alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
USCIBt 12/71 

DOS 

~:;, 

PIP 

CClll'Dllfl'fA = SJl!llft HftJlf§E!f 

PQM'WI fQI THE J@llBIRS C. uscm: ~P ot th• Ad Hoc Canit\ee Mabliehect 

at tbe 8l.st USCD Meet.ing. 

24 

1. The tolloadrlg repreeentat.ivea haw been aPJ)Cd.nted to 

IBlbenhip en the A4 Hoo Ccamit.tee eatabliebed 'bJ' the Board at the 819t lfeet.ing. 

S'l'AD: Hr. Pi8h81' Hma 

D11PaSE1 ... Captain B. s. L. Ooodv!n, USR ~ 

rm: (lo npreaentatiw) 

D/llSA: Rear Adlllral J ••• w_.., USI 

ARll?s Major Omeral Rob1Dacn lo Dutt 

RAVI: Capt&in B. r. Roeder 

USAF: Mgadier General J. s. Aokel9n 

CIA1 Hr. Hmmt.ngt.cn D. Sheldon 

~. _.o Hun'1Dgtan D. Sbeldan baa been dead.pated <llail'JDID ot 

the Ad Hoe CCllllittee. 

J. !he f:lnt. met.ingot \be eaad.ttee will 'be be1cl at, l400 GD 

Wednesday• 10 Dec-. 19521 in Rom. 20289 "QI' Bullc:l1ng, Cctral Iatell:lpnoe Agenc,r. 

USCI81 J.2/71 

CONFIDENTIAL 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 04-02-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
Exhibit 23.2



               [NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC. LETTERHEAD]



                CONSENT OF NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.


As oil and gas  consultants,  we hereby  consent  to the use of our name and our
report dated  February 14, 2006,  in this Form 10-K,  incorporated  by reference
into Kinder  Morgan  Energy  Partners,  L.P. 's  previously  filed  Registration
Statement File Nos.  333-122424,  333-25995,  333-62155,  333-33726,  333-54616,
333-60912-01,   333-55866-01,   333-91316-01,   333-102961,   333-102962-01  and
333-124471 on Form S-3, and 333-122168 and 333-56343 on Form S-8.


                               NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.


                                   /s/ David B. Cox
                               By:
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   David B. Cox
                                   Senior Vice President


Houston, Texas
February 16, 2006
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            

# James Bostic

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Biographyhistorical figureJames Bosticafrican american honoree
~ ___ ,,. _, I 

USCIB: l.3.2/1.3 

.30 March 1954 

OB9RE'1' 

MEl-DRANDID.f FOR THE MEMBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: Clearance for Special. Intelligence 

(Harry S. Traynor) • 

1. The enclosure is forwarded at the request of the CIA 

Member for vote sheet reply on the question of "need to know" 

of Mr. Harry S. Traynor, AEC. 

2. It is requested that vote sheet replies be returned 

to t~s office by 1200, Friday, 9 April 1954. 

Enclosure 

Copy of CIA Memo dtd 27 Mar 1954, 

Subj. as above. 

USCIB: 1.3.2/1.3 

SECRE't' 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 11-21-2014 pursuant to E .0. 1352a 
.. • "'t"I 

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY 

Washington 25, D. C. 

27 March 1954 

MEMORANDUM FOR: Ex~cutive Secretary, USCIB 

SUBJECT: Clearance for Special Intelligence 

1. _ The General Manager of the Atolllic Energy Commission, 

• 

Major General Kenneth D. Nichols, has requested that Mr. Harry 

s. Traynor, Special Assistant to the General Manager, be granted 

clearance for access to Special Intelligence, in order that he 

may assist General Nichols in the coordination of projects involving 

atomic energy intelligence. Mr. Traynor has an extensive background 

in tbe fields of atomic energy and guided missiles. 

2. It is requested that USCIB members be polled bv vote sheet 

to determine their concurrence in the indoctrination of Mr. Traynor, 

should necessary investigative procedures disclose no derogatory 

information which would preclude such action • 

. {Signed) 

HUNTINGTON D. SHELDON 

CIA Member, USCIB 

Enclosure w/USCIB 13.2/13 dtd 30 Mar 1954. 

SPICRET
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,583,704
<SECURITIES>                                 3,684,911
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,609,465
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,000
<INVENTORY>                                  9,045,514
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,598,201
<PP&E>                                       4,106,442
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,077,289
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,627,354
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,035,552
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       633,832
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,928,637
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,627,354
<SALES>                                     11,481,888
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,481,888
<CGS>                                        4,735,771
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,953,458
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (125,038)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (82,303)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (22,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (60,303)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (60,303)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
#### Spagl (Mary), Respondent, vs. Ballard and another, Appellants. Spagl (Mike), Respondent, vs. Ballard and another, Appellants.

For the appellants: *Lamfrom, Tighe, Engelhard & Peck*of Milwaukee.

For the respondents: *T. H. Skemp*and *Q. H. Hale,*both of La Crosse.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
EXHIBIT 11.1

                            CORNELL CORRECTIONS, INC.
                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                     (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                             YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                1997                 1996                 1995
                                                                              -------               -------              -------
                                                                            BASIC    DILUTED     BASIC   DILUTED     BASIC   DILUTED
                                                                          ----------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                                       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>       <C>     
Net earnings (loss) ......................................................$ 3,554   $ 3,554   $(2,379)  $(2,379)  $  (989)  $  (989)
                                                                          ================== ==================== ==================
Shares used in computing net earnings (loss) per share:
    Weighted average common shares and
      common share equivalents ...........................................  7,905     7,905     4,228     4,228     3,188     3,188


    Less treasury shares .................................................   (555)     (555)     (555)     (555)      (93)      (93)

    Effect of shares issuable under stock options
      and warrants based on the treasury stock method ....................   --         390      --        --        --        --
                                                                          ------------------ -------------------- ------------------
                                                                            7,350     7,740     3,673     3,673     3,095     3,095
                                                                          ------------------ -------------------- ------------------
 Net earnings (loss) per share ...........................................$  0.48   $  0.46   $ (0.65)  $ (0.65)  $ (0.32)  $ (0.32)
                                                                          ================== ==================== ==================
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             182
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,083
<ALLOWANCES>                                       125
<INVENTORY>                                     13,829
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,737
<PP&E>                                          22,467
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,203
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  55,482
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,677
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          4
<COMMON>                                           420
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,704
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    55,482
<SALES>                                         40,610
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,669
<CGS>                                           30,425
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,139
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,584
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (54)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (21)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (33)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (33)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
#### Bailey, Appellant, vs. Bailey, Respondent.

*April 17*

May *8, 1908.*

*Evidence: Sufficiency: Betting aside findings: Amendment unsupported by testimony.*

1. In an action for divorce on tlie ground of cruel and inhuman treatment, *held,*that the finding of the trial court was not against the preponderance of the evidence and therefore will not he disturbed.

2. An amendment offered to the complaint at the close of the testimony which stated facts not established by the evidence was, properly rejected.

*561Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Mari-nette county: S. D. Hastings, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

This action was brought by the appellant against the respondent for divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. The parties intermarried in December, 1889, and have one child, a boy fifteen years of age. The proof showed that the married life of the parties had not been at all times harmonious, and that for more than a year prior to the commencement of the action they had not lived together. At the close of the testimony a motion was made to amend the 'complaint to conform with the facts, by alleging wilful desertion of the appellant by the respondent for a period of more than one year nest preceding the commencement of the actmn. The motion was denied by the court on the ground that the testimony did not show such desertion. As a result of the trial the court found .that the allegations of the complaint had not been proven, and directed that' the complaint be dismissed without costs to either party. From the judgment so entered this appeal is taken.

The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of *Minahan & Minahan,*and for the respondent on that of *W. B. Quinlan.*

BashpoRD, J.

This is an action for divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment, and the first error assigned relates to the finding of the court that the allegations of the complaint have not been proven, it being urged on behalf of the appellant that the finding is against the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence. *A*careful examination of the testimony preserved in the record leads to the conclusion that the finding here challenged is not against the preponderance of the evidence, and that consequently it cannot be disturbed. It would serve no useful purpose to review the evidence at length or to dwell upon the unfortunate differences *562wbicb bayo arisen, wbicb ought to be forgotten, and wbicb may yet be reconciled.

Error is also assigned upon tbe refusal of tbe court to permit an amendment of tbe complaint to conform to tbe proof, by alleging desertion on tbe part of tbe appellant by tbe respondent. We agree with tbe view expressed by tbe trial court that tbe testimony does not establish wilful desertion and that tbe amendment was not proper.

These conclusions lead to an affirmance of tbe judgment.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
Peter B. Teets Becomes New USECAF, 

DNRO

Mr. Peter B. Teets was sworn in as Under Secretary of the Air Force and appointed Director of 

the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) on December 13, 2001. 

"I am extremely honored and pleased with the opportunity to have this job, especially under the 

current circumstances," said Mr. Teets. "The people of the NRO have a long history of providing 

this nation with the world's best space-based reconnaissance assets and I believe we can make a 

difference in national security space." 

Within the Air Force, Mr. Teets is responsible for all actions of the Air Force on behalf of the 

Secretary of the Air Force and is acting secretary in the secretary's absence. As NRO Director, he 

is responsible for the acquisition and operation of all U.S. space-based reconnaissance and 

intelligence systems. This includes management of the National Reconnaissance Program, where 

he reports directly to the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence. 

Mr. Teets has worked in various engineering and management positions with industry since 1963 

and is the former President and Chief Operating Office of Lockheed Martin. 

Mr. Teets received both a Bachelor and Master of Science in applied mathematics from the 

University of Colorado, which also presented him with an honorary doctor of science degree in 

1990. He also earned a Master of Science in management from the Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1585 

To authorize the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to issue an order 

continuing a stay of a hydroelectric license for the Mahoney Lake hydroelectric project in the State of Alaska, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 16, 2015 

Ms. MURKOWSKI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

to issue an order continuing a stay of a hydroelectric 

license for the Mahoney Lake hydroelectric project in 

the State of Alaska, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. STAY AND REINSTATEMENT OF FERC LICENSE 

4 NO. 11393 FOR THE MAHONEY LAKE HYDRO5 ELECTRIC PROJECT. 

6 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

7 (1) COMMISSION.—The term ‘‘Commission’’ 

8 means the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1585 IS

1 (2) LICENSE.—The term ‘‘license’’ means the 

2 license for Commission project number 11393. 

3 (3) LICENSEE.—The term ‘‘licensee’’ means the 

4 holder of the license. 

5 (b) STAY OF LICENSE.—On the request of the li6 censee, the Commission shall issue an order continuing the 

7 stay of the license. 

8 (c) LIFTING OF STAY.—On the request of the li9 censee, but not later than 10 years after the date of enact10 ment of this Act, the Commission shall— 

11 (1) issue an order lifting the stay of the license 

12 under subsection (b); and 

13 (2) make the effective date of the license the 

14 date on which the stay is lifted under paragraph (1). 

15 (d) EXTENSION OF LICENSE.—On the request of the 

16 licensee and notwithstanding the time period specified in 

17 section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) for 

18 commencement of construction of the project subject to 

19 the license, the Commission shall, after reasonable notice 

20 and in accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and 

21 public interest requirements of that section, extend the 

22 time period during which the licensee is required to com23 mence the construction of the project for not more than 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1585 IS

1 3 consecutive 2-year periods, notwithstanding any other 

2 provision of law. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
99-556.

#### Baughman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Summit App. No. 19087.

Moyer, C.J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
# CE2004084EN.01031101.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/311 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/311

---

(2004/C 84 E/0358)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0132/04

by Marjo Matikaineri-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject:   Improved aviation safety through more effective channelling of information

Subject:

The disastrous crash of an aircraft owned by the charter airline Flash has shown that the authorities, travel agencies and passengers are not adequately informed about possible safety problems affecting individual airlines. Access to information is difficult and in some cases the release of any information whatsoever is prohibited by law. As a result, an airline which has been banned from flying in one country may be able to carry on its activities in other countries. From the point of view of the safety of passengers, this is no longer acceptable.

Does the Commission intend to incorporate into the directive it is now preparing on aviation safety uniform rules, applicable to all the EU Member States, governing the procedures for checking aircraft and airlines, for reporting on the outcome of such checks and for forwarding that information to all the EU Member States? What time-frame has the Commission set itself for completing the directive on aviation safety?

What measures does the Commission plan to take to ensure that both travel agencies and passengers can obtain reliable, up-to-date information on possible safety risks and that passengers can thus take, at their own discretion, decisions on matters which have a fundamental bearing on their own safety?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

(1 March 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question No P-l58/04 by Mr Hortefeux (1).

1

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

1

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has det ermined that this opinion should not be published and is not

precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

No. 96-40126

(Summary Calendar)

_________________________

GERALD KING,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JUDY L. KILGORE, Nurse at

Michael Unit; SANDRA SHEPARD,

Nurse at Michael Unit; WILLIAM B. COX,

Sgt. at Michael Unit; DAVID L. HINSON, JR.

Officer at Michael Unit,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________________________________________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(6:95-CV-363)

__________________________________________________

September 9, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Gerald King appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(d). King contends t hat t he district court abused its discretion by dismissing his1 See Mendoza, 989 F.2d at 195.

2

complaint because he alleged a constitutional claim and demonstrated that his claim had an arguable

basis in law and fact.

Deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical need constitutes an Eighth Amendment

vio lation cognizable under §1983. E stelle v. Gamble

, 429 U.S. 97, 105-07 (1976). Delay in

o btaining medical treatment for an inmate’s serious medical need can only constitute an Eight h

Amendment violation if there has been deliberate indifference resulting in substantial harm. M endoza

v. Lynaugh

, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993). King alleged in his complaint that the denial of

medical attenti on prolonged his asthma attack and caused him pain, suffering, and discomfort. While

an asthma attack is a serious and potentially deadly problem, even construed under the liberal

standard due pro se pleadings, 1 King has not alleged facts showing that he experienced substantial

harm due to the delay. Moreover, King acknowledged that he received care up until 1:30 p.m.,

though the care provided did not stop the attack. Complaints about unsuccessful medical treatment

do no t give rise to a civil rights action. J ohnson v. Treen

, 759 F.2d 1236, 1238 (5th Cir. 1985);

Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). As King’s claims do not rise to the level

of a constitutional claim, his claims lack basis in law and the dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(d)

was not an abuse of discretion.

AFFIRMED.