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

O APPROVED F013- 

LEASE 1 JuLy12'9-i. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

OE YEKALH 502 26/1558Z' OCT 

R 261524Z 

fM OPCEN 

TO SSO DIA' 

SAFSS 

INFO STATE 'RC! 

EM 

BYEMAN TKH' CHANNELS ONLY CITE OPCEN 8012 • 

1. THE MEMORANDUM FROM. THE OFFICE OF THE UNDER .SECRETARY • 

CF STATE . ENTITLED, "AN OFFER OF INSPECTION OF THE MOW 'HAS,. BEE 

REV I EWED ALONG WITH THE EXCHANGE , OF MESSAGES CONCERNING *I 

• COMPARTMENTED HANDLING.. • ' 

2. THE MEMORANDUM MAY BE 'RETURNED TO t.TS' OR I GI NAL- STATUS AS. 

A SECRET DOCUMENT. • ITS USE WITHIN THE AD HOC .COMMI TTEE ON SPACE 

• POL ICY .WILL 'NOT REQUIRE?:;TALENT-KEYHCLE *CONTROL. ' • 

• 

• 

SS-4 

.SSZ-6 

SS;:6 

le via I 

trot Systeril Qt*
99-1099.

#### State v. Fink.

Stark App. No. 1998CA00348. Discretionary appeal allowed; *sua sponte,*cause held for the decision in 99-765, *State v. Suffecool,*Stark App. 1998CA00101; briefing schedule stayed.

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

would allow only on Propositions of Law Nos. Ill, IV, and V, and would hold for 99-765, *supra.*

F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.
REF ID:A243627B 

I Jmum. 

uepatQEA; OX 4be111'1.t:l~a 1ax· 7o8, l'ille Ball 

Priileoton Unive:r11v 

Princeton, lev Jeraq 

Deu-0 

17 leptember l954 

I he4 hoped that you vou.14 tiod timtl to OOD¥J over/tor 

a oha"t &tter your lfA.Ta pl.i\.lw brought lQU be.ck to W~ 

but appann~ ;you took oft riaht •• tOX' hOllB. 

% 1'11.Ute4 to learn 1~ -re.taions at 10ur v1.;1i t abroa4 

'lbUe 1'reah 1.n ~ mtm. Jmt ti.t can vait un.tU. ;your aat 

visit her4J., I do 11ant to •k 7ou to drop m a .. l.im or two 

l"1aht ~ cm the tollovb:li e.tter. 

. ";JO~ that fOU. bad 101» IO!'t of' pl.an involv!lJg l•na to Princetoo., which YOUl4 •&n1 ot cou.-rae, 

h!e:V tba organisation tor 11h1ch :tat· 1• DOV vork,U)g. , i'u:rther, t.bat you talked abo'\lt 10\U" idea Vith 

Vben JOU AV him. zeceu.t~ • M fOU &l.rea.'11' Jmov, 

07 quite tl"iezuU.7 relat1cma vitb the directorate or 

tba orp.nisation that employ• h1m, an4 w voul4n' t want 

lU'J;Yth:lJ:la to come up to 41sturb tholle &ood. l"*laticma ..... au.ch 

M one of our own tamily 4otq •~thi?l8 tba't sd&bt ca.use 

one ot their *>st. capable peoplo to leave their orpn1aa.t1o.u. 

Would 

~ 

f01.l tberetore wr.tte me a't OtJ..Ce and tell me 1'bat, ~ 

.. 1011 tol4 I I 

Jlop1Dg to hear trOlll 10'.\ aoon, 1-., 

tUicerelf, 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 07-22-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

'pL 86-36/50 USC 3605
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1872

WAYNE TRAYWICK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HOOD LAW FIRM,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(2:16-cv-00730-DCN)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayne Traywick, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Wayne Traywick appeals from the district court’s order 

affirming the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to 

sua sponte dismiss Traywick’s complaint as frivolous. In the 

complaint, Traywick sought to relitigate his dismissal from 

dental school with essentially the same claims he raised in a 

prior action, which the district court denied in 1995. He also 

sought to nullify the 1995 judgment for fraud on the court under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3).

Because Traywick is neither a prisoner nor proceeding in 

forma pauperis in district court, the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1915(e)(2), 1915A (2012), permitting sua sponte dismissal of 

complaints that fail to state a claim, do not apply. See

Stafford v. United States, 208 F.3d 1177, 1179 n.4 (10th Cir. 

2000); Porter v. Fox, 99 F.3d 271, 273 n.1 (8th Cir. 1996). A 

court has, however, inherent authority to dismiss frivolous 

complaints. See Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 

296, 307-08 (1989) (“Section 1915(d) . . . authorizes courts to 

dismiss a frivolous or malicious action, but there is little 

doubt they would have power to do so even in the absence of this 

statutory provision.”) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

We find that the district court properly used its inherent 

authority to dismiss Traywick’s complaint as frivolous and 

duplicative. We also find that Traywick did not allege fraud on 
3

the court warranting postjudgment relief under Rule 60(d)(3). 

We therefore affirm the district court’s order. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
Major JNme C. Moore Jr~ 

~era 

Air eomnsnd and Sta.tt Sehoo.l 

Couiitl>ni cations l>1 via ion 

Ma.xveU Air Poree J9e.le, Alabam 

Iear Major ~t 

Jteceipt err YOUl' letter ot .l3 Au.suet 19!>4 1a acknav~. 

:t Yill 'be glad to uaiet rou 1u 9.Z\V' way l can \lUt at too 

4uty 

JQOment

OV'ftraea.a 

1 aince 

and 

l be.ve 

have 

Ju.at 

been 

thU 

gone ~ tor 

ntunied 

•ix o:r 

troan 

ffVen 

~ 

veekS, it 

Yill be p,ecee~ that I poatpone tor & tw ds¥• pther:1lJ6 

together mater1-l which~ be helpful to you. Your letter 

toee not •to.te when fOU an acb.ed.uled to give the talk, but 

I ilzeaine )'OU v1ll have leVeral weeks for lU"*Paration. 1 

th1hk that l •boul.4 be able to dig up a tev good. ~lei 

Vhi<:h ~ aerve 70ur pttrposes. 

!1bank you tor tho 'bite Qt intonation t:1t a peraona.l 

na:turo, vhieh I t'ot.:m.d U..tereating. 

'Within a •hort the '¥QU Yill hear t'ro= lllt qain. 

Col-tlial.ly, 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 07-17-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
<PAGE>   1

                                EXHIBIT 23(b)


                       CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

                                       49

<PAGE>   2
                                                                     Exhibit 23b

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


Emerald Financial Corp.


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-27731 and No. 333-27373 of Emerald Financial Corp. on Forms S-8 of our
report dated January 25, 1997 (which expresses an unqualified opinion and
includes an explanatory paragraph relating to a change in accounting for
mortgage servicing rights), incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Emerald Financial Corp. for the year ended December 31, 1997.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP


Cleveland, Ohio
March 26, 1998
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-82,935-01

IN RE JOSE ARTURO VERGARA, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 2011CR000560 D4 (A) IN THE 406TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM WEBB COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus

in the 406th District Court of Webb County, that more than 35 days have elapsed, and that the

application has not yet been forwarded to this Court.

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. Respondent, the District Clerk of Webb

County, is ordered to file a response, which may be made by submitting the record on such habeas

corpus application, submitting a copy of a timely filed order that designates issues to be investigated

(see McCree v. Hampton, 824 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that Relator has
2

not filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in Webb County. Should the response include

an order designating issues, proof of the date the district attorney’s office was served with the habeas

application shall also be submitted with the response. This application for leave to file a writ of

mandamus shall be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted the appropriate response. Such

response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.

Filed: March 18, 2015

Do not publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998           
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1998        
<CASH>                            1,372,900 
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                       186,300 
<ALLOWANCES>                         55,500 
<INVENTORY>                           9,200 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  1,556,100 
<PP&E>                              478,500 
<DEPRECIATION>                      373,800 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    2,392,800 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               611,100 
<BONDS>                             125,000 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0 
<PREFERRED>                               0 
<COMMON>                            335,900 
<OTHER-SE>                        1,320,800 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      2,392,800 
<SALES>                           2,423,900 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  2,423,900 
<CGS>                               944,900 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       944,900 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     18,000 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   30,600 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (548,800)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (548,800)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0 
<CHANGES>                                 0 
<NET-INCOME>                       (548,800)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.02)
                                


</TABLE>
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO **

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION      302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| 1. | I                have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A/2 of U.S. Energy                Systems Inc. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based                on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement                of a                material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make                the                statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements                were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this                report. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | Based                on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information                included in this report, fairly present in all material respects                the                financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the                registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this                report. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 44 (Friday, March 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 12162]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05254]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL15-42-000]


FortisUS Energy Corporation, Central Hudson Gas & Electric 
Corporation, Tucson Electric Power Company, UNS Electric, Inc., 
UniSource Energy Development Company; Notice of Institution of Section 
206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On February 27, 2015, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. 
EL15-42-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 
U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation concerning the 
justness and reasonableness of the Fortis MBR Sellers' market-based 
rates in the Tucson Electric balancing authority area.\1\ FortisUS 
Energy Corporation, et al., 150 FERC ] 61,153 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the purpose of this filing, the Fortis MBR Sellers 
include: FortisUS Energy Corporation; Central Hudson Gas and 
Electric Corporation; Tucson Electric Power Company (Tucson 
Electric); UNS Electric, Inc.; and UniSource Energy Development 
Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL15-42-000, established 
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication 
of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Dated: February 27, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-05254 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
----

(2004/C 84 E/0161)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3983/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(6 January 2004)

Subject:   Closure of the multiregional operational programme for water resources under Objective 1 for Italy in the context of the 1994-1999 Community Support Framework

Given that:

Can the Commission say:

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

We can inform the Honourable Member that the final assessment report from the national authorities reached us on 24 November 2003.

In his second question he speaks of the ‘final report’ and not of the ‘final assessment report’. These are in fact two different documents.

The ‘final report’, which is required before action can be taken to close the programme, was sent by Italy on 7 March 2003, i.e. within the time limit set in Article 52(5) 2nd subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (2).

In a note of 12 May we then asked for further information on this ‘final report’ and by a note of 24 November received a full reply from Italy.

On that basis we sent a proposal for closure to Italy on 4 December, and received Italy's assent to this on 16 January.

In reply to the Honourable Member's last question, the programme was closed in line with the Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 procedures.

----

(1)OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

----
Table H-9-1. OTC MM5 Meteorological Model Configuration 

Science Options Configuration Details/Comments 

Model Code MM5 Version 3.6 

Horizontal Grid Mesh 36km/12km 

36-km grid 149x129 cells 

12-km grid 175x175 cells 

Vertical Grid Mesh 29 layers 

Grid Interaction No feedback Two-way nesting 

Initialization Eta first guess fields/LittleR 

Boundary Conditions Eta first guess fields/LittleR 

Microphysics Simple Ice 

Cumulus Scheme Kain-Fritsch 36km/12km grids 

Planetary Boundary Layer High-resolution Blackadar PBL 

Radiation Simple cooling 

Vegetation Data USGS 24 Category Scheme 

Land Surface Model Five-Layer Soil model 

Shallow Convection None 

Sea Surface Temperature Do not update SST 

Thermal Roughness Default 

Snow Cover Effects None 

4D Data Assimilation Analysis Nudging: 36km/12km 

Integration Time Step 75 seconds 

Simulation Periods 2002 

Platform Linux Cluster Done at UMD
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7887

SHAWN A. CLARK, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

WARDEN MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 

 Respondent – Appellee, 

 and 

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 

 Respondent. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(3:07-cv-01755-TLW) 

Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 23, 2009 

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Shawn A. Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant 

Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

2 
3 

PER CURIAM: 

Shawn A. Clark seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) 

(2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El 

v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th 

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Clark 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 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
-.,. -

REF ID:AlOllfl 

- SIGNAL·CORPS PATENT BOARD 

MEETING NO. 12 April 17, 1936 

I. 1. The Board met at 2:30 P.M., this date, in Room 3435, 

Munitions Building. Present: All members. 

2. The purpose of this meeting was to take action and 

make the necessary recommendations with reference to inventions of William F. Friedman. Said inventions relate to imirovements or modifications in mechanical cipher devices, 

Converters M-134-Tl and M-134-T2". 

3. The Board finds that: 

a. The invention of Mr, Friedman covering a modification in Converter type M-134-Tl is a modification of an 

invention of Messrs. William F. Friedman and George A. Graham, 

Patent #2,028,772 (January 28, 1936.) 

b. The patent referred to above was granted by the 

Commissioner of Patents under authority contained in Section 

4886 of the Revised Statutes and that the War Department was 

given a non-exclusive license thereto and that the War Department did not request a complete assignment. 

c. The Board recommends: 

(1) 

(2) 

That the action proposed by Mr. Friedman in 

paragraph 2 of his memorandum of March 24, 

1936, to Research and Development Division 

(through War Plans and Training Division) 

be approved, and that Mr. Friedman be 

instructed to submit specifications to the 

Patent Section for the necessary action 

with a view to obtaining letters Patent. 

Th.at the invention be not considered important in the National Defense, and that 

a non-exclusive license to the Government, 

1n writing, be required. 

II. 1. The Board finds that: 

a. The invention of Mr. Friedman covering modifications 1n a cipher device known as, "Converter M-134-T2", covers 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 08-05-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 
• • .. 

----R&F- ID:A101194 

• 

improvements in a device now being prosecuted under patent application #682,096, and under which several claims have 

been allowed. 

b. Whereas, the original invention was not considered 

or such importance as to be placed in the category which pro- vides for its being kept secret, the improvements described 

in the description accompanying his memorandum of March 23, 

1936, to Research and Development Division{, through War Plans 

and Training Division, are considered as, 'Important in the 

National Defense." 

c. The Board recommends: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

Roger B. Colton, 

That the application for patent covering modification in Converter M-134-T2 be 

prosecuted under the provision of Section 

4886 of the Revised Statutes; 

That, under the provisions of paragraph 6 a, 

AR-850-50, December 31, 1934, a complete assignment be requested, and, 

That the invention be kept secret. 

Lt. Col., Signal Corps President 

George I. Back 

Captain, Signal Corps Member 

W • S. Rumbough Major, Signal Corps Member 

APPROVED: 

Walter C. Ellis 

Major, Signal Corps Recorder. 

J. B. Allison 

Major General 

Chief Signal Officer of the Army 

2
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of
Trinity Biotech plc (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronan OCaoimh, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 result of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ RONAN OCAOIMH *   
|Ronan OCaoimh         
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|March 25, 2015         



|* | The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the Companys offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except
to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Trinity Biotech plc for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
99-1307.

#### State v. Pariscoff.

Fairfield App. No. 97CA41. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.