alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2
 Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: May 9, 2011
    By:
    /s/ Michael J. McCannMichael J. McCannChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         129,041
<SECURITIES>                                    25,480
<RECEIVABLES>                                  314,349
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               503,550
<PP&E>                                       6,606,489
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,648,309)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,658,182
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,435,066
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,466
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,040,870
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,658,182
<SALES>                                        422,364
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               428,700
<CGS>                                          306,576
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  453,847
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   108
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,338
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,593)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (30,593)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (30,593)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
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 

# Past Exhibits Photo Gallery

HomeHistoryNational Cryptologic MuseumExhibits & ArtifactsCryptologic MuseumPast Exhibits

Search

Search

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

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

----

Download Image: Full Size (4.59 MB)

Tags:past-exhibits

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
1:4130170U 

,.§ARSS A 

ss_l I 

SS 2 

1 SS j 

SS-6 

I SS 7 

FILE 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

111111111wommullemill 

AUL- (A,4. 

7C2CETC547 

RR RUXQAA RUEIWC RuEin 

DE RUXOP.AA 090 2481820 

ZhdY xxxxx 

R 75175112 

BT 

xxxxx 

111111.114 900 An IC 153 

l

SECRET 0517582 SFP 69 c1TE 2141. 

ac INFO PILOT, ,ADic, 

DERIAN 

FM 4 CHARGE 

QEFERENcE !few 9285 

M.

_ AGREE IN vrILIR DIBECTioN FOR CLOSE-00 O DORIAN DOCUmENTATIoN 

Alit" mAyERIALs AM INTEND FOLLOITING A SIMILAR PROCEDuRE. 

SHALL FURNISH A CLOSE-OUT PLAN IN OCTOBER OR NOVEMBER WHEN THE 

LEVEL or DOR;AN MATERIALS, O0CumENTS AtLI PERSOWEL 1141 THE FIELD 

Ate cONTRAcTM FACILITIES HAVE SEEN REDUCED TO THE BAREST 

Nium, 

SECRET 

A.1
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

The Honorable David G. Campbell, United States District Judge for ***

the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KWOK CHEUNG CHOW,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 05-74671

Agency No. A035-708-186

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 8, 2010** 

San Francisco, California

Before: HALL and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and CAMPBELL, District *** 

Judge.

FILED

FEB 16 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Kwok Cheung Chow petitions for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

 On July 16, 2002, an immigration judge determined that Chow was subject

to removal based upon Chow’s admissions and his record of convictions. The

immigration judge found that the only relief for which Chow was eligible was

deferral of removal under the Convention against Torture (“CAT”). Chow

declined to file the required application for CAT relief. On February 14, 2003, the

BIA dismissed Chow’s appeal from the immigration judge’s decision. 

On May 16, 2005—more than two years later—Chow filed a motion to

reopen the proceedings. Because a party must move to reopen deportation

proceedings within 90 days of the final administrative proceeding, Chow’s motion

is time-barred. 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(2). Nonetheless, Chow argues that the time

limit to file a motion to reopen should be equitably tolled because his due process

rights were violated at the removal proceedings. This argument is presented for the

first time on appeal and we do not have jurisdiction to consider it. See Barron v.

Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[Section] 1252(d)(1) mandates

exhaustion and therefore generally bars us, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,

from reaching the merits of a legal claim not presented in administrative

proceedings below.”). 
To be sure, even without equitable tolling the BIA has authority to “reopen

or reconsider on its own motion any case in which it has rendered a decision.” 

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). But the BIA declined to exercise its sua sponte authority

here, and we do not have jurisdiction to review its decision. See Ekimian v.

Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding

that exercise of BIA’s sua sponte power not subject to judicial review). 

For the foregoing reasons, Chow’s petition for review is DENIED.
• 

USCIB: 14/258 

l December 19S2 

!8P H§RD ¥6URIH l!f!!IUB9H 

JlllOlWlDUM FOR THE MPDERS <R USCDa 

Subject: 

R~erence: 

COONT Plann1JJg Ccaterence Aglndao 

USCIB 14/2S7 dtd 24 HOYelllber 19520 

ODS 

Please add the toll.owing nau to the 11at ot A1'1Q' represcmtati vu in paragraph 3 ot th• reference: 

(ASA) Mr. A. Wo Slls1l 

!

ASA) Lt. Col. J. J. Butler 

ASA) Mr. a. Battey ASA) Mr. N. Gansert 

ASA) Mr. o. v. Gallegoe (Alternate) 

ASA) Kr. L. J. Seidenglans (Alternate) 

USCIB: U/258 

TOP SECRET 

ilL -

eclassified and a roved for release b NSA on 09-23-2014 ursuantto E.O. 1352 
oos 

e1~ ~~ 

USCIB: l4/2S7 P/p .. ?~4 

Subject: 

24 Hcmlli>er 1952. 

OCJIIR'r Planing Caaterence Agenda. 

USCIB 14/252 dated a October 1952. 

1. !he reference hu rece1w4 ~e 8beet app.-onl b;r all aaaben, 

nbJect to l"8CCllllGlldat1caa b7: 

ao The AoUng Dlnotor ot Raval Intelligence that the word1JJg 

or llUbpaN&rGJlha l.t.(2)(b). (c), and (d) be aplitied to 

read .. toll.owa& 

"(2) COHDR &l'NDg.-.nt• with Tb1rd Part.iea vitbiQ the 

tN91WOl'lc or Allied. CClllUllda. 

n(a) --"'-• 

n(b) ca.idCt!'ation ot nw aJJd/or unresolved qpecta ot 

caml'r arrangemmt.a tar SHAPBo • 

"(c) C0..1derat1cxi ot nw am/or unreeolwcl aapects ot 

camrl' arrangemmita tor SAOLAN'l' reaulting I.- tbe 

HOYmbcar 1952 SACLAllt ooatOl'Cce. 

"(d) OCEH'l' relationahlp Mt.'N'GGn SACLAKT and SACEUR, in• 

oln4tng specific arnqemmta for direct. mhqe 

bet.tftllll thee• 4ClllUDdaoH 

b. The Dlreotor ot Cctr&l Intelligence that, ttnnce mm or 

the tmdnoloa ot the BRIJSA ApeGmsnt. ie out ot date,, an 

ed.itorlal ocimltte• rnla• the Agrement in tbat respect and aleo undertake the ood1ftcat1on ot th• Agre.ant and 

Appendic• bT preparing a cmipl.t.e inda"o 

2. Oopiea ot th• pl'OpOllecl agenda, amended as 1nd1cated in parqnpb 

l.a., abon~ haYe been forwarded to I.SIB tor ~o 

3. 'nie toUOld.ng repNDcmtat.iwa haft been dea1gnate4 to 1'9prea•t 

individual iallber orpnisaticnai 

.... -

USCIB: l4/2~l/ 

lt.o Colcinel Glm Co Lc:mg9 Jr. 

Ill'. Jahn ., 0 o•Gara, Jro 

-1-

TOP SECRET 
REF ID:A65100 

\_. J'OP SECRE'f / 

USCIBs 14/257 

Rav .. 

24 Ncmml>er 19S2 

(!ta) Captain B. P. Roeder 

(mm) captatn a. L. Taylor 

Ccwmnder J. H. \fataan 

Casumder M. Bo Gill•pie 

Ai~ l'oroe .. (.&POD) Lt. Colanel. o ••• Toman 

(APSS) Colonel G. W. Wildes 

Major C. D. P17or 

Mr. G. W. Scmnera 

- Mr. H. Do Sheldon 

Hr. P • B. Rowlett 

St.11.te - Hr. R. P. Packald 

4. It is expeotoed that the initial meKing ~ the above rcrpre=- aetatiftll v.t.U be called at an earl.1' date. 

USCIB: 14/25? -2-

TOP SECRET 

OGA 

- ' l 

FOAM A7031 SEP 97 

NSN 7540-FM-001-5622
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice of permanent closure of Diego Jimenez Torres Airport (X95).

# SUMMARY:

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) received written notice, dated January 21, 2015, from Puerto Rico Ports Authority (PRPA) advising that on April 30, 2015, it will permanently close Diego Jimenez Torres Airport (X95), Fajardo, Puerto Rico; the notice was in excess of 30 days before the closure in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 46319(a). The FAA hereby publishes PRPA's notice of permanent closure Diego Jimenez Torres Airport in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 46319(b).

# DATES:

The permanent closure of the airport is effective as of April 30, 2015.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Parks Preston, Program Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Campus Bldg., Suite 2-260, College Park, GA 30337, (404) 305-7149.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On January 21, 2015, PRPA, sponsor of Diego Jimenez Torres Airport (X95), informed the FAA that the Airport will close permanently on April 30, 2015. (See enclosed letter) X95 is a small 94-acre non-towered, general aviation airport. The useful life of the federally funded improvements expired in 2013. FAA recognizes that PRPA is no longer contractually obligated to continue operating this airport. Title 49 United States Code § 46319 requires a public agency (as defined in section 47102) may not permanently close an airport listed in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems under section 47103 without providing written notice to the Administrator of the FAA at least 30 days before the date of the closure. The FAA recognizes the letter dated January 21, 2015 from PRPA meets this requirement.

Issued in College Park, Georgia on February 11, 2015.

Larry F. Clark,

Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.

[FR Doc. 2015-03776 Filed 2-23-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CENTURY  TECHNOLOGIES,  INC. FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED
DECEMBER  31,  1995 , AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS             
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               132 
<SECURITIES>                                           0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     132 
<PP&E>                                                 2
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       134
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              1,471       
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              5,102    
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               0     
<OTHER-SE>                                        (6,439)   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         134
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       0
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   6,296                                      
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (6,296)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (6,296) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (6,296)    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.78)  

        

</TABLE>
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed June 10, 2013. 

# S

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 12

- 00599

- CV

ROLAND VON KURNATOWS KI, ET AL. , Appellants

V. CITY OF COMMERCE, TEXAS, ET AL. , Appellees

On Appeal from the 196th District Court Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 76,781

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, Bridges, and Lang

- Miers

On its own motion, the Court REINSTATES this case. The Court has before it

appellants’ May 24, 2013 motion to dismiss appeal. We GRANT the motion and DISMISS the

appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

PER CURIAM

120599F.P05– 2

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ROLAND VON KURNATOWSKI, ET AL., Appellants

No. 05

- 12

- 00599

- CV V.

CITY OF COMMERCE, TEXAS, ET AL., Appellees On Appeal from the 196th District Court, Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 76,781. Opinion delivered per curiam. Justices Moseley, Bridges and Lang

- Mier s sitting for
the Court.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellees CITY OF COMMERCE, TEXAS, ET AL. recover their costs of this appeal from appellants ROLAND VON KURNATOWSKI, ET AL., unl ess the parties’ agreement provides otherwise.

Judgment entered this 10 th day of June, 2013.

/Elizabeth Lang

- Miers/

ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS
JUSTICE
### Wood River Power Station Dynegy Midwest Gen Stac k : 798'MS L 

### I 350' AG L .lllUll.lijrJliUIIII IC iass D , SFC-3000' MSL , Class E , 3000'-5000' MS L
_ _,J:K"", I e• Class B , 5000'-8000' MS L

W ithin ST L Mode C 30 NM



### A.



## 2 Sparta-Hunter (SAR} Class E , 700' AG L and above
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 5.1
 
                               October 29, 1998
XTRA Corporation
60 State St., 11th Fl.
Boston, MA 02109
 
Ladies and Gentlemen:
 
  This opinion is furnished to you in connection with a registration statement
on Form S-4 (the "Registration Statement") filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Commission") under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, relating to the proposed merger (the "Merger") of Wheels MergerCo
LLC, a newly organized Delaware limited company ("MergerCo"), with and into
XTRA Corporation (the "Company"), pursuant to which (i) the outstanding shares
of MergerCo will be converted into an aggregate of 4,500,000 shares of Company
Common Stock, $.50 par value ("Company Common Stock"), and (ii) the existing
holders of Company Common Stock will be entitled to retain 500,000 shares of
Company Common Stock (the "Retained Shares").
 
  We have acted as counsel for the Company in connection with the Merger. For
purposes of our opinion, we have examined and relied upon such documents,
records, certificates and other instruments as we have deemed necessary.
 
  Based upon the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the Retained Shares
have been duly authorized and validly issued, and are fully paid and
nonassessable.
 
  We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as part of the Registration
Statement and to the use of our name therein and in the related joint proxy
statement/prospectus under the caption "Legal Matters".
 
                                          Very truly yours,
 
                                          /s/ Ropes & Gray
                                          -------------------------------------
                                            Ropes & Gray
#### Hermann, Respondent, vs. Hermann, Appellant.

*April 5*

April *26, 1910.*

*Appeal: Divorce: Suit money: Temporary alimony.*

*A*motion for suit money and temporary alimony pending an appeal in a divorce action is denied because, no bill of exceptions baying yet been returned, tbe court is unable to say whether there are merits in the appeal.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: Warren D. Tarrant, Circuit Judge.

*Andrew Gilbertson,*for the appellant.

*Geo. F. Ballhom,*for the respondent.

Per Curiam.

This is a divorce action. Judgment having been rendered in the trial court awarding a divorce to the defendant upon her counterclaim and making a final division of the plaintiff’s property, the defendant has appealed from that part of the judgment only which divides the property, and now moves the court for suit money and temporary alimony pending her appeal.

It has long been settled that such motions are not granted as matters of course in this court. 'The record will be examined “so far as to determine whether the appeal is obviously without merits; and if it is then the motion will be denied. Injury and a meritorious cause of action must appear.” *Friend v. Friend,*65 Wis. 412, 27 N. W. 34, and *530cases cited. No bill of exceptions bas yet been returned to this court in the case, so that it is impossible for the court to determine these questions now. Hence the motion must be denied without prejudice to the right to make another motion after the bill of exceptions shall be returned.

See Supreme Court Rule *43a,*adopted April 26, 1910, 141 Wis. page iv. — Rep.

It is so ordered.
#### The State ex rel. Preston, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Preston v. Indus. Comm.*(1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 590.]

(No. 98-2613

Submitted July 28, 1999

Decided September 22, 1999.)

*591
      *Philip J. Fulton & Associates*and *William A. Thorman III,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *Julie M. Lynch,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas, J., dissents.

F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.