alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EMO ROUTING SLIP 

1 NAME OR TITLE 

Mr. Frieam&n 

ORGANIZATION AND LOCATION 

2 AFSA·OOT 

3 

• 

REMARKS 

INITIALS 

DATE 

x 

CIRCULATE 

FILE 

NECESSARY 

ACTION 

NOTE AND REIURN 

SEE ME: 

Sl&NATURE 

The attached message and note from AFSA-23 are 

submitted for your inf'ormation. .AFSA-23 baa inquired 

vhether there ia &.ey" objection -:to the publication of 

such inf'orma.tion to'f: the consumers through the regular 

cbalmela. I see no ob3ection whatever in either case. 

Reqaest your comments. 

A. SIDDV Techni~&l Director 

Office of' Operations 

eclassifi ed and approved for release by NSA on O 1-20-2015 pursuant 

o E.O. 13526 

FROM NAllE OR TITLE 

CSANIZAT10fl AlllD LR1IJll 

APSA-02".l' 

DD FmM 95 ~DA. AOO l'ormlll5. I Apr41l.llllcl. A.l'BQ I FEB 50 l'alm It. J8 Jin"· •Jdch IDQ be lllld.. 

DATE 

28 Apr 52 

TELEPHCllE 

333 
EO 3.3(h)(2) 

REF ID:A67078 PL 86-36/50 USC 3605
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 BOKF, N.A., a National Banking 

3 Association d/b/a BANK OF

4 OKLAHOMA, as Successor in

5 Interest by Merger to BANK OF

6 OKLAHOMA, N.A.,

7 Plaintiff-Appellee,

8 vs. NO. 35,697

9

10 ROY A. METZGAR, YVONNE M.

11 METZGAR, and EQUIFIRST

12 CORPORATION,

13 Defendants,

14 and

15 STEVEN L. GILMORE,

16 Putative Intervener-Appellant.

17 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

18 Nan G. Nash, District Judge

19 Leverick & Musselman, LLC

20 Richard M. Leverick

21 Albuquerque, NM 

22 for Appellee
2

1 Steven L. Gilmore

2 Albuquerque, NM 

3 Pro Se Putative Intervener-Appellant

4 MEMORANDUM OPINION

5 VANZI, Judge.

6 {1} Putative Intervener-Appellant Steven L. Gilmore (Appellant) filed the instant

7 appeal following the entry of an order denying his motion to intervene. We previously

8 issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm.

9 Appellant has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we affirm.

10 {2} As we previously observed, the ruling on the motion to intervene may have

11 constituted either a discretionary exercise of the district court’s inherent authority to

12 regulate the proceedings, or a decision on the merits. Appellant’s memorandum in

13 opposition is wholly unresponsive to our proposed summary disposition with respect

14 to these matters. Accordingly, we adhere to our initial assessment.

15 {3} In his memorandum in opposition Appellant reiterates argument advanced at

16 the district court level pursuant to Rule 1-060(B) NMRA, by which he seeks to attack

17 the validity of a judgment and sale previously rendered in the underlying foreclosure

18 action. [MIO 1-13] However, as we previously observed, insofar as Appellant was not

19 a party to that action and was denied intervention, he lacks standing to advance further

20 argument on the merits. See, e.g., Gullo v. Brown, 1971-NMSC-034, ¶ 8, 82 N.M.
3

1 412, 483 P.2d 293 (holding that an appellant lacked standing to attack a previously

2 entered decree, given that he was not a party to it and had no right which was affected

3 by it at the time of its entry). Once again, Appellant’s memorandum fails to address

4 this concern. As a result, we remain unpersuaded that the argument is properly before

5 us.

6 {4} Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and in the notice of proposed

7 summary disposition, we affirm.

8 {5} IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 __________________________________

10 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge

11 WE CONCUR:

12 _________________________________

13 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

14 _________________________________

15 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 21, 2016

No. 04-16-00718-CV

IN RE Thomas THIBEAUX

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

On November 1, 2016, Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. This court is of the 

opinion that a serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further 

consideration. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the real party in interest 

may file a response to the petition in this court no later than December 6, 2016. Any such 

response must conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4. 

It is so ORDERED on November 21, 2016.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _______________________________

 Keith E. Hottle. Clerk

 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2014-CI-17823, styled In the Interest of A.T., E.T. and B.T., Children, 

pending in the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Renée Yanta presiding.
= '..;._ 'i . , . ::. . 'f6P. SECRET· INCOMING 

' ACTION 

.i ROU'ft4E 9$5 JAN 55 INFO P/P 1-lf. . : 

. V/DIR. 5 

.... :.PROM.·:::·.· CAPT RUFUS L TAYLOR, EXEC SECY USCIB ·c1s 6 

DCS 7 

TO .SUSLO LONDON ·AG .. 8•1f6 

115 11 

· INFO DIRNSA Eo 3. 3 I h I I 2 I s-Assr 1 rai,.B I~ PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

MSG NR WL ~ 0(:,J.. /7 

~I 15 

PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLt<MING MESSAGE FROM .THE CHAIRMAN, USClB 

.TO THE CHAIRMAN, LSIB: "AS YOU KNCM, ·ON 17 DECEMBER F'OR .MIN 

~DEN WROTE TO SECRETARY DULLES SUGGESTING THAT US AND UK EX• 

PERTS AND REPORT WITHIN TWO i 

) 

MONTHS. ON 22 DECEMBER SE~RETARY DULLES, ACCEPTING THIS PRO• . I . 

POSAL, STATED THAT HE CONSIDERED THE EXISTING US-UK .COMBINED . . . 

WORKING GROUP THE APPROPRIATE BODY-TO PREPARE THIS REPORT. 

· ACCORpl~GLY, ·.()N 29 _DECEMBER USCIB GAVE ITS APPROVAL. TOT.HE 

PREPA~ATioN BY. 1 MARCH 1955 OF A REPORT BY THE CWG ON.THE 

STATUS OF THE I lrOGETHER WITH RECOMMENDATIONS. 

AS NECESSARY F'OR FUTURE ACT I ON AND ASKED ME TO I NF'ORM Y.OU Of' 

THIS DECISION .. " 

. '=··· '· 

NSA 115 -NOTE: THIS MSG RELAYED TO. ;LONDON UNDER DTG ~fl42lZ 

Qeclassifi ed and approved for release by NSA on 01-23-2015 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

/' 

.Copy/} of/ \oples 

Page l of 1 Pages 

EJF' /Ar 

PARAPHRASE NOT REQUIRED AGI ~ • ."!IJ'jJ222 

CONSUi-T CRYPTOCENTER BEFORE DECLASSIFYING DTG. __ J05-255Z .. .-------------------- ,.JAN 55 

NSjll. FORM N2397 

29 NOV !5' 

TOP SECRET
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                          Independent Auditors' Consent




The Board of Directors
PLD Telekom Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (no.
333-35139) on Form S-8, in the Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form S-4
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (no. 333-18713), in the registration
statement (no. 333-5396) on Form S-3, and in the registration statement (no.
333-5400) on Form S-3 of PLD Telekom Inc. of our report dated March 30, 1999,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of PLD Telekom Inc. and subsidiaries
as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for the years then ended, which
report appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for the
year ended December 31, 1998 of PLD Telekom Inc.

Our report dated March 30, 1999 contains an explanatory paragraph that states
the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations, has a net capital
deficiency and a working capital deficiency, and does not presently have
sufficient funds on hand to meet its current debt service obligations. These
factors raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a
going concern. The consolidated financial statements do not include any
adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.




                                    KPMG LLP


New York, New York
April 23, 1999
#### Webster vs. Coon.

*Deed,*— Place *of witness’s signature, iphen immaterial.*

Where the name of only one witness to a deed was signed in the usual place for such signatures, but another name was subscribed in such a manner as to make it clear, on the face of the instrument, that it was subscribed as that of a witness to the execution thereof: *Held,*that the deed was entitled to record, and the record thereof was competent evidence of title under the statute.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Winnebago*County.

Ejectment. Complaint in the usual form. Answer, a general denial as to title, but admission as to possession. On the trial, the plaintiff showed title to the premises vested in the defendant *Coon,*in May, 1847 ; a mortgage given in June, 1850, *73by him and his wife to Thomas A. Eollett; a foreclosure of such mortgage, and a sale of the premises in December, 1852, to said Eollett, by E. L. Buttrick, a commissioner appointed by the court for that purpose, aud a confirmation of such sale. He then offered in evidence the record of the commissioner’s deed to Eollett The defendant objected to its admission, on the ground that it was not a proper record, because the deed had but one witness ,• and the court sustained the objection. This record showed one name in the place where witnesses usually sign, and another at the left hand, beneath the certificate of acknowledgment. The plaintiff then offered a deed to himself from Eollett, which, on defendant’s objection that no title in Eollett had been shown, was also excluded; and, thereupon, the court dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff appealed.

*Gabe JBouc7c,*for appellant,

claimed that the law does not prescribe where the witness’s name shall be placed, but the true test is, whether it is apparent from the instrument itself that the name was signed as a witness; and that, the sale to Eollett under foreclosure of *Goon's*mortgage having been shown, the deed was admissible to make out a *prima facie*case.

*K P.*Finch, for respondent.

Cole, J.

The circuit court excluded the record of the deed from Buttrick to Eollett as evidence, because the deed was not executed in the presence of two witnesses, who subscribed their names to the same as such, which was necessary to entitle the deed to record. The name of the witness Boynton is not signed in the usual place, but we agree fully with the counsel for the plaintiff, that it is perfectly manifest from the face of the instrument that Boynton’s name was subscribed as a witness to the execution of the deed. We think the deed was sufficiently witnessed to entitle it to be recorded; and, as a matter of course, the record thereof was competent evidence.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and a new trial ordered.'
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2345 

To require the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center to submit 

a report on the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 14, 2021 

Ms. ERNST introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Select Committee on Intelligence 

A BILL 

To require the Director of the National Counterterrorism 

Center to submit a report on the withdrawal of United 

States Armed Forces from Afghanistan, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preventing Terrorism 

5 from Hitting America’s Streets Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2345 IS

1 SEC. 2. NATIONAL COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER REPORT 

2 ON WITHDRAWAL OF UNITED STATES ARMED 

3 FORCES FROM AFGHANISTAN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

5 date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Na6 tional Counterterrorism Center, in consultation with the 

7 Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Se8 curity, shall submit to the appropriate committees of Con9 gress a report on the scheduled withdrawal of United 

10 States Armed Forces from Afghanistan. 

11 (b) ELEMENTS.—The report required by subsection 

12 (a) shall include the following: 

13 (1) An assessment of the increased risk of ter14 rorism in the United States due to the withdrawal 

15 of United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan. 

16 (2) A description of any illicit activities carried 

17 out along the southern border of the United States 

18 by— 

19 (A) non-state actors; or 

20 (B) adversarial countries, including— 

21 (i) the People’s Republic of China; 

22 (ii) the Islamic Republic of Iran; 

23 (iii) the Democratic People’s Republic 

24 of Korea; 

25 (iv) the Bolivarian Republic of Ven26 ezuela; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2345 IS

1 (v) the Republic of Cuba; 

2 (vi) the Republic of the Union of 

3 Myanmar; 

4 (vii) the Syrian Arab Republic; and 

5 (viii) the Russian Federation. 

6 (3) An assessment of the potential for Afghani7 stan to be used as a base of operation for inter8 national terrorism after the withdrawal of United 

9 States Armed Forces. 

10 (c) APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS DE11 FINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘appropriate commit12 tees of Congress’’ means— 

13 (1) the Committee on the Judiciary, the Select 

14 Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Armed 

15 Services, and the Committee on Homeland Security 

16 and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and 

17 (2) the Committee on the Judiciary, the Perma18 nent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Com19 mittee on Armed Services, and the Committee on 

20 Homeland Security of the House of Representatives. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
. .,, . • ~j't_· 

• 

HEADQUARTERS EAW/ j le 

ARMY SECURITY AGENCY EUROPE 

8620 Administrative Area Unit APO 757 

S2 16 December 1953 

SUBJECT: Cryptographic Device of Dr. Oskar Vierling 

(W 009) 

TO: Chief 

Anny Security Agency 

Washington 25, D. C. 

1. Enclosed is model of Vierling cryptographic device referred to 

in our letter W 002. This device is on a loan basis and is being shipped 

to your headquarters for evaluation. Ret.um of device within 30 days is 

requested, otherwise it must be purchased and funds ma.de available. 

2. Request a commercial text book on theory and applicatim of 

transistors be shipped to this headquarters for above named source. 

3. Dr. Vierling is presently conducting experiments which will 

utilize transistors. It is requested that your headquarters purchase and 

forward to this headquarters 3 PNP and 3 NPN transistors which will be 

utilized in his experiroont s. 

FOR THE CHJEF : 

1 Incl: 

Crypto Device 

P ~,'ERRILL 

Ord 

S-2 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 06-03-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

I I 

SECRElJ I
Order filed November 17, 2016 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00818-CV

____________

IN THE MATTER OF THE VEIT JOHNNES BRIMER AND NATALIA 

ERSHOVA BRIMER

On Appeal from the 245th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2016-01507

O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed October 10, 2016. To date, the filing 

fee of $205.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant is excused by statute or 

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying costs has been filed. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 5. Therefore, the court issues the following order. 

Appellant Natalia Ershova Brimer is ordered to pay the filing fee in the 

amount of $205.00 to the clerk of this court on or before November 30, 2016. See

Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellant fails to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with 

this order, the appeal will be dismissed.

PER CURIAM
**EXHIBIT 15**

To the Board of Directorsand Shareholder of

Allstate Life InsuranceCompany:

 

 

 

We have reviewed, inaccordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board(United States), the unaudited interim financial information of Allstate LifeInsurance Company and subsidiaries for the periods ended September 30, 2007 and2006, as indicated in our report dated November 2, 2007; because we did notperform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

 

We are aware that our reportreferred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended September 30, 2007, is incorporated by reference in thefollowing Registration Statements:

 
| **Form S-3  Registration Statement Nos.** | ** ** | **Form N-4 Registration Statement Nos.** |
|-------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------------------------|
| 333-100068                                |       | 333-102934                               |
| 333-102319                                |       | 333-114560                               |
| 333-102325                                |       | 333-114561                               |
| 333-105331                                |       | 333-114562                               |
| 333-112249                                |       | 333-121691                               |
| 333-117685                                |       | 333-121693                               |
| 333-121739                                |       |                                     |
| 333-121741                                |       |                                     |
| 333-121742                                |       |                                     |
| 333-121745                                |       |                                     |
| 333-121811                                |       |                                     |
| 333-121812                                |       |                                     |
| 333-125937                                |       |                                     |
| 333-129157                                |       |                                     |
| 333-132994                                |       |                                     |
| 333-137625                                |       |                                     |
| 333-143541                                |       |                                     |

 

We also are aware that theaforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared orcertified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountantwithin the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

 

 

 

/s/ Deloitte & ToucheLLP

 

Chicago, Illinois

November 2, 2007

 

E-2

----
SUBJECT 1 Personnel. Security Program 

'1'01 Cb.iet ot statt fll>lh Consultd DA1'11 2S Apr1119S2 COMMENT NO. 2 

1. I think ve are now getUDg on 1he right track in. this bus:l.nea a. 

2. It is reconnended that. as ~ matter ot urgmq a high-laYel poup 1n A1SA. 

be eetablllhecl t.o stl117 the •tter amd aake recamendatlona to DIBAFSA. Such a 

group mould include ~e1en~t1ve1 from AFSA-12, lS, 16, 171 021 0,,-04, and 

OSJ in addition, the APSA Iniipactor and the !FSA Comptroller should be aaong the 

poup. I rill be glad to participa ta ao tar as available t.ille pend ta. 

IncloSUl"ea - 2 

1/C 

WILLIAM F. FRIBDMil 

Consult.ant.
# C_2014423EN.01000102.xml

| 26.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7389 — Aegon Spain/Santander Totta Seguros/Aegon Santander Vida/Aegon Santander Não Vida)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 423/02

On 19 November 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document 32014M7389. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document 32014M7389. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
#### Crawford, Plaintiff in error, vs. The State, Defendant in error.

*March 5, 1898.*

*Adultery: Husband and wife: WitnessesCompetency.*

A wife is not a competent witness against her husband in a prosecution for adultery

Ekeoe to review a judgment of the circuit court for She-boygan county: FT. S. Gilson, Circuit Judge.

*Reversed.*

For the plaintiff in error there was a brief by *D. T. Phe-*lan, attorney, and *Simon*Gillen, of counsel.

[Eo brief on file for the defendant in error.]

The following opinion was filed March 22, 1898:

Cassoday, 0. J.

The plaintiff in error was tried and convicted of the crime of adultery, and sentenced to imprison*624ment in the state prison for the term of two years, and to reverse that judgment he’sues out this writ of error.

Upon the trial his wife was admitted as a witness in behalf of the state, and allowed to testify. This was manifest •error. It is well settled that “ neither husband nor wife can be a witness at common law for or against the other in prosecutions” for adultery. 2 Whart. Orim. Law (10th ed.); § 1786; 1 G-reenl. Ev. § 334; 3 Jones, Ev. § 751; *Mills v. U. S.*1 Pin. 73; *Schoeffler v. State,*3 Wis. 823, 844. “ With certain exceptions, it was, at common law, against public policy to allow the wife to be a witness for or against her husband in any action, civil or criminal, to which she was not a party.” *Smith v. Merrill,*75 Wis. 462. The case at. bar does not come within any exception. Nor is there any statute in this state making the wife a competent witness against the husband in such a case. Certainly sec. 4072, R. S. 1878, does not. See *Farrell v. Ledwell,*21 Wis. 182; *Carney v. Gleissner,*58 Wis. 674; *Selden v. State,*74 Wis. 271; *Smith v. Merrill,*75 Wis. 461; *Horner v. Yance,*93 Wis. 352; *Lanctot v. State, ante,*p. 136.

*By the*Court.— The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.