alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
National Reconnaissance Office Receives 

David Packard Excellence in Acquisition 

Award

May 23, 2000 

The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) was awarded the David Packard Excellence in 

Acquisition Award for its relay satelite team during ceremonies at the Pentagon Monday. 

The Packard Award is a Department of Defense honor that recognizes its organizations that have 

made highly significant contributions which demonstrated exemplary innovation and best 

acquisition practices. The NRO's Relay Satellite Team delivered the last of a multiple satellite 

buy ahead of schedule and under budget. The new relay satellites will have eight times the 

capability of their predecessors. The relay team integrated commercial practices and new 

technologies to build the satellites faster, better and cheaper. It was also among the first to use an 

earned value system of management and became the role model for other NRO programs. The 

team was made up of various government and industry partners within the NRO. 

"These communications services enable future intelligence collection missions that enhance 

national security and support the warfighter in peace and in war," said Keith Hall, NRO Director. 

Hall was presented the award along with 20 other members of the team, by Jacques S. Gansler, 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02

- 19

- 00309

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV

- 2019

- 02120

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### A MY 

### E DWARDS



### , Appellant

V



### .

C ENTERPOINT 

### A PARTMENTS AND 

### JPM ORGAN 

### C HASE 

### B ANK



### , N.A.

, Appellees2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

We have considered appellant ’ s request to dismiss the appeal. We grant the

request and dismiss th e appeal. Se e Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered : November 14, 2 019
(:) L.Q.11 

DEPARTMENT ,21= FORCE 

NRO APPROVED FOR REL A E 1 JULY 2015 

0 FF1CC OP 11-‘2." UNDER SECRETARY 

0 

September 18, 1964 

yiavlorNpum. FOR DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE, RESEARCH. AND ENGINEERING 

SUBJECT: MOL Program 

I have reviewed the MOL Program Alternatives presentation 

submitted to me by General Schriever on 16 September. The 

conclusions indicated that a MOL capability that could more 

adequately satisfy national needs and be available within 

an early time frame and acceptable costs, can be developed. 

In addition, such a MOL program would specifically provide: 

1. The earliest possible manned space laboratory capability 

for conduct of significant and major military and civilian tasks 

of research, experiment, and test. 

2. A manned space laboratory in the time period between 

the Gemini and Manned Lunar Landing programs; deriving maximum 

benefit from the former and providing, maximum contribution to 

the latter. 

3.- A program deriving the maximum benefit from the investment, capability, and industrial resources available from the 

TITAN III and Gemini development efforts. 

Based on these findings, which were briefed to Dr. Hall 

on IS September, I request that the Air Force be authorized to 

take the following actions necessary to protect any of the 

options to proceed with such a program. 

1. Complete the preparation of, and issue to industry, a 

Request for Proposal for the. development of the Laboratory 

Vehicle by 2 November 1964. 

1Ju12TORADED 3 YEAR INTERVALS; 

DECLASSIFIED AFTER 12 YEARS. 

DOD DIR. 5200;10 SECRET 206 /)75-1-- 
BROCKWAY ILLAN 

Acting Secrete of the Air Force 

NRd APPROVED FOR 

RE SE 1 JULY 2015 

0 

0 

2. Negotiate and accomplish a "Level of Effort" contract 

with the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation for the detailed 

design and initiation of development of the Gemini "B" Spacecraft. You will note that :his proposed action would constitute 

the essence of our recommc:.ced rely to Dr. Seamans' letter to 

you on OSD intentions regz.rding continuation of Gemini production. 

3. Negotiate and accoplish a "Level of Effort" contract 

with the Martin-Marietta Corporation for the design and development of the Titan III Integration and Structural Engineering 

Test Program. 

4. Receive authorization to expend $6.0 million of FY 65 

deferred MOL program funds to accomplish the above. 

We expect to complete our MOL Program Study and Analysis 

efforts in January 1965, and at that time we will present our 

findings and program recommendation for your approval. 

I request approval of the above recommended actions and 

release of the naoessa'ry funds. 

2 

ilinFOrT 

/22 sC6 cr
41;pri:47fIL 

Ltrt,)N 

r'V.1.2261AL 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON 

Iry 

HANDLE VIA BYEMAN. 

,CONTROL.' SYSTEM ONLY 

Janilary 19 67 

NRAPPROVED FOR 1 

RE ASE li JULY 2015 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

Since its inception, the Manned Orbiting Laboratory. 

Program (MOL) has been managed without the benefit of a 

listing in the Department of Defense Master Urgency Lista 

As the program has progressed in the development cycle, we 

have encountered increasing difficulty in assuring subcontractor and supplier response to program needs: Althai]gh. 

MOL requirements do not call for large quantities of major 

industrial supply items, inability to obtain single units or 

small quantities of needed items on a timely basis, whether 

or not they area part of the pacing reconnaissance payload, 

increasingly threatens to disrupt orderly program progress 

with attendant detriment to schedules and costs. Also, since 

many of the MOL program subcontractors and suppliers are involved as well in the NASA Apollo Program which carries a DX 

industrial priority, there is an inevitable tendency for subcontractors and suppliers to use their MOL commitment as a 

cushion against slippage in• their high-priority Apollo commitments. 

The overall assignment of Category S (Brick-Bat .01) 

military urgency designation to the other satellite reconnaissance programs of the NRO cannot be effectively utilized in 

support of the MOL program because of the open identification 

of the program (except for its covert mission). Also, for this 

reason the usual DOD channels for processing actions relating 

to priorities have not been used for transmitting this memorandum. 

In order to insure the progress of the MOL program at a 

rate compatible with the pace set by the optical technology and 

without detriment to optimum cost and schedule, I believe it is 

essential that this program be assigned a.rating of Category S. 

(Brick-Bat .01) on the. DOD Master Urgency List. I recommend-- 

that you take action to establish this rating for the MOL program. 

HANDLE VIA BYEMAN 

CONTROL: SYSTEM ONLY 

.1••■••■•••*,....c....:nawmfwgr 

EXCLUDED TROM AUTOMATIC RZGRADING;. 

5 

4 , DOD DIR. 5200.10 DOES NOT APPLY 

■■■•■■•••■■••■■raramver 

WAKING PAPERS 

• 1 Page of 

 

pages 

Copy of copies it 

• San Control 

or a e, In 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1, JULY 2015 

In recognition of the need to limit the number of programs having the highest National priori67; I recommend that 

Program 4372 be removed from the S (Brick-Bat .01) Category 

and placed in the.S (Brick-Bat.Other than .01) Category.. 

Harold Bram
Exhibit 10(u)


 


August 15, 2008


 


Dear Andy,


 


On behalf of the Compensation Committee, I would like to advise you of
the following preliminary decisions of the Committee with respect to executive
compensation and employment agreements:


 


The Committee will be engaging a third party consulting firm to provide
advice on executive compensation, particularly with respect to bonuses and
severance. We are requesting that the consulting firm prepare a full report
within 45 days. Upon receipt of the report, the Committee will convene to
discuss the report and develop recommendations for each executive.  We will consult with Chuck and you as
appropriate and endeavor to finalize our recommendations as quickly as
possible. Hopefully, we will be in a position to submit our recommendations to
the Board for approval at the October board meeting.  Until the new employments agreements are
finalized, the following will become effective immediately for each executive (Messrs. Krakauer,
Segel, Nodiff, Sheldon, Anaya, Malkin and Weitnauer), notwithstanding anything
less advantageous in the current employment agreements to the contrary:


 


	
  1.

  	
   

  	
  Base salaries for fiscal 2009
  (August 1, 2008-July 31, 2009) will be increased to the amounts set
  forth on the attached schedule. Increases should be reflected in the next
  paycheck (if possible). This salary increase is in lieu of the next scheduled
  salary increase in each of the employment agreements (i.e., it represents a
  modification to a contract year co-terminous with Cantel’s fiscal year and a
  corresponding acceleration of the base salary increase.)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  2.

  	
   

  	
  Car allowances will be increased to $750
  effective August 1, 2008.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  3.

  	
   

  	
  In the event an executive is terminated by
  the Company without cause, he will continue to receive his base salary
  through July 31, 2010.

  



 


Please forward this letter to each of the executives today.


 


	
  Regards,

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Alan Hirshfield

  	
   

  
	
  Alan Hirschfield(1)

  	
   

  



 






(1) Chairman of Compensation Committee of the Board
of Directors of Cantel Medical Corp.


 

















 


Approved
Salaries for Cantel Executives


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  Adjusted Salary

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  for 8/1 increase

  	
   

  	
  Title

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  ($)

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Andy Krakauer

  	
   

  	
  425,000

  	
   

  	
  President

  
	
  Roy Malkin

  	
   

  	
  401,660

  	
   

  	
  President Minntech

  
	
  Gary Steinberg

  	
   

  	
  375,000

  	
   

  	
  President Crosstex

  
	
  Seth Segel

  	
   

  	
  337,188

  	
   

  	
  SVP Cantel

  
	
  Eric Nodiff

  	
   

  	
  297,847

  	
   

  	
  SVP Cantel

  
	
  Craig Sheldon

  	
   

  	
  297,847

  	
   

  	
  SVP Cantel

  
	
  Curt Weitnauer

  	
   

  	
  237,930

  	
   

  	
  President Mar Cor

  
	
  Steve Anaya

  	
   

  	
  179,747

  	
   

  	
  VP Controller
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 22 2001 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
ROWANA K. RIGGS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. THE BOEING COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee. No. 00-3178 (D.C. No. 99-CV-2090-CM)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL, KELLY, and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Rowana K. Riggs, appearing pro se, appeal s the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant, the Boeing Company, on her claim-2-

alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilit ies Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213. The parties are familiar with the facts and the procedural history of this case, and we will not repeat them h ere. On appeal, Ms. Riggs claims the district court erred in finding that hermild carpal tunnel syndrome did not rise to the level of a “disability” under the A DA and in failing to consider all of her claims and evidence. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo , applying the same standard as the district court. Simms v. Oklahoma ex rel. Dep't of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs. , 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir. ), cert. denied , 528 U.S. 815 (1999). Summary judgment is appropriate “ if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). As required, “we view the evidence and draw reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Simms , 165 F.3d at 1326. Having carefully reviewed the record in that light, we find no error, and we affirm for substantially the reasons given by the districtcourt in its Memorandum and Order dated May 19, 2000.-3-

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
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 

HomeAboutLeadershipLeadership View

                Download            

# General Timothy D. Haugh

##                 Commander, U.S. Cyber Command; Director, National Security Agency/Chief, Central Security Service            

General Timothy D. Haugh is 4th Commander, U.S. Cyber Command and 19th Director, National Security Agency/Chief, Central Security Service at Fort George G. Meade, Maryland.A native of Hughesville, Pennsylvania, General Haugh earned his commission in 1991 as a distinguished graduate of the ROTC program at Lehigh University.General Haugh has commanded at the squadron, group, wing, numbered air force, and joint levels. He’s served on staffs at major command, agency and combatant command headquarters. His notable tours include Deputy Commander of Joint Task Force Ares, Commander of Cyber National Mission Force, Commander of Sixteenth Air Force, and Deputy Commander of U.S. Cyber Command.In addition to earning his Bachelor of Arts in Russian Studies from Lehigh University, General Haugh holds Master of Science degrees from the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, the Naval Postgraduate School, and Southern Methodist University.General Haugh and his spouse, Mrs. Sherie Haugh, have been married for more than 31 years, and have one son, one daughter, and one daughter in law.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
AA,

. D . s coo'

p v+ my 4.4..n.

-

.44,,m‘..A81. 104041

,'..;1'' . opAiraff 92-

IES

PAGE:

4.1

Sim cc D #9157 r

6-)4‘ v.{ sl..64.6/

_gum( •- CAWS' " "41 so*

AiNATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.0

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 22 March 1977

MEMORANDUM FOR TUE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

SUBJECT: Space Policy Review Croup Membership - DECISION MEMORANDUM

During Secretary Reed's meeting with you on 15 March, he mentioned

that the National Security Council Staff has initiated a study to develop

a comprehensive national space policy. At the initial meeting in January,

DOD was represented by project officers from ODDR&E, OASD(ISA), the OASD(I),

and the NRO; JCS representation was inadvertently precluded. Subsequently,

a meeting of principals was held in February. DOD representation at this

meeting was specified by your office to be furnished by the OASD(1SA) and

ODDR&E; later a JCS representative was approved and did attend. Secretary

Reed and I believe that a member of the NRO should be a formal player in

this important endeavor for several reasons.

First, much of the work which this new group will carry out will be

a follow-on from the recently abolished Space Policy Committee. On that

group the Deputy Secretary of Defense was designated as the senior DOD

representative and members from ODDR6E, OASD(ISA), JCS, and the NRO each

had a voice. Thus, I believe it appropriate to maintain essentially the

same representation at the principal's level on the new Committee.

Second, reconnaissance satellites constitute one of the largest space

programs and one of the most sensitive from the standpoints of intelligence

value and sophisticated application of technology.

Third, DOD, representing both military and reconnaissance satellite

activities, will be interfacing with at least seven civil agencies. Just

as no one representative of any of these agencies could be expected to

represent all of their collective interests, I believe that each separate

discipline within DOD should be represented by a voice.

For these reasons, I believe that the NRO should be represented at

meetings of the new . NSC Space Policy Committee. The memorandum at the

right for your signature establishes DOD re resentation to include the NRO.

Recommend your approval and signature.

( 144 cgary

.w44414 #144.4.

Acting Director

Approved 

Disapproved 

See Me

"A

II, 4114:1110 II • NWT Tao:

acurtvi ti•TICIN CAT&

V in occiAarov OM la ► gagr
County, MD 

RICHARD A HENSON FIELD 

COMMERCIAL & COMMUTERAIRSERVICE I AVIATION MAINTENANCE I AIRSIDE SERVICES 

May 12,2014 

Mr. Dennis J. DeVany, Chief 

EAS & Domestic Analysis Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Reference, Order: 2014-4-26 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

'=··, 

(.:''j' 

.,,.:') 

The Hagerstown Regional Airport objects to the Department of Transportation's tentative 

order regarding termination of Essential Air Service eligibility for Hagerstown, Maryland. 

The Airport does not dispute the Department's methodology for calculating enplanements 

nor does it object to the limiting distance of 175 miles from a large or medium hub 

airport. The basis of our objection lies in the fact that the air carrier chosen to provide 

EAS was plagued by a myriad of operational and regulatory problems that limited its 

ability to provide the necessary level of service to meet the 1 0-enplanement statutory 

requirement. 

The chosen air carrier startup service was plagued with aircraft dispatch reliability; 

aircraft and ground support equipment not suitable for winter operations; a shortage of 

qualified pilots; and a management team that was not fully committed to an aggressive 

marketing campaign for the new service. 

Thes~ aforementioned problems were exacerbated by the Sequester which made the 

certification of aircraft and aircrews even more difficult to obtain. Under new 

management which took over operational direction of Sun Air in October 2014, most if 

not all of these previous issues have since undergone significant improvement 

The Hagerstown Regional Airport has been a pioneer in establishing regional air service 

as it exists today. Even a cursory review of its history will show that the airport is capable 

'''< .. · 

18434 Showalter Road 1 Hagerstown, MD 21742 1 P: 240.313.2777 I F: 301.791.2590 I Hearing Impaired: 7-1-1 

flyhagerstown.com 
Dennis De Yaney 

May 12,2014 

Page 2 of2 

of providing a passenger base for a successful BAS program. We have consistently 

demonstrated the capacity to provide 1 0+ enplanements time and time again. We feel that 

our eligibility to participate in the BAS should not be terminated due to the lack luster 

performance of our service provider 

The Hagerstown Regional Airport respectfully submits these objections for consideration. 

l' 

S~cer , 

! .Ridenour 

Airport Director 

Board of County Commissioners 

of Washington County, Maryland 

Terry L. B r, President 

ohn F. Barr, ice-President 

Qt4L{Ia£ 

Ruth Anne Callaham, Commissioner 

Cc: Kevin Schlemmer, Director of BAS 

F:\AIRPORT OFF!CE\EAS\LTR-2014 05May12 DeVaney Ltr of Objection doc
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1465 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to expand access to stroke 

telehealth services under the Medicare program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 22, 2015 

Mr. KIRK introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to expand 

access to stroke telehealth services under the Medicare 

program. 

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 ‘‘Furthering Access to 

5 Stroke Telemedicine Act’’ or the ‘‘FAST Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXPANDING ACCESS TO STROKE TELEHEALTH 

7 SERVICES UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1834(m)(4)(C) of the So9 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(m)(4)(C) is amend10 ed— 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 1465 IS

1 (1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘The term’’ and 

2 inserting ‘‘Subject to clause (iii), the term’’; and 

3 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

4 clause: 

5 ‘‘(iii) STROKE TELEHEALTH SERV6 ICES.—With respect to services related to 

7 the evaluation or treatment of an acute 

8 stroke that are provided within the evi9 dence-based window of treatment, the term 

10 ‘originating site’ means any site at which 

11 the eligible telehealth individual is located 

12 at the time the service is furnished via a 

13 telecommunications system, regardless of 

14 where the site is located.’’. 

15 (b) NO ORIGINATING SITE FACILITY FEE FOR NEW

16 SITES.—Section 1834(m)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act 

17 (42 U.S.C. 1395m(m)(2)(B)) is amended, in the matter 

18 preceding clause (i), by inserting ‘‘(other than an origi19 nating site that is only described in clause (iii) of para20 graph (4)(C), and does not meet the requirement for an 

21 originating site under clause (i) of such paragraph)’’ after 

22 ‘‘the originating site’’. 

23 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

24 this section shall apply to services furnished on or after 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•S 1465 IS

1 the date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment 

2 of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS