alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
REF ID:A68359 

SUDJI:c'ft a.ptst tor Tnnafer ot &nllet.ed tlrm 

roa Ch1et, Arsq- Seovi\7 J.&a.CJ 

'l'b.e Pentagm 

sertal.1 Lt~ 9 9 

!l SEP 1954 

',_..., 

1. It 1• ~ftad t.b&t the tollowina named Clllet.ed man 

be t.renet81'1"Gd t.o the la1.1caal Seourit7 Agenq tor dut.7 u-pon 

complet.icm Gt baaio tmin1J11 approximatel.1' l Ooto~ 1954. 

_a ?R.§S9''T ,1SSlGM.M.2K? 

-'~; . 

US 55462109 Battery A, Uth 1'l"D.in1ng lb 

MA HTC 

Fort lil.1u1 Texaa 

2. ?riwto W1.gingt.o11•1 prwiou• experi«tee and. t..raining 1n 

engS.n~ pbpica wuld prove to ho of gr-a~ val.He 1n the &eaeucb 

and llenlopaent. DiYinon ot thia Agcq. It this aasig,nment. 11 effected, 

onl lated &1811 vUl be ut.1.llsed in M.:~ 1394. 

cc: AG 

c/S ~~T 

JIILPlllS 

M/Ra Into regarding Pvt Wigington received tram Kr. Friedman, Special 

Assistant to the Director, Vio requested an ettort. be made to obtain assignment of this m. at vaa tom.erly empl078d b7 Bell Laboratories as an 

eleotronio tube ~. MOS 1394• 25 author.I.med,; 32 on board.J 7 projected losses thru Jan S5. 

LT BJ Morden, HUPen, 60S091 bp1 1 Sep 5l. 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 04-02-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 22, 2011 

Order 

 

March 22, 2011 

141570(49) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141570 

 COA: 283778 

Allegan CC: 05-014491-FH 

KENT ALLEN LEE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by plaintiff-appellee for adjournment of 

the oral argument and submission of this case is considered and, it appearing that an 

appointed special prosecutor is available to present the argument, the motion is denied.
EXHIBIT 23.2


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements 
of Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. on Form S-3 (File No. 333-45889) and  Form 
S-8 (File No. 333-48311) of our report dated April 16, 1997, on our audits 
of the financial statements of PetCare Plus, Inc. (which are included in 
the restated pooled financial statements of Petco Animal Supplies, Inc.) as 
of January 25, 1997 and for the years ended January 25, 1997 and January 
27, 1996, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

                                               PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Chicago, Illinois
April 28, 1999
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7183

DEREK ANTOINE SMITH,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ERIK A. HOOKS,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (3:19-cv-00291-MR)

Submitted: September 22, 2021 Decided: October 6, 2021

Before WILKINSON, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derek Antoine Smith, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derek Antoine Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.*

 The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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 could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 

473, 484 (2000)). 

Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Smith’s informal brief and 

supplemental informal briefs, we conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing. 

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The 

informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited 

* We previously remanded this case to the district court for the limited purpose of 

enabling the court to determine whether Smith had shown excusable neglect or good cause 

warranting an extension of the time to appeal. See Smith v. Hooks, 838 F. App’x 787 (4th 

Cir. 2021) (No. 20-7183). On remand, the district court granted Smith an extension of time 

to file a notice of appeal and deemed his notice of appeal timely filed. 
3

to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny Smith’s motion for 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 this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
-~----- -~~--

~~~-~-==~~~~--~~1111!!!----llllllm--____ ~---- REF ID :A66473 -.-

Executive Order 105011 dtd 5 lfov 53 

SEC B/ISST 

(Mr. Friednan) 

In accordance with Executive Order 105011 dated 5 Hovenlbel' 19531 and D/F 

from M, da.ted 17 December 19531 the f'ollowin8 mterial or1gina.ted in this office 

bas been reviewed and upgraded to CONFIDEl!TIAL: 

Memorananm tor Chiet'1 Secur1-t7 Control Div:lt.aion, dtd 9 Dec. 19521 

eul>Jt Additional. Clearance4 f'ar M.viaor,y :Board (Engstrom, E.W.; 

Semlel1 A .. J Shockley-, W.:D.) 

)5emorandum tor Chief', Security Control Division, dtd 5 Jan. 19531 

au'bj: Additional Clearances for SCAMP (Church, R.J :Bush, K.A.; 

Good.1 R .A.; Dilworth, R .P. J Harris / V. C.) 

Menvlrant'!um tor Chiet, Security Control Division, dtd 23 Jan. 19531 

wl>J: Request 'Ear M.ditional Clearances (Alvarez, L.W.J Beams, J.W.J 

•••••• Z'W0r7kin, V.K.) 

WILLIAM F. F.RIEIMAN 

-Spec1al Assiatant 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 07-25-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

.......... ______ llllliiiiiiiiiiliitt;;...........~_ 

' 

i 

I 

' ' t ! 

I ; 

L '
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1805 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1805

 To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to provide 
flexibility to school food authorities in establishing a price for paid 
                            school lunches.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 21, 2015

 Mr. Inhofe (for himself and Mr. King) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, 
                        Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to provide 
flexibility to school food authorities in establishing a price for paid 
                            school lunches.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``School Lunch Price Protection Act of 
2015''.

SEC. 2. PAID LUNCHES.

    Section 12(p) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1760(p)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2)--
                    (A) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the 
                following:
                    ``(A) Requirement.--For each school year beginning 
                on or after July 1, 2015, each school food authority 
                that had a negative balance of funds in the nonprofit 
                school food service account of the school food 
                authority for the previous school year shall establish 
                a price for paid lunches in accordance with this 
                subsection.'';
                    (B) in subparagraph (B)(i), by inserting 
                ``described in subparagraph (A)'' after ``authority''; 
                and
                    (C) in subparagraph (C)(i), by inserting 
                ``described in subparagraph (A)'' after ``authority''; 
                and
            (2) in paragraph (3)(A), by inserting ``described in 
        paragraph (2)(A)'' after ``authority''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.5

                          INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION

                          2000 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
                          -----------------------------

                                 2004 AMENDMENT

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


     Interactive Data Corporation (the "Company") hereby amends the Interactive
Data Corporation 2000 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the "Plan") as set forth below.

                                    * * * * *

     1. Plan Termination. Paragraph (k) of Section 8 shall be amended by
deleting the clause preceding the semicolon and replacing it with the following:
"The Plan shall become effective as of the date of its adoption by the Board,
and shall continue in effect until the earlier to occur of: (i) termination by
the Board or (ii) February 22, 2010;"

                                    * * * * *

     2. Further Amendments. Except as hereinabove specifically amended, all
provisions of the Plan shall continue in full force and effect; provided,
however, that the Company hereby reserves the power from time to time to further
amend the Plan.

                                    * * * * *



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this 2004 Amendment to be
executed in its name and on its behalf this 24 day of February, 2004.


                                   INTERACTIVE DATA CORPORATION




                                     By:    /s/ Stuart J. Clark
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Stuart J. Clark, Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 12(b)
                               XEROX CORPORATION
                  COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (In Millions)
                      Three months ended             Year ended
                           March 31,                December 31,
                         2000    1999    1999    1998**  1997    1996    1995
Fixed charges:
  Interest expense     $  227  $  206  $  803  $  749  $  617  $  592  $  603
  Rental expense           29      35     132     145     140     140     142
Total fixed charges
  before capitalized
  interest and preferred
  stock dividends of
  subsidiaries            256     241     935     894     757     732     745
Preferred stock dividends
  of subsidiaries          14      14      55      55      50       -       -
Capitalized interest        3       -       8       -       -       -       -
   Total fixed charges $  273  $  255  $  998  $  949  $  807  $  732  $  745

Earnings available for
  fixed charges:
  Earnings***          $ (345) $  504  $2,104  $  837  $2,268  $2,067  $1,980
  Adjustment to reflect
    distributed income
    from minority owned
    companies              35     (10)    (68)    (27)    (84)    (84)    (90)
  Add fixed charges before
    capitalized interest
    and preferred stock
    dividends of
    subsidiaries          256     241     935     894     757     732     745
  Total earnings
    available for
    fixed charges      $  (54) $  735  $2,971  $1,704  $2,941  $2,715  $2,635

Ratio of earnings to
   fixed charges (1)(2)     *    2.88    2.98    1.80    3.64    3.71    3.54

(1) The ratio of earnings to fixed charges has been computed based on the
Company's continuing operations by dividing total earnings available for fixed
charges, excluding capitalized interest and preferred stock dividends of
subsidiaries, by total fixed charges.  Fixed charges consist of interest,
including capitalized interest and preferred stock dividends of subsidiaries,
and one-third of rent expense as representative of the interest portion of
rentals.

(2) The Company's ratio of earnings to fixed charges includes the effect of
the Company's finance subsidiaries, which primarily finance Xerox equipment.
Financing businesses are more highly leveraged and, therefore, tend to operate
at lower earnings to fixed charges ratio levels than do non-financial
businesses.

*  Earnings for the three months of 2000 were inadequate to cover fixed
charges. The coverage deficiency was $327 million. Excluding the 2000
restructuring and CPID in-process R&D charges, the ratio of earnings to fixed
charges would be 2.19.

**  Excluding the effects of the charges recorded in connection with the 1998
restructuring plan, the ratio of earnings to fixed charges would be 3.55.

*** Sum of "Income (Loss) before Income Taxes (Benefits), Equity Income and
Minorities' Interests" and "Equity in Net Income of Unconsolidated
Affiliates."
(14)
7 

REF ID:A65392 

hote••or Charle• 1', Prouty Depa.rtmont at Engli•h 

'tale Un1ve•1"t7 

Jev Haven, Connecticut 

Dear Dr. Prouty i 

JlO 8econd St:r~ot, S.:I. 

llashinaton 3# D. c. 

I -.m 1ndeb~d to )"OU far your vtry nice letter ot 12 ~. 

Jtowev•:r l rea;ret to 1q that U' 70u Hnt • another cop)" ~ 

b l:J.owrea it bu tailed to turn iw, tar 1t 1ou Mnt the :package 

eui the •~date u fOtn" lotter vu written, u ;you illdice.ted 

therein, it ahould he.ve arrived bore an.y da¥• a.go. 

Thank ;you wey lW.Ch tar ;your reterence to the U»l.al18.tion c:4 

the PQIJf "Mer1tum petere, grave" l •ball p:robe.'bly uae 1t in the 

tortbcOldne; 'book1 the ccqtletion ot which it 101.ng ftther alcnrly. 

Hoping to hear trom you :preaent~ and Yi.th aey thanka tor 

your- coUrteay, l am.,, 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 07-23-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
Comments from the Council on Environmental Quality on the 

Interagency Science Consultation Draft Trimethylbenzene Assessment 

The IRIS Program is to be commended on the new format for the toxicological reviews. The document 

is more accessible, easier to read, and there is greater transparency in the presentation of key 

assumptions. The effective use of figures and tables are also notable. 

Overall the assessment for 1,2,4- and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene seems sound and defensible. The charge 

questions largely addressed the key issues and with some minor changes the materials are suitable for 

external review. 

One higher level question – why did EPA determine that the third isomer, 1,2,3-trimethylbenzene, 

should not be included? Please provide an explanation in the assessment. Since the toxicity data from 

one isomer (1,2,4-TMB) is used to derive the toxicity values for another (1,3,5-TMB) it is not clear what 

this couldn’t also be done for the third one. 

In the preamble, we suggest adding some additional information (i.e., internet addresses) to the second 

paragraph in order to facilitate the reader’s ability to locate assessments for the chemicals that are not 

covered by the IRIS program. We also suggest that you replace “White House offices” with Executive 

Office of the President offices. 

In the preface, we recommend some modification to the program interest section. Consider starting 

with the second sentence (why the assessment is being developed). We also recommend inserting 

“some” before Superfund sites. Here, and elsewhere (e.g., second paragraph of preamble) it would be

helpful to explain why 1,2,3-TMB is not included (as noted above). Finally, are there any other programs 

that might have an interest in this assessment? 

The executive summary starts with a section on effects other than cancer. The title of this section, and 

in particular the “other than cancer” portion, seems awkward since it precedes the cancer section. We

suggest that you move the cancer section forward rather than trying to rename the section. For this 

assessment cancer is not critical, but in many assessments it will be one of the most important sections 

and it may be helpful to revise the historic IRIS format of presenting that information at the end. 

Finally, we recommend that the IRIS program consider modifying the new IRIS assessment format to 

include a section focused on the critical (or co-critical) study. For example, we think that some of the 

information about the critical study that presented in Appendix A could be moved into the main 

document and expanded upon. 

Thanks again for the opportunity to review and comment on this assessment. 

Regards, 

Stiven Foster 

Deputy Associate Director for Chemical Regulations 

Council on Environmental Quality
BMVIT- IV/l1 (Strategie und**lntern~tionales)** Postanschrift: Postfach 201. 1000 Wien BOroanschrift: Radetzkystral?.e 2

. 1030 Wien E-Mail: 11 @bmvit.gv.at Internet: www.bmvit.gv.at (Antwort bitte unterAnfOhrung der GZ. an die oben angefOhrte E-Maii-Adresse) GZ. BMVIT-40.005/0001-IV/L1/2015 DVR:0000175

Paul Gretch Director, Office ofthe Assistant Secretaryfor Aviation and International Affairs U.S. Department ofTransportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Room 6402 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Gretch, 811ndesministerium furVerkehr,

, , '' Techno/ogle

Vienna, 13 January 2015

With reference to the intentions ofTyrolean Jet Services in continuing non-scheduted (charter) Air Services to/from the United States based on 

### frfth, sixth or seventh freedom traffic rights and referring to the designation ofthe said airline the Austrian Civil Aviation Authority and according to the provisions ofthe bilateral Air Services Agreement (Air Services Agreement between the Austrian Federal Government and the Government ofthe United States ofAmerica, done atVienna on 16th of March 1989, as amended), the Austrian Civil Aviation Authority hereby confirms that similar requests submitted by the U.S. carriers will be treated on the basis of reciprocity. Sincerely Yours

Silvia Gehrer Director, AirTransportAffairs Federal Ministry ofTransport, Innovation and Technology Civil Aviation Authority
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0000351498
<NAME>                          US1 INDUSTRIES, INC
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                       1
<CASH>                                         (337436)
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   4447424
<ALLOWANCES>                                     125168
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                4785928
<PP&E>                                            11780
<DEPRECIATION>                                    85736
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  5014597
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           5553586
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                      843254
<COMMON>                                       40844296
<OTHER-SE>                                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    5014597
<SALES>                                         7391858
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                7391858
<CGS>                                           7210013
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   7210013
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  11409
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               149783
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   43471
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               43471
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      43471
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0



</TABLE>
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0746 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2008 - SW - 35 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statementson Form S-8 (Nos. 333-19127, 333-19145, 333-80187, 333-42444, 333-52236,333-77006 and 333-121074) and on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-91211, 333-152707) ofCornell Companies, Inc. of our report dated February 26, 2010relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopersLLP

Houston,Texas

February 26,2010

 

1

----