alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# CE2004084EN.01013501.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/135 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/135

---

(2004/C 84 E/0173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4032/03

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject:   UK contribution to the EU budget

Subject:

What is the UK's gross contribution to the EU budget since it became a member in 1973?

How much money has the UK received from the EU budget since it became a member in 1973?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

(30 January 2004)

A table showing:

| — | the United Kingdom's gross contribution (total United Kingdom payments, after deduction of the United Kingdom budgetary rebate) to the Community budget during the period 1973-2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

the United Kingdom's gross contribution (total United Kingdom payments, after deduction of the United Kingdom budgetary rebate) to the Community budget during the period 1973-2002;

| — | total funds received by the United Kingdom from the Community budget during the period 1985-2002; as well as; |
| --- | --- |

—

total funds received by the United Kingdom from the Community budget during the period 1985-2002; as well as;

| — | the amount of the United Kingdom correction relating to each of the years 1985-2002; is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat. |
| --- | --- |

—

the amount of the United Kingdom correction relating to each of the years 1985-2002; is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament's Secretariat.

Figures on total funds received by the United Kingdom from the Community budget are only available from 1985, i.e. since the entry into effect of the current United Kingdom correction mechanism.

---
# Acquisition Research Center

# Acquisition Research Center

NRO's Acquisition Research Center (ARC) enables businesses interested in doing business with the NRO. The ARC is maintained by the NRO Acquisition Center of Excellence (ACE), which provides resources, such as a reading room and points of contact

The ARC is your portal for business opportunities for acquisitions across the Intelligence Community. It provides search capabilities to identify companies doing business with the NRO and allows you to market your corporate capabilities directly for potential subcontracting opportunities.

### **Acquisition Center of Excellence**

          - The ACE operates, executes, and maintains the ARC
          - Biannually the ACE hosts an industry overview in Chantilly, Virginia to answer questions on doing business with the NRO and opportunity to meet government and industry associates
          - One-on-one sessions are available to brief corporate capabilities with NRO
          - The ACE offers a classified reading room and points of contact identified by function

### **Resources to get you started**

Once you register for SAM and an unclassified ARC account, you will have the ability to apply for a classified ARC account. Below are resources to help:

LINKS TO: ACE TRAINING VIDEOS | ARC REGISTRATION BRIEF | ARC USER MANUAL | ARC FAQS

----

****

## **A DECLASSIFIED HISTORY**

The history of the NRO is a story of how opportunity, necessity, and determination converged to produce an intelligence organization unlike any that had come before.
Learn our History
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                         CMC SECURITIES CORPORATION IV
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-3 No. 33-47912) of CMC Securities Corporation IV pertaining to the issuance of
a maximum $2 billion aggregate principal balance of collateralized mortgage
obligations and in the related prospectus and prospectus supplements of our
report dated January 22, 1997, with respect to the financial statements of CMC
Securities Corporation IV included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 1996.



                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Dallas, Texas
March 14, 1997
REF ID:A59247 • 

USCIB: 13.5/100 

2 March 1955 

MEMORANPUM FOR TUE MEMBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: Approval of USCIB 13.5/98 dated J4 February 1955. 

• 

No objection having been raised to the subject paper prior to 

12001 23 February 1955, the USCIBEC decision referred to therein is 

considered approved by USCIB. 

USCIB: 1.3.5/100 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 02-21-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

24
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000350920
<NAME>             MEDIQ INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,466
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   73,701
<ALLOWANCES>                                    12,173
<INVENTORY>                                     22,906
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                98,548
<PP&E>                                         265,062
<DEPRECIATION>                                 163,689
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 320,421
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,586
<BONDS>                                        492,785
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          116,638
<PREFERRED>                                         30
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                   (334,573)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   320,421
<SALES>                                          8,591
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,450
<CGS>                                            6,444
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,245
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (106)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,257
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,946)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,378)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,568)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,568)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (8.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (8.54)
        

</TABLE>
# CE2004084EN.01058202.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/582 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/582

---

(2004/C 84 E/0659)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0402/04

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 February 2004)

Subject:   Crossborder hospital in La Cerdanya

Subject:

Recently, the Catalan and French health authorities obtained funding from the Interreg programme to investigate the viability and construction costs of a crossborder hospital in Puigcerdà, in La Cerdanya, a valley on the Franco-Spanish border.

Could the Commission tell me what stage has been reached with regard to the possible building of this crossborder hospital, which, should it go ahead, would help both to deepen the reality of European citizenship and improve the levels of healthcare provision available to the area's inhabitants?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

(30 March 2004)

Under the France-Spain Interreg III A programme EUR 45 000 was granted from the European Regional Development Fund for the study on the viability of creating a cross-border hospital at La Cerdanya. Carried out by the Languedoc-Roussillon Regional Council (project leader) and the Generalitat de Catalunya, it is now in the final stages.

At the moment therefore we await the study's findings. We favour part-financing of this type of project that can have a real lever effect on the quality of the daily life of border zone populations. In the case in point the question to be answered by the study is whether health resources and infrastructure can feasibly be pooled to the benefit of geographically adjacent populations.

---
REF ID:A67882 

USCIB: 5.2/76 

12 January 1955 

Ml!MORANDtJ.1 FOR THE MDI.BERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: 

Reference: 

Approval of the Minutes of the llOth Meeting of USCIB. 

USCIB ;.2/74 dated 28 December 1954. 

l. No objection to the reference having been received the 

' 

Tentative Minutes of the lloth Meeting of USCIB 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. 

. .. 

USCIB: 5.2/76 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 07-28-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

24
w~ SftfWos21. 

USCIB: 29.17/26 MkNf>LE VIA 6CMIN'f etittMlf.ELS ONLY 

10 May 1955 

TOP Sli:Cali:l' EO 3 . 3 ( h) ( 2 ) 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

MEMORANDUM. FOR THE MEMBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: CG1INT Relations with I .... ___ t 

Reference: USCIB 29.17/25 dated 26 April 1955. 

1. In the absence of objection to the reference the USCIBEC 

decision reported therein is considered approved. 

2. Pursuant to paragraph 2b of the reference the enclosed 

message has been sent to SUSLO. 

ain, • avy 

Executive Secretary, USCIB 

USCIB: 29.17/26 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 04-30-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352\3 

TOP SECRET 

24 
NOTE FRCM SECRETARIAT: 

Please staple the attached copy of WL 356 

to your copy of USCIB 29.17/26. It was 

inadvertently left off in preparation. 

TOP SECRET 

,., A 

'- .:..} 
., 

'f OP Sf!ORE'f 

10201SZ 

FM EXEC. SECY. USrJIB 

TO SUSLO, LONDON 

INFO DIRNSA 

WL 356 USCIB EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SENDS. IN REPLY YOL1R MEMO 

USL0-329, DATED 30 MARCH 55, REQUEST THAT YOU INFORM APPROPHIATE 

U.K. AUTHORITIES aF USCIB ACCEPT/I.NOE aF THE PROPOSALS CONTA:LNED IN 

PARA 4 'TIIERI!~OF. 

Enclosure with USCIB 29.17/26 dated 10 May 1955. 

TOP SECREr
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Guadalupe Lugo. v. Regions Bank, Ginger Lott, Temporary Guardian 

of the Person and Estate Pending Contest and Marissa Garcia, Guardian 

Ad Litem

Appellate case number: 01-22-00438-CV

Trial court case number: 382193

Trial court: Probate Court No. 4 of Harris County

Appellate cause number 01-22-00438-CV includes two notices of appeal. In the 

first notice of appeal, dated June 7, 2022, appellant, Guadalupe Lugo, seeks to appeal the 

trial court’s March 9, 2022 order granting an amended motion in limine filed by appellee, 

Regions Bank. In the second notice of appeal, dated October 17, 2022, appellant, Regions 

Bank, seeks to appeal the trial court’s October 13, 2022 order to pay attorney’s fees and 

expenses in favor of appellee, Newman Law Firm. 

On December 6, 2022, Regions Bank filed an unopposed motion to sever these two 

notices of appeal into separate appellate cause numbers. To expeditiously resolve these 

appeals, we order the following: 

We grant Regions Bank’s motion to sever, and we direct the Clerk of the Court to 

transfer the second notice of appeal, and any relevant records, into a new appellate cause 

number, 01-22-00936-CV, styled Regions Bank, Trustee of the Section 1301 Management 

Trust for Samantha Lugo v. Newman Law Firm. 

In appellate cause number 01-22-00438-CV, appellant Guadalupe Lugo’s brief is 

ORDERED to be filed no later than 30 days from the date of this order. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.6(a).

In appellate cause number 01-22-00438-CV, appellees Regions Bank, Ginger Lott, 

Temporary Guardian of the Person and Estate Pending Contest and Marissa Garcia, 

Guardian Ad Litem, brief(s), if any, are ORDERED to be filed within 30 days of the filing 

of appellant’s brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b).
In the new appellate cause number, 01-22-00936-CV, styled, Regions Bank, Trustee 

of the Section 1301 Management Trust for Samantha Lugo v. Newman Law Firm, it is 

further ORDERED that the District Clerk file with this Court, within 60 days of the date 

of this order, a clerk’s record containing the items specified in Texas Rule of Appellate 

procedure 34.5(a), and that the Court Reporter file with this Court, within 60 days of the 

date of this order, the reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.1.

Appellant Regions Bank, Trustee of the Section 1301 Management Trust for 

Samantha Lugo, brief in the new cause number is ORDERED to be filed within 30 days 

after the appellate record is complete. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a).

Appellee Newman Law Firm’s brief, if any, in the new cause number is ORDERED

to be filed within 30 days of the filing of appellant’s brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ______/s/ Julie Countiss________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___December 20, 2022_____
#### Petrie, Appellant, vs. Milwaukee Light, Heat *&*Traction Company, Respondent.

*January 8*

January *28, 1908.*

*Marsh v. Milwaukee L., H. & T. Go., ante,*p. 384, followed.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Waukesha county: James J. Dick, Circuit Judge.

*Reversed.*

The appeal is from a judgment rendered upon a verdict for the appellant upon an appeal to the circuit court from the award of commissioners in a condemnation proceeding.

For the appellant there was a brief by *Tullar & Loclcney,*and oral argument by *D. 8. Tullar*and *Henry Loclcney.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Ryan, Merton é Newdury,*attorneys, and *Clarice M. Rosecrante,*of counsel, and oral argument by *T. E. Ryan.*

Timlin, J.

This relates to a different award made in the same condemnation proceeding under consideration in *Marsh v. Milwaukee L., H. & T. Co., ante,*p. 384, 114 N. W. 804. The trial court charged the jury in this case as he did in the case last cited, and for this error the judgment must be reversed.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Argued April 10, 2018 

Decided April 26, 2018 

Before 

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge 

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge 

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 17-2868 

ERIC D. WANGER, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION, 

 Respondent.

 On Petition for Review of an Order of 

the Securities & Exchange Commission. 

No. 3-14676 

O R D E R 

In 2012, Eric Wanger consented to the entry of an order by the Securities and 

Exchange Commission (“Commission”) that barred him from the securities industry. 

The order afforded him the right to apply for reentry to the industry after one year. In 

2016, Wanger filed an application for consent to reenter the industry. The Commission 

denied his application on July 10, 2017. Wanger now petitions for review of the order 

denying his application, but his petition is untimely. 

A party must petition for review of a Commission order “within sixty days after 

the entry of [the] order.” 15 U.S.C. § 80b-13(a); see id. § 78y(a)(1). “The date of entry of a 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 
No. 17-2868 Page 2 

Commission order shall be the date the order is signed” by the Secretary or by another 

person authorized by the Commission. 17 C.F.R. §§ 201.140(a) & (c). That date “shall be 

reflected in the caption of the order.” Id. § 201.140(c). 

The caption date on the Commission’s order was July 10, 2017. This gave Wanger 

sixty days—until September 8, 2017—to file his petition. He ultimately filed the petition 

on September 11, three days after the statutory window closed. 

Wanger nonetheless insists that his petition is timely. He first argues that the 

statutory window could not have begun on July 10 because the Assistant Secretary did 

not sign the order until July 12. This argument finds no support in the record. In fact, a 

sworn declaration by Assistant Secretary Jill Peterson and internal Commission records 

confirm that Peterson digitally signed the order on July 10, 2017. 

Wanger then contends that Peterson’s “digital signature”—a digital image of a 

handwritten signature or a type signature in an electronic document—cannot serve as a 

signature. This argument is also meritless. Peterson’s digital signature is her signature. 

Such signatures are now commonplace and Wanger fails to direct this court to a statute 

or regulation that prohibits their use by the Commission. 

Finally, Wanger argues that it would be too harsh to dismiss the petition as 

untimely. Even if we agreed, we would be compelled to dismiss. It is likely that this 

limitations period is jurisdictional. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209–210 (2007). At 

minimum, however, the time bar is mandatory and binding. See, e.g., Clean Water Action 

Council of Ne. Wis., Inc. v. EPA, 765 F.3d 749, 753 (7th Cir. 2014). 

Accordingly, we DISMISS Wanger’s petition as untimely.
# CE2004084EN.01089801.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/898 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/898

---

(2004/C 84 E/0992)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0869/04

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Subject:   ECHO and Chechnya

Subject:

Many aid organisations which wish to provide humanitarian aid to people in the Chechnya region in Russia complain that the EU's humanitarian aid office ECHO does not process their aid applications sufficiently quickly and efficiently and that accordingly aid does not reach its destination. What criteria does ECHO apply to aid to Chechnya, and can the Commission accelerate the processing of aid applications from church and other organisations which provide humanitarian aid?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

(30 April 2004)

The Commission is not aware that many aid organisations which wish to provide humanitarian aid to people in Chechnya complain that the EU's Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) does not process their aid applications sufficiently quickly and efficiently.

ECHO, which is in charge of humanitarian aid to the Northern Caucasus, has never received such complaints. The Office is working with quick procedures which allow for a rapid signature of grant agreements and disbursement of funds.

The Commission adopts, in general, two funding decisions every year for the victims of the Chechnya conflict. These decisions are based on previous discussions with potential partners who are asked to submit concept papers where they explain which operations they would like to see funded by ECHO. ECHO then decides to retain a certain number of these on the basis of the needs, the experience of the non governmental organisation (NGO) and the coherence with ECHO'S strategy.

Once the decision has been adopted, and approximately one month before the start of the operation, ECHO asks the partner to submit a proposal. The proposal is then discussed in detail and a contract is signed in the following weeks. There is therefore no possibility to accelerate the processing of applications, which is already very short.

As for the destination of the aid, there are very strict mechanisms put in place by ECHO'S partners in order to ensure that the aid reaches the intended beneficiaries. Partners work on the basis of a list of beneficiaries, which is established after an assessment of the households' economy and needs. The aid is delivered directly to these beneficiaries, without an intermediary, which ensures that the people who are on the lists do receive what they are entitled to.

---
EX-10.2






Exhibit 10.2




AMENDMENT No 5 TO LETTER OF AGREEMENT DCT-026/2003



This Amendment No. 5 to Letter of Agreement DCT-026/2003, dated as of March 6, 2008 (“Amendment 5”)
relates to Letter Agreement DCT-026/2003 between Embraer — Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica S.A.
(“Embraer”) and JetBlue Airways Corporation (“Buyer”) dated June 9, 2003 as amended from time to
time (collectively referred to herein as “Letter Agreement”). This Amendment 5 is between Embraer
and Buyer, collectively referred to herein as the “Parties”.



This Amendment 5 sets forth the further agreement between Embraer and Buyer relative to
[***] ,
among other things. All capitalized terms used in this Amendment 5 and not
defined herein shall have the meaning given in the Purchase Agreement, and in case of any conflict
between this Amendment 5 and the Letter Agreement, the terms of this Amendment 5 shall control.



Now, therefore, for good and valuable consideration, which is hereby acknowledged, Embraer and
Buyer hereby agree as follows:




1. [***]



Pursuant to that Amendment No. 4 to Letter of Agreement DCT-026/2003, dated as of October 17, 2007
(“Amendment 4”), [***]:




     (a) [***]



     (b) [***]


All other terms and conditions of the Letter Agreement, which are not specifically amended by this
Amendment 5, shall remain in full force and effect without any change.




[Signature page follows]






 




			
	[***]	 	Represents material which has been redacted and
filed separately with the Commission pursuant to a request for confidential
treatment pursuant to Rule24b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.




 









 










     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Embraer and Buyer, by their duly authorized officers, have entered into and
executed this Amendment 5 to the Letter Agreement to be effective as of the date first written
above.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Embraer — Empresa Brasileira
de Aeronáutica S.A.	 	 	 	JetBlue Airways Corporation
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Mauro Kern Junior
	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ Mark D. Powers	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:

	 	Mauro Kern Junior
	 	 	 	Name:
	 	Mark D. Powers	 	 
	Title:

	 	Executive Vice President

Airline Market
	 	 	 	Title:
	 	Senior Vice President and
Treasurer	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ José Luís D. Molina	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:

	 	José Luís D. Molina	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Title:

	 	Vice President Contracts	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Airline Market	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Date:

	 	March 6, 2008
	 	 	 	Date:
	 	March 6, 2008	 	 
	Place:

	 	 	 	 	 	Place:
	 	Forest Hills, NY USA	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Witness:

	 	 	 	 	 	Witness:
	 	/s/ Adam L. Schless	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:

	 	 	 	 	 	Name:
	 	Adam L. Schless
5eJ&: 

~ Beriali 00470 

Dr. H. P. 'Robertson 

Director ot Bescarch, WS!G 

ottioe ot the Secretar.r ot De!enae 

The Pentaaon 

Washington 25, D. c. 

Dear Dr. !obertson1 

I am inclosing herewith, in accordance with pmr recent 

comrereation w.:l.th Dr. Cam.paigne, the publioat.iona ;rou 

desired. Inasmuch an they are not distributed outside the 

Agenc1' except under ciro1.1:1aStances such aa the present one, I 

8hall. have to aak that 70u restrict 'their use in accordance 

with the security regulations applicable to SCAG. Will 70u 

bo eo good as to e.1.gn the inclosed. receipt. ant return it to 

me at your earliest convenience? 

With oordial greotinga, I ara, 

linccrely 70ura, 

Incle. 5 

'IItLIAlf F. Flill.DJ!U 

Consultant, A.FSA 

l 88EP'l951 

l Receipt (in.dupl.) 

2-5 Publications as 

1.ndicated on 

attached. receipt 

~is document oontains intormation 

at'teoting the national detense ot 

the United States within the meaning ot the Espionage Laws, Title J , 

u.s.o., Sections 793 and 794. Tho 

transmission or the revelation of 

its contents in any manner to an 

Ull&uthorized person is prohibited 

by law .. ·see tlso Public· Law 513, 

• 81 r.n""""'~~ "''"'":"'"'~ ""sc;ion 

William F. Friedman/OOT/60439/ef/17 Sep 51 

i'' . . ' -- .-;.., 

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