alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	Department of the Navy Releases Cyberspace Superiority Vision
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4818" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/Navy2/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="adetail print" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/NewsArticle">
    <img alt="U.S. Navy Logo" class="print-logo" src="/Portals/_default/Skins/NavyTheme2/Resources/img/OfficialNavyLogoInverted.svg">
    <div class="container">
        <div class="body-section">
            <h1>Department of the Navy Releases Cyberspace Superiority Vision</h1>
            <h3>28 Oct 2022</h3>
            <div class="body-text">
 
                <p>The CSV outlines our vision for securing DON in cyberspace. Additionally, the CSV identifies the need to increase resiliency and prepare to “fight hurt” to survive adversary cyberattacks. Finally, the CSV lays the groundwork for developing the capable cyber forces required to strike adversaries in and through the cyber domain.</p>

<p>“The principles of secure, survive, and strike build an enduring advantage for the Department of the Navy and enable our force to prevail in competition, crisis, and conflict,” said Cleary.</p>

<p>The CSV’s principles build on objectives in the DON Chief Information Officer’s Information Superiority Vision (ISV) to modernize, innovate, and defend DON’s cyber infrastructure. The ISV and the CSV together serve as the DON’s framework for achieving cyberspace and information superiority.</p>

<p>The DON PCA’s mission is to drive excellence in DON’s cyber security, resiliency, and warfighting efforts to enable and maintain maritime dominance. The DON PCA advises senior Navy and Marine Corps leadership on all cyberspace activities, annually certifies cyber budget adequacy, and implements the Department of Defense Cyber Strategy.</p>

<p>Read the full text of the CSV <a href="https://media.defense.gov/2023/Aug/15/2003281352/-1/-1/1/DON%20CYBERSPACE%20SUPERIORITY%20VISION.PDF"><span style="color:#28166F;"><u>here.</u></span></a></p>


                

                
            </div>
            
        </div>
    </div>
</div>
<script>
    window.print();
</script>
    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1,000


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-2000

<CASH>                                          33,806
<SECURITIES>                                    16,056
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,190
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               100,312
<PP&E>                                          27,033
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,783
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 668,504
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           62,947
<BONDS>                                         76,364
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           463
<OTHER-SE>                                     262,124
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   668,504
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                88,429
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                60,784
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,481
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,164
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,961
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,203
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,203
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26





</TABLE>
Michael James DEELY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-1614

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Cooper *v.*Krisch.

Opinion delivered July 1, 1929.

*A. M. Dobbs, O. M. Young*and *Hardin 'S Barton,*for appellant.

McHaney, J.

Ethel Krisch, now deceased, held a policy of life insurance with the Southern Life Insurance *953Company, in which her husband, Charles Krisch, was named the beneficiary. On May 4, 1928, she was murdered by her husband, and some time later appellant was dnly appointed and qualified as the administrator of her estate. He demanded payment of said policy, on the ground that the beneficiary had forfeited his interest therein by reason of the willful murder of his wife. The • insurance company instituted an interpleader ’s suit, making appellant and said Charles Krisch parties, paid the proceeds of said policy into the registry of the court, and prayed that the court determine the respective rights of the parties therein and decree said proceeds to the party rightfully entitled thereto.

Appellant answered, and set up his claim. Charles Krisch filed a disclaimer of any interest in said fund, and consented that same he paid to appellant as administrator. Thereupon the court, on its own motion, ordered that the appellee, Kathryn Imogene Krisch, minor child of deceased, be made a party to the action, which was done, and a guardian *ad litem*appointed. An answer was filed by the guardian *ad litem*for said minor, claiming the fund in court a*? the sole heir of her mother, which was sustained by the court, and a decree entered accordingly, and denied the right of appellant, as administrator, thereto.

Only one question is presented for decision: Who is entitled to the proneeds of the policy as between, the administrator and the heir? The administrator is one in fact, and claims have 'been probated against his estate. We think this question has been decided by this court in favor of appellant in the recent case, *Inter-Southern Life Ins. Co.*v. *Butler, ante,*p. 349. It was again held in that case that, when the beneficiary in a policy of life insurance unlawfully kills the insured, public policy prohibits a recovery by him, and that the amount of the insurance automatically becomes an asset of the deceased’s estate, to be recovered by the administrator for the payment of debts and distribution to the heirs. See also *Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.*v. *Shane,*98 Ark. 132, 135 *954S. W. 836; *Henry*v. *Knights*& *Daughters of Tabor,*156 Ark. 165, 246 S. W. 17; *Mut. Ben. Health*& *Accident Assn.*v. *Tilley,*176 Ark. 525, 3 S. *W.*(2d) 320.

The minor heir was neither a necessary nor a proper party. The probate court will no doubt protéct the interest of the minor in this fund by requiring the administrator to account therefor.

The court therefore erred in not awarding the fund in court to appellant. The cause will be reversed, and remanded with directions to enter a decree in accordance with this opinion.
Clethodim FOCUS Meeting Summary 

November 26, 2012 

Participants: 

PRD: Kelly Ballard, Neil Anderson, Tom Moriarty 

EFED: Brian Anderson, Greg Orrick, Jean Holmes, R. David Jones, Kris Garber, Paul 

Mastradone 

HED: Barry O’Keefe, Jeff Dawson, Whang Phang 

RD: Beth Benbow 

BEAD: Sepehr Haddad 

Valent U.S.A. Corporation: Joe Powell, John Pollock, Dan Faye, Julie Schlekau, Richard 

Allen 

Albaugh, Inc.: Morris Gaskins 

Arysta Lifescience North America, LLC: Rodney Akers, Dana Sergeant 

Summary: 

The purpose of the meeting was for members of EPA’s Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (PRD), 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED), Health Effects Division (HED), Registration 

Division (RD), and Biological and Economics Analysis Division (BEAD) to meet with the 

technical registrants of clethodim to discuss certain uses and use patterns identified on product 

labels for clethodim. EPA required clarification to certain uses of clethodim that will aid in 

providing the most accurate ecological and human health risk assessments that are anticipated as 

part of registration review. 

After the meeting, the registrants in attendance agreed to meet with one another at a later date to 

discuss potentially updating labels to clarify uses and use patterns in question. The registrants in 

attendance also planned to submit comments to refine conservative assumptions made in the 

absence of label instructions.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

The Honorable Ben Shelly President of the Navajo Nation P. 

### 0. Box 7440 Window Rock, Arizona 86515 Dear President Shelly: 

## AUG -8 

## 2014
OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION

Thank you for your letter, dated July 15 , 2014 , requesting government-to-government consultation on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ' s Proposed Clean Power Plan for existing power plants and our anticipated supplemental proposal to address existing power plants in Indian country. In your letter, you designated Stephen Etsitty, Executive Director of the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency, as your primary contact on this matter. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator for EPA Region 9, has been in contact with Mr
. Etsitty about scheduling consultation with you. Mr. Blumenfeld and Mr. Etsitty discussed a potential meeting in September to coincide with the Fall Meeting of the Environmental Council of the States in Santa Fe, New Mexico, scheduled for September 15

- 17 , 2014. In addition to Mr. Blumenfeld, I will be also be attending the ECOS Fall Meeting in Santa Fe. I am writing to request a meeting with you in Santa Fe, New Mexico, on September 15 from lpm to 2:30pm. In your letter, you expressed interest in discussing the development of carbon reduction goals for areas of Indian country , the timeframe for the development and submittal ofplans for the affected power plants on the Navajo Nation, and the potential for multi-jurisdictional planning between states and th e Navajo Nation. I look forward to discussing these issues with you. My staff will contact Mr. Etsitty to confirm this meeting with you , or to work towards an alternative date if that is your preference. I look forward to meeting with you soon. Sincerely,

Janet G. McCabe Acting Assistant Administrator



### cc: Stephen B. Etsitty, Executi ve Director, Navajo Nation EPA

I nternet Address (URL) • http : //www

.epa .gov Recy cled/Recyc l ab l e • Printed with Vegetab l e O i l Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
#### In the Matter of Michael McGee, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[769 NYS2d 911]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner challenges a determination finding him guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits the unauthorized use of a controlled substance. The Attorney General has advised this Court by letter that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed and that all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner’s institutional record: Inasmuch as petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled and is no longer aggrieved, the matter is dismissed as moot *(see Matter of Potter v Goord,*305 AD2d 899, 899 [2003]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard J. KOONCE, III, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6350

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 16, 2017

Decided: August 22, 2017

Richard J. Koonce, III, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia; Ronald Mitchell Huber, Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Richard J. Koonce, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-*115pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certifícate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Koonce has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Koonce’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*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6614

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOHN OKPALA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CR-91-

452-L, CA-96-2524-L)

Submitted: December 23, 1997 Decided: January 9, 1998

Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

John Okpala, Appellant Pro Se. Steve Zimmerman, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion on Rehearing
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997),

and his motions for reconsideration. The district court granted a

certificate of appealability as to one issue: "Were Mr. Okpala's

due process rights violated during his arrest in Nigeria and extradition to the United States?" We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. According,

we affirm the issue for which the district court granted a certificate of appealability and deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal as to the remaining issues on the reasoning of

the district court. United States v. Okpala, Nos. CR-92-452-L; CA96-2524-L (D. Md. Feb. 27 & Apr. 11 & Apr. 24, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART
exv10w3






Exhibit 10.3




AMENDMENT TO THE

A. H. BELO CORPORATION

CHANGE IN CONTROL SEVERANCE PLAN




     A. H. Belo Corporation, pursuant to authorization of the Board of Directors, adopts the
following amendment to the A. H. Belo Corporation Change in Control Severance Plan (the “Plan”).




	 	1.	 	Section 2(q) of the Plan (“Severance Multiple”) is amended by the addition of the following
provision thereto:






Effective December 31, 2008, the Severance Multiple will be 2.0
for the Chief Executive Officer and 1.5 for all other Participants.




	 	2.	 	Schedule A to the Plan is amended in its entirety to read as follows:





	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	SEVERANCE
	POSITION	 	TIER	 	MULTIPLE
	Chief Executive Officer

	 	Tier I
	 	 	2.0	 
	Members of the Company’s Management Committee (other

than the Chief Executive Officer)

	 	Tier II
	 	 	1.5	 
	Executive Vice Presidents and Senior Vice Presidents

(other than Management Committee members)

	 	Tier III
	 	 	1.5	 
	Vice Presidents (not described in Tier II or Tier III)

	 	Tier IV
	 	 	1.5	 







	 	3.	 	The foregoing amendments will be effective as of December 31, 2008.





     Executed at Dallas, Texas, this 31st day of March, 2009.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	A. H. BELO CORPORATION

 	 
	 	By  	/s/ Sheila Hartley
 	 
	 	 	Sheila Hartley 	 
	 	 	Vice President/Human Resources
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         27,596
<SECURITIES>                                    4,059
<RECEIVABLES>                                  27,044
<ALLOWANCES>                                        6
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               62,408
<PP&E>                                         18,448
<DEPRECIATION>                                 10,114
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                360,829
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          25,632
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          78,822
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          442
<OTHER-SE>                                    186,790
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  360,829
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               35,886
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0                                  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               28,405
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (53)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 6,371
<INCOME-TAX>                                    2,612
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             3,759
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    3,759
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .06                                     
        

</TABLE>
TELEPHONE CONTACT SUMMARY

F ROM : Sandy Burns

RTI International

D ATE OF CONTACT : June 17, 2010

ORGANIZATION CONTACTED:

Fulton County Processing, Ltd.

7800 State Route 109

Delta, Ohio 43515

P ERSON CONTACTED :

John Grossheim, Processing Manager

(260) 668

- 3189

PURPOSE OF CONTACT:

For in formation on facilities’ use of Smooth Clean Surface (SCS) technology

.

SUMMARY OF CONTACT:

Fulton County Processing was chosen to contact because it is listed on the SCS website

as using both pickling and SCS pro cesses. Mr. Grossheim confirmed that not all steel can

be treated with SCS. SCS

- treated steel cannot be galvanized, painted or enameled.

Because SCS leaves the last layer of scale, these finished will not adhere and will fall out;

powder coating is the on ly finish that will adhere. In addition, sharp bends will cause the

last layer of scale to powder, which can cause problems with process equipment.

Mr. Grossheim stated that the benefits of SCS are no oil residue left on the steel, and no

pickling liquor . However, he noted that at Fulton County Processing and another facility

in the same organization pickling liquor is used by the local wastewater treatment plant

where it is used in the treatment process.
Exhibit





Ex. 10.12



Grant Date: March 1, 2018




APPENDIX A


January 1, 2018 - June 4, 2018, Performance Criteria (relating to Great Plains Energy
 Incorporated) for 14.14% of Performance Shares*


	
						
	Objectives
	Weighting
(Percent)
	Threshold
(50%)
	Target
(100%)
	Stretch
(150%)
	Superior
(200%)

	Total Shareholder Return (TSR) versus EEI Index1
(Interpolation applicable)
	100%
	30th 
Percentile
	50th
Percentile
	70th Percentile
	90th Percentile






*Time-based vesting applies for the remainder of the Award Period (i.e., Grantee must remain employed by the Company through the date the Performance Shares are paid in order to receive any Performance Shares earned based on the TSR percentile rank achieved between January 1, 2018, and June 4, 2018 (the “Great Plains Energy Measurement Period”)).


June 5, 2018 - December 31, 2020, Performance Criteria (relating to Evergy, Inc.) for 85.86% of Performance Shares**


	
						
	Objectives
	Weighting
(Percent)
	Threshold
(50%)
	Target
(100%)
	Stretch
(150%)
	Superior
(200%)

	Total Shareholder Return (TSR) versus EEI Index1
(Interpolation applicable)
	100%
	30th 
Percentile
	50th
Percentile
	70th Percentile
	90th Percentile






**Performance Shares will be earned based on TSR of Evergy, Inc. between June 5, 2018, and December 31, 2020 (the “Evergy Measurement Period”).  The Grantee must remain employed by the Company through the date the Performance Shares are paid in order to receive any Performance Shares earned based on the TSR percentile rank achieved during the Evergy Measurement Period.














1 TSR is compared to an industry peer group of the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) index of electric companies during the applicable measurement period (i.e., the Great Plains Energy Measurement Period or the Evergy Measurement Period).  At the end of and with respect to each measurement period, the Committee will assess total shareholder return compared to the EEI index for the applicable measurement period. Depending on Great Plains Energy’s or Evergy’s percentile rank, as applicable, the Grantee will receive a percentage of the Performance Share Award.  Interpolation will be used to determine payouts if percentile rank of relative total shareholder return falls between the percentile ranks shown.    


Cap on Negative TSR:  If actual TSR performance is negative, payout would be capped at Target (100%).
EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

        We  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements  on Form  S-8  (No.  33-61907,  33-10257,  333-44959,  333-61833  and
333-90919)  pertaining to the 1981 Employee  Incentive  Stock Option Plan,  1987
Stock  Option  Plan,  1995 Stock  Option  Plan,  as amended,  1995  Non-Employee
Directors' Stock Option Plan, as amended, and 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan,
as amended,  of California  Micro Devices  Corporation of our report dated April
26, 2000,  with respect to the financial  statements  and schedule of California
Micro  Devices  Corporation  included in this Annual  Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended March 31, 2000.

                                                     /s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Jose, California
June 12, 2000