alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
, a
PO
po 4 WEIL

TEST Cowtrower |

t i
BoostTer
TEST COWTROLLER

i i
i

WStTL
soeag: (PINAL STAGE

TEs
ConTRacror

 Casobees i 3 tene —

PT TT] Pq Py

TEST “MSD
CON TMACTORS SUG SYSTEM

TEST
WSIOTA-loR BISA CONTRACTORS
- WSHTL

Orcanization cor Test Count powns
- AFMTC-

y


MEMORANDUM FOR COLONEL TERTUME WY
SUBJECT: Booster-117L Integration Plan - AFMIC

1. The WS 315 and WS 107A-1 missiles, minus adapter and nose
cone, will be used as boosters for the WS 117L vehicle to place
the 1171 vehicle into a prearranged coast condition in space prior
to orbital injection.

2. Examination of the WS 117L Flight Schedule indicates that
immediate action mst be initiated on the part of the WS 315, WS
207A~1. and WS TL progran oftices gad associated contractors, to
assure the development an era’ launch operation capabili‘
by October 1958 for the WS 315 boosted 117 vehicle and by June .
1959 for the 1S 107A-1 boosted 117L vehicle at AFMTC.

3. ‘The following basic plan represents a method proposed by
AFEMD which will accomplish flight testing for WS 117E at AFMIC.
This organizational plan pointedly stresses a minimm compromise
to the WS 315 and WS 107A-1 testing procedures but also a maxinun
attempt at obtaining the WS 117L objectives,

4. Basic Integrated Operations Plan, Booster-WS 117L, at

a, All elements of the booster program (WS 315 or WS
107A-1) required for WS 117L testing, whether production items,
production or support services, or management and direction func-
tions, will be G.F.E. to w 117L as prescribed by the production
and flight schedule as published by AFEMD,

b. The Booster program office will procure the elements
required as described in (a) above. This will be accomplished by
those contractors who will be involved in WS 117L operations by
virtue of hardware, services, or technical direction responsibili-
ties in the Booster programs.

¢c. The identical organizational structure, which pre-
sently inplements the booster programs, will be maintained in the
support of WS 1171 support functions. However, the delegated
responsibility of the Booster (315-107A-1) organizations will only
involve the booster and its specific operation and contributory
support of the 117L program.

d, The WDGM Test Controller is responsible for the over-
all conduct of the 117L flight test program, To assist him in this

T 12 YEAR
syuTatcALLY

Ae

DOWNGRADED /

INVER Ls net ;
DECLASSIFIED. DOD OIR ER pte


fy

yr?



wt

‘ . [aAremp

{)
tf
fa)
FIELD OFFICE
wDGM
t)
-
\ / Hf
WSIOTA-1 on 315 / WSHTL
PROJEKT OFFIC " [PROJECT OFFICE TT AFM TC
WDGMA on WOOMI| WDOMR FTD
pl | r —
t--to__4y
A COO RO IWATION
\ Lt Oo, A
HE
\ \ , av ly
\ \ ; .
WSWTL
F.T.W.G.
WDGM
Chow,
-W ums
asst. Agee,
. Booster WSHIL | .
F.T.W.6, FINAL |
(090 oe 315.4) STAGE :
- F.T.W.G. |
Row LMsp |
Chmn, Cchmn, }

Oroanizarion
For
WSVTL Fuedtr Tesr Prannine ar AFMTC
IMMO* MIMI OOVOOMIC 11111111111114

VO Ntf ON *PN

Assistant Deputy Director

for Plans and Policy -

ummITCS-37600-71

an roe= woos

///-/,,Z2-ocv

—TOP-SEGREF

MIMI IRO

-comitiviALEMEM1

mom mita 

0

Jointly

-MI-NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. 0.C. imiumpum

November 12, 1971 I*1

MEMORANDUM FOrMR. GATHRIGNT STATE DEPARTMENT

NNW SUBJECT: NSAM 156 Committee Third Draft SALT Paper

We find that the paper accurately reflects the views

MI of the NRO expressed at the November 11 meeting. Since .

111111 Dr. McLucas will not be back from his trip until after

1111111 November 18, we reserve final concurrence until be reviews

NM

the paper. Of course, we would also withhold our final

EMI concurrence pending review of other agency comments to

MOM the draft.

NO As a matter of addition to the paper, it is suggested

ENE that the following wording be added to Recommendation

.1.1 Number 2, to be inserted after the third sentence: "It

will also be explained in response to questions that 'The

MN Soviet Union will also employ information-gathering setaI 

▪

lites as a part of their national technical means.'"

an

MIS We believe that this addition is essential to insure 010011 the efficacy of the statements contained in Recommendation

11111 amp Number 3 where it is stated that ". . . two sides have

agreed not to interfere with the national technical means

MN of verification of the other side."

MI It would be appreciated if you would incorporate this

ail

O

addition prior to clearing the paper with Ambassador Johnson.

MB I am also sending a copy of this letter to the other Committee

o members.

FOIE

1...-*+

+.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-10413

Summary Calendar

 

GEORGE PHILLIPS, SR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LOCKE, LIDDELL & SAPP LLP,

Defendant-Appellee.

_______________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:99-CV-2897-R

_______________________________________

November 2, 2000

Before POLITZ, DAVIS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Victoria Phillips’ motion to be substituted for George Phillips, who is recently

deceased, for his appeal is GRANTED. 

This appeal follows the district court’s dismissal of George Philips’ complaint

due to Phillips’ failure to follow the order of the magistrate judge. The magistrate
2

judge had ordered Phillips to file his suit on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint form. 

The complaint form, however, was for prisoners filing a § 1983 suit. Phillips was

not a prisoner; nor was he seeking to file a civil rights action. 

The district court’s sua sponte dismissal of the complaint based upon Phillips’

failure to follow the erroneous order of the magistrate judge was an abuse of

discretion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); McNeal v. Papasan, 842 F.2d 787, 789-90

(5th Cir. 1988). The district court’s alternative conclusion that Phillips’ suit was

duplicative of a suit previously dismissed by another court was also erroneous. 

VACATED and REMANDED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6333

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee,

v. AMOS JUNIOR SCOTT, Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:03-cv-00251-LHT)

Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 5, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Amos Junior Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Amos Junior Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Scott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Scott’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain

23 authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h). Scott’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. 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
EXHIBIT
31.1





CERTIFICATION




I,
Patrick A. Dolan, certify that:




1.  
I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB of BPO Management Services, Inc.;




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;




3.  
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;




4.  
The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) [language omitted pursuant to SEC
Release 34-47986] for the registrant and have:




(a)  Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;




(b) 
[Omitted pursuant to SEC Release 34-47986];




(c) 
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and




(d) 
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and




5.  
The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):




(a) 
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
affect ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and




(b) 
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.





Dated:
April 15, 2008





/S/ Patrick A. Dolan


Patrick
A. Dolan,


Chief
Executive Officer


(principal
executive officer)
# Submit a PA Request

FOIA
Privacy Act
current page

A proper PA request is one in which you are requesting records on yourself that are contained in files retrievable by your name or another personal identifier. Your request should include as much detail as possible to identify the specific information you are requesting. To assist you in determining the kinds of records that the NRO keeps, please refer to the list of Systems of Records Notices.

Your request **must** include the following information. Failure to include this information may result in processing delays or make it impossible for us to process your request.
          - Your full name
          - Your complete mailing address
          - Your date of birth
          - Your place of birth
          - Your citizenship
          - A clear description of the records you are requesting

Notarize your letter or sign it under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 (Example: *“I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, that the foregoing is true and correct.”*) to ensure that records concerning you are only released to you. If requesting through an attorney, an original notarized statement or statement signed under penalty of perjury (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746) authorizing us to release information to your attorney must be included.

Download the NRO's Privacy Act Request Submission Form. using the Firefox web browser  

There are four convenient ways to submit your PA submission form:
          - By Email:  FOIA@nro.mil
          - By postal service or other commercial delivery:   National Reconnaissance Office   Attn: COMM/Information Review and Release Group   14675 Lee Road   Chantilly, VA 20151-1715
          - By fax: 703-745-0833
          - Electronically:  * FOIA.gov   *Please upload the form to your FOIA.gov submission

## Average Processing Time

It is difficult to provide an "average" processing time, as requests vary in their scope and complexity. Actual processing time will depend upon:
          - How extensive a search is required
          - The complexity, volume and sensitivity of the records located
          - The need for consultation among various offices within the NRO
          - The need to consult with other entities having an equity in the material
          - The number of cases preceding a request in the processing queue

Requests are processed on a "first-in, first-out" basis, based on the origination date of the request.

## Expedited Processing

A request will be expedited if the requester seeks such processing and demonstrates a compelling need, as defined by the FOIA, or a need for expedited treatment, as detailed in Department of Defense Manual 5400.07.

To **check the status of a request**, please contact the FOIA Requester Service Center at **(703) 745-0600**.
# FILED
April 29, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON
STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) Appellee, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9710-CR-00385 ) vs. ) SHELBY COUNTY ) JAMES MCCLENTON, ) No. 95-06366 ) Appellant. )

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court u pon the state's motion to dismis s. Based upon our review of the entire record before the Court, including the appellant 's response to the state's motion, we affirm the judgme nt of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The appellant pled guilty to simple possession and rec eived a sentence of eleven months and twenty -nine days and a fine of $750.00. The appel lant now attempts to appeal a certified question of law that he raised in his motion to suppress and motion to dismiss prosecuti on.

In State v. Preston , 759 S.W.2d 647 (Te nn. 1988), our Supreme Court stated that when a defendant pleads g uilty and wishes t o reserve a certified q uestion of law pursuant to Tenn. R. C rim. P. 37(b)(2)(i) or (iv), "the final or

der or judgment from which the time begins t o run to pursue a T.R.A.P. 3 appeal must contain a statement of the dispositive certi

fied question of law reser ved by defendant for appellate r eview and the question of law must be s tated so as to clearly identify the scope and the limi ts of the legal issue reserv

ed." Id. at 650. It is the defendant's res ponsibility to assur e that the final order complies w ith these requirements and t hat the record on appeal contains the proceedings necessary to a complete determination. Id.
In this case, the appellant failed to explicitly reserve the right to appeal a2

certified q uestion of law that was di spositiv

e of the case as

mandated by Te nn. R. Crim

. P. 37(b)(2)(iv) and Preston . The judgment sheet makes no referenc e to the certified question and the final order of the court merely states that the appellant "has specifically reserv

ed for appeal the certified questi ons of law contained in his Motion to Suppress and Motion to Dismi ss Prosecution in this c ause." See State v. Pendergrass , 937 S.W.2d 834, 837-38 (Tenn. 1996) (the order "does not satisfy the unambiguous mandator

y prer equisites of Preston . The order contains no clear identification of the scope and limits of the legal issue reserved.") We are, therefore, precluded from considering whether the trial court properly denied the appellant's motion to suppress and motion to dismiss prosecuti on.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the state's motion is g ranted and the judgment of the trial court i s affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules. Costs are taxed to the appellant.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED t hat the appellant's bond is her eby revoked. The appellant shall be taken into custody immediately by the proper authorities. C osts associated with this a ppeal shall be taxed to the ap pellant.

Enter, this the ___ day of Mar ch, 1998.

_____________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE

_____________________________ JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE

_____________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUD GE
Exhibit
      23.1





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement on Form
      S-8 (No.
      333-146662) of Point.360 **** (formerly
      New 360) **** and
      subsidiary **** of
      our
      report dated November 9, 2007, appearing
      in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/T of Point.360 and subsidiary for the six
      months ended June 30, 2007 and three years ended December 31, 2006.





Singer
      Lewak Greenbaum & Goldstein LLP (signed)


November
      9, 2007




52
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

Order 

June 10, 2016

153115

153117

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 153115

COA: 323642

Kent CC: 14-003216-FH

MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER FREDERICK,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 153117

COA: 323643

Kent CC: 14-003215-FH

TODD RANDOLPH VAN DOORNE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the applications for leave to appeal the December 8, 2015 

judgment of the Court of Appeals are considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the applications or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1). 

The parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order 

addressing: (1) whether the knock-and-talk procedures employed by the law enforcement 

officers violated the general public’s implied license to approach the defendants’ 

residences and constituted unconstitutional searches in violation of the Fourth 

Amendment, see Florida v Jardines, 569 US ___; 133 S Ct 1409, 1416 n 3, 1422; 185 L 

Ed 2d 495 (2013); (2) whether the conduct of the law enforcement officers “objectively 

reveals a purpose to conduct a search” to obtain evidence without the necessity of 

obtaining a warrant, id. at 1417; and (3) whether the conduct of the law enforcement 

officers was coercive, see United States v Spotted Elk, 548 F3d 641, 655 (CA 8, 2008). 

The parties should not submit mere restatements of their application papers.
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 10, 2016

s0607

2

Clerk

The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the Criminal Defense 

Attorneys of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups 

interested in the determination of the issues presented in these cases may move the Court 

for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

Motions for permission to file briefs amicus curiae and briefs amicus curiae 

regarding these two cases should be filed in People v Frederick (Docket No. 153115) 

only and served on the parties in both cases.
Record of Ex Parte Contacts

Docket No. FAA
- 2012
- 0728 Directorate Identifier: 2012
- NM - 050
- AD **With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)?**  (You might need to submit a separate record to the Rules Docket. The AD Manual defines “ **Ex Parte Contacts** .”) ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE RESPONSE Boeing Bob Takara 1/17/2012 Concur. A4A Mike Bianchi 2/27/2012 No Response.

Other/Additional Information: