alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 33 (Thursday, February 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 8864]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03439]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-1029-000]


Chubu TT Energy Management Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, 
of Chubu TT Energy Management Inc.'s application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability is March 4, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#672122352428090b0e090234121717081513270102150449000811"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="15535047565a7b797c7b70466065657a676155737067763b727a63">[email protected]</span></a>. or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: February 12, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-03439 Filed 2-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 

# Cryptologic Machines Image Gallery

HomeHistoryNational Cryptologic MuseumExhibits & ArtifactsCryptologic MuseumMachines

Search

Search

                              - All Images 
                              - Design Elements 
                              - NSA Historical Photographs 
                              - Other 

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

----

Download Image: Full Size (1.39 MB)

Tags:machines

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
DaLe:j.tocl‘

FOR YOUR:

SIGNATURE • RETURN TO 4 

APPROVAL FILE

COMMENTS

COORDINATION

INFORMATION -;;Pr---- TICKLER

,msopstm=w=rdS/ACAt RffeelKe 

A Pri*Vit r" 

No k 306 Al adds

Cili-CuSSeo.A 44' 4.-AlCaAlfri

By eeye_S . 

YOUR COMMENTS/DIRECTION:

e icwNt iJ P0a.41

TOP.-SEBRET SSD Ma SIT IIMIBLISO Mat

n•
Ala cams.. Internal

CO., or COP•11

fa OOOOOO 'OM atlfeliaTIC mats

SOO DeltICalva USO II SOD NOT 4 ►44,

-TOMECRET

.• ;

• TOP-SECRET •

•

•

151-NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE 11111LIMIIMIN

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

WASHINGTON. D.C.

October 18, 1971

MEMORANDUM FOR DR. McLUCAS

SUBJECT: NASA Earth Resources Discussion at ExCom

You will recall that Dave Packard added an item to the

September 28th ExCom Agenda, calling for a discussion of

the NASA earth resources survey program. During the meeting

this discussion revolved primarily around the use of the

ERTS-A return beam vidicon spacecraft and the NASA agreement

recently consummated with the Soviets. I believe there may

have been some misunderstanding at the meeting, and I wanted

to furnish you some clarification.

The agreement between NASA and the Soviets, which

Dr. Rechtin took exception to, provides for a broad range

of information to be exchanged, collected from aircraft and

manned and unmanned spacecraft. Sensors employed would provide spectro-photometric, photographic, multi-spectral, thermal,

and microwave surveys. Ground base data would serve to corroborate that gathered by the remote sensors. The agreement

provides that the results of these experiments will be

exchanged in the form of technical reports containing

conclusions, analysis methods and original data, with sufficient completeness that the analyses could be repeated

or accomplished by alternative methods by other investigators.

In the joint agreement, the Soviets mentioned their

national program to employ several research ships, meteorological satellites, and aircraft and spacecraft in support

of the international tropical meteorological experiment in

1974. NASA went into greater detail in the agreement,

specifically mentioning ERTS-A, ERTS-B, NIMBUS E, SKYLAB,

and the NASA aircraft program.
• • •

TOPSECREF

I am concerned about two points with reference to the

ExCom meeting. First the film which we talked about

screening before distribution would be in SKYLAB (not ERTS)

with a 30 foot best resolution. I believe we have this

appropriately backstopped according to the discussion at the

ExCom meeting. Second ERTS with a design best resolution of

300 feet can be read out with an appropriate receiving facility.

Although this resolution is not sensitive within present guidelines, I note that there are no plans by NASA for screening

and all ERTS-A pictures are considered releasable. I am investigating the desirability of a security review of these pictures.

F. R ert Naka /1,

Deputy Under Secretary

(Space Systems)

TOP-SECRET.

cac ***** vier .J •OINIVI: IMMO ihs

SO) macnea Res I) est% or sin•

mem.° Internal 
07‘

a •

• • •

I. •
•
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          12,489
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,756
<ALLOWANCES>                                       502
<INVENTORY>                                     72,355
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               149,934
<PP&E>                                          40,236
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,685
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 290,018
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,082
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,705
<OTHER-SE>                                     172,780
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   290,018
<SALES>                                        333,375
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               333,375
<CGS>                                          163,433
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  163,433
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               108,217
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,119
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 54,989
<INCOME-TAX>                                    20,357
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             34,632
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  4,941
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    29,691
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .94
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6954
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LEE B. PHILLIPS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-93-331, CA-96-1347-HNM) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 9, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lee B. Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. 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 filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). To the extent that Appellant raises issues for the first time on appeal, we decline to address the issues. See Muth v. United States , 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). Regarding Appellant'sclaims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct that were raised in the district court, we have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Phillips , Nos. CR-93-331; CA-96-1347-HNM (D. Md. July 1, 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.

DISMISSED
# CE2004084EN.01009402.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/94 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/94

---

(2004/C 84 E/0122)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3730/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject:   Update concerning the funds for the SAVE II programme for the municipality of Siena

Subject:

With reference to question E-0972/03 (1), in which the Commission was asked whether the municipality of Siena (Italy) had submitted projects and obtained funds under the SAVE II programme, the Commission replied on 25 April 2003 to the effect that no proposal had been submitted.

1

Can the Commission state whether, since then and up to the present, it has received any SAVE II projects from that municipality?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 169.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           4,025
<SECURITIES>                                    51,823
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,220
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,895
<INVENTORY>                                     20,298
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               116,960
<PP&E>                                          30,993
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,647
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 137,808
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,969
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           176
<OTHER-SE>                                     122,240
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   137,808
<SALES>                                        106,336
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               106,336
<CGS>                                           46,351
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,351
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                47,817
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   302
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,971
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,169
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,802
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,802
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.07


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JEROME BANKS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 66 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of July, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

                            CORNELL COMPANIES, INC.
                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                     (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   2001                     2000                    1999
                                                            --------------------    --------------------    --------------------
                                                              BASIC      DILUTED      BASIC     DILUTED       BASIC      DILUTED
                                                            --------------------    --------------------    --------------------
<S>                                                         <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
Net Earnings                                                $  4,659    $  4,659    $  7,969    $  7,969    $  5,352    $  5,352
                                                            ====================    ====================    ====================

Shares used in computing net earnings per share:
    Weighted average common shares and
      common share equivalents                                10,624      10,624      10,158      10,158      10,129      10,129


    Less effect of treasury shares                            (1,008)     (1,008)       (775)       (775)       (697)       (697)

    Effect of shares issuable under stock options
      and warrants based on the treasury stock method             --         453          --         112          --         228
                                                            --------------------    --------------------    --------------------

                                                               9,616      10,069       9,383       9,495       9,432       9,660
                                                            ====================    ====================    ====================


 Net earnings per share                                     $   0.48    $   0.46    $   0.85    $   0.84    $   0.57    $   0.55
                                                            ====================    ====================    ====================

</TABLE>
ex10-3.htm


    Exhibit
10.3

    


    First
Amendment

    To

    Change
of Control and Severance Benefits Agreement

    


    This
First Amendment (the
“First Amendment”) to Change of Control and Severance Benefits Agreement is made this 27h day of
September, 2008, by and between ImageWare Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), on the one hand, and Charles AuBuchon, Vice President of Sales,
on the other hand (the “Executive”).  

    


    WHEREAS, the Company and the
Executive entered into a Change of Control and Severance Benefits Agreement
dated as of October 31, 2005 (the “Severance Agreement”); and

    


    WHEREAS, the Executive
continues to perform valuable services for the Company and the Company desires
to assure itself of the continuing services of Executive; and

    


    WHEREAS, in consideration of
the foregoing and in order to amend the terms of the Agreement and to provide
for the continued services of the Executive in accordance with the present
intent of the Company and the Executive.

    


    NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration,
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in further consideration of the
mutual covenants contained in the Severance Agreement, the parties do hereby
agree that the Severance Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

    


    Section “2. Term of
Agreement”  strike the
language “continue until the third anniversary of the Effective Date” and
replace it with “continue until June 30, 2009”.

    


    


    


    


    
      	
              _________________________________

            	
              _________________________________

            
	
              ImageWare
      Systems, Inc.

            	
              Charles
      AuBuchon
#### State ex rel. Rowe, Respondent, vs. Johnson, City Clerk, and another, Appellants.

*January 30*

March *31, 1908.*

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Eau Claire county: E. W. Helms, Judge.

*Reversed.*

*Horace B. Walmsley,*for the appellants.

For the respondent there was a brief by *Wickham*<£• *Farr,*and oral argument by *James Wickham.*

Kebwin, J.

This case is ruled by *State ex rel. Rowe v. Krumenauer, ante,*p. 185, 115 N. W. 798. Therefore the judgment below must be reversed.

*By the Court.*— The judgment is reversed, and the court below directed to dismiss the action.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C  SECTION 1350


The undersigned, Michael T. Pugh, is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Carver Bancorp, Inc.  (the “Company”).


This certification is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10‐K for the year ended March 31, 2016 (the “Report”).


I certify that:


|   |                                                                                                                                                    
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|a) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.  78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                               
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.




Date:August 18, 2016/s/ Michael T. PughMichael T. PughPresident and Chief Executive Officer
NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

14675 Lee Road

Chantilly, VA 20151-1715

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Release #04-11

Contact: (703) 808-1198 February 18, 2011

For the second consecutive year, the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) received an 

unqualified audit opinion on its Annual Financial Statements, the first major Agency within the 

intelligence Community to accomplish this.

NRO Achieves Second Consecutive “Clean” Audit on Its Annual Financial Statments

An unqualified opinion means that the financial statements present fairly the financial position 

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

accounting principles. NRO managers can confidently use this information in day-to-day 

decisions knowing it is accurate and reliable. 

The NRO Office of the Inspector General contracts an independent public accounting firm, Price 

Waterhouse Coopers (PWC), to conduct an annual audit of financial statements in accordance 

with Government and Generally Accepted Auditing Standards. PWC evaluated the reliability of 

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

of footnote disclosures in accordance with guidance issued by the Federal Accounting Standards 

Advisory Board, the Office of Management and Budget, and other authoritative guidance. 

The NRO is a joint Department of Defense-Intelligence Community organization responsible for 

developing, launching, and operating America’s signals, imagery, and communications satellites 

to meet the needs of our nation. 

-NRO-