alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Acting NRO Director Appoints External 

Review Panel

17 April 1996

Washington, DC -- Keith R. Hall, the deputy director and acting director of the National 

Reconnaissance Office (NRO), has commissioned a panel to review the NRO's current 

organizational structure and make recommendations regarding its role in the 21st century. 

Retired U.S. Navy Admiral David Jeremiah, former Vice Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff and 

now President of Technology Strategies and Alliances, will head the panel. The panel's 

Executive Secretary will be Mr. Mike Munson, former Deputy Director of the Defense 

Intelligence Agency. Other panel members are: 

• Mr. Stephen Friedman, a member of the Aspin-Brown Commission on the U.S. 

Intelligence Community and Senior Chairman and Limited Partner of Goldman, Sachs, & 

Co. 

• Mr. Tony Iorillo, Chairman of the American Mobile Satellite Corporation Board of 

Directors and former Senior Vice President of Hughes Aircraft Company 

• Mr. John McMahon, former Deputy Director of Central Intelligence and retired President 

and CEO of Lockheed Missiles and Space Company

• General Larry Welch, President and Chief Executive Officer of The Institute for Defense 

Analysis and former Air Force Chief of Staff

• Mr. Martin Faga, Senior Vice President and General Manager, Center for Integrated 

Intelligence Systems, MITRE Corporation and Director of the NRO from 1989 - 1993. 

In chartering the panel, Hall asked its members to review several major issues facing the NRO, 

the first one being to review the NRO's mission and strategic vision into the 21st century. In 

addition, the panel will address how the NRO can improve customer satisfaction, how the NRO 

should be organized and structured for its future mission and what existing and reengineered 

business practices and processes will be necessary to meet additional challenges. 

"The NRO's technical program is on track and the consolidation of assets in space and on the 

ground is clearly beneficial for the nation's intelligence requirements," Mr. Hall recently stated in 

a town meeting to NRO employees. 

"The way the NRO has been conducting its business, however, needs a thorough review after 

nearly 30 years of evolution," he continued. 

"We want to retain the elements of the NRO that make it a dynamic space agency. At the same 

time, we need a candid look by outsiders to ensure the next director of the NRO has an 

organizational structure that meets the need of the customers, answers to increased executive and 

legislative oversight, and is responsive to new fiscal management policies."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       2,843,155
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,635,107
<ALLOWANCES>                                   256,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,618,126
<PP&E>                                         330,652
<DEPRECIATION>                                  85,053
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,863,725
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,229,025
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        61,432
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,573,268
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,863,725
<SALES>                                     10,733,089
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,733,089
<CGS>                                        5,849,460
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,166,802
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,635,836
<INCOME-TAX>                                   193,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,442,836
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,442,836
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          22,355
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                   274
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    521,287
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           3,420
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             3,499
<LOANS>                                        788,698<F1>
<ALLOWANCE>                                     11,950
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,455,283
<DEPOSITS>                                     668,330
<SHORT-TERM>                                   360,496
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             29,930
<LONG-TERM>                                    292,040
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            87
<OTHER-SE>                                     104,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,455,283
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 29,589
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               13,726
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   951
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                44,266
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              12,574
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,765
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           15,501
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      600
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 12,553
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,269
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,269
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,625
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .57
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.37
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,132
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   618
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                12,016
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      675
<RECOVERIES>                                         9
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               11,950
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            11,950
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,680
<FN>
<F1>LOANS HELD TO MATURITY
</FN>


</TABLE>
.e 

CONl'lfmt'f:E1cL :.. tt. 8. EY:EB ON:&¥ 

SUBJECT NUMBER 

USCIB: 5.4/21 

Subject: 

Item 7 of the Agenda for the 24th Meeting of USCIBEC, 

held on 28 January 1955. 

Semi-annual Report by the Executive Secretary, USCIB 

(USCIB 5.4/19). 

THE CHAIRMAN introduced this item by saying that his statement on 

the security of electrical transmissions (paragraph 5 of SECTION II A) 

i:s probably in error, and he proposed that it be amended to read as 

follows: 

11 5. The security of electrical transmissions of COMINT is 

still not satisfactory. It is considered that it is too soon to 

tell what beneficial effect, if a:ny, has resulted from CIBD #9, 

and the report b_y the Director, NSA, contained as an enclosure 

with USCIB l.'.3.5/81, dated .3 September 1954." 

The members congratulated the Executive Secretariat on its continued 

effective performance of its duties. 

DECISION: 28 January 1955) USCIBEC agreed to recommend approval of the 

semi-annual report by the Executive Secretary (USCIB 5.4/19), subject to 

the amendment noted above. 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 07-23-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

CONFllJEA'TIAL
**Exhibit 23.9**

 

**Consentof Eugene Puritch**

 

I consent tothe inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of North AmericanPalladium Ltd., which is being filed with the United States Securities andExchange Commission, of references to my name and to references to myinvolvement in the preparation of technical information relating to the SuhankoProject, Northern Finland, included in the 2007 Annual Information Form ofNorth American Palladium Ltd., dated March 31, 2008 (the “AIF”).

 

I also consentto the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form F-10(Nos. 333-147126, 333-146513 and 333-133668) of the references to my name andthe above-mentioned information in the AIF.

 

Dated this 28day of March, 2008.

 

 
|   |   /s/ Eugene Puritch |   |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|
| Name:  | Eugene  Puritch           |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer
of Biomet, Inc. (the "Company"), each hereby certifies that to his knowledge
on the date hereof:

(a)   The quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the Quarter Ended
      February 28, 2005 filed on the date hereof 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

(b)   Information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.

                                                   /s/  Dane A. Miller
                                                   -------------------
                                                   Dane A. Miller, Ph.D.
                                                   April 11, 2005

                                                   /s/  Gregory D. Hartman
                                                   -----------------------
                                                   Gregory D. Hartman
                                                   April 11, 2005


The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be deemed to be
considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
# CE2004084EN.01045101.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/451 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/451

---

(2004/C 84 E/0526)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0824/04

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Subject:   Vaccination of pet farm animals

Subject:

The number of hobby farmers in Europe is growing rapidly. There are already 250 000 hobby farmers in the Netherlands alone. These farmers own chickens, turkeys, guinea fowl, ducks, geese, swans, quails, pheasants, peacocks, partridges and walking birds (ostriches, emu and nandos) and doves that are not kept for consumption.

As a result of the outbreak of avian influenza in 2003, I asked the Commission a number of questions on the preventive culling of poultry kept by hobby farmers (Written Question E-1401/03 (1)).

1

In answer to my question, Commissioner Byrne indicated, on 2 June 2003, that the decision to introduce emergency vaccination around an outbreak may be taken by an affected Member State, following notification to the Commission. The Member State is free to choose between preventive culling and preventive vaccination, in both cases following notification to the Commission.

This means that, in practice, pet farm animals may be vaccinated.

The European Commission and the Council of Agriculture Ministers are currently drawing up a new law.

How will the position of hobby farmers be regulated in the new law: is there to be a separate status for pet farm animals (with the possibility of preventive vaccination), or will the possibility remain that pet farm animals will still have to be culled?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

(1 April 2004)

The Commission is in the process of assessing the outbreaks of avian influenza in the European Union during 2003 and the present outbreaks in Asia and North America. The lessons learned from these events and the opinions delivered by scientists will be the basis for drafting a proposal for a revised legislation on avian influenza, which the Commission intends to submit to the Parliament and the Council in 2004. In this framework the issue of vaccination of both commercial and hobby birds will be considered taking into account all relevant epidemiological, socio-economic and animal welfare implications. It is clear, however, that the Commission will have to consider also the evolution at international level in this field and in particular the standards of the OIE (Office International des Epizooties).

---

(1)  OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 196.

1

---
Present: 

Lt. Col. '!"'elker 

Major Jones 

Lr. Kullbsck 

Lr. Sinkov 

ltr. Rowlett 

Mr. Sterlin 

UIVILIAN f.Y-PLOYMI~JT DOARD 

~:~t~~ ~P~!~~ltfeide 23 July 1946, Room 117 

Heacquerters 

A re~uest for promotion of ~!r. Ja!I:es l!. Iiouglu s from e P-5 to a P-6, 

Technical Consultant to t~e Chief, Securjty tivision 1 was considered. The 

records of )3 employees :in ~races P-5 and P-l werC' reviewed end 5 of these were 

considered to have quelificatjons for the poeit.ian. '!'his null'.1:-~r v:as leter narrowed to the nemee of zf.r. r'Ju!$1Bs anC: ~r. Albert Smell. In consieering t.hese 

employeee the Boera discussed the ecvisability of de\'eloping speci.alist.s in s. 

certain operi:Jtin~ division end keeping thE"se Mghly t.rain*"d E>pecialists within 

the division as against the shifting of technical consultants from division to 

division in order to train them in the several phases of Ylork perforr.:ed by the 

different civisione in the ~~encyo 1he policy of broad training was sanctioned 

as a lon~ time goel, but it Yitis fel~ th.at present un~ettled conditions would 

favor retaining specialists in their current jobs or assigning the1:1 to ones 

along the pror:oticnel lines of a particular division. The fact th~t !y;r. Small 

is a P-6 on a job allocated ee P-5 ~as stressec •. It w2s indicated, ho?ever, 

thflt Mr. Small' e job is at present boine de~k e.udit.ec for review of s.llcc~tfon. 

The Board agreed tr.Rt if =·~r. S:nall'e position is allocatec at a P-6 he will 

Tcmain on that job and the requeEt fol" Mr. Dou!!les tc• be promoted to p ... 6, TechnicAl Consultant, in Security Division will be for~arded with the Eosrd 1s 

approval to the ChiE>f t A rrny Eecuri ty Ai[ency, for rPv:i ew. If l.:r. SJl"all 0 s job 

remains e p ... 5, the Board v:ill me~t sgafo to further coni=iider the case. 

JbL,,J 

I.:. GI.hNN ST:1 N 

Chejr.men, Civilian 

En:ploymen1. Eoe.rd 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 04-18-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
Exhibit (32)(2)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of C-COR Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 29 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William T. Hanelly, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 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; 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/ WILLIAM T. HANELLY                                     
|William T. Hanelly Chief Financial Officer February 7, 2007
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-13-0259 SAT Date: 2/15/2013 Print Date: 7/2/2013

Related cases :

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1-2 3 Health: ; Eco: based on measured value for (nearly ide n

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 3 11

Exposure Based Review : Health: N o Ecotox: N o
Routes of exposure : Health: Drinking Water Inhalation Ecotox: All releases to water Fate: ; Keywords : Keywords: MUTA, IRR-MM,E, UNCERT-ONCO, N EURO, AQUATOX-C
Summary of Assessment :
Fate : Fate Summary: P-13-0259 FATE:
S < 1 mg/L at 25 C (Analogs) VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E) BP > 400 C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption and possible partial biodeg Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg > mo Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strongPBT Potential: P3B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is nil through the skin and poor through the lungs and GI tract based on physical/chemical properties. Expect poor hydrolysis in the stomach with poor release of By analogy to there is low concern for acute toxicity (oral and dermal routes LD50 = 16 g/kg), systemic effects, and reproductive/developmental toxicity. The analog has a NOEL of 1000 mg/kg in a combined repeated dose/reproductive/developmental toxicity screening test (EPA Hazard Characterization Document, March 2011). This analog is positive in an ip mouse micronucleus assay. The PMN material is expected to be irritating to mucous membranes and there is uncertain concern for oncogenicity based on the positive result in the micronucleus assay and possible release of in the stomach. There is also some concern for neurotoxicity based on possible release of and by analogy to which caused inhibition of brain esterase at 520 p pm in a 90-day dietary neurotoxicity study in rats with a NOEL of 207 p p m (8e-12806). Low moderate concern.

Ecotox :
Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 * daphnid 48-h LC50 * green algal 96-h EC50 * fish

_ chronic value * daphnid

_ chronic value * 0.035 nearly identical algal

_ chronic value *
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for Stable @ p H 7; MW 822; with unknown mp (P); S < 0.001 g/L (P); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and measured concentrations; hardness < 150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) 4

SARs SAR ClassEcotox Category N one
Ecotox Factors Comments:

SAT Chair: Becky Jones
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

December 10, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00823

- CR

Jake Eric ALVARADO, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18

- 04

- 12822

- CR Honorable Camile Glasscock Dubose, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The appellant’s brief is due to be filed in each of these appeals on January 2, 2019. Appellant ’s attorney has filed an unopposed motion for extension of time to file the brief requesting a sixty

- day extension of time due to his workload. This court generally grants extensions in thirty

- day increments; however, the motion is GRANTED. Because this order grant s a sixty

- day extension, THIS IS THE FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME THAT THE APPELLANT WILL BE GRANTED . The Appellant’s b rief must be filed by March 2, 2019.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 10th day of December, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
# CE2004088EN.01015401.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/154 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/154

---

(2004/C 88 E/0164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3635/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Cabo Verde — special status vis-à-vis the EU

Subject:

On 24 November the Prime Minister of Cabo Verde completed a working visit to Portugal, following official stays in other EU countries (Luxembourg, the Netherlands and France), the purpose of which was to raise awareness amongst those countries' authorities with a view to securing a special status for his country vis-à-vis the European Union.

According to press reports the Portuguese Prime Minister expressed the view (at the end of his meeting with José Maria Neves) that Cabo Verde ‘has a special role to play in providing a link between Africa and Europe’ and that ‘by virtue of its political development (Cabo Verde is an exemplary democracy), its cultural development, its strong human links with certain European countries (Portugal in particular) and its very location, Cabo Verde is a country which we could in some ways describe as Euro-African’.

As a basis for establishing the above-mentioned special status, the Cabo Verde Prime Minister referred to his country's ‘Atlantic vocation’, its presence in Europe ‘in the form of emigrant communities’ and its proximity to Europe ‘by virtue of the Macaronesia Islands’ (a geographical area encompassing the Portuguese archipelagos of Madeira and the Azores and the Spanish archipelago of the Canary Islands.

The Commission:

| — | is it aware of the Cabo Verde initiative which is described above; |
| --- | --- |

—

is it aware of the Cabo Verde initiative which is described above;

| — | what has it to say on the subject; |
| --- | --- |

—

what has it to say on the subject;

| — | what action would it advise Cabo Verde to take in order to ensure that its proposal is accepted? |
| --- | --- |

—

what action would it advise Cabo Verde to take in order to ensure that its proposal is accepted?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2004)

(19 January 2004)

The Commission has never been notified in a formal way by the authorities of Cape Verde of this matter. However, the Commission is aware that the Cap-Verdian authorities, in the course of recent visits to the capitals of some Member States, have raised these issues. The Commission is also aware that the Portuguese authorities have shown openness to the question of creating a working group ‘to examine the different aspects of this question’.

---