Blackwelder,*decided at this term, *ante,*14.

It is manifest that the appellee is entitled to have his motion allowed. It is so ordered.

Appeal dismissed.
; i .. , . IT
**~-.!;·** , , < ..... **~** • ( I\- 

# LD's 

# GREATEST 

# AIRCRAFT·:~fi:tt':E-cTION, INc.

**·~·** · :, '.l._ i
**.,~..,.,** ;_f 

### .,··tt L.}t\J 

## February 28, 2016 U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building ground floor Room W12-140 1200 New JerseyAvenue, SE ·washington, DC 20590 - Re: Exemption Renewal10517B from 14 CFR- Docket# FAA-2009-1169 Dear Sirs: Please consider this notice ofour requestfor renewal ofthe FAA exemption FAA-2009-1169 for the operation ofour North American P-51 Mustang underthe World's GreatestAircraft Collection.



## . . •
**~** -· 4 •· I-. • ·", • .·; : . ' · ... . ·r. ·- ,.. ' ·

**~~** - . , •

**~** I • • :

**~~** :• t• :i 1': • 

### .

**~-** 

### ·S: :-: .**-~~ --~**  J : . ,. 

### .·-

**~** 

### .I ;.

**-~** 

### .•..

**~** 

### 1400 Broadway Blvd., S.E. o 

### Polk City, Fl33868 o 

### (863) 984-3500 Fax (863) 984-9503 ' " J • •• .. -. •-' -- ;_ ' 1-;, ... **;~** (".' • : : 1_
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-86,723-01

EX PARTE JONAH SWENSON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1475074-A IN THE 178TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleaded guilty to possession of ABCHMINACA and was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction.

Applicant contends that his plea was involuntary and his conviction violates due process.

There is no evidence that Applicant is guilty of a third degree felony. Ex parte Perales, 215 S.W.3d

418, 419–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Accordingly, the judgment in cause number 1475074 in the

178th District Court of Harris County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the
2

Sheriff of Harris County to answer the charges as set out in the indictment. The trial court shall issue

any necessary bench warrant within 10 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to theTexasDepartment of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: September 19, 2018

Do not publish
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT


TO THE


STOCK PLAN FOR


NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS OF


HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.


(As amended effective as of April 25, 1994)


 


Pursuant to the authority granted to proper officers of Honeywell International Inc. (the “Company”) by the Board of Directors of the Company on September 26, 2008, effective September 26, 2008, the Stock Plan for Non-Employee Directors of Honeywell International Inc., as amended effective as of April 25, 1994 (the “Plan”) is hereby amended by adding the following new paragraph at the end of Section 5(a) of the Plan:


 


“Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section 5(a) and any contrary provisions of Section 5(b), all of the restrictions on Restricted Shares held by Participants who are non-employee directors of the Board on September 26, 2008 shall lapse upon the later to occur of (A) the first business day of the first open window period for trading of the Company’s securities occurring in 2009, or (B) the earliest of the Participant’s fifth anniversary of continuous service as a director of the Company, the director’s death or disability or the occurrence of a Change in Control (the ‘Restricted Period’).”


 


 



	
             
 	
            HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.
 
	 	 
	 	/s/
    Mark James
	 	Mark James

  Senior Vice President – Human Resources and

  Communications



 


Dated: October 16, 2008