alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
silmAIL4lialatefea•.1" n

IV NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON, D.C.

THE NRO STAFF January 22, 1971

.MEMORANDUM FOR COLONES!"

SUBJECT: Significant or Dr. McLucas

i

The fol bg is the status of significant actions of

l

concern hich have occurred . from January 12 to today.

We have been working closely with Program D

and NASA personnel in preparation for the turnover of two

U-2C aircraft for the Earth Resources Program. We have a

well coordinated position with OSA, General Hogan and

Mr. Friedheim. The one remaining milestone before public

release is 40 Committee approval--Dr. Kissinger has reserved

final authority to the Committee, but we do not know when

the subject will be considered. I have told Mr. Chapin

that NASA desires to make a public announcement about

Thursday, January 28, coincident with NASA's FY 72 total

program.

In an article in the New York Times, dated

January 19, the cover of the 40 Committee was compromised.

In an extensive article on January 22, the Na

CO •. 005 atellites.

We have informed General Hogan and Mr. Henkin that this

constitutes a. compromise and that the basic security

policy has not changed. They are prepared to react

accordingly to queries. Messages to this effect have also

been dispatched from the NRO Staff, DIA and CIA. (See

Attachment)

1111111111111 /

ONMOLOW Internal

tan or caws

, ganger* nor ainproott 1111140111•11

• k • amitinve sloe Is 1111151 ele• •••‘•
. ... .....................................................................................................

•

On January 20, we briefed Lt General Boylan,

DCS/Programs & Resources, on the NRO Program. General Boylan

desires further information on manpower which supports the

Program and we are preparing a briefing on this subject.

JO

We have continued to work with Colonel

who is preparing a briefing for.General Brown to gi

the Air Force Commander's Conference in February. Can Brown

will include information on the NRP, why it is important

to the Air Force, and why, the Air Force should support it.

Mr. Hughes offered his'excellent presentation on the use of

satellite and aircraft reconnaissance products but Gen Brown

was unable to make use of it at this conference.

We have continued to participate with ACSAN on

the Strategic Forces Survivability Study to assure that

references to the NRO collection system capabilities are

reflected accurately. It is anticipated that an update of

the SALT Verification Study may be required.

The NRO Staff was briefed by Colonel Von Ins

and Capt McLean of General Allison's Staff on the SALT

activities through the Helsinki talks which ended December 18.

Dr. Seamans, Dr. McLucas and Dr. Naka are scheduled for a

briefing by General Allison on February 1.

1 Attachment

NY Times Article,

22 January 1971

Internal 

---TOP-SECRET--

IINCIAIMI WIN aeleramc 11111111111110011

elle smeeme SIN III MISS MN &MY

• • • • • I. • • r • ..17 a.. I.... • • ..•••n•••• •••n•%, • ••••••n•••••••n•
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Yvette Lampone, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[772 NYS2d 756]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 25, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant worked as a government relations assistant, a position that included significant secretarial/clerical duties. On February 19, 2003, claimant’s supervisor e-mailed claimant criticizing claimant’s job performance and indicating that the matter would be discussed on February 21, 2003. Claimant was offended when she read the e-mail and responded with an e-mail of her own, stating that she was overqualified, unhappy and bored with the job duties and ending with the statement that if the *838director was unhappy with her job performance, she should handle it as she saw fit. Claimant was discharged approximately two weeks later for insubordination. Reversing the decisions of both the Commissioner of Labor and the Administrative Law Judge, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied claimant’s application for benefits on the ground that her insubordination amounted to disqualifying misconduct.

Although the issue of whether a claimant’s conduct amounts to misconduct generally is a matter for the Board to resolve *(see Matter of Bukowski [Arc Summit Park—Sweeney],*231 AD2d 785 [1996]), we do not find, under the circumstances presented here, that the record supports the Board’s conclusion that claimant’s conduct rose to the level of misconduct, thereby disqualifying her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Notwithstanding the supervisor’s indication that the matter would be discussed on a certain date, the record fails to establish that claimant was aware that she would be discharged as a result of responding to her supervisor’s e-mail and expressing her disagreement with the criticism and unhappiness with the work environment (see *e.g. Matter of Vlad [Commissioner of Labor],*257 AD2d 933, 934 [1999]; *Matter of Bukowski [Arc Summit Park—Sweeney], supra*at 785). Accordingly, the Board’s decision must be reversed.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed June 5, 2014.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-00536-CR

TOMMY RAY VIDAL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-35123-W

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Fillmore, Evans, and Lewis 

Opinion by Justice Lewis

Tommy Ray Vidal pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine in an amount of 

four grams or more but less than 200 grams. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court 

sentenced appellant to five years’ imprisonment. Appellant waived his right to appeal as part of 

the plea agreement. See Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d 218, 219–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The 

trial court certified that appellant does not have the right to appeal. See id.; see also Dears v. 

State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

140536F.U05

/David Lewis/

DAVID LEWIS

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

TOMMY RAY VIDAL, Appellant

No. 05-14-00536-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-35123-W.

Opinion delivered by Justice Lewis, 

Justices Fillmore and Evans participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 5th day of June, 2014.

/David Lewis/

DAVID LEWIS

JUSTICE
# CE2004088EN.01015001.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/150 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/150

---

(2004/C 88 E/0159)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3485/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject:   EEA, Norway and taxation of EU workers

Subject:

Although Norway is not a Member State of the EU, it takes part in the internal market where the principles of free movement of workers and equal treatment of all citizens apply. Nevertheless, the Norwegian Government decided that, as of 1 January 2003, EU citizens, among others, working in Norway would be taxed on journeys between their place of residence and their destination (in this particular case a helicopter terminal/oil platform). Norwegian nationals working in Norway are not taxed in this way.

Foreigners in Norway are allowed a deduction of 15 % on the basic rate of tax because they do not use cultural and public social services to the same extent as Norwegians. Interest on loans, however, does not qualify as tax-deductible.

Will the Commission say in this context to what extent Norway is allowed to adopt different taxation rules for EU citizens and Norwegians working in Norway? Are the rules on the taxation of journeys consistent with Norway's agreements with the EU or does that country discriminate against workers from the EU? Finally, what action does the Commission intend to take in the event that Norway has introduced discriminatory rules?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

(19 December 2003)

The Commission has not heard before of the problem raised by the Honourable Member. However, not disposing of the applicable legal texts, the Commission can only refer to the fact that a distinction between residents and non-residents is a basic and common feature in taxation, which the Court of Justice, in its judgement of 14 February 1995 (case C-279/93 — Schumacker), has accepted to be in principle not contrary to Community law. However, if non-residents are in a comparable situation as residents, they may not be taxed more heavily than the latter.

Since it is the particular charge of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Surveillance Authority (ESA) to monitor and control the application of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement by the EEA/EFTA States, the Commission will forward the problem raised to the ESA and ask the ESA to give it the necessary follow-up.

---
# CE2004088EN.01047802.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/478 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/478

---

(2004/C 88 E/0491)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3977/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject:   Mediation in Nepal

Subject:

The civil war in Nepal has worsened considerably over the last few years, and a number of nongovernmental organisations, some of them based in Nepal and others based in Europe, recently visited the European Parliament and expressed their concerns.

One of their main concerns is the disastrous impact of the war on children and adolescents, who are forced to collaborate in guerrilla activities or, even when they have not been involved, are suspected of doing so and treated accordingly by the authorities.

Does the Commission not believe that the European Union could play a useful mediation role in this conflict?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

(9 February 2004)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that the violence in Nepal is a matter of great concern and that the interruption of the truce and peace talks by the Maoists on 27 August 2003 has generated a new wave of instability urban guerrilla warfare and a high number of victims.

The Commission, whose main cooperation objective is poverty reduction, has programmed resources to mitigate the impact of the conflict. The new Country Strategy Paper adopted by the Commission on 18 December 2003 gives special attention to poverty alleviation, good governance and consolidation of democracy, particularly in areas of the Mid-West, improving living conditions of local farmers and the reduction of Maoist influence. The Commission is also actively engaged in conflict mitigation activities with the media, civil society and local communities.

Another key priority of EU action in Nepal is human rights. The conflict is causing a worrying deterioration of the human rights situation. The Commission, through the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights, is committed to stepping up its support to projects aimed at promoting Human Rights, including the rights of children and adolescents in Nepal. In particular, the EIDHR supports the Human Rights Commission, and a micro-projects scheme was introduced in Nepal in 2003. The EU is also committed to observing elections if and when they take place.

The Commission believes that there cannot be a military solution to the conflict and that it is of the utmost importance that a new cease-fire be declared. However, there seems to be presently no room for external mediation. Though the country is faced with a constitutional crisis and a political stalemate, the Nepalese authorities have not asked for external mediation. The Commission's current focus is on helping confidence-building measures to re-establish the necessary level of trust among local political forces and to promote civil society participation in the peace process.

---
·. 

• 

USCIB: 5.2/35 

't'OP s:gcRE!I! l::J. S. E¥EiS ONLY 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ~!EMBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: Tentative Minutes. 

31 

APPENDED DOCUMENT CONTAINS 

CODE WORD Y.lATERIAL 

29 March 1954 

1. Attached is a copy of the tentative minutes for the lOlst 

Meeting of USCIB. Please advise the Secretary if any changes are 

desired. 

2. In the event there is no objection to these minutes on the 

part of USCIB members by 14 April 1954 they will be considered 

approved. 

~9.17/..? ~J tain, U. • Navy £3. ?(fR •· I/ 

...,,_ .. _._tive Secretary, USCIB 

Enclosure 

1 copy of Tentative Minutes, 

lOlst Meeting of USCIB. 

REPRODUCTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IN 

WHOLE OR PART IS PROHIBITED EXCEPT WITH 

PERMISSION OF THE ISSUING OFFICE. 

USCIB: 5.2/35 

T9PSBCRHT 

Tevt. t"" t, I) e. 

rte-, s.:v~ 

:... 11././ S 

I/' 3 -;i_'f,3/=<-' 

'Y -;J..,e;, i1 It, 

11. ~~I I 2..";2__ 

c ,3,s/ ¥'? 

APPENDED DOCUMENT CONTAINS 

CODE WORD MATERIAL 

eclas ifi ed and a roved for release b NSA on 11- 0-2014 ursuant to E .0. 1352 
• • • 

CONPIDmTlXL - H.S. EYES ONLY 

ONE HUNDRED FIRST MEETING 

OF THE 

UNITED STATES COMMUNICATIONS INTELLIGENCE BOARD 

Mr. Allen W. Dulles, Chairman 

PRESENT: 

DEFENSE: 

STATE: 

NSA: 

FBI: 

CIA: 

-

ARMY: 

NAVY: 

AIR FORCE: 

EXECUTIVE SECREl'ARY: 

SECRETARIAT.: 

ALSO PRESENT: 

DEFENSE: 

STATE: 

NSA: 

-

General G. B. Erskine, USMC (Ret.) 

Mr. W. P. Arrnstrong,_Jr. 

Lt. General R. J. Canine, USA 

Mr. V. · P. Keay 

(for Mr. L. V. Boardman) 

Mr. H. D. Sheldon 

Major Genera:l A. G. Trudeau 

RADM C. F. Espe 

Major General J. A. Samford 

Captain R. L. Taylor, USN 

Mr. H. D. Jones 

Mrs. D. O. Tucker 

Mr. R. V. Zander 

Mr. T. A. Polyzoides 

Brigadier General J. B. Ackerman, USAF 

Capt. D. M. Agnew, USN 

Mr. W. F. Friedman 

Mr; F. C. Austin 

Mr. Howard Bond 

CONFIBE1\JTIAL 
_ ___..,. t...: .,. - .. • 

CON:Fln!:m'IAL - a.s. E¥.l!lS 9Nl:.Y 

ARMY: 

NAVY: 

-

AIR FORCE: 

Mr. W. H. Wheeler 

Major General H. Reichelderfer 

Colonel T. Larner 

Lt. Colonel G. C. Long 

Mr. J. F. 0 1Gara 

Captain W. M. McCormick 

Colonel C. M. Townsend 

Major H. J. Thompson 

OGA 

The One Hundred First Meeting of the United States Communications 

Intelligence Board was held in the Projection Room, Administration 

Building, Central Intelligence Agency, at 1430, on Friday, 12 March 1954. 

- 2 -
... -

SONFIBE5'i'IAia = l::J. S. Ml!iS ON:bY 

SUBJECT NUMBER 

i!DJ%a111'.IVB- ~ c:-

F1M'1./,,... 

USCIB: 5.2/34 

Subject: 

Item 1 of the Agenda for the lOlst Meeting of USCIB, 

held on 12 March 1954. 

Approval of Final Minutes of the lOOth Meeting. 

THE CHAIRMAN asked if there were any objections to the subject 

Minutes. 

There were no objections. 

DECISION: (12 March 1954) USCIB approved the Final Minutes of the lOOth 

Meeting as written. 

USCIB: 5.2/34 - 3 -

TOP SECRET FROTl I
••• RE~440 

-- USCIB: 5.3/105 

8 August 1955 

~S'REi' Y. 8. l!i¥J!i6 ONH 

UNITED STATES COMMUNICATIONS INTELLIGENCE BOARD EXECurIVE COMMITTEE 

AGENDA FOR 

Thirty-third (Special) Meeting to be held at 1000, 

on Thursday, 11 August 1955, in Room 2E-687, 

National Defense Building, Washington, D. C. 

Mr. H. D. Jones, Chairman 

Date of Initial Subject 

Consideration Number Sub.iect 

11 Aug 1955 5.3/ 1. Approval of Final 

Minutes of the 30th, 

31st (Special) and 

32nd Meetings 

(USCIB 5.3/99; 

5.3/102; 5.3/104) 

23 Sep 1954 9.3/ 2. USCIB COMINT Objectives 

and Requirements 

(USCIB 9 .3/44) 

• 

Submitted~ 

Secretariat 

Ad Hoc 

Committee 

USCIB 

USGIBi 5.3/105 IIAfiBblii 1/IA 60MIN'f Clitdfflflie Olf.Lf 

SECRET 

f"\ A 

, l .. _ ' 

eclassified and a roved for release b NSA on 09-05-2014 ursuantto E.O. 1352
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 23
- 00223
- CV

Shereen Jordan , Appellant

v. Justin Jordan , Appellee

FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY NO. 22
- 0977 , THE HONORABLE KARL HAYS , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Shereen Jor dan , representing her self pro se, see ks to appeal the trial

court ’ s denial of her “ motion to modify te mporary orders ” in a suit aff ecting the parent

- child relationship (SAPCR)

. Jordan also seeks to appeal the trial court ’ s order de n ial of her “ m otion to
cancel sanctions

. ” The trial court issued the sanctions against Jordan after finding that she had
failed to respond to certain discovery in the suit. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.3

.

On J u ne 12 , 2023 , th e Clerk of this Court a dvis ed Jordan that it appea rs that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter because this Court ’ s jurisdiction is limi ted to appeals
from final judgment s an d certain interl ocutory orders as permitted by statute

. See Leh mann v.
Har

- Con Corp ., 39 S.W. 3 d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (exp laining that “ the g eneral rule, with a few mostly statutory e xceptions , is that an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment ” )

. The
Cl erk requeste d that Jordan file a response b y June 19, 2023 , explaining h ow this Court may

exe rcise juris diction over this app eal.2 Although Jordan filed a response to the Clerk ’ s notice, she has faile d to identify a final judgment or appealable order. As Jordan acknowledges in her response , n o final judgment has been signed in the SAPCR , and n ei ther the trial court ’ s d iscovery s ancti on order nor its temporary order s are reviewab l e by interlocutory appeal

. See George v. Sabre Updates, Inc. , No. 10

- 22

- 00109

- CV, 2 022 Tex. App. LEXIS 6347 , at * 5 (Tex. App.

— Waco Aug. 24, 2022, pet. denied ) (mem . o p. ) ( “ Discovery sanction order s are not appealable interlocutory orders. ” ( citing Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a) ) ) ; Perkins v. P erkins , No. 03

- 21

- 00135

- CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 5386 , at * 1 (Tex. App.

— Austi n July 7, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op.) ( “ Th e Te xas Family Code specifi c ally precludes the interlocutory appeal of te mporary orders , except those appoint ing a receiver. ” (citations omitted)) ; see also Tex. Fam. Code § § 105.001 (e) , 109.00 1 (c) (temporary order s not subject to interlocutory appeal )

. C onse quently, J ordan has
failed to demonstrate how this Court ma y exercise jurisdiction over this appeal

.

Consequently, we dismiss t his appeal for want o f jurisdiction

. See Tex. R. App. P

. 42. 3(a)

.

_________ _________________________________ C har i L. K elly , Jus tice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Theofanis
Dismisse d for Wan t of Jurisdiction
Filed: July 13, 2023
-. -"' 

ID:A63892 

Jr. •· P. Jto'bertaon 

( aba1man ~ tAe 1'0ard) ~ »ridae Laborator)' ot Pb;vaiea 

c.JUornia Iu't1"1lte at 1'ecJ:moloQ' 

h...S~, Cal.U'orl2i.a 

~. w, :a. a. Balter 

vtce Pre•id.fmt &D4 OeAeral Nia.ager 

~Cl 1>1v1•1cm 

Geiwral XlActt1.c ()Dp&D1" 8Jracru.s41, ..,,. 1'0%'k 

DI:-. ~ 8. O&irna 

Bead1 Department ot Matbesu.tics 

·UA1Tel"•11t7 ot IJ.J1•o1a 

'Ul:'blma, IlllnoiA 

Ht. H. P. Corv:lth 

Vic. Pre81deln 

woateni 

6o Hudson 

Union 

street, 

'felegraph 

Boca A•33 

~ 

:Jew York 13, :leY Yark 

Xr. J. w. J'Qrreater 

Lincol.n IA'bon.'°1'y 

Jldsachuaetts Iu"itute ~ !l'eclmol.OQ" ~, Maaeaohus.Ua 

Hr. Williaa ., • l'riedmm 

310 2Dd ftreet I 8 • :S • 

W..h1D&ton, ». a. 

e 

Dr. 011ttor4 a. rurnu 

.Aaai1tant Be<ll"Otar,y ~ ~8n8e (R/D) 

!'he Pentacon 

Waah1.ngton 251 D. C. 

Dr. Albert G. Bill 

Director or lle•earoh 

we~ ~ Jvaluatim Group 

!be Pml'teaoz>, 

W&ahingtcu 251 D. O. 

.. • .Artltul" w. BOrton, Jr. 

Bell Tel.ephone I.aboratortea, Inc. 

J6nTaJ' Bill !Aboratoq 

lt1rrq Hill, ir.v Jerlq 

Kr. Jobn c. McPbaracm. 

Vice Pres1d.eni 

:tnternat1onaJ. !Wsine•• JIM:h11281 COrp. 

590 *4.iton Ava.wa 

Jew York 22,, Bew Tork 

Dr. Jbhn VOZl Be\a8lm 

ec-!••ioner 

Atmic J:i1U'Q ec.ll••ion 

J.901 Ocaut"ti tv:tion .A.venue, N. W. 

Waahi»aton, J>. C. 

:or. s ••• W1l.ka 

DepartllexR ot Ha.thesaa:Uu 

:!Ox 7o8, J'ine Ball 

Princeton t~1:nara1w 

P.rtnaeton_. lfev Jeraq 

pproved for Release by NSA on 11-15-2013 pursuant to E.O. 

3526 
Cba11Wm (Vacant) 

w. R. o. Baker 

Jolm Coc:a.ba 

J. Desch 

Arnold D\llley 

Ste;phen »unwell 

J. w. Forrester 

Jobn Boward 

Ral,ph Lee Palmer 

.Arthur Samuel. 

IAJo Roaen 

A. M. Skellett 

c. G\11' 8u1ta 

8aauel :B. W1U18118 

B. P. Oorvith 

( Cbairma.u) 

J>meld JI. Menzel 

J. z. Millar 

Robert B. Mlller 

'lm c. Rives 

8. s. Wilb 

(CMWwm) 

A. A. Albert 

David H. Bl.ackwll 

s. s. Cairns 

A. M. Gleason 

Saunders MacLane 

Claude Shannon 

C. B. Tompdns 

John w. Tukey 

John von Neumann 

REF ID:A63892 • 

October 1956 

To be appointed by Cba1ma.n at NSASAB 

Electronics D1via1cm, CJeDeral llectric eo. 

Interne:ticmal Bwlinesa Machines Corp. 

1'&ticmal Cash .Reci•ter Ot1lpaq 

29 :Barberl7 Lau, Roa~ Heights, L.I.1 11. Y. 

Drter.national Buaineas Machines Carp. 

Lincoln IAboratory, K.I.'!'. 

Underwood COrporation 

International. Bwsinesa Ma.chinos Corp. 

International Business Maoh1.nea Corp • 

.Anderaon•Richola • Co. 

Tung-Sol :&lenric me. 

General Electric Oo. 

3701 Tqlmo st., CheV)" Cbue, M:l. 

Director, lJarnt.rd. OOJ.l.ege Obae:rvataz'7 

western Union !'elegrapb Ccap8117 

Melpar Inc. 

General Blectric Cempany 

University or Chicago 

University of Califomia,•Berkeley 

University of Illinois ~ 

Harvard University 

University of Chicago 

Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc. 

UCLA, Los Angeles, California 

Princeton University 

Atomic Energy Commission