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

USCIB: ,a2. /'t 

f•/l~ 

'POP SHlRE.l' 

Ml!MORANDUM FOR THE MEMBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: SACLANT nyn Planning. 

lfldft)LE VIA eEMIN'f eHltMHELS ONLY 

l+ February 1955 

The enclosed reconunendation by the Director, NSA has been placed on 

the agenda for consideration at the 112th meeting of USCIB. 

Enclosure 

NSA Serial 710 dtd 3 Feb 1955. 

USCIB: ;l·~?i 

Capt · , U. S. Navy 

Executive Secretary, USCIB 

,, 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 03-14-2014 pursuant to E. 0. 1352B 

TO? SECR£'f' 

21. 

·~ 
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY 

WASHINGTON 25, D. C. 

MEMORANDtlM FOR TRE MEMBERS OF USCIB 

SUBJECT: SAC!ANT Y Planning 

Serial: 710 

3 ~~eb 55 

1. On 15 January 1951~ 1 the Secretary of Defense designated the 

Director, National Security Agency, e.s the U.S. authority with whan 

the SACLANT Y Officer can camnunicate on direction finder matters. 

On 27 January 1954, this authority was delegated to the Chief of Naval 

Operations. 

2. Since that tirne, No.val representatives or the us, UIC, and 

Canada have met with the SACIANT Y Officer to develop a HFDF program 

for SACLANT. '!'his planning is conducted in COMINT channels. 

3. Upon the canpletion or the RFDF program, the SACLANT Y Officer 

drafted a charter tor SACLANT Y operations, based on SAC/E/R/71 approved 

by USCIB. ISIB1 and CRC, and on the SHAPE Y charter ratified by us, UK1 

and L J military author! ties. The SACLANT Y dra.ft charter was agreed 

by the Di't'ector, GCHQ, and Admiralty for the UK, a.nd by the Director, 

NSA, e.nd re.presenta..tives of' CNO for the us. The draft is nOW" being 

conoidere4 by Canadian COMINT authorities, whose approval is anticipated 

sane time this month. A ccrpy of the draft is :filed with the Executive 

Secretary. 

4. The Directors, NSA, GCHQ, and CRC, and representatives of 

Admiralty and CNO, have a.greed that ove~tlona.l planning for 

SACLANT Y should be extended to include(_______j Inclusion of l"'rance 

in the initial pls.nning conference, llhich 'Will be sponsored by SACIANT1 

is based on the precedent established by USCIB end ISIB at the time ot 

thp SIIAPE Y conference in Oct.·ober 1953, It is believed that participation 

byl I a member of the Standing Group and charter member in SHAPE 

Y planninS1 in the initial.overt stages of SACLANT Y planning will help 

to al.l.q •eny suspicion 01' pri~r collaboration among the us, UK, end Ce.Dada. 

5 •• SAC/E/R/7 does not include any provision for procedures whereb7 

representatives of' NATO nations other than the us, UK, and Canad.a Will 

participate in SACLANT Y plmm.~nq. If is tberef'ore recommended that 

USCIB approvepartici~~;Qnbylrepreaentatives in the- initial 

SACLANT Y.con:t'eJ."~nce a.Dd instruct the Navy member to notify SACI..Aw.r, 

via CCf.II!ll'clwmels, of this approval. 

EO 3 . 3 ( h) ( 2 ) 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 /, ./ . / ~ L ....... ~ .".:i I ~'t-"'(.t.. { \""""-' I 

J. S. HOLTWICK, Jr. 

Captain, US Nnvy 

NRA McMber, U3CIBEC 

llMlm.I: '•'II .. 9EtmP.P EJHA!HmS etffiY '];Of SISHE'l' CONTROL NOOER 550271-A 

COPY ;l flt( OF 44 COPIES 

PApf- 1 OF l PAGES 

_JT~o~P~s~E~CP--»R'"-IEμ-:r::p•=-
EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                          REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) OR
                    RULE 15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

        I,  Richard W. Lucas,  as Chief  Financial  Officer of KSW,  Inc.,  (the
"Company"),  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted by Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my knowledge:

        (1) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31,  2007 (the  "Report")  filed  with the U.S.  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission,  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
Company.

Dated: May 7, 2007

                                                  /s/ Richard W. Lucas
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Richard W. Lucas
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.1





Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Michael T. Pugh, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Carver Bancorp, Inc.; and





2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.





Date:August 10, 2020/s/ Michael T. PughMichael T. PughPresident and Chief Executive Officer
CERTIFICATION OF CFO PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Mark T. Brown, Chief Financial Officer of Almaden Minerals Ltd. (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.

This Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with

the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.



Date: December 21, 2007





Signed:  /s/Mark T. Brown
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the Unaudited Statements of Operations and Accumulated
Deficit for the Nine Months Ended September 30, 1997 and the
Unaudited Balance Sheet at September 30, 1997 and is qualified in
its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         382,358
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  289,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                    16,500
<INVENTORY>                                    102,298
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               758,444
<PP&E>                                         317,740
<DEPRECIATION>                                 306,306
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 769,878
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,893
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     10,000
<COMMON>                                       122,824
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   769,878
<SALES>                                        962,625
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               966,595
<CGS>                                          610,167
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  828,770
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,750
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,171
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 89,404
<INCOME-TAX>                                    89,404
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             89,404
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    89,404
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Duane Poliquin, President and Chief Executive Officer of Almaden Minerals Ltd. (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.

This Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with

the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.



Date: July 25, 2005





Signed:  /s/Duane Poliquin
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 33 (Thursday, February 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 8902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03493]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. DEA-392]


Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Mylan 
Technologies, Inc.

ACTION: Notice of application.

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

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and 
applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the 
issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 
1301.34(a) on or before March 23, 2015. Such persons may also file a 
written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 
1301.43 on or before March 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement 
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Request for 
hearings should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: 
Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Attorney General has delegated his 
authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of 
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority 
to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation 
and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of 
manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of 
controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with 
suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated 
to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion 
Control (``Deputy Assistant Administrator'') pursuant to section 7 of 
28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
    In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on 
November 13, 2014, Mylan Technologies, Inc., 110 Lake Street, Saint 
Albans, Vermont 05478, applied to be registered as an importer of the 
following basic classes of controlled substances:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Controlled substance                       Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methylphenidate (1724).....................  II
Fentanyl (9801)............................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to import the listed controlled substances in 
finished dosage form (FDF) from foreign sources for analytical testing 
and clinical trials in which the foreign FDF will be compared to the 
company's own domestically-manufactured FDF. This analysis is required 
to allow the company to export domestically-manufactured FDF to foreign 
markets.

    Dated: February 11, 2015.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-03493 Filed 2-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
National Reconnaissance Office Release #12-22

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Nov. 18, 2022

Office of Public Affairs

703-808-1198, media@nro.mil 

NRO achieves unmatched 14th clean financial audit

CHANTILLY, Va. – For the 14th straight year, the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) 

achieved an unmodified opinion (clean audit) for fiscal year 2022 from independent auditors on

its annual financial statements. 

"The NRO's 14th consecutive clean audit is an unparalleled achievement within the intelligence 

community," said Dr. Chris Scolese, director of the NRO. "It is a testament to the integrity of our 

team and the meticulous attention to detail we apply to all of our operations. As always, we 

remain committed to earning the public's trust as responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars."

An unmodified or clean audit means that the financial statements present fairly the financial 

position and the results of the organization’s operations in accordance with U.S. generally 

accepted accounting principles.

The effective management of NRO resources is an important indicator of the strong financial 

health of the organization. It also provides assurance to partners, stakeholders, and overseers that 

NRO will reliably and consistently deliver on its mission.

“This 14th clean audit is an exceptional milestone for the NRO,” said Chief Financial Officer 

and Director of the NRO’s Business and Plans Operations Directorate Heidi Smith. “It reflects a 

fully collaborative effort and dedication to excellence at all levels of the organization.” 

The NRO Office of the Inspector General contracted with the independent public accounting 

firm Kearney & Company to conduct the annual audit of financial statements. Kearney evaluated 

the reliability of financial data supporting financial statements, the accuracy of the statements, 

and the accuracy of footnote disclosures in accordance with accounting principles generally 

accepted in the U.S., as well as guidance issued by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory 

Board and the Office of Management and Budget.

###

The NRO develops, acquires, launches, and operates the world’s best intelligence, surveillance, 

and reconnaissance satellites to secure and expand America’s advantage in space. We are 

building a diversified and resilient architecture of spacecraft and ground systems designed to 

meet the challenges of a changing space environment by accelerating innovation and leveraging 

strategic partnerships, backed by a diverse and highly skilled workforce. At NRO, we see it, hear
it, and sense it so our nation’s warfighters and policymakers have decision advantage amid 

increasing global competition. 

Learn more at NRO.gov.
Addendum #2 to the Phosphate Charter-Party agreement




 Exhibit 10.9 
 ADDENDUM NO. 2 
 TO 
 CHARTER PARTY DATED JUNE 24, 1999 
 BETWEEN A/S KLAVENESS CHARTERING 
 AND MISSISSIPPI PHOSPATES CORPORATION 
  
  
 It is hereby mutually agreed and understood that the duration of
the contract dated June 24, 1999, including Addendum No. 1 dated February 23, 2005, has been extended until December 31, 2008, and that the remaining quantity of about 688.000 MT of phosphate rock shall be shipped fairly evenly
spread in lots of 52/54.000 MT between January 1 and December 31, 2008. It is further agreed and understood that during calendar 2008, subject quantity shall be shipped in alternation with shipments under the new CoA between Baumarine AS
and Mississippi Phosphates Corporation dated August 30, 2007. 
 The first shipment with a Bill of Lading date in calendar year 2008, shall be made
under the new Baumarine CoA dated August 30, 2007; the second shipment with a Bill of Lading date in calendar year 2008, shall be made under the contract dated June 24, 1999, as amended, and subsequent shipments shall alternate between the
two contracts. 
 All other terms and conditions of the Charter Party shall remain unchanged including contents of Addendum No. 1 dated
February 23, 2005. 
 Oslo, October 17, 2007 
  

							
	 A/S Klaveness Chartering
	 		 	Mississippi Phosphates Corporation
				
	 /s/ Illegible
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Robert E. Jones

		 		 		 	Robert E. Jones
		 		 		 	Chief Executive Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAUL EDWARD DURAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

D. GOREE, Jr., Appeals Coordinator at Corcoran State Prison,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 23

- 15275

D.C. No. 1:20

- cv

- 00181

- ADA

- HBK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Ana de Alba, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 17, 2024 * *

Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Paul Edward Duran appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing for failure to state a claim his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

alleging retaliation and due process violations arising from prison disciplinary

proceedings . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JAN 24 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 23

- 15275

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

. Wilhelm v. Rotman

, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th

Cir. 2012)

. We affirm

.

The district court properly dismissed Duran’s action because Duran failed to

allege facts sufficient to show that Goree was involved in issuing any disciplinary

violations

, retaliated against Duran , or denied Duran disciplinary procedures he

was due. See Wolff v. McDonnell , 418 U.S. 539, 563

- 70 (1974) (setting forth

minimum requirements of due process in discip linary hearings); King v. County of

Los Angeles , 885 F.3d 548, 559 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that a plaintiff bringing

a § 1983 action must show that a defendant was personally involved in or caused a

constitutional injury ) ; Rhodes v. Robinson , 408 F.3d 559, 567

- 68 (9th Cir. 2005)

(setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context )

.

We do not consider arguments or allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright

, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED

.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-06-00389-CV

In re Centroplex Automobile Recovery, Inc.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

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

Relator Centroplex Automobile Recovery, Inc. has filed a petition for a writ of

mandamus challenging the district court’s order granting Prime, Inc.’s motion to disqualify counsel

dated May 23, 2006. Relator also filed a motion to seal certain documents. We grant the motion to

seal and deny the petition for writ of mandamus. Tex. R. App. P. 52.

 

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Puryear and Pemberton

Filed: July 13, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of January 31, 1998 and 1997, the Consolidated
Statements of Operations for each of the three years ended January 31, 1998,
1997 and 1996, and Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for each of the three
years ended January 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                          7,214
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   7,208
<ALLOWANCES>                                      860
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               15,613
<PP&E>                                          6,723
<DEPRECIATION>                                (1,529)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 46,054
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          14,793
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          136
<OTHER-SE>                                     30,704
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   46,054
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               30,660
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  11,452
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               28,599
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (269)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (9,121)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (3,510)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (5,611)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (5,611)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.41)
        

</TABLE>
#### Daubner, Respondent, vs. McFarlin, Appellant.

*October 1*

October *20, 1908.*

*Appeal: Review: Findings of fact.*

Findings of fact by tbe trial court will not be disturbed unless contrary to a clear preponderance of tbe evidence.

Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Dane county: E. Eat Stevens, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Action for damages resulting from excavation by defendant on his own adjoining premises and consequent removal of lateral support for plaintiff’s ground. Trial to tbe court, *516and judgment for plaintiff for $100 damages and costs, from wbicb defendant appeals.

The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of *Gilbert, Jackson & Ela,*and for the respondent on that of *Rufus JB. Smith.*

Doughs, J.

This cáse presents merely questions of fact as to which the evidence was, to say the least, fairly conflicting. This court ought not to be burdened, in the performance of its duty to important litigation, by the necessity of examining such questions. Counsel ought to be able to restrain clients from the bringing of such necessarily futile appeals. We discover no clear preponderance of evidence against the findings of the trial court.

*■By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.