alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
REF ID :A522634--

TO AFSA-OOT DATE: 26 April 1951 

FROM DIRAFSA 

SUBJECT: u.s./u.x. Conference on French Communication Insecurity. 

Please draft brief opening remarks for ~ use on 1 M~ 1951 in 

••"'1ectioa vith the opening of subject conference. ~· 

AiMMl' Adud.ra.l, \'. ~:. N~\"f 

~tot.o:r. Arme*1 lfvi·..:eM ~~~h~u.ri.tl 41'*' 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 06-03-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 
l 

REF ID:A522634 

DRAFT 

It 1• .,. pleaSUN to weloOM the representative• or the United 

Kin«doa to thi• U.K.-u.s. Conference. You will obnl"ft that I have not 

epecitied the klncl ot a Conte:rence, whether I ~ becauae 

it is saaewhat. difficult to oharaoteris• it ae being either one or the 

' other. Perhape it will be juet ••well to refer t.o it eillpJ.T b7 the 

title nu. K.-u.s. Conterence on French commun.ioationa•. 

'ftlere is hardl.T an)" need tor • to indicate the quite gener.l 

feeling that tilllea are out of joint. How tar t.he7 aN out of joint ie 

reflected bJ one feature which ll&kee thia Oonterence unique. 

Heret.o.f'ore, whenever we have aaaembled t.o discuaa I .... __ ..... l1111~tera, 

the primary purpose or the Conference has been to enhanceorto ·Eo 3.3(h)(2) 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

increase our respect.in or our combined 1 ... __ ..... lpc>t.ential. We have 

discussed all aort.e of questions dealing with improyemente we could 

make, unilateral.17 and bilaterall7, to make po11ible or to tacilita'Ut 

the solution or I 

I 

But 811Ch a oouree ot action, it it i• agreed upon, ia not ot our 

choosing. It ie one to which we are comitted by a realization am 

h 
REF ID:A522634 

acceptance or the !"1111damental principle that. our CCllSEC interest.a are 

parainount, and over-riding. Wars baYe been, and S!!! be, fought. 

although we all know f.'rolll experience that attainment ot vict017 

is faailitated. "7 the but 

. wars have been, and can be, ~ b7 poor COMSJJC, and ~or the attainment 

of vict01"7, where the forces are eqUa.l. or nearl.7 eo, good COMSIC :t.a 

indispensable. 

So, in entering upon this Conference I hope we will not. teel too 

badly it • go into it ewn wit.h the certain knowledge that we are 

going to 

EO 3.3(h)(2) 

at ue keep in PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

mind what we hope to gain 1D COMSEC - and :remember that aa the reepauible custodians of OU?' Crze'Ol!!iC potential, 1fe wt gi.,. ..-1 

attention to both eepent8 ot the field. 

I know that the probl... wblch the Conterenoe taoea are clitt~ 

ones but I teel that they are not inaupsraole. It I can be of U1I' · 

u1iet.ance, pleaee reel tree to call upon • at any tiae.
<PAGE>



                                                                      EXHIBIT 99


            WINTHROP RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATES I, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                           FORM 10-QSB MARCH 31, 2004



          SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION 9.4 OF
                            THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT


1.       Statement of Cash Available for Distribution for the three months ended
         March 31, 2004:

         Net loss                                                     $ (20,000)
         Add:     Cash from reserves                                     20,000
                                                                      ---------

         Cash Available for Distribution                              $      --
                                                                      =========

2.       Fees and other compensation paid or accrued by the Partnership to the
         General Partners, or their affiliates, during the three months ended
         March 31, 2004:


            Entity Receiving                   Form of
              Compensation                   Compensation            Amount
         ------------------------        ------------------       -----------

                   None







                                     1 of 1
-

TO AFSA-OOT OATf:. 17 May 1951 ,.. .- ... 

FROM Mary C. Lane 

SUBJECT· Interim report on progress or SCAG 

1. The following recent developments in SCAG are noted: 

(a) A detailed presentation for members of SCAG submitted by Mr. 

Rowlett on 24 April 1951 -- three ~gee outlining the topics to 

be discussed with time aJ.lotments.£Sc.,... 4#6.Llaep 

(b) Forwarding or the agenda with the five members to attend the 

conference on 4 June -- to Dr. William Webster. Members mentioned 

at that time (5 ~) were: von Neumann, Cairns, Tompkins, Engstrom, 

Potter. 

(c) Since that time two letters have been written to Dr. Kelly of 

Bell Laboratories about the services of Dr. Shannon. One was from 

Gen. Smith of CIA (a copy of which was furnished AFSA by K:lngmsn 

Douglass) and one by Adm. Stone. The last note from Capt. Wenger 

indicated that Shannon was interested and would lJB.llt to consult 

whether he felt he could contribute to the problem. Capt. Wenger 

promised to send an emissary to explain matters to him as soon as 

bis clearance was verified. 

(d) Mr. Desch has accepted but no notice has been received whether 

he would attend the CPnference. 

(e) Notice was received from Miss Embrey that records of OSRD were 

destroyed (this was a follow-up of your letter to Irvin Stews.rt) 

(f) other names added to SCAG since the last report: 

John Howard -- added by Adm. Stone {clearance not known) 

John Cloud McPherson --nominated by IBM. AFSA-17 is 

checking on his clearance 

(g) A report is on file from AFSA-16 on the clearance statue of 

the followsing: 

Ralph Lee Palmer of IBM -- cleared for SECRET 

Hugh Duncan, Remington Rand (clearance satisfactory to AFSA) 

Wilks, Samu.el (evaluated satisfactory by AFSA) 

David Blackwell - (evaluated satisfactory by AFSA) 

Mark Bae -- cleared for SECRET 

2. AFSA-OOB bas sent a note s~ing that it he thintp it desirable for the first 

l.OAG meeting to be prepared in detail so that their efforts will be channeled to 

the tecluli.cal problems rather than being di:rerted at least initially. Mr. Rowlett 1s 

agenda appears to b~ detailed. That is the only one s~r ,,,,ceived. 

. ~- l.'~ r;:::i @' ~ rr=i C. LANE 

<..! 

--·~ 

·, 1 : ~ " Captain WAC 

~ 11 r1 .r·, I dl!:::i • ' .. "' • • _ ..,;;: ·~ ~ L'.=.. -.::~J ' \! • . . ' -:.. •,f•."" 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 09-16~l014 pufs~a~t t~ ·E.O. 1352!3 ~ -~~ ;s;J,Ji;
<PAGE>
<PAGE>
                                                      Exhibit 24

      AMERICAN EXPRESS RECEIVABLES FINANCING CORPORATION
                       POWER OF ATTORNEY

     American Express Receivables Financing Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), and each of the undersigned officers and directors
of the Company, hereby constitute and appoint Jay B. Stevelman, John D. Koslow,
Leslie R. Scharfstein and Stephen P. Norman, jointly and severally, with full
power of substitution and revocation, their true and lawful attorneys-in-fact
and agents, for them and on their behalf and in their respective names, places
and steads, in any and all capacities, to sign, execute and affix their
respective seals thereto and file any of the documents referred to below
relating to the American Express Master Trust:  all reports required under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 including Forms 8-K and Annual Reports on Form
10-K, including any amendments thereto, on behalf of the Company, with all
exhibits and any and all documents required to be filed with respect thereto
with any regulatory authority, granting unto said attorneys, and each of them,
full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises in order to
effectuate the same as fully to all intents and purposes as they might or could
do if personally present, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, or any of them, may lawfully do or cause to be
done by virtue hereof.

     This Power of Attorney may be executed in counterparts.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, American Express Receivables Financing Corporation
has caused this Power of Attorney to be executed in its name by its President
and its corporate seal to be affixed and attested by its Secretary, and the
undersigned officers and directors have hereunto set their hand as of the 25th
day of March 1997.

                                      AMERICAN EXPRESS RECEIVABLES
                                        FINANCING CORPORATION


                                      By /s/    Vincent P. Lisanke
                                         --------------------------
                                      Name:  Vincent P. Lisanke
                                      Title: President


Attest:

/s/ Stephen P. Norman
----------------------
    Stephen P. Norman
    Assistant Secretary


<PAGE>
<PAGE>

         Signature                            Title
         ---------                            -----
 /s/ Vincent P. Lisanke           Director and President
------------------------          (Principal Executive Officer)
    Vincent P. Lisanke


/s/ John P. McDonnell             Director
-------------------------
    John P. McDonnell


/s/ Jay B. Stevelman              Director
--------------------------
    Jay B. Stevelman


/s/ John D. Koslow                Vice President and Treasurer
---------------------------       (Principal Finance Officer and
    John D. Koslow                Principal Accounting Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-60168

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

WILLIAM WILBOURN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:12-CR-182

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and PRADO and HAYNES, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:*

William Wilbourn appeals from his conditional guilty plea conviction for 

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon; the plea was conditioned upon 

Wilbourn’s reservation of his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his 

motion to suppress. The district court denied the motion, finding that 

Wilbourn had consented to the search of his residence. Alternatively, the 

district court determined that the search was justified as a protective sweep. 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 26, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-60168 Document: 00512882539 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/26/2014
No. 14-60168

Wilbourn, in his opening brief, does not address the district court’s 

protective sweep analysis. Although he addresses the issue in his reply brief, 

“[t]his court does not entertain arguments raised for the first time in a reply 

brief.” United States v. Ramirez, 557 F.3d 200, 203 (5th Cir. 2009).

This court “will not raise and discuss legal issues that [Wilbourn] has 

failed to assert.” Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 

744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because Wilbourn has not addressed the denial of his

motion to suppress on the basis that the search was justified as a protective 

sweep, he has abandoned the issue on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 

222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Additionally, because the ruling presents an 

independent, unchallenged ground for the district court’s denial of the motion 

to suppress, we affirm the district court’s denial on that basis without 

addressing Wilbourn’s other arguments. See United States v. Thibodeaux, 211 

F.3d 910, 912 (5th Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Mitchell, 334 F. App’x 

665, 665-66 (5th Cir. 2009) (holding that appellant abandoned, by failing to 

brief, any argument challenging the district court’s alternative holding that 

the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied). 

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-60168 Document: 00512882539 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/26/2014
... · .. · ... -

.. -('.
N£YBlt. U.5£ l'fM APl'lllJ Dl!IAl'l'lllW a MEMO COM:'UU£NC£S. OJI: SllllLAIC .ACTIONS 

I NAllE OR TITU";;/, ~ 

vn,.,.-n;.-.JMAn 

INITIALS QRCUUTE 

CIR&AllZATION AND LOCATION DATE 

2 

a 

4 

REMARKS 

COORDINATION 

FILE 

lllFORMATIClfl 

NOTE AND 

llEIURN 

llEllE 

Sl811ATURE 

('J~ J,·HI~ ~;~ tf.:t TY P£X -nt£irif.....,c1 

;,. rt.::::. ~ '-ti.. .,,.tr;.. 11((,d lJJ"' --1.i-.. 

-lk . • ~"1J1n' -fL._....,OAA f ~ • 

~"'-- '/ .K,_ ~'- ,.,.~.rw, ~ f,,.;.,..J 

fi -L ....:, J.,.,.J.,,., ,,., ~ ~,.._I. ln1 ~ { wl·d.tl.N""-' 

~ ;,,o do~ to 1'.,;,., c..oa-7 ~) ,_.J e.a.... ~­

A c.0..._._, - ,:2 w-lc. ,.;... '1°..c-'° ~ ,,_J ~ w..k-

,.;. .,,,,.,,.+ .. "." .. -

eclassifi ed and a roved for r lease b NSA on 7-1 -2014 

l~F'RO--M_M_ll_E_OR_TITLE __________________________ ~·1~TE 

ORUNIZATICJJI AND LOCATION TELEPllDll! 

DD FO• 95 BepialaDA.A.OOP«m•,IA.prtll,llDdA.ftQ I FEB to . I'-11. 10 Nov 47, whlab IUJ' tie lll8d. *GPO•l•l·O-
# CE2004078EN.01053501.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/535 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/535

---

(2004/C 78 E/0557)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3384/03

by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI), Emma Bonino (NI), Marco Cappato (NI), Benedetto Della Vedova (NI), Olivier Dupuis (NI), Marco Pannella (NI) and Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject:   Corridor 5

Subject:

The Italian (‘Trans-Padania’) leg of Corridor 5, which is to link Lisbon and Kiev and thereby ensure optimum east-west transport conditions in southern Europe, is important to the European and Italian facets of the economy of the Friuli-Venezia-Giulia region and the city of Trieste.

The Trieste node is of particular importance in terms of links with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and as an ideal point of passage for east-west road and rail traffic south of the Alps.

Despite numbering among the Transeuropean projects originally proposed by the Commission, it seems that the Venice-Trieste-Capodistria-Ljubljana-Budapest section has unexpectedly been discarded from the slimmed-down ‘quick list’, which could jeopardise a prompt launch of the project.

Can the Commission urgently explain the reasons for this step backwards and indicate whether this means it has revised its position?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2004)

(12 January 2004)

On 1 October 2003, the Commission adopted a proposal to amend the guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) (1). This proposal includes a list of priority projects declared to be ‘of European interest’, which includes project No 6 (high-speed train/combined transport) Lyon-Turin-Milan-Venice-Triest-Ljubljana-Budapest (Annex III to the proposal for a decision). This demonstrates the Commission's interest in this project which is of key importance for improving links between the central part of the European Union and the new Member States.

1

The information supplied by the Member States on this project, which is given in Annex III, shows that building work on most of the sections will not start before 2010-2015, i.e. well outside the criteria defined for the Growth Initiative, which stated that the projects should begin by 2006. It was therefore not possible to include all the projects in the quick-start programme. However, two sections have been included as they fit in with this framework: the international section St Jean de Maurienne-Bussoleno (Mont Cenis tunnel between France and Italy), where preparatory work is already in progress, and the Ljubljana-Budapest section, where construction is due to start by 2005.

If it appears that other sections meet the same criteria, the programme could be extended in accordance with the procedure laid down for its establishment.

The Commission wishes to stress that the Growth Initiative does not in any way weaken its proposal of 1 October 2003, which will be adopted by the co-legislators under the co-decision procedure.

---

(1)  COM(2003) 564 final.

1

---
# CE2004084EN.01019701.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/197 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/197

---

(2004/C 84 E/0240)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0315/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Language programme for minority languages

Subject:

In July 2003 the Commission published a call for proposals (DG EAC/45/03) to prepare the ground for the implementation of the Action Plan on language learning and linguistic diversity (1).

1

One of the goals explicitly referred to in the call for proposals was to prepare information and to raise awareness on the potential of existing programmes and activities to promote regional and minority languages. Following the closing date for the submission of project proposals at the end of September, seven of the 33 project proposals submitted were approved.

Does the Commission believe that the selection of projects corresponds to the goals of the Action Plan?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

(3 March 2004)

In answer to the Honourable Member's question, which refers to the Action Plan on language learning and linguistic diversity, the Commission would like to announce that, under Call for proposals EAC/45/03, the best seven projects were selected in accordance with the two objectives in point 2:

| 1. | to disseminate information and to raise awareness on the potential of existing programmes and activities to promote regional and minority languages, and |
| --- | --- |

1.

to disseminate information and to raise awareness on the potential of existing programmes and activities to promote regional and minority languages, and

| 2. | to set up networks to prepare the implementation of the Action Plan on language learning and linguistic diversity. |
| --- | --- |

2.

to set up networks to prepare the implementation of the Action Plan on language learning and linguistic diversity.

The Commission takes the view that the projects selected meet the objectives of the Action Plan and will help to prepare the ground for its implementation. As it specified in its answer to the Honourable Member's written question E-4031/03 (2), three of the seven projects are directly concerned with regional and minority languages.

2

---

(1)  OJ C 180, 31.7.2003, p. 34.

1

(2)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 681.

2

---
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

ASTeX CPI, Inc.
ETO, Inc.
Newton Engineering Service, Inc.
Applied Science and Technology, GmbH
ASTeX/Gerling Laboratories, Inc.
ASTeX GmbH
ASTeX PlasmaQuest, Inc.
Klee Corporation
# CE2004084EN.01063101.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/631 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/631

---

(2004/C 84 E/0709)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0576/04

by Philip Claeys (Nl) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Electioneering activities of Romano Prodi

Subject:

Four left-wing parties are due to contest the European elections in Italy jointly under the ‘Prodi List’. Press reports suggest that the President of the Commission will not be standing himself on this list but will be playing an active part in the election campaign. He is reportedly involved in the selection of candidates. It would in fact be unlikely that the President of the Commission would lend his name to the list without being closely involved in the whole campaign.

Although these new party political activities will undoubtedly take up a great deal of his time, the Commission President has stated that he will remain in office until October.

Does Mr Prodi regard the office of President of the European Commission as a full-time job?

How much time does he think he will be spending each week on the election campaign in Italy?

Does the Commission consider it desirable for its members to be actively involved in election campaigns?

What arrangements have been made within the Commission? Who will take over Mr Prodi's duties in his absence?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

(2 April 2004)

As the Commission has pointed out on a number of occasions in response to written and oral questions from MEPs, the Members of the Commission are politicians exercising a political function and, provided that they perform the duties incumbent, they remain free to express their personal views quite independently and on their own responsibility, as well as to be a member of a political party.

This having been made clear, Mr Prodi has confirmed that he does not intend to stand as a candidate in the election or take an active part in the election campaign. As in the past, he will continue to devote all his energy to his responsibilities as President of the Commission until the end of his term of office.

---
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 12 - 00046 - CV

ARJANA MUHAMETAJ, D/ B/A LITTLE BROTHERS FAMI LY RESTAURANT APPELLANT

V. NORTHERN TRUST BANK OF CALIFORNIA, N.A., AN D BRUCE R. MCALLISTER, NOT PERS ONALLY BUT SOLELY AS CO

- TR USTEES OF THE MRM 1990 TRUS T F/B/O BRUCE MCALLISTER AND NORTHERN TRUST BANK OF CALIFORNIA, N.A., AN D MARGOT B. MCALLISTER, NOT PERSONALLY BUT SOLEL Y AS CO

- TRUSTEES OF THE MRM 1990 TRUST F/B/O MARGOT B

. MCALLISTER F/K/A MAR GOT M. DIPPERT APPELLEES

----- ----- FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- The trial court signed a final summary judgment on September 27, 2011. Appellant Arjana Muhametaj, d/b/a Little Brothers Family Restaurant, filed a timely mot ion for new trial on October 3, 2011. The notice of appeal was therefore due December 27, 2011. 2 It was not filed, however, until January 30, 2012. The notice of appeal was therefore untimely. 3 On February 6, 2012, we notified Appellant by letter that w e were concerned that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. We stated that unless Appellant or any party filed with this court, on or before February 16, 2012, a response showing grounds for continuing th e appeal, the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction. On February 14, 2012, Appellees Northern Trust Bank of California, N.A., and Bruce R. McAllister, not Personally but Solely as Co

- Trustees of the MRM 1990 Trust f/b/o Bruce McAllister and Northern Trust Bank of California, N.A., and Margot B. McAllister, not Personally but Solely as Co

- Trustees of the MRM 1990 Trust f/b/o Margot B. McAllister f/k/a Margot M. Dippert filed a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction based on Appellant’s untimely notice of appeal.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2 See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a).

3 See id.3

On February 16, 2012, Appellant filed two motions for extension, stating among other things that “[f]ailure to file notice of Appeal on time was not deliberate or intentional, but was the result of inadvertence, mistake or misc hance[

— a] mistake of the law consisting of belief that the appeal did not need to be perfected until after the [trial] court made findings of fact.” We continued the appeal with the motions pending. But as Appellees point out in their motion to dismiss th e appeal, the notice of appeal was filed more than fifteen days late. Consequently, Appellant’s reasonable explanation for the late notice of appeal does nothing to entitle Appellant to an appeal. 4 Accordingly, we grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss this a ppeal for want of jurisdiction, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction, 5 and we dismiss Appellant’s motions as moot.

PER CURIAM
PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.
DELIVERED: March 15, 2012

4 See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997).

5 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).