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

HomeHistoryCryptologic HistoryHistorical FiguresHistorical Figures View

# NSA Historical Figures

                Download            

# Renetta Predmore-Lynch

In 1972, Renetta Predmore-Lynch learned she had been denied a promotion because of her gender and registered a complaint with NSA's Equal Employment Opportunity office. It was determined that the promotion process violated its own evaluation rules, and excluded women from the promotion boards.

However, in April 1973, NSA's Director rejected Mrs. Predmore-Lynch's claims and the investigator's findings. In September, the Board of Appeals and Review found that Mrs. Predmore-Lynch had been discriminated against and that the promotion procedures discriminated against female employees. 

Part of the 1976 ruling of the U.S. District Court  required NSA to include at least one woman with equal voting rights on every promotion board. Through Mrs. Predmore-Lynch's efforts, women today are ensured a fair promotion hearing. 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Renetta Predmore-Lynchwomen in cryptologyhistorical figureBiography
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

JAIME BRAVO GUERRERO, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 23-0257 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2015-143236-001

The Honorable Jeffrey A. Rueter, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

APPEARANCES

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Philip D. Garrow

Counsel for Respondent

Jaime Bravo Guerrero, Kingman

Petitioner

FILED 01-04-2024
STATE v. GUERRERO

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams, Judge Samuel A. Thumma, and Judge 

Paul J. McMurdie delivered the Court’s decision.

PER CURIUM:

¶1 Petitioner Jaime Bravo Guerrero seeks review of the superior 

court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant 

to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1.1 This is petitioner’s latest 

successive petition. 

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief.

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It is 

petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by 

denying the petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 

537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of 

establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. The petitioner has failed to show an abuse of discretion.

¶4 For the foregoing reasons, this court grants review but denies 

relief. 

1 On December 8, 2023, Petitioner noticed this court of his pending petition 

for review before the Arizona Supreme Court.
#### H. C. WALL and others *v.*HENRY FAIRLEY and others.

The presiding Judge, on a trial in the Court below, has the power in his discretion to allow or refuse amendments to the pleadings.

*(Bobmson*v. *WiTloucfliby,*67, N, C. Rep. 84, cited and approved.)

MotioN, by plaintiff's, to amend the- pleadings, heard at Spring Term, 1873, before his Honor, *Buxton, J-,*of the Supe-perior Court of RichmoND county.

The amendment asked, consisted in substituting an amended complaint in lieu of the original, which the counsel represented to his Honor had been filed under a misapprehension of the facts of the ease; the true state of which had come to light since the original was filed.

The Court allowed the amendment, from which order, defendants appealed.

*WMcL. McKay*and *MoJYeill,*for appellant.

*Battle*c& *Soy,,*contra.

Reade, J.

The power of the Court below to allow the amendment, is the only question. And about that there is no doubt. The case of *Robinson*v. Willoughby, 67 N. C. Rep. 84, is decidedly in point in favor, of the power.

There is no error. This will be certified.

Pek Cubiam. Order affirmed.
Exhibit
      23.1





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement on Forms
      S-8 (Nos.
      333-125253, 333-69174 and 333-69168) of Point.360 **** and
      subsidiaries **** of
      our
      report dated February 28, 2007, appearing
      in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Point.360 and subsidiary for the three
      years ended December 31, 2006.




Singer
      Lewak Greenbaum & Goldstein LLP (signed)


February
      28, 2007
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nelson Montes, Appellant.

[772 NYS2d 856]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Reichbach, J.), rendered November 19, 2002, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the prosecutor’s conduct did not impair the integrity of the grand jury *(see*CPL 210.20 [1] [c]; 210.35 [5]; *People v Adessa,*89 NY2d 677, 684-686 [1997]; *People v Huston,*88 NY2d 400, 409 [1996]; *People v Murphy,*198 AD2d 525, 526-527 [1993]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on that ground.

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Santucci, J.P., Florio, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23.1








                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statement  on Form S-8 (No.  333-49808)  of VDI  MultiMedia  of our report dated
March 30,  2001  relating to the  financial  statements,  which  appears in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of
our report dated March 30, 2001  relating to the financial  statement  schedule,
which appears in this Form 10-K.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Century City, California
March 30, 2001


                                       41
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                CONSENT OF NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.

     We consent to the references to us in "Part I, Item 1 and 2. Business and
Properties - Natural Gas and Oil Reserves" in Amendment No. 1 to this Annual
Report on Form 10-K/A of The Houston Exploration Company for the year ended
December 31, 2002 and in Houston Exploration's previously filed Registration
Statements (and any prospectus supplement thereto) on: (i) Form S-3, file number
333-78843 dated May 20, 1999; (ii) Form S-8, file number 333-36977 dated October
1, 1997; (iii) Form S-8, file number 333-47370 dated October 5, 2000; (iv) Form
S-8, file number 333-75264 dated December 17, 2001; and (v) Form S-8, file
number 333-99799 dated September 19, 2002.



                                      /s/ NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                      -----------------------------------------
                                          NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Houston, Texas
November 13, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                            2892
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            7578
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  2300
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     142369
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            2124
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              2126
<LOANS>                                         144156
<ALLOWANCE>                                        800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  305408
<DEPOSITS>                                      152476
<SHORT-TERM>                                     50000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               6485
<LONG-TERM>                                      37929
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         46288
<OTHER-SE>                                       58472
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  305408
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   5491
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 3520
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   144
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  9155
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                3699
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                5523
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             3633
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       45
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 171
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   2052
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2319
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        2319
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1507
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .38
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.45
<LOANS-NON>                                        911
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   1224
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   756
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        1
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  800
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            800
        

</TABLE>
General Moseley, USAF, Writes Letter to 

U.S. News and World Report 

2 September 2003

As the commander of U.S. Central Command's air component for Operation Enduring Freedom 

and Operation Iraqi Freedom, I read with interest your Aug. 11 article about the National 

Reconnaissance Office. The article leads one to assume the NRO is failing to deliver the critical 

intelligence capabilities to warfighters like me. Yet, from personal experience, I know that 

nothing could be further from the truth.

Operating over Afghanistan and Iraq, NRO and U.S. Air Force space systems provided coalition 

forces with a tremendous asymmetric intelligence advantage that allowed us to dominate the 

enemy quickly and completely in both fights. In the Iraqi campaign, I relied on NRO capabilities 

every day to conduct precise and effective strategic attack, counter-air and counter-land strikes 

against Saddam Hussein's regime. Moreover, NRO satellites were exceedingly capable 

supporting ground, naval, and special operations forces throughout the campaign.

And I'm not alone in my assessment of the importance of these systems. As my boss, General 

Tommy Franks, noted in Congressional testimony on Afghanistan, "the pieces of this operation 

which have been successful would not have been so without space-based assets. It's just very 

simply a fact." 

If the performance of the NRO in combat operations can be construed as a failure, all I can say 

is, let's have more of them. And if your readers hear from those who have used these systems 

when they count - in war - they will draw an entirely different portrait of the NRO than that 

which appeared in your magazine. 

T. Michael Moseley

General, USAF

Vice Chief of Staff
PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# NRO & Space Force partner to launch SILENTBARKER/NROL-107 mission

PRESS RELEASE:

NRO & Space Force partner to launch SILENTBARKER/NROL-107 mission.

  Press Release

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
# Roofs and Covers (No.) (367) Conservation Practice Standard

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Roofs and Covers (No.) (367) Conservation Practice Standard 

Download the national conservation practice standard document and supporting documents for Roofs and Covers (No.) (367).

## National Standard Document

NOTICE - National conservation practice standards should not be used to plan, design or install a conservation practice. To find these documents at the local level, visit our Field Office Technical Guide website. 

Conservation Practice Name (Units) (Code) (Date Issued)

367 NHCP CPS Roofs and Covers 2023(181.04 KB)

###   Supporting Documents

367 NHCP NED Roof and Covers 2023(93.05 KB)

367 NHCP PO Roofs and Covers 2023(163.15 KB)

##   Additional Information

### Conservation Practice Standards

On this page find links to national conservation practice standards and supporting documents.
Learn More

### Conservation Practice Standards Information

Learn about the information provided in conservation practice standards and supporting documents, such as overviews, worksheets, and network effects diagrams.
Learn More
|   | (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 results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  May      15, 2009 | By:  | /s/Stephen K. Onody                                                                                                     |
|------------------------------------|-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                               |      | Stephen      K. OnodyInterim      Chief Executive Officer, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer and      Director |

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6818

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KENWRICK CLIFTON HAREWOOD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior

District Judge. (CR-90-50-C-P)

Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 8, 1997

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenwrick Clifton Harewood, Appellant Pro Se. Harry Thomas Church,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion for a writ of coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651

(1994). Our review of the record and the district court's order

discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm

on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Harewood,

No. CR-90-50-C-P (W.D.N.C. May 20, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED
### THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C, 20590

The Honorable Patrick 

### J. Toon1ey United States Senate · Washington, DC 20510 Dear SenatorToomey: September 26, 2013

Thank you for yourletter supporting the application submitted bythe Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport for a grantunderthe U.S. Department ofTransportation's Small Community Air Service DevelopmentProgram. The Small Community Air ServiceDevelopment Programwas establishedto help smaller communities address air service deficiencies, particularly issues related to high airfares or insufficient service. Under the statute, the Department may make a maximun1 of40 grant awards each year, although no more thanfour awards maybe to communities in the same State. In orderto provide communities with latitude in developing solutions to their air service deficiencies, the statute provides flexibility in the types ofprojects that canbe funded. On June 24, theDepartment issued anorder setting a deadline ofJuly 26 for applications. As these grant requests are pending before the Department, I cmmot comment on the merits ofany particular proposal. I asstu·e you that the Department will give full and fair consideration to all proposals that have been properly filed. As is our standardpractice, I am placing a copy ofyour letter and this response in Docket DOT-OST-2013-0120 as a contact outside the record ofthis matter. I appreciate your interest in this program. 

# 0-{[2
Anthony 

### R. FoxxPATRICK J. TOOMEY PENNSYLVANIA

TheHonorable Anthony Foxx Secretary ofTransportation U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Secretary Foxx: WASHINGTON, DC 20510 August 13, 2013 COMM!Tli:E$:**FlNANC~** BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS BUDGET JOINT ECONOMIC COMMmEE

Xam pleased to provide this support letter for Wilkes-Barre 

### I Scranton Internagonal 

### Airport's application for a U.S. Department of Transportation Small Community Air Service Development Program grant. The Wilkes-Barre 

### JScranton International Airport project would address the deficiencies in the Airport's air service, including high fares and an insufficient level of service. These deficiencies are the result of the unique characteristics of the air transpmtation system in the Greater Northeastern Pennsylvaniaregion. Ifawarded, the funds requested would be used for an airline or airlines to provide service to one or more nonstop new 

### I restored leisure and 

### I or business destinations, as well as local market advertising for the new

### Jrestored service. In order to assist with Wilkes-Barre 

### I Scranton International Airport's project, I respectfully request that you give their application all due consideration. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

PatToomey United States Senator
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-04-360-CR

PAULA JOE STARRIN	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 10 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Following the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence, Appellant Paula Joe Starrin, pursuant to a plea bargain, pled no contest to the offense of driving while intoxicated (DWI), reserving her right to appeal the denial of the motion.  The trial court convicted her of DWI and sentenced her to one hundred and twenty days in jail, probated for two years, and a $750 fine.  Appellant brings a single point on appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress.  Because we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

	Appellant drove a 1998 Mercedes C280.  The car came equipped with three brake lights, also known as stoplamps—one on each side of the rear of the car and the third in the center of the car inside the rear window.  One evening, a Haltom City police officer stopped Appellant because her left rear stoplamp was not working.  The other two stoplamps were working.

	Appellant argues that because Texas law requires only two functioning stoplamps, not three, she was in compliance with Texas law.2  The State correctly points out that to be in compliance with Texas law, drivers must also comply with federal standards for motor vehicles.3  Federal standards require passenger cars less than eighty inches wide to have three stoplamps on the rear of the car—one on each side of the car’s vertical midline, at the same height, and as far apart as practicable, and one high-mounted on the midline.4

	As the State also points out, the record is silent concerning the width of Appellant’s car.  The State submits that a 2005 Mercedes C280 is approximately 68 inches.  We take judicial notice of the fact that a 1998 C280 is 67.7 inches wide.5  Consequently, the car should have had three functioning stoplamps.

	Because there is no disagreement concerning the facts, the trial court ruled on a pure issue of law.  Only two stoplamps were functioning, and they were not on each side of the car’s midline at the same height.  Appellant therefore violated federal and Texas law by driving with the nonfunctioning left stoplamp.6

	Applying the appropriate standard of review,7 we consequently hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress.  We overrule her sole point and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

								LEE ANN DAUPHINOT

								JUSTICE

PANEL B:	DAUPHINOT, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

WALKER, J. concurs without opinion.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  December 8, 2005