alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
JAGO 

REF ID:AlOl-3"!3 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARUI 

omcE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCAGE GENERAL 

Washington 25, DC 

DEX: 18 1952 

SUBJECT1 H. R. 5728 "J'or The Relief or William F. Friedman." 

T01 National Securit7 Ageno7 

Washington 25, D. c. 

AT'l'N1 )02L 

1. This letter is written pursuant to telphone oOll'V'ersation of 17 December 1952 between Ir. H. B. stautter ot your office, 

and Lt. Baker or this ottice, with respeot to obtaining answers to 

certain queatiOD.8 raised b7 the Bureau or the Budget ralaUw to the 

recommendation made b7 the Department ot the Any on subject bill. 

In that conversation two queations f1ooll the Bureau ot Budget memorandm were presented to 70u and are as toll.cnrs1 

•1. lere goyernment time and materials and the aid 

ot other gonrnaent empl07Ms uad by the claiant 

in dneloping hie inYentiou? 

•2. Although not directed to invent, were the oldllant•s inventiou 'direoti,. related to his 1ederal 

employment•?• 

2. .l ooaplete rerlew of the files 1n this ottioe dealing with 

the abOYe subject tails to reTeal coaplete annen to the noted 

questions. There is some evidence bearing on question •· 2J how• 

ever, your opinion, together with pertinent taeta 1n support thereof', 

is desired. 

). Other quations raised br the Bureau ot the Budpt bear on 

the relationship ot subjeet bill to lawa resulting ho• other bills 

supported by the Depart;•nt ot De.tense, answers to which M7 be 

found 1n files of this of:tloec 

4. thlder the circumstances ot this oase, it will be appreciated if the desired report on the above q•ations is f'urnished 

at the earliest practicable date. 

FOR THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GE:mlltt 

/a/ Gllorge F. Westerman 

GEORGE r. WESTERIWl 

Major, JlOC 

Chief', Patents Division 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 08-05-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

II JOHN WOOD,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2022-1947

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:16-cv-01383-EDK, Chief Judge Elaine Kaplan.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

II John Wood moves to voluntarily dismiss this appeal 

“without prejudice.” ECF No. 5 at 1.

The court notes that its practice is generally not to indicate whether dismissal of an appeal is with or without 

prejudice. 

Accordingly,

Case: 22-1947 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 10/07/2022
2 WOOD v. US

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted to the extent the appeal is 

reactivated and dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs. 

October 7, 2022 

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: October 7, 2022

Case: 22-1947 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 10/07/2022
lIBF- ID :A38748 .. MEMO ROUTING SLIP I .R USE l!OR APPROVALS, DISAPPROVALS, 

URRBNCES, OR SIMILAR ACTIONS 

1 NAME OR TITLE Mr. w. F. Friedman INITIALS CIRCULATE 

ORGANIZATION AND LOCATION DATE COOR DINA TION 

2 FILE 

x INFORMATION 

3 NECESSARY 

ACTION 

NOTE AND RETURN 

4 SEE ME 

SIGNATURE 

I 

REMARKS 

FROM NAME OR TITLE Executive Secretary, EXSAB ~j Dec 55 ORGANIZATION AND LOCATION 17-131 TE~g~~ 

D D FORM 9 4 REPLACES NME FORM 9' I fEB 49 WHICH MAY BE USED l&--ll62Ga-'.l ••0 -t. 1 FEB 50 [pproved for Release by NSA on 09-12-2013 pursuant to E .0. 1352EJ 
REF ID:A38748 - - ----- .. • STANDARD FORM NO.SI e e 

Office Memorandum . uNITEn sTATEs GOVERNMENT 

TO Members of EXSAB DATE 22 December 1955 

PB.OM Executive Secretary, EXSAB 

SUBJECT EXSAB Meeting 

The meeting of the Executive Group for NSA Scientific Advisory Board Affairs 

w.Ul be held at 09.30 on 12 January 1955 in room 17-131, NSS, instead of 9 January 

a.s originaJ.l.y scheduled. 

Mr. John c. McPherson, Chairman of the Board, WJ.11 attend this meeting. 

Copy to: 

Mr. W. F. Friedman 

Dr. H. H. Campaigne 

, / twL1: (. i- ~ .. '- '-' .1 WARR£NCC"~RNER, Ji<.$46 

Assistant to the Chief 

Office or Research and Developnent
# CE2004084EN.01039803.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/398 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/398

---

(2004/C 84 E/0462)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0436/04

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 February 2004)

Subject:   EURO 2

Subject:

Under Directive 1999/96/EC (1) stricter emission limits for new heavy goods vehicles will be introduced in two phases. In the first phase, EURO 4, nitrogen oxide emissions will have to decrease by 30 % and particulate emissions by 80 % of current levels from 2006 onwards.

1

The second phase, EURO 5, which will apply to all new heavy goods vehicles from October 2009, requires a 60 % reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions. The Commission is also looking at a further phase in reducing emissions, EURO 6, which is being considered for 2012-2013.

When is the Commission thinking, for example, of applying these standards, which aim to reduce emissions from new vehicles only, to older vehicles in the EURO 2 category or taking these highly polluting vehicles off the road?

---

(1)  OJ L 44, 16.2.2000, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Gregory S. Furness, Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Delphax Technologies
Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                                                     |  | 
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Dated: May 14, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Gregory S. Furness                              |  | 
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | Gregory S. Furness                                  |  | 
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer |  |
EXHIBIT 32.1



SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

CEO CERTIFICATION



In connection with the annual report of Almaden Minerals Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),

I, Morgan Poliquin, Chief Executive Officer of  the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/Morgan Poliquin



Name: Morgan Poliquin

Title: Chief Executive Officer

March 31, 2011
# CE2004078EN.01061501.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/615 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/615

---

(2004/C 78 E/0649)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3626/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Opening up the labour markets in the Member States

Subject:

The accession treaty with the candidate countries includes transitional measures relating to the access which EU citizens from the new Member States will enjoy to the labour markets of the present Member States.

Member States are permitted to open up their labour markets earlier than agreed.

This could result in very different situations from one Member State to another, which could distort competition between businesses.

Would not some coordination of the positions of the Member States in this regard be desirable? Will the Commission assume a coordinating role here?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

(28 January 2004)

According to the transitional arrangement agreed in the Accession Treaty, for the first two years following the accession of the new Member States, free movement or workers under Community law will not apply, and access to the labour markets of any present Member State will depend on the national law and policy of those States, as well as on the bilateral agreements they may have with the new Member States. This means that during the transitional period Union citizens from new Member States who want to work in the Union might need to obtain work permits, depending on the national law of the Union country where they want to work. Some Member States have indicated that they intend to fully open their labour markets to workers from all the new Member States. Other present Member States intend to allow more restrictive access, which will differ depending on the new Member State in question. This transitional arrangement does not apply to Cyprus and Malta.

The Commission believes that such agreement provides the present Member States with the possibility to continue to apply the provisions currently in force vis-à-vis each of the new Member States. Therefore, the situation concerning possible distortion of competition would not worsen the present situation in this respect. Furthermore, according to the provisions of the Accession Treaty, before the end of the two-year period following the date of accession, the Commission will have to address a report to the Council on the functioning of these transitional provisions.

The Commission believes that a timely communication from the present Member States of their decisions on the applicable national legislation would help the citizens of both the present and the new Member States to better understand the conditions created by enlargement in this area. The Commission will closely monitor the implementation of the Accession Treaty provisions in this field.

---
REF ID:A38754 

Dr. 8. Kullback 

Executive Secretar.r 

NSA Sc1ent1t1c Advisory Board 

lfationaJ. Securi 'b7 Agency 

Washington 25, D. C. 

Dear Dr. Kullback: 

310 Second Street~ S.E. 

Washington 3, D. c. 

i9 October 1956 

Receipt ot 70ur le1;ter ~ 23 October 1956 :I.a 

aoknowleqed. 

I expect to attend 1;he two-de¥ meeting on 

13 and 14 December i956 .. 

Bincere:cy-, 

WILLIAM F. FRIEDMAN 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 09-11-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7302

EDWARD JAMES EGAN, SR., 

Petitioner – Appellant, 

v. 

GENE JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of 

Corrections, 

Respondent – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief 

District Judge. (7:10-cv-00336-gec-mfu) 

Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 20, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Edward James Egan, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Edward James Egan, Sr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Egan has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 18 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 18

 To prohibit authorized committees and leadership PACs from employing 
  the spouse or immediate family members of any candidate or Federal 
               office holder connected to the committee.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 6, 2015

  Mr. Vitter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
         referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit authorized committees and leadership PACs from employing 
  the spouse or immediate family members of any candidate or Federal 
               office holder connected to the committee.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON EMPLOYMENT OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF A CANDIDATE 
              OR FEDERAL OFFICE HOLDER BY CERTAIN POLITICAL COMMITTEES.

    (a) In General.--Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
1971 (52 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
324 the following new section:

``SEC. 325. PROHIBITION ON EMPLOYMENT OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF A CANDIDATE 
              OR FEDERAL OFFICE HOLDER BY CERTAIN POLITICAL COMMITTEES.

    ``(a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any authorized 
committee of a candidate or any other political committee established, 
maintained, or controlled by a candidate or a person who holds a 
Federal office to employ--
            ``(1) the spouse of such candidate or Federal office 
        holder; or
            ``(2) any immediate family member of such candidate or 
        Federal office holder.
    ``(b) Immediate Family Member.--For purposes of subsection (a), the 
term `immediate family member' means a son, daughter, stepson, 
stepdaughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, mother, father, stepmother, 
stepfather, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother, sister, stepbrother, 
or stepsister of the Member.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 2. SPOUSE LOBBYING MEMBER.

    Section 207(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
            ``(10) Spouses.--Any person who is the spouse of a Member 
        of Congress and who was not serving as a registered lobbyist at 
        least 1 year prior to the election of that Member of Congress 
        to office and who, after the election of such Member, knowingly 
        lobbies on behalf of a client for compensation any Member of 
        Congress or is associated with any such lobbying activity by an 
        employer of that spouse shall be punished as provided in 
        section 216 of this title.''.
                                 <all>
```
# CE2004088EN.01018302.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/183 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/183

---

(2004/C 88 E/0190)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0413/04

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) and Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject:   Migrating birds and Habitat Directives with regard to the republic of Malta

Subject:

In May of this year Malta will be joining the European Union. It is alleged that Malta is making little effort to enforce the EU Bird and Habitat directives. The bi-annual slaughter of exhausted migrating birds of prey continues unabated.

Will the Commission join Parliament in condemning Malta for its stance on this important issue and take effective action to ensure that the Maltese authorities fulfil their obligations in the area of nature protection and animal welfare?

This issue is especially important, as next year is the 25th anniversary of the Bird and Habitat Directives which many individuals, organisations, agencies and governments have fought to introduce and implement.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

(12 March 2004)

Malta will be required to implement and enforce the Wild Birds Directive as from its accession on 1 May 2004, with the exception of the transition period granted for the trapping of seven species of finches until 31 December 2008 to allow Malta to establish a full captive breeding system. If Community legislation is not implemented and enforced from the first day of membership, the Commission will take the necessary action to achieve Malta's compliance with existing Community legislation and procedures.

In the meantime, the Commission has already specifically drawn the attention of the Maltese authorities to the problem of weak enforcement of the existing legislation on the protection of birds. While the Maltese Ornis Committee (Committee in charge of bird protection) has taken steps such as the establishment of a warden system, to better enforce the legislation, the Commission has pointed out that priority should be given to produce a comprehensive strategy for the enforcement of legislation. The Commission continues to monitor and report on the progress made by Malta in working towards compliance with obligations stemming from the Birds Directive, and has published a strategy for monitoring the process leading up to the first day of membership.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                            5259
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       20
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  5278
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    5278
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               39
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        5240
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      5278
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   143
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    51
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     91
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 91
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        91
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.19


</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 10033]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3968]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7762]

Advisory Committee International Postal and Delivery Services

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice; FACA Committee meeting announcement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: As required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 
92-463, the Department of State gives notice of a meeting of the 
Advisory Committee on International Postal and Delivery Services. This 
Committee has been formed in fulfillment of the provisions of the 2006 
Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (Pub. L. 109-435) and in 
accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 20, 2012, 
from 1 to 5 p.m.
    Location: The American Institute of Architects, 1735 New York Ave. 
NW., Washington, DC 20006.
    Public input: Any member of the public interested in providing 
public input to the meeting should contact Mr. Matthew Hillsberg, whose 
contact information is listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section of this notice. Each individual providing oral input is 
requested to limit his or her comments to five minutes. Requests to be 
added to the speaker list must be received in writing (letter, email or 
fax) prior to the close of business on March 13, 2012; written comments 
from members of the public for distribution at this meeting must reach 
Mr. Hillsberg by letter, email or fax by this same date. A member of 
the public requesting reasonable accommodation should make the request 
to Mr. Hillsberg by that same date.
    Meeting agenda: The agenda of the meeting will include a review of 
the results of the November 2011 UPU Council of Administration and the 
February-March 2012 joint session of the UPU Postal Operations Council 
and Council of Administration, issues and proposals related to the 2012 
UPU Congress, and other subjects related to international postal and 
delivery services of interest to Advisory Committee members and the 
public.
    For further information, please contact Mr. Matthew Hillsberg of 
the Office of Global Systems (IO/GS), Bureau of International 
Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State, at (202) 736-7039 or by 
email at HillsbergM@state.gov.

    Dated: February 14, 2012.
Patricia Lacina,
Director, Office of Global Systems, Bureau of International 
Organization Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-3968 Filed 2-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-19-P
```