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

.y7%

a

9ci,n-frA4' ai

cw*? .oto ar?^s^+

i&1 /4aLee

z4L8f/h 474

,. iS'r

.O.Y4

.. 3r .

DEPARTMENT OF • AIR FORCE

FFICE IF TOE rIIEER =ECOETuy

MBMORANDU^t
WAiM11NO104. D. C. 10301 CRRt1

l$ Mardi 1163

HANDLE VI:

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF OEFEN^ CONTft7L s M

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF

IWFFNCF RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING

btr. John Dross

Central intelligence Agency

Rasbingtoa. D. C.

Dear Jobe:

After leaving you last night I have conianed to thinly about the

problem of orgauiasdon which plagues not only the rtlatianobips

between your agency and us, but also tit r.ladosabip between the

two government agencies and lb. contactors. In particular. I

was thialntng of the time delay that unavoidably would intervene

between ll65 and the time when the first of new broad coverage.

high r.solutm systems will fly. I can't conceive of any set of

conditions under which this time will be l.s. than 3i nsoltffis.

The.. 36 months may well be ensr mely important to the nation.

and I thief it behooves us to >aaaice as strong an effort as we can

to improve the Corona system; I don't want at this eime to list

which bnprovsmants I have is mind becsnse i am not sure which

items are most likely to limit our capabilities. I bsliev. that it

would be .stEmiy desirable to have your organisation writs a

letter to ITES requesting on behalf of the NYO a proposal for a

quicid. study which, ages rehashing all the propositisns which

have been discussed and not implomued during the last three yearn,

would com. up with a series of snggestd improvements to the

Corona system which would be impl.dmsatlt d in a time scale s i ieat

to warrant expenditures before the now system come. into being.

I feel that such an effort will receive DNRO approval and support.

I will display my Mss by noting that is. year after everybody had

agreed to have a resean printed onto the film, no contract has been

signed yet: also I c cast escape the f..1n6 that. If as much atteadlion

and tender, loving care bad been devoted to the engineering dassils

roan system as have bm devoted to shah systems as

its competitors. we would be farther ahead in gee

of our int.rina problem.

HA`:DL[ VI

5 242 /6 1

page of pages Cop7.1o.Copies
— — --- ------ —

To conclude t1Mq, the purpose of tlds isttsr is to call to your attsadoa

the fact that, in addhioa to the m+wadsmsM cossidsratisas related

to d.rIce whop opsretioaai lots is late is 'IT. we should bspta to

pile attention to som^tkisg which could bsos + ns operadossl in to

middle of 1966; it is dear that such action can only bs taksa tksxosgh

the intermediary of the present contracting agency. that is. the CIA.

I. for one, would posh wry hard to set something Iike this doss if

we were to coseluds that some mssatngM imprewmsets can bs

carried on Si the dssirsd time.

Please let me know what your thoughts ors on thee. matters. I am

sending a copy of this letter to Brock McMillan and I am by this means

requesting his optelos sloe.

8dnesrsly.

cc: Mr. Ysnat Engine G. Tublmi

Dr. MCM4I1

5242 [U

_ 'paa J o_f `^ ?ages

.. '^^" Coy_jo •/ Copies

iv i
# CE2004084EN.01009703.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/97 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/97

---

(2004/C 84 E/0128)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3781/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on funding for the city of Florence under the action programme to promote civil protection

Subject:

In reply to my earlier question E-1094/03 (1) asking whether the city of Florence had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

1

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

1

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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-03-1998
<CASH>                                           2,406
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   69,965
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,415
<INVENTORY>                                     76,730
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               155,998
<PP&E>                                          33,852
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,485
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 206,902
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          129,247
<BONDS>                                         74,265
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,320
<OTHER-SE>                                    (70,043)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   206,902
<SALES>                                        251,877
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               265,891
<CGS>                                          188,281
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  259,882
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    97
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,582
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,670)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       987
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,657)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (704)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,953)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.40)
        

</TABLE>
# CE2004084EN.01009903.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/99 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/99

---

(2004/C 84 E/0134)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3787/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on funding for the city of Pisa under the action programme to promote civil protection

Subject:

In reply to my earlier question E-1099/03 (1) asking whether the city of Pisa had submitted projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

1

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome was?

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         1,034,941
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          813,298
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            813,298
<EQUITIES>                                     146,556
<MORTGAGE>                                       9,114
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               2,219,807
<CASH>                                           3,038
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             287,985
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         456,953
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,848,661
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                316,091
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                          1,453,753
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 570,270
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                            5,063
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                346,093
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    105,025     
<COMMON>                                        42,686
<OTHER-SE>                                     636,536
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,848,661
<PREMIUMS>                                     356,847
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             35,178
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               2,178
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   5,964
<BENEFITS>                                     122,938
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (69,616)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (26,937)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (42,679)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (42,679)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel, April 06, 2015, 11:00 a.m. to April 06, 2015, 1:00 p.m., National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on February 9, 2015, 80 FR 7003.                

The meeting notice is amended to change the date of the meeting from April 6, 2015 to March 30, 2015. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: February 10, 2015.

Melanie J. Gray,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-03091 Filed 2-13-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7053

WALLACE MITCHELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus Y. ELSWICK; E. C. MORRIS; MORTON GILBERT, SR.; KEVIN ROBINSON, Officer, Red Onion State Prison; K. BARNES; DWAYNE HOPKINS; CALVIN B. WILLIAMS; LIEUTENANT BENNETT; CAPTAIN PEREZ; ROBERT FULTON; JAMES MURPHY; EDMUND P. WALSH; GLORIA J. NELSON; CHARLES FRANCIS, St./Red Onion State Prison; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; LYNN REYNOLDS, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-46-7) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 21, 1999Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wallace Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Wallace Mitchell appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint anddenying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s memorandum opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Mitchell v. Elswick , No. CA-99-46-7 (W.D. Va. May 21 & July 19, 1999). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          15,421
<SECURITIES>                                    82,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  154,588
<ALLOWANCES>                                    57,247
<INVENTORY>                                    290,265
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               606,644
<PP&E>                                      10,607,822
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,257,640
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,038,826
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,137,235
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,000,000
<COMMON>                                    19,632,887
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,731,296
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,038,826
<SALES>                                      1,273,903
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,273,903
<CGS>                                        1,642,237
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,642,237
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,138,130
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             680,767
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,498,932)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,498,932)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
I 

I 

TO: SUSIO • UlNDON 

PMFT QAJ}I.E 

/.BQ 3 . 3 ( h) ( 2 ) 

~L~86-36/50 USC 3605 

PLEASE PASS FOLLOWING FROM CHAIRMAN, USCID /TO CHA:Ial(AN, LSIB: 

lo UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE RECJ!2rl'LY APPROACHED Bt\DnELLIG~CE OFFICIALS 

lsEFXING U.S. ASSISTANCE IN ESTABLISHING 

.....__ _____ ___. DFSIREJ). MSISTANCE INCLUDES FURNISHING l)IRECTIO!l FINDING 

AND INTEROEPT EQUIPMD.'T, GUIDANCE m msTALLATION OF ~'r, TRAINING, AND 

INFORMATION ON ORGANIZING AN INTERCEPT SERVICE. 

2. I I HAVE OFFERED TO ALLOCA.'l'E APPROXIMATELY HALF\ or THEIR mTERCEPT 

RESOURCES TO TARGETS DESIRED BI u.s./ UNDERSTOOD HERE THAT ··1 .... -.........-------

----~TU.ALLY "WULD BE PLACED IN OPERATION, DIVIDEO .AMONG\\FIVE INST.ALLl'l'IONS. 

3o INASMUCH AS RECEIPT OF TRAFFIO INTERCEPTED IN _I ___ IMIGHT WELL FILL 

DPORTANT GAPS IN UKUSA ATTJ!J4PT ro OBTAm 'WORLD=WIDE COVERAGE OF OOMMUNIST 

CCMMUNICA.TIONS. u.s. IS DESIROUS OF HOLDING FURTHER DISCUSSIONS Wl'.l'H I...__ __ __, 

OFFICIAI.8 CONCERNING . THEIR REQUF.ST. 

4o BEFORE PROCEEDING• HOWEVER, USCIB SHOULD LIKE 'l'O OBTAIN VmiS OF LSIB 

WITH RFISPECT TO POSSIBILI'l'!' OF OUR F.NTERDlG IN'l'O A THIRD PART! COMIN'l' ARRANGE= 

KENT wxm 1 r ANTICIPATE AMY sUCH ARRANGJDNT WOULD BE BASED ON PROvISI•)N 

OF CASH AND RELEASABLE EQUIPMENT ONLY AND l«>ULD NOT EXCEED lcIMITATIONS OF PAP .. ~ ~ 

OF .APPENDIX P, UKUSA AGREJ.!HENT. 

So WOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR lOUR COMMENTS THIS MATTER 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 05-16-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

NSA Form 781-Clll' 6 Jul 51 TOP SEERET
Exhibit 23.6



LOGO

Consent of David N. Penna

I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of North American Palladium Ltd., which is being filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission, of references to my name and references to my involvement in the preparation of Technical Report Lac des Iles Mine, Ontario, Incorporating Prefeasibility Study Offset Zone Phase I filed on
February 19, 2013 (effective date of January 31, 2013) included in the 2012 Annual Information Form of North American Palladium Ltd., dated March 20, 2013 (the AIF).

I also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-13766) and in the
Registration Statement on Form F-10 (File No. 333-185656) of the references to my name and the above-mentioned information in the AIF.

Dated this 20th day of March, 2013.



|     |  |                           
|---- |  | --------------------------
|Per: |  | /s/ David N. Penna, P.Geo.
|     |  | David N. Penna, P.Geo.    
|     |  | Principal Geologist       
|     |  | Lac des Iles Mines Ltd.   



P.O. Box
10547, Thunder Bay, Ontario, P7B 6T9

Tel: (807) 448-2000    Fax: (807) 448-2001

www.nap.com
ConservaƟon PracƟce Standard Overview 

December 2012 

Windbreaks or shelterbelts are single to 

multiple rows of trees and possibly shrubs 

planted in a linear fashion. They are established upwind of the areas to be protected. 

Renovating a windbreak may involve 

removing, releasing, or replacing selected 

trees and shrubs or rows of trees or shrubs. 

PracƟce InformaƟon 

Windbreaks and shelterbelts are primarily 

used to reduce soil erosion from wind; protect 

crops, livestock, and farmsteads from wind 

and related microclimate effects; control snow 

deposition; and improve air quality by 

intercepting drifting chemicals and odors. 

Windbreak/shelterbelt establishment involves 

the planting of vegetation to serve the 

purposes noted above. The effectiveness of a 

windbreak or shelterbelt is dependent on the 

height of the mature plants. Therefore, it may 

take 20 years or more for the practice to 

become fully functional. 

Windbreak/shelterbelt renovation involves 

widening, partial replanting, removing, and 

replacing selected trees and shrubs to 

improve an existing windbreak or shelterbelt. 

A period of years may also be needed for 

proper renovation. 

These practices can be applied in any area 

where there is sufficient linear length to 

establish the windbreak on the lee side of the 

area to be protected. It is important during 

planning to consider the dominant wind 

direction during weather events that cause 

damage 

Common Associated PracƟces 

Windbreak/Shelterbelt Establishment (380) or 

Renovation (650) are commonly applied with 

conservation practices such as Conservation 

Crop Rotation (328), Cover Crop (340), 

Residue Management (344), Tree/Shrub Site 

Preparation (490), Tree/Shrub Establishment 

(612), Tree/Shrub Pruning (660), and Upland 

Wildlife Habitat Management (645). 

 

For further information, contact your local 

NRCS field office. 

Windbreak/Shelterbelt Establishment 

(380) or RenovaƟon (650) 

Helping People Help the Land 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1414 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1414

 To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
  to add Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 21, 2015

  Mr. Reed (for himself and Mr. Whitehouse) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
  to add Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness 
Act''.

SEC. 2. ADDITION OF RHODE ISLAND TO THE MID-ATLANTIC FISHERY MANAGEMENT 
              COUNCIL.

    Section 302(a)(1)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1852(a)(1)(B)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``Rhode Island,'' after ``States of'';
            (2) by inserting ``Rhode Island,'' after ``except North 
        Carolina,'';
            (3) by striking ``21'' and inserting ``23''; and
            (4) by striking ``13'' and inserting ``14''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7910

LARRY D. PHILLIPS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department

of Corrections,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (CA-01-700-2)

Submitted: February 20, 2003 Decided: March 12, 2003

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry D. Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr.,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry D. Phillips seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An

appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here,

a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural

grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the

petitioner can demonstrate both "(1) ‘that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the

denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason

would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in

its procedural ruling.’" Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.)

(quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert.

denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). 

We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons

stated by the district court that Phillips has not made the

requisite showing. See Phillips v. Johnson, No. CA-01-700-2 (E.D.

Va. Dec. 5, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED