alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- .. "ANDARD~RMN0.&4 _ - - &e:~ e 

Office Memorandum • uNrrno sTA~Es ~o~-~.~~ME~[.~}"':~ 

TO .•.:rsA-OOB ' .. FROM AFSA-16 -. . - J.. , .. ·.- 'Wi;-'7 

.... : . . -' .._.;.,1: r,.,_. .. • .. Ji 

SUBJECT: Clearances ~-~. 

~ ·~ _ ... 

Clearance status of the following persons are indicated_below: • . ' - . ' - ' ~ . ~ • ·-; =··->-- .v • • -.,., " I • • .: '• I olll~ 

PALi:BR, Ralph Lee, International Business Mach:ines Company - A Nation.al _ Agency Check uas conducted by 1st ~ on 26 December 1950. No derogatory ini'ormation 

developed. He nas grl.l.Ilted clearance through secret by Headquarters, 1st .A:rray on 

26 January 1951. (Per Central Index Records),. A copy of the National. Jaency Check 

is on file at G2, Depart.nont of' the A:rmy. - ·~"'~"'I.I •' t- I :-i • • .. ~~ 

DurrcAii, Hugh, Re~ton Rand C01'p. - has b~en evaluated satisfactoey by .AFSA. - - .... ' • , "'Ii ~..ii=e 

- ~ • <f 1 I • ....... ~ ·~. .; ·~ 

WILKS, Samuels., Professor, Princeton University - has.been evaluated 

satisfactory by .il'SA. 

BLACJr.lELL, David H., Howard University -- evaluated satisfactory by AFSA. .. . ... 

KAO, Uark, Professor, Oo~nell University - cleared for secret on 22 March 

1951 by Bureau of Aeronautics re~resentative in Buffalo, based on a National. Agency 

Check (per Cent:ral Irul.ex Records). L__..~- . 

·- eclassifi ed and a 

Lt. 

C.il!LOS 

Colonel, 

F. ~ CEJ USA. 

Chief, Security Control Division 

SECRET .. . 

. ;. ·.1 " . , 

roved for release b NSA on 04-14-2014 ursuantto E .0. 1352 

. . ~· 

• .,,- •.• i 

,,. J .. 

. ~.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**AKIM PIERRE,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 770 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 20th day of April, 2016, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 97-40056 Conference Calendar

__________________ DENNIS L. BARRETT, Petitioner-Appellant,
versus NEWMAN LEE CONNER, Warden Federal Correctional Institute, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:96-CV-313
- - - - - - - - - - June 18, 1997 Before SMITH, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Dennis L. Barrett, federal prisoner #06817-045, challenges that the district court's dismissal of his petition for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. His motion for a certificate of appealability is DENIED as unnecessary. We have reviewed the record and Barrett's contentions and we discern no abuse ofNo. 97-40056 -2- discretion. See Fuller v. Rich , 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we affirm for essentially the same reasons employedNo. 97-40056 -3- by the district court. Barrett v. Warden, F.C.I. Texarkana , No. 5:96cv313 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 31, 1996). AFFIRMED.
II 

Calendar No. 331 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1592 

[Report No. 114–186] 

To clarify the description of certain Federal land under the Northern Arizona 

Land Exchange and Verde River Basin Partnership Act of 2005 to 

include additional land in the Kaibab National Forest. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 17, 2015 

Mr. FLAKE (for himself and Mr. MCCAIN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

DECEMBER 16, 2015 

Reported by Ms. MURKOWSKI, without amendment 

A BILL 

To clarify the description of certain Federal land under the 

Northern Arizona Land Exchange and Verde River Basin 

Partnership Act of 2005 to include additional land in 

the Kaibab National Forest. 

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


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1592 RS

1 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION RELATING TO A CERTAIN 

2 LAND DESCRIPTION UNDER THE NORTHERN 

3 ARIZONA LAND EXCHANGE AND VERDE 

4 RIVER BASIN PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 2005. 

5 Section 104(a)(5) of the Northern Arizona Land Ex6 change and Verde River Basin Partnership Act of 2005 

7 (Public Law 109–110; 119 Stat. 2356) is amended by in8 serting before the period at the end ‘‘, which, notwithstanding section 102(a)(4)(B), includes the N1⁄2, NE1 9 ⁄4, 

SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4, the N1⁄2, N1⁄2, SE1⁄4, SW1⁄4, and the N1 10 ⁄2, 

N1⁄2, SW1⁄4, SE1 11 ⁄4, sec. 34, T. 22 N., R. 2 E., Gila and 

12 Salt River Meridian, Coconino County, comprising ap13 proximately 25 acres’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 331 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1592 

[Report No. 114–186] 

A BILL 

To clarify the description of certain Federal land 

Forest. include additional land in the Kaibab National Verde River Basin Partnership Act of 2005 to under the Northern Arizona Land Exchange and 

DECEMBER 16, 2015 

Reported without amendment 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                        94420000
<SECURITIES>                                  45117000
<RECEIVABLES>                                180188000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   5697000
<INVENTORY>                                  158941000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             502138000
<PP&E>                                       176589000
<DEPRECIATION>                                73241000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               691511000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         83993000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                      74440000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   529818000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 691511000
<SALES>                                      306111000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             306111000
<CGS>                                         95233000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                214624000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              135000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               95314000
<INCOME-TAX>                                  35291000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           60023000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  60023000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .54
        


</TABLE>
# CE2004084EN.01079701.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/797 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/797

---

(2004/C 84 E/0893)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0468/04

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Subject:   Competition in the glass sector

Subject:

Is the Commission aware that EU glass manufacturers face two kinds of unfair competition? First, they face competition from the plastics industry who have been set far lower recycling targets under the Packaging and Waste Directives than those set for the glass industry. Secondly, from glass manufacturers in the accession states who have a long-term derogation from having to meet environmental standards arising from the implementation of the Kyoto Agreement.

Will the Commission be vigilant in ensuring that the implementation of these desirable Directives does not cause unfair competition by allowing competitors to escape obligations that should equally be placed upon them? If necessary, will the Commission propose the necessary rectifying legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

(31 March 2004)

The influence of recycling targets on the competition between various packaging materials does not depend on the level of the targets but on the costs related to recycling. The recycling costs per tonne are substantially higher for plastics than for glass and the use of secondary glass also saves costs to buy primary raw materials to a higher extent than is the case for plastics. Even though the recycling targets are different for the various materials, it is therefore difficult to evaluate whether there is an effect on competition between the materials and what material would get more favourable conditions. However, if there is any such effect, it is likely to be small compared to other factors influencing competition such as production costs, consumer convenience etc.

The Commission proposal (1) for new recycling targets was based on the view that all packaging materials should contribute to reducing their environmental impacts through recycling levels reflecting their specific costs and benefits. The levels of the recycling targets were extensively discussed by the Parliament and the Council during the legislative procedure which led to the adoption of Directive 2004/12/EC of 11 February 2004 (2). There are currently no reasons to propose a modification of the targets.

1

2

The EU legislation that allows the European Union to meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol does not foresee any derogation for Accession States.

---

(1)  Proposal for a Parliament and Council Directive amending Directive 94/6 2/EC on packaging and packaging waste, COM(2004)127 final.

1

(2)  Directive 2004/12/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 amending Directive 94/62/E, OJ L 47, 18.2.2004.

2

---
# CE2004084EN.01037901.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/379 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/379

---

(2004/C 84 E/0440)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0368/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Irish Government charges and the Seveso II Directive

Subject:

What has been the Irish Government's reply to the reasoned opinion announced on 18 July 2003 (IP/03/1048) regarding the Irish Government's decision to charge members of the public for expressing an opinion on developments concerning major industrial installations under the Seveso II Directive on the control of major industrial accidents involving dangerous substances (Council Directive 96/82/EC (1)).

1

What action is the Commission proposing to take in this matter?

---

(1)  OJ L 10, 14.1.1997, p. 13.

1

---
# CE2004070EN.01026402.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/264 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/264

---

(2004/C 70 E/286)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3487/03

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   French action against pigmeat from other EU Member States

Subject:

The transport of pigmeat into France has recently been seriously threatened by the heavy-handed actions of French farmers: lorries have been stopped, meat-processing plants invaded and Dutch, Spanish, Danish and German pigmeat destroyed. As the French police have not intervened, such actions are not discouraged and the free movement of pigmeat within the EU is disrupted.

How does the Commission intend to eliminate this obstruction to freedom of movement?

Why is the Commission taking so long to discuss this disruption of the internal market with the French Government?

---
*Thursday, July 22, 1999*

MOTION DOCKET

99-1344.

#### State ex rel. State Fire Marshal v. Curl.

In Prohibition and Mandamus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of prohibition and mandamus and was considered in a manner prescribed by law. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that an alternative writ be, and hereby is, granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that the following briefing schedule is set for presentation of evidence and filing of briefs pursuant to S.CtPrac.R. X:

The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present on or before August 11,1999; relator shall file his brief within ten days after the filing of evidence; respondent shall file his brief within twenty days after the filing of relator’s brief; and relator may file a reply brief within five days after the filing of respondent’s brief.

Douglas, J., dissents and would dismiss the cause. See R.C. 2731.03.

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents and would grant a peremptory writ.
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
Doc ID: 6684952
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 183 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 183

 To repeal the annual fee on health insurance providers enacted by the 
              Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 16, 2015

 Mr. Barrasso (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Alexander, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. 
  Blunt, Mr. Burr, Mr. Coats, Mr. Crapo, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Flake, Mr. 
Gardner, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Moran, Mr. Roberts, Mr. 
 Rubio, Mr. Scott, Mr. Toomey, Mr. Vitter, and Mr. Wicker) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                               on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal the annual fee on health insurance providers enacted by the 
              Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

    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 ``Jobs and Premium Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTING PATIENTS FROM HIGHER PREMIUMS.

    Section 9010 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
(Public Law 111-148), as amended by section 10905 of such Act and by 
section 1406 of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 
2010 (Public Law 111-152), is repealed.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.8

Consent of Christian Bézy

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 information relating to the
Sleeping Giant mine, Quebec, included in the 2009 Annual Information Form of North American Palladium Ltd., dated March 31, 2010 (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
Statements on Form F-10 and amendments thereto (File Nos. 333-158082 and 333-164512) of the references to my name and the
above-mentioned information in the AIF.

Dated
this 31st day of March, 2010.



Name:

/s/ CHRISTIAN BÉZY Christian Bézy, Geo.


---
# CE2004088EN.01069601.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/696 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/696

---

(2004/C 88 E/0715)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0409/04

by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Rights inherent in European citizenship

Subject:

The Treaty of Amsterdam further rounded out the definition of European citizenship, by adding that it did not replace but supplement national citizenship; at the same time, the Treaty consolidated the rights arising form European citizenship.

Consequently, with the Charter of Fundamental Rights promulgated in Nice in 2000, a single text brought together all the personal, civic and political rights, as well as the economic and social rights, which European citizens are guaranteed to enjoy.

Amongst these is the right to vote or stand in elections to the EP, or in local elections in one's country of residence within the EU.

I was therefore extremely surprised to learn, from a letter sent by the International Secretary of the Maltese Nationalist Party, Dr Jason Azzopardi, of the worrying fact that hundreds of Maltese citizens are having their rights infringed, by being refused the right of voting in the forthcoming June elections to the European Parliament, because they are temporarily residing outside their own country, for purposes of work, training or study.

Is the Commission aware of this situation? And how does it view behaviour of this kind, which seems to be a clear violation of a guaranteed right of all European citizens?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2004)

(15 March 2004)

I would refer the Honourable Member to the Commission's answer to written question E-0118/04 from Ms Frassoni and Mr Cohn-Bendit (1).

1

---

(1)  See page 682.

1

---
USCIB: 5.3/70 

'l'OP SESH:Jil!P T:J. S • Ei¥ES ONfiY 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE MEMBERS OF USCIBEC: 

APPENDED DOCU!VJEN'I' CON IA"INS 

eOfBVOfm MA:'fERI:Aii 

24 January 1955 

Subject: 

Reference: 

Approval of the Minutes of the 22nd Meeting of USCIBEC. 

USCIB 5.3/67 dated 3 January 1955. 

1.. Subject to the insertion of the attached corrected pages in 

their appropriate places, the minutes of the 22nd meeting of USCIBEC are 

approved. 

2. It is requested that the. word TENTATIVE be deleted from the 

initial page of the minutes for each item considered and the word FINAL 

substituted therefor. 

a.ptain, U. S. Navy 

ive Secretary, USCIB 

Enclosures 

1. Corrected page 7 of subject minutes. 

2. Corrected page 10 of subject minutes. 

3. Correction Sheet. 

USCIB: 5.3/70 

Jt!'PENDED '.DOcmmNT COlf TttNS 

CO'.DEWOm> Mltf ERI:ta:I 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 03-26-2014 pursuant to E. 0. 1352B 

TOP SEtettET 
'\ 

~:A57~2 

• 

!OP ffifi1:Ef - tJ.8. E!i'.8 ONLY 

Page, ParagraJ>h 

of Final Copy 

Page 7, para. 

inserted between 

paras. 1 and 2 

Page 101 para. l 

TWENTY-SECOND MEETING 

OF THE 

USCIB EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

CORRECTION SHEEr 

TEll (Tentative and Final) 

Final: 11MR. PATTON stated that for some time t,o 

come such raids would continue to be a 

responsibility of the DCI rather than of 

Defense. For this reason the question 

should be raised either through DCI 

channels or through USCIB channels sinc::e 

he had no knowledge to indicate that a 

military channel for this matter existed.tt 

Tentative: " ••• he considered it highly probable that 

knowledge of our help ••• 11 

Final: " ••• he considered it entirely possible 

that knowledge of our help ••• 11 

TOP SECRET
24 

USCIB: 13.2/21 

29 June 1954 

SO:NPIBf!ilf'HAfl 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE MEMBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: Clearance and Indoctrination for CCMINT (Eisenhower). 

1. In response to a request from the White House, the CIA member 

asked, an 28 Jmie 1954, that USCIB views be obtained on the indoctrination for Category III CCMINT of Major John E. Eisenhower~ USA, son of 

the President. 

2. The request indicated a desire to indoctrinate Major Eisenhower 

immediately to enable him to serve as an assistant to Brigadier General 

Paul T. Carroll, USA, White House Staff, for a period of one month, at 

the expiration of which Major Eisenhower will be debriefed. 

3. All members indicated, by telephone, their approval of the 

above request and the CIA member was so informed. 

·- (' 

USCIB 

USCIB: 13.2/21 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 04-25-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

COlVFtDEfltt7TJAL
1-~I THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF 

WASHINGTON 25, D. C, 

SECHET ·,_ 

SfCtJAITY H~FORMATION 

.SM-1553-53 

··26 -August 1953 

-.... . .... · ... ~ ..... · ... :. ... .... t •• 

. --~. ... ~·IJ'·.- ". 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE DIRECTOR,, NATIONAL SECURITY AGE~CY / 

Subjeet1 u.K.ju.s. Communications Security Conference, 1953. 

Re.t'erence: JOS 2074/28. 

l. With reference to your memorandum tor the Joint Chiefs 

ot Staff on the above subject dated 17 August 1953 (JCS 2074/28)~ 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff: 

a. concurred in the deaignation ot M't'. w. F. Friedman 

as Head of the U.S. Delegation to the Conterenee. 

b. Agreed that rep~eaentatives from each Service would 

be designated tor part1e1pat1on in the preliminary d1Bcues1one in London and in Phasea I and II ot the Conference~ 

as well as in preliminary U.S. diseus&1ona prior to departure tor London. 

2. The Chiet or Staff, u.s. Army, the Chier of Naval Opera~ 

tions, and the Chief ot Statf ~ u.s. Air Poree have been ~equested to turnish the names of their representatives direct 

to you. 

EDWIN H. J. CARNS, 

Brigadier General, USA~ 

Secretary. 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 05-15-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

Oopy ,1...· ot· _j--·coples-eiah 

o:r ___ /_pages seriei::_ , ... A ::,1 

SECHRITY INFORMATION 

. ' 

' 

·- - - - . - __ , _______ ___,,...,._.,..,__ .::-- .. .,...,, .. ,..,.-. '"""---~,,..-. -,---::-.::-;;-~:--=-···~=--::--"'"':;-:'--:-::-:-:--:-. :;:, '.-:::- .. ~-:;.,..:;:;:; ___ iiiii.i7.'.-:::: .. ~~-:-:-.. ---:;;c:--~~---::;;,. ..... ::;;_,.'Oiiizii!iii!_ -~-