alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
••••• •• 1. •

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL imempAgoims •

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20306

Tor SECRET /CODEWORD 

July 15, 1975

MEMORANDUM FOR

.- •

• CHAIRMAN, NSC UNDER SECRETARIES COMMITTEE

SUBJECT: Establishment of a Standing Committee on Space Policy

The President has directed that a standing committee of the Under

Secretaries Coma-Lit-tee be cstablishad to address issues connected

with our national space policy as it relates to the civil/military

interface.

•

The committee should review the relationship between civil and intelligence space programs, the military significance of certain civil

space programs, and any relevant international considerations. The

committee should propose for the President's consideration appropriate new policies or changes to existing policies, and be a forum

for the interpretation and implementation of such policies.

The membership of the committee should include the members of the

Under Secretaries Committee augmented by representatives of NASA,

NRO, OM/3, the President's Science Adviser, and other agencies as

appropriate to the particular issue under consideration. The committee

should be chaired by the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.

DOD and NASA have requested that at an early opportunity the committee examine the international political considerations of remote

earth sensing, the protection of sensitive space technology, and the

public release of space data and information.

•

cLICThe Secretary of Defense

The Administrator, National

Aeronautics and Space Administration

TOP SECRET /CODEWORD 

HANDL% Vile

TALEICf4:EYI:31.57:

ZONTROL. GYM 04 0:41.,Y

72s- yo /tips ,a
Order entered March 22, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01096-CR

CHARLES EDWARDS SIELOFF, III, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-35795-P

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
un ry ata
7 SORBENT
AIR FORCE BALLISTIC ST £s DIVISION
ASEAN AAAAAAARARREKMEEE,

29 August 1958

on

MEMORANDUM FOR GENERAL ANDERSON
SUBJECT: Lockheed Aircraft Company

1, Following our coaversation, I discussed the matter:
you brought up concerning Lockheed with Mr. Dave Young of
ARPA, He stated that his comments must have been misin-
terpreted by Colonel Appold since he definitely did not mean to .
convoy that Lockheed lacked confidence in carrying out the
VS-1l7L program.

2. You may recall that I mentioned a management survey
which wo now have under way at Lockheed. There are certain
saatters concerning their organization and procedures which
Tam not happy about. | think this management survey will give
me the lever to force corrective action. I will ece that you are
completely informed of the results of the survey and actions
stemming therefrom.

SIGNED

B. A. SCHRIEVER
Major General, USAF
_ Commander -

. soe
wNgRADED aaron

Ss, RUF
wear
## 201~

## APR

## 24 AHIO: 31 3676 Davis Road N.W. • Dover, Ohio 44622 • (330) 343-7711 • 1-800-321-8805 • Fax: (330) 364-9626

April11, 2014 Document Controls Office 7407 M Office ofPollution Prevention and Toxics Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20460-0001 ATTN: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0399 CBIC Control Number 

# 359681

Re: Endorsement ofCPIA Comments on the Proposed SignificantNew Use Rule for CAS 1417900-96-9 (P-12-539), 1401947-24-0 (P-13-107), and 1402738-52-6 (P-13-109) To Whom ItMay Concern: Dover Chemical Company has reviewed the comments submitted by the Chlorinated Paraffins Industry Association (CPIA) in response to the February 10, 2014 (79 FR 7621) proposed Significant NewUse Rule (SNUR) on CAS Number 1417900-96-9 (P-12-539), CAS number 1401947-24-0 (P-13-107), and CAS Number 1402738-52-6 (P-13-109) and fully supports and endorses these comment onthe propose SNUR.

TimNowicki Manager Product Compliance DoverChemical Corporation tnowicki@doverchem.com 330-365-3610
#### 44th-47th Realty Associates, LLC, Respondent, v Jose Fuentes, Appellant.

[772 NYS2d 817]

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Andrew Siracuse, J.), entered February 10, 2003, which denied defendant’s motion for a directed verdict and instead directed a verdict in plaintiffs favor, deemed an appeal from the ensuing *208judgment of the same court and Justice, entered February 25, 2003, in plaintiff’s favor and against defendant, and, so considered, said judgment is unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about March 31, 2003, which denied defendant’s posttrial motion to set aside the verdict in plaintiffs favor and direct a verdict in defendant’s favor, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record does not support defendant’s claims that the court denied defendant an opportunity to cross-examine plaintiff’s witness or to put on a defense; defendant never sought to do either. When the trial court offered defense counsel an opportunity to cross-examine the witness, counsel instead argued for dismissal of the complaint. After engaging in a dialogue with counsel on that issue, the court directed that judgment be entered in plaintiffs favor. At that point, rather than pursuing his right to cross-examine the witness or put on a defense, counsel proceeded directly to the question of attorneys’ fees. At the very least, defendant’s contentions are unpreserved, and we decline to reach them. The court correctly concluded that defendant had signed the subject lease in his individual capacity, in addition to someone else’s signature on behalf of the corporate entity. If defendant had not meant to be bound personally by the lease, his separate signature would have been superfluous and without meaning. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Ellerin and Friedman, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Elder, Clemen ts and Senior Judge Annunziata

DEBRA K. LEE MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 2276-07-1 PER CURIAM MARCH 11, 2008 MASTER CLEANERS, INC. AND VIRGINIA CO MMERCE GROUP SELF-INSUR ANCE ASSOCIATION

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

(Steven M. Oser, on brief), for appellant.

(J. Brian Slaughter; McKenry, Da ncigers, Dawson & Lake, P.C., on brief), for appellees.

Debra K. Lee appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that

she failed to prove she sustained an injury by a ccident arising out of her employment on March

24, 2006. We have reviewed the record and the co mmission’s opinion and fi nd that this appeal

is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final

opinion. See Lee v. Master Cleaners, Inc. , VWC File No. 227-73-40 (Aug. 24, 2007). We

dispense with oral argument and summarily affi rm because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before th e Court and argument woul d not aid the decisional

process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 nctions: MOL 

Congressional: Actions ✓ 

17 December 1965 

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD 

SUBJECT: MOL Relationship to Congress 

Today I was called to Dr. Flax's office to discuss the relationship between MOL and Congress, especially during the next few months 

when several Congressional committees are showing interest in investigating MOL. Principals in attendance were Dr. Flax, General Harry 

Evans, General Lightner, and Colonel Arnold. The conversation was. 

inhibited by the fact that Bruce Arnold is not DORIAN cleared. 

Colonel Arnold indicated that the limits of investigation could 

be established as follows: 

2 Armed Services Committees 

2 Space Committees, and 

2 Appropriations Committees 

Out of these the most concern seemed to center on a possible investigation to be conducted by the House Committee on Science and Astronautics. Colonel Arnold was not clear as to the attitude of Representat ive Miller (Committee Chairman) toward MOL, but there was a 

consensus that the Committee was strongly NASA-oriented. 

After some discussion, Dr. Flax directed that a personal contact 

be made with Representative Miller (who is DORIAN cleared) to see if 

he could be convinced of the desirability of cancelling the investigation. 

Dr. Flax also approved a direct contact with Representative Olin E. 

Teague. General Evans stated that since Representative Miller is a 

Californian he might ask General Berg to make the contact. Colonel 

Arnold is to be present during this interview. 

In a brief follow-on session to this meeting, Dr. Flax recomm.:nded that we clear Colonel Arnold for DORIAN. 

, 

PAUL4E. WOHTI.H.:V.AN 

Colonel, USAF 

" 11 • 

11 ia 

STSIE DORIAN
Opinion filed September 9, 2010

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-10-00125-CR

__________

PEDRO SANCHEZ SALAZAR 

A/K/A PETE SANCHEZ SALAZAR, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 42nd District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 23744A

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The trial court convicted Pedro Sanchez Salazar a/k/a Pete Sanchez Salazar, upon his plea 

of guilty, of felony driving while intoxicated. Appellant also entered a plea of true to the 

enhancement allegation. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court sentenced 

appellant to confinement for twenty years. The trial court certified that appellant had waived his 

right to appeal, and the clerk’s record contains appellant’s waiver of appeal.
2

When the clerk’s record was filed in this court, the parties were notified in writing that it 

appeared appellant had waived his right to appeal. Appellant was directed to respond showing 

grounds for continuing his appeal. There has been no response to our letter of August 18, 2010. 

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

September 9, 2010

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.
Exhibit 99.2

Certification of  Chief Financial Officer of  Gold Banc Corporation, Inc.

I, Rick J. Tremblay, Chief Financial Officer of Gold Banc Corporation, Inc., hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Gold Banc Corporation, Inc. and will be retained by Gold Banc
Corporation, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

|Dated: April 15, 2003. |  |                                                            
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------
|                       |  | /s/RICK J. TREMBLAYRick J. Tremblay Chief Financial
Officer

---

QuickLinks
# C_2005082EN.01002601.xml

| 2.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/26

---

Action brought on 18 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-90/05)

(2005/C 82/52)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Dimitris Triantafyllou, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities

Having put the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg on notice to submit its observations and having issued a reasoned opinion on 7 July 2004 and regard being had to the reply of the government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, registered at the Secretariat General on 13 October 2004,

Claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by not observing the six-month period for refunds of VAT to taxable persons established within the country, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) of Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979, (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by not observing the six-month period for refunds of VAT to taxable persons established within the country, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) of Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979, (1)

1

| 2. | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, whilst having correctly transposed the directive into national law, is not in practice observing the six-month period provided for in Article 7(4) for the refund of VAT to taxable persons not established within the country. In fact refunds made by the Luxembourg authorities are systematically paid with considerable delays. Moreover, Luxembourg legislation does not provide for interest on late payment to offset damage suffered as a result of those delays.

---

(1)  Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1383 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1383

 To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to subject the 
 Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to the regular appropriations 
                    process, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 19, 2015

  Mr. Perdue introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 to subject the 
 Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to the regular appropriations 
                    process, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
Accountability Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. SUBJECTING THE BUREAU TO THE REGULAR APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS.

    Section 1017 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 
U.S.C. 5497) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) in the subsection heading, by striking 
                ``Transfer of Funds From Board Of Governors.--'' and 
                inserting ``Budget and Financial Management.--'';
                    (B) by striking paragraphs (1) through (3);
                    (C) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as 
                paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively; and
                    (D) in paragraph (1) (as redesignated)--
                            (i) by striking subparagraph (E); and
                            (ii) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as 
                        subparagraph (E);
            (2) by striking subsections (b) and (c);
            (3) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections 
        (b) and (c), respectively; and
            (4) in subsection (c) (as redesignated)--
                    (A) by striking paragraphs (1) through (3) and 
                inserting the following:
            ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
        to be appropriated such funds as may be necessary to carry out 
        this title for fiscal year 2015.''; and
                    (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph 
                (2).
                                 <all>
```
|   | Name                                 |   | Jurisdiction      of Incorporation |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|--------|
|   | River      Valley Financial Bank     |   | Federal                            |   |
|   | Madison      1st Service Corporation |   | Indiana                            |   |
|   | RIVR      Statutory Trust I          |   | Connecticut                        |   |
|   | RVFB      Investments, Inc.          |   | Nevada                             |   |
|   | RVFB      Holdings, Inc.             |   | Nevada                             |   |
|   | RVFB      Portfolio, LLC             |   | Nevada                             |   |
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 

# Year in Review

HomeCybersecurityYear in Review

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Document Date
                              - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Full Size (0.33 MB)

Tags:NSA Historical Photographs, HIST-002-003

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00788-CV

Thor Motor Coach, Inc., Appellant

v.

Daniel Rothwell, Individually, and as Dependent Administrator of the

Estate of Mary Rothwell, Decedent, and for the Use and Benefit of

All Surviving Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Mary Cano Rothwell, Appellee

FROM THE 33RD DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY

NO. 50134, THE HONORABLE J. ALLAN GARRETT, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Thor Motor Coach, Inc. has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this 

appeal. We grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Kelly, and Smith

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: March 31, 2020
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS- NETWORK DIAGRAM June 2022

Land Reclamation – Landslide Treatment (453)

C.2 (+) L.T. 

Farm/Ranch 

Profitability

Initial Setting: Locations where in-place 

material, mine spoil, waste, overburden, or 

rock cut road banks are unstable, moving, or 

have potential of moving down-slope that may 

cause damage to life, property, or the 

environment.

I.6 (+) Fish and wildlife habitat and biodiversity

Start

D.2 (-) Loading on slope to avoid further 

potential movement/instability

1. Freshly shaped, graded, and stabilized slopes 

D.4 (+) S.T. 

Particulates 

and fugitive 

dust

D.6 (+) S.T. 

compaction 

D.5 (+) S.T. 

Soil erosion 

runoff and 

sedimentation 

I.5 (+) L.T. Safety to human life and property

I.2 (+) Potential of invasive 

and noxious species

C.3 (+) Income 

Stability (Individual & 

Community

I.3 (+) Soil 

Fertility

I.4 (+) S.T. Cost for 

implementation of O&M

D.7 (-) Seepage 

from excess 

drainage that may 

exist

I.1 (+) Water quality 

and quantity

I.8 (+) Landscape 

aesthetics

D.1 (+) Available land area for 

desired economic land use

I.7 (+) recreational 

Opportunities

#, Created by practice

D. Direct effect

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

LEGEND

Associated practice

Mitigation

Identify on-site 

mitigation practices 

on the reclamation 

plan

Use Soil Survey to 

identify appropriate 

soils for use on site

D.8 (-) Erosion 

and 

Sedimentation

D.13. (+) 

Carbon 

sequestration

D.11 (-) Organic Matter in 

reclaimed soils

D.10 (+) 

Restoration of 

desirable/divers 

vegetation

D12. (-) 

Runoff, 

flooding 

and 

ponding

C.1 (+) Environmental 

Quality

D.9 (-) S.T. 

Safety to 

human life & 

property during 

construction 

period

Develop safety plan, work during 

dry periods, & conduct appropriate 

geologic & seismic investigations

Subsurface Drain 

(606)

Underground Outlet 

(620)

Pest Management (595)

Terrace 

(600) Nutrient Management (590)