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

REF ID:A44267 

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY 

FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, MARYLAND 

Serial: N 0919 

15 Mt\R f96f 

Ml!MORANDJM FOR THE ASSISI'.AN.r SECRErARY OF DEFENSE (I&L) 

SUBJEO'l': Kent Island Research and Development Project (U) 

REli'ERENCES: (a) ASD (P&I) Memo, Subject: Real Property Action • 

Disposal; Curtis Bq storage Activity, Mal7land1 

dtd 15 Jun 59 

(b) NSA Memo, Serial: N 3849, Subject: Disposal and 

Construction Facilities, Curtis Bq1 Maryland, 

dtd 14 Sep 59 

(c) ASD (P&I) Memo, Subject: Real Property Action -

eurt:Ls Bq Activity, Maryland (NSA Facilities), 

dtd 23 Oct 59 

1. The Research and Development project planned for CUrtis Bq was 

not implemented and the land lease permit provided the National Security 

.Agency has been terminated. The cost estimate ($3501 000.00) prepared by 

the Baltimore District F.gnineer as a part of the preljmin8J"1' design tor 

the Curtis Bq project was not economica.1J3 feasible. A surve;y was conducted to find another site which coul.d be economica.1J3 developed. Such 

a site was located at Kent Island, Mar,yland.1 and the Washington District 

Engineer has obtained a very tavorab~e tive-;rear renewable lease. 

I 

I 

2. It is requested that permission be granted to develop the Kent 

Island site in lieu ot Curtis Bq. An architect-engineer has rendered 

en engineering report on Kent Island and has estimated a total cost of 

$150,000.00 for the development of this project. 

3. National Security .Agency FI-61 RDl'&E funds in the amount of 

$501 000.00 will be used to implement this project. The first portion 

of the project consists of a power line 1 new road.1 siting and construe• 

tion of a 201 x 4o1 nonconductive (concrete masonry) building. A nonconductive building is essential for the effective accomplishment of 

the project. The remainder ot the project consis;ting of clearing, 

lll'Ubb:l.Dg Biid aoU atabU1zat1on 111811' f "'Et-~ later date. 

Vice .Admiral, USN 

Director 

Incl: 

Land Lease, Lease No. DA-49-030-ENG-5271 

Cop)" Furnished: 

General G. B. Erskine, USMC-Ret1 

Asst to SecDef / Sp Opns (Less Incl) 

OASD (COMP} (Less Incl} 

pproved for Release by NSA on 10-21-2013 

ursuant to E.O. 13526 
REF ID:A44267 

cc: MR·(Leaa Incl~~ ~-- •. 

NJ (Lesa Incl) 

Rea.d:J.Dg File (Leaa·Incl) 

COMP (Leas Incl) 

COMP-3 (Lesa Incl) 

R/D-02 (Lesa Incl) 

RADB-1 (Leas Incl) 

LOG (Leas Incl) 

LOG-3 (Leas IDcl) LOG-4 (Leas Incl) 

IDG-lt.2 (Leas Incl) 

• 

sen&l: . N. 0919 

M/B: Thia Mmo is a request to gain official. sanction from SecDef 

tor the construction at the Research and Developnent proJect at 

Kent Island 1D lieu ot CUrtis Bq. It also iDdicatea the estimated 

coat ot the project. If~, a project at this estimate falls 

within the catego17 at !CA projects. Bovever, it is felt that · 

RmU tuDda mq be ut~~·~ to expedite the project. 

--~""·.,..r _ f. . -- .. , "··~ -"l'~.~A. -~.f°\7\.Q !) .... • ...... 

Lt.Col. J. B. ~ t/IDG-4/3584/B Mar 6lf jz
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 26 , 2022

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 22

- 00218

- CV

DR. RHODESIER LASTRA P, LONNIE GLISPIE, R ACHEL TAYLOR,

AND DEBORAH WYNN , Appellant s

V.
UTOPIA LASTRAP , Appellee

On Appeal from the 61st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2021

- 45078

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellants Dr. Rhodesier Lastrap, Lonnie Glispie, Rachel Taylor, and Deborah Wynn bring a permissive appeal from an interlocutory order that is not otherwise appealable. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.3(c) provides that [t]he petition must be filed within 15 days after the order to be appealed is signed.” Tex. R. App. 28

. 3 (c). Under rule 28.3(d) “[t]he court of appeals may extend the t ime to file the petition if the party: (1) files the petition within 15 days after the deadline,2

and (2) files a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b).” Id. 28.3(d).

The interlocutory order appellants attempt to appeal was signed by the trial court on February 14, 2022. The deadline for appellants to have filed their petition was March 1, 2022. See id. 28.3(c). The deadline for appellants to have filed a
motion for extension of time, with the petition for permission to appeal the interlocutory order, was March 16, 2022. See id. 28.3(d). Appellants filed their notice of appeal on March 24, 2022

— more than thirty days after the order appellants want to appeal was signed and eight days after the deadline for requesting an extension to time to file their petition

. Appellants did not appeal the order until after the deadline for filing an extension had passed. Therefore, relator’s appeal is untimely. Moreover, a ppellants have not file d their petition for permission to appeal the February 14, 2022 interlocutory order

. See id.

We dismiss appellants’ interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction. Appellants’ motion to extend time to file their notice of appeal and appellee’s motion

to s trike the docketing statement are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Spain

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1953

JUDY SMITH,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; JAMES B. PEAKE, Secretary 

of Affairs; ERIC K. SHINSEKI,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, 

District Judge. (1:08-cv-00272-CCE-WWD)

Submitted: January 26, 2012 Decided: February 14, 2012

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Judy Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Joan Brodish Binkley, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Judy Smith appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the report of the magistrate judge and granting 

summary judgment to the Defendant in this employment 

discrimination action. The district court referred this case to 

a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 

2006 & Supp. 2011). The magistrate judge recommended that 

relief be denied and advised Smith that failure to file timely 

objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review 

of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Smith

has waived appellate review by failing to timely file objections

after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the 

judgment of the district court.

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.

AFFIRMED
# CE2004084EN.01077901.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/779 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/779

---

(2004/C 84 E/0875)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0350/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Travel agencies: repercussions of the Alitalia crisis on employment

Subject:

The crisis affecting Alitalia is likely to damage other sectors connected with air transport, in particular travel agencies.

The industrial restructuring plan under discussion at present envisages drastic cuts in the commission paid to agencies — from 7 % to 1 % on the sale of international tickets and from 3 % to 1 % on the sale of domestic tickets.

As reported by the national representatives of associations of travel agents, these decisions may lead to the closure of hundreds of agencies. This means that more than 10 000 jobs, about four times as many jobs as those threatened in Alitalia, are at risk.

Furthermore the cuts, which would result in a rise in air fares, would have other repercussions on consumers. The end user would have the practical problem of obtaining tickets, because agencies are obliged to refuse to provide a service which has become too expensive.

It should also be noted that operators in the sector were informed of these decisions, unprecedented in Europe, only 60 days in advance.

In view of the serious consequences such a move would have on employment and bearing in mind that travel agencies are the main channel for air-ticket sales, since they manage 91 % of ticket turnover, and hence a crisis in the sector would impact not only on Alitalia, worsening its already precarious position, but also on all other European airlines, can the Commission say:

| 1. | whether the European Union has the power to intervene in the matter, in accordance with policies to safeguard employment or by virtue of any other relevant competence; |
| --- | --- |

1.

whether the European Union has the power to intervene in the matter, in accordance with policies to safeguard employment or by virtue of any other relevant competence;

| 2. | how it views the matter as a whole? |
| --- | --- |

2.

how it views the matter as a whole?

---
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 44 (Friday, March 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 12245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05225]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 9059]


Shipping Coordinating Committee Notice of Renewal of Charter

    Summary: The Department of State has renewed the Charter for the 
Shipping Coordinating Committee (SHC) without significant substantive 
change. Through this Committee, the Department of State will continue 
to obtain the views and advice of the general public, industry, non-
governmental organizations, and interested government agencies in the 
maritime and related fields, on issues related to maritime security, 
safety of life at sea, and protection of the marine environment 
considered by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and other 
matters relating to international maritime shipping. The Under 
Secretary for Management has determined the Committee is necessary and 
in the public interest.
    The Committee follows the procedures prescribed by the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Meetings will be open to the public 
unless a determination is made in accordance with section 10(d) of the 
FACA and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) that a meeting or portion of the meeting 
should be closed to the public. Notice of each meeting will be 
published in the Federal Register at least 15 days prior to the 
meeting, unless there are extraordinary circumstances that require 
shorter notice.
    For further information, please contact: Commander Marc A. Zlomek, 
Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating Committee, U.S. Department 
of State, Office of Oceans Affairs, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#09736566646c626468497a7d687d6c276e667f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="add7c1c2c0c8c6c0ccedded9ccd9c883cac2db">[email protected]</span></a> or by 
telephone at 202-647-3946. A copy of the Committee charter may also be 
obtained by accessing the FACA database maintained by the General 
Services Administration: http://fido.gov/facadatabase.

    Dated: February 26, 2015.
Marc A. Zlomek,
Executive Secretary, Shipping Coordinating Committee, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. 2015-05225 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
~,..,.. TT"I • '1\ i:; A "1 Q ~ 

I .-.ER USE FOR Ai'i'RuVlii.S, DISAPPROVALS, MEMO ROUTING SLIP I .ONCURRENCES, OR SIMILAR ACTIONS 

1 NAME OR TITLE INlTlALS C!RCUUl.TE 

·- - ORGANIZATION AND LOCATION DATE COORDINATION 

2 FILE 

----- INFORMATION 

3 NECl!SSARY ACTION 

- NOTE AND RETURN 

4 SEE ME 

SIGNATURE 

REMARKS 

1-/ Y'. c~kl I ho IA-1 /A.Jc; . 

-s~ ~ -s 7k~:J ?;ave a y n~ 1-t ..;:-f 

3 o/02eV1 eo)Ott!' .s oF /?;~ 

>"'~pY1"f 6 I h ,r/yf1clc s D....., 

..,"\-!:J '° fo0v1Aphj t')f, fA. a-I c.,,::J ;;-/a WA 1 S/:S :

1 

. ;-r:;t-tt FROM NAME OR TITLE DATE..., 

1. S"tLJr ORGANIZATION AND LOCATION I TELEPHONE 

~ooroved for Release bv NSA on 07-17-2014 oursuantto E.O. 1352EJ 

DD FORM 9 5 Replaces DA AGO Form 895, I Apr 48, and AFRQ I FEB 50 Form 12, 10 Nov 47, which may be used.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 22, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-50144

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN LOPEZ-MACEDO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-192-ALL

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Lopez-Macedo

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior

conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          35,304
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                21,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     95,990
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           8,082
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             7,946
<LOANS>                                        226,519
<ALLOWANCE>                                      4,603
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 404,050
<DEPOSITS>                                     349,193
<SHORT-TERM>                                     2,881
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,377
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,477
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,122
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 404,050
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,269
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,535
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   330
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 7,134
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,808
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,838
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,296
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,262
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,027
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,027
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,210
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.23
<LOANS-NON>                                      5,248
<LOANS-PAST>                                        60
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 2,595
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  3,507
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 4,672
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       90
<RECOVERIES>                                        21
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,603
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             4,603
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          4,603
        

</TABLE>
1 Medina, Dayana

From: Reitter, Annabeth <Annabeth.Reitter@domtar.com>

Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 3:56 PM

To: Medina, Dayana

Subject: Domtar Ashdown Mill Power Boiler #2

Attachments: removed.txt

Hi Dayana,

In our discussions regarding the appropriate SO 2 BART emission limit for the Domtar Ashdown Mill Power

Boiler #2, a key factor is the baseline period; that is, whether the BART reduction is applied to the average SO 2

emissions from the 2001

‐ 2003 BART baseline period or the 2011

‐ 2013 timeframe. As expressed on the call,

we believe the 2001

‐ 2003 BART baseline period is the appropriate baseline for this calculation for the

following reasons:

 The SO 2 emissions from baseline years of 2001

‐ 2003 were used as a basis for including Power Boiler 2 in

the BART program and for determining the unit is subject to BART.

 If the BART program had been expeditiously implemented as contemplated under the original BART rules,

the baseline of 2001

‐ 2003 would have been used.

 Use of a baseline that is 10 years later (2011

‐ 2013) does not account for the changes that occurred at the

mill in reducing SO 2 emissions. For the period of 2001

‐ 2003, the average tons of SO 2 emissions from

Power Boiler 2 is 2,078 tons. For the period of 2011

‐ 2013, the average tons of SO 2 emissions from

Power Boiler 2 is 1,229 tons. That equates to an over 40% decrease in SO 2 emissions from the 2001

‐

2003 BART baseline period.

 Substantial reductions in use of coal occurred over this 10

‐ year period, while use of low SO 2 fuels

(TDF/Bark) substantially increased and contributed to the reductions in SO 2 emissions from the BART

baseline period.

 By using the lower SO 2 emissions from the 2011

‐ 2013 period, the mill is being penalized for its voluntary

efforts to significantly reduce SO 2 emissions.

 In other situations involving pulp and paper mills (Georgia

‐ Pacific, Wisconsin, 2012), the state with U.S.

EPA concurrence used 2002 as the baseline period in its emission reduction calculations.

 In the approved portions of the Arkansas SIP, U.S. EPA agreed (with respect to the cost of controls)

baseline emissions may reflect past practices. Similarly, in U.S. EPA’s BART guidelines, reference is

made to calculating baseline emissions based on a continuation of past practices (Guidelines, at

39167). By analogy, the percent reduction in SO 2 should also be applied to past practice as reflected in

the 2001

‐ 2003 timeframe.

Thank you for further consideration of this important matter. Please let me know if there are any questions or

if you would like to further discuss.

Best Regards,

Annabeth2 Annabeth Reitter

Corporate Manager, Environmental Regulation

T 715-886-7785 | C 715-459-9257

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the co rrect file and location.

Domta r

301 Point Basse Avenue

Nekoosa, WI 54457

Domtar reminds you to print responsibly. Learn more about paper as a sustainable choice at paperbecause.com

This email is for the exclusive us e of the addressee and is subject to Domtar Confidentiality Notice.
e REF ID:A41587. 

Dr· Claude. Simmon 

Bell 'l'elep!ione Ial>orataries, Inc.· t~ Ulll; Rev Jene;y · 

De$t' lb'. Shal\MD: · 

'W'J.th ntere.m:e to tbe rd.seion ot the Subcommittee 

on Ge.1:1eml Purpose Flexible ~1e&l Eq~, the·· 

date ot MQ' 4-7; 1954, it:l.Clus1ve, hall 'beeQ propoeed 'f~ 

the initJ.&J. zreview ot tbe problem contJtonttng the committee. 

The meettns will. be held at the ltitiOial Secutity Agency. 

Vartoua m9J?ibera of the Agency are contrlbut1ag coulder• 

able ette>rt to mklnS a. 4etaile4 presentation ot several · 

pi-obleme perttmnt to the wtlt ot the committee an4 it ta 

ho.Pe4 tint fOL1 can~ to be prcsei'rt. 'for the ~tre initial cODterence. · · 

nm Uol1 pJ.eue ad.vise Mr~ U1lliam r. ~tedmn, Executive 

SecretarJ ot. the tatlcma.J.. Security Agency ScleDtU'ic A4v1IOJ7 

Bmrd,vbether you rill be a'ble to attend tn·ar&!lr tbat he ~ 

iaeue t.1'e.vel OJ'dere? · ·· · . · . 

Sincere~, 

JOmJ. C. McPm:JISON 

C!BSftran of the SU'bcomittee 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 12-01-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,249,000
<SECURITIES>                                 3,632,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,240,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,398,000
<PP&E>                                      54,396,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (23,697,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              43,097,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,001,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,400,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,719,000
<SALES>                                     21,784,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,784,000
<CGS>                                       19,150,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,150,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (230,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,687,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (940,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,747,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,747,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 15.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors

Trinity Biotech plc

We
have issued our reports dated April 6, 2012, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Trinity Biotech plc on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 2011. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the following Registration Statements of Trinity Biotech plc:



|          |  |             |  |               
|--------- |  | ----------- |  | --------------
|Form Type |  | File Number |  | Effective Date
|Form S-8  |  | 33-76384    |  | 3/14/1994     
|          |  |            
|Form S-8  |  | 333-5532    |  | 9/9/1996      
|          |  |            
|Form S-8  |  | 333-220     |  | 1/10/1996     
|          |  |            
|Form S-8  |  | 333-7762    |  | 10/10/1997    
|          |  |            
|Form S-8  |  | 333-124384  |  | 4/28/2005     
|          |  |            
|Form S-8  |  | 333-166590  |  | 5/6/2010      

Grant Thornton

Dublin, Ireland

April 6, 2012