alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
204.7500 Scope of subpart. ( a ) This subpart prescribes policies and procedures for including the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) level requirements in DoD contracts. CMMC is a framework that measures a contractor's cybersecurity maturity to include the implementation of cybersecurity practices and institutionalization of processes (see *https://www.acq.osd.mil/cmmc/index.html*).
( b ) This subpart does not abrogate any other requirements regarding contractor physical, personnel, information, technical, or general administrative security operations governing the protection of unclassified information, nor does it affect requirements of the National Industrial Security Program.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DALTON DEWAYNE HUNT,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-20-00214-CR

Appeal from the

196th District Court

of Hunt County, Texas 

(TC# 30983)

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS Appellant’s Pro Se Motion for Extension of Time to File the Brief.

Appellant’s pro se brief shall be due in this Court on or before April 16, 2021. 

Further, the Court, on its own motion, is hereby providing a hard copy of the appellate 

record, which consists of 1 volume of the Clerk’s Record, and 6 volumes of the Reporter’s Record, 

via U. S. mail, to the Warden of the Dominguez State Jail, 6535 Cagnon Road, San Antonio, Texas 

78252, for use by the Appellant Dalton Dewayne Hunt (SO# 2328587). The Warden or designated 

custodian of records shall make this record available to the appellant for purposes of preparing his 

appellate brief. The hard copy of this record does not need to be returned to this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of March, 2021.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Joseph Gutierrez, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this  quarterly  report on Form 10-QSB of  AeroTelesis,  Inc.
formerly known as Pacific Realm, Inc.;

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

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

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and  I  are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure  controls and procedures,  or caused such disclosure
controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to ensure that
material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including its  consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,  particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions  about the effectiveness
of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial  reporting that occurred  during the  registrant's  most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected,  or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,  based on our
most recent  evaluation of internal  control over  financial  reporting,  to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) all  significant  deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses  in the  design  or
operation of internal  controls over  financial  reporting  which are reasonably
likely  to  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to  record,  process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's  internal control over
financial reporting.


Date: February 19, 2004


/s/ Joseph Gutierrez
Joseph Gutierrez, President
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of Maxtor Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 27, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert L. Edwards,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), that:

          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

          (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.



                                       /s/ Robert L. Edwards
                                       ------------------------------
                                       Robert L. Edwards
                                       EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND
                                       CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


Date: March 11, 2004

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT
APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED
BY THE COMPANY AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS
STAFF UPON REQUEST.
# C_2017049EN.01000101.xml

| 16.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 49/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 49/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8240 — Dana/Brevini Fluid Power and Brevini Power Transmission)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 49/01)

On 16 December 2016, 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 English 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 number 32016M8240. 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 number 32016M8240. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ELIZABETH (“LIBBY”) GIBBS, § 

on behalf of herself and the class § 

defined below, § 

 Plaintiff § 

 § 

VS. § Case No.: 1:12-cv-00725 

 § 

CACH, LLC. and § 

SQUARETWO FINANCIAL ) § 

CORPORATION, formerly known as ) § 

COLLECT AMERICA, LTD, § 

 Defendants § 

DEFENDANTS’ CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

 Defendants CACH, LLC and SquareTwo Financial Corporation hereby 

submit their Certificate of Interested Parties and provide the following 

information: 

Plaintiff: Plaintiff is Elizabeth (“Libby”) Gibbs. As a natural person she 

is not a publicly traded entity. Her address is in care of her attorneys of 

record. 

Defendant CACH, LLC: Defendant CACH, LLC presently has a financial 

interest in this case. CACH, LLC is a Colorado limited liability company whose 

principal offices are at 4340 S. Monaco, Denver, CO 80237. It is a whollyowned subsidiary of SquareTwo Financial Corporation, the equity of which is 

not publicly traded. 

Defendant SquareTwo Financial Corporation: Defendant SquareTwo 

Financial Corporation presently has a financial interest in this case. 

Case: 1:12-cv-00725 Document #: 10 Filed: 02/10/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:106
SquareTwo Financial Corporation is a Delaware corporation whose principal 

offices are at 4340 S. Monaco, Denver, CO 80237. It is a wholly-owned 

subsidiary of CA Holding, Inc. the equity of which is not publicly traded. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Manuel H. Newburger 

Manuel H. Newburger 

Barron & Newburger, P.C. 

1212 Guadalupe, Suite 104 

Austin, Texas 78701-1837 

(512) 476-9103 

Fax: (512) 279-0310 

mnewburger@bn-lawyers.com 

 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS 

Case: 1:12-cv-00725 Document #: 10 Filed: 02/10/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:107
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I, the undersigned attorney, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of 

the foregoing Certificate has been served through the Court’s ECF system and 

by fax transmission on the person(s) on the Service List below on this, the 10th 

day of February, 2012. 

 /s/ Manuel H. Newburger 

 Manuel H. Newburger 

SERVICE LIST: 

Thomas Soule 

EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER 

& GOODWIN, LLC 

120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor 

Chicago, Illinois 60603 

(312) 739-4200 

(312) 419-0379 (FAX) 

Courtecl@edcombs.com 

Case: 1:12-cv-00725 Document #: 10 Filed: 02/10/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:108
#### 252.247-7014 Demurrage.

As prescribed in 247.271-3(c), use the following clause:

# Demurrage (DEC 1991)

The Contractor shall be liable for all demurrage, detention, or other charges as a result of its failure to load or unload trucks, freight cars, freight terminals, vessel piers, or warehouses within the free time allowed under applicable rules and tariffs.

(End of clause)

[56 FR 36479, July 31, 1991, as amended at 75 FR 51419, Aug. 20, 2010; 84 FR 25195, May 31, 2019; 84 FR 30952, June 28, 2019]
#### Samuel Brechner et al., Appellants, v. Incorporated Village of Lake Success et al., Respondents.

Motions by respondents to dismiss appeal denied, on condition that appellants perfect the appeal and be ready to argue or submit it at the February Term, beginning January 30, 1961. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. The record and appellants’ brief must be served and filed on or before January 6, 1961. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
1

From: Whitney Barkley <wbarkley@ >

Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 11:40 AM

To: Chip Cameron

Cc: Rory O'sullivan; Angela Peoples; Eileen Connor; Margaret Reiter; Tom Tarantino; Kevin 

Jensen; Mohr, Rhonda (rmohr@ ); Warner, Jack; Sandra Kinney; Justice, Della 

(KYOAG); Libby DeBlasio; Ted Daywalt; Tom Kriger; Helga Greenfield; 

rhiggs@ ; Barbara Hoblitzell; Nassirian, Barmak; Richard Heath; Glen Gabert; 

Jenny Rickard; tdalton@ ; Raymond Testa; Marc Jerome; 

JBerkowitz@ ; Belle Wheelan Private; nharvison@ ; Brian 

Jones; Mahaffie, Lynn; Wilson, Amy; charlie pou

Subject: Proposal from the Repayment Rate Working Group

Good Morning, 

 

I hope you are all doing well. While a more detailed memo is forthcoming, I thought I would go ahead and 

share the outline of the repayment working groups proposal. 

 

We conceived of this proposal as way to measure three important things. First, we wanted to provide a safe 

harbor to institutions and programs that are high performers. Second, we wanted to ensure that we were 

providing a metric that accounted for non-completers. And, finally, we strongly believe that repayment rates 

provide an important mirror to loan default rates. 

 

We won’t be providing a specific repayment rate to the Department but rather a frame work for how they may 

arrive at a number that is fair to both institutions and students. An analysis of the debt to income rates reported 

in 2011 revealed that there is a strong correlation between DTE ratios and repayment rates. It is our contention 

that the use of repayment rates that correlate to the DTE ratios used in the final rule will provide a reasonable 

basis for regulation. 

 

The structure of the repayment proposal is as follows: 

 

All institutions with a median debt load of $0 are exempted from the regulation.

Tier One: High Repayment Rate

Programs with a high repayment rate will be exempted from any further regulation 

 

Tier Two: Median Repayment Rate

Programs with a median repayment rate will be subject to additional regulation: 

· Programs with a median repayment rate will be required to pass both DTE measures. 

· Programs with a median repayment rate will be required to submit new programs for prior 

approval, per Barmack Nassirian’s proposal 

· Programs with BOTH a median repayment rate AND a high DTE ratio will be subject to an 

audit of their job placement rates 

 

Tier Three: Low Repayment Rate:

In the first year, programs with low repayment rates will be required to: 

· Programs with a low repayment rate will be required to pass both DTE measures
Table 2.1. Personal Income and Its Disposition

[Billions of dollars] Bureau of Economic Analysis Dow nloaded on 5/27/2011 At 2:17:42 PM Last Revised May 26, 2011 1 2 3 Line 2009 2010 1 Personal income 12174.9 12541 2 Compensation of employees, received 7806.7 7984.5 3 Wage and salary disbursements 6274.1 6398.9 4Private industries 5100.5 5211.8 5 Government 1173.6 1187.1 6 Supplements to wages and salaries 1532.6 1585.6 7 Employer contributions for employee pension and insurance funds 1072 1106.8 8 Employer contributions for government social insurance 460.6 478.8 9 Proprietors' income with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments 1011.9 1055 10Farm 30.5 44.9 11 Nonfarm 981.5 1010.1 12 Rental income of persons with capital consumption adjustment 274 300.9 13 Personal income receipts on assets 1919.7 1907.6 14Personal interest income 1222.3 1194.9 15 Personal dividend income 697.4 712.7 16 Personal current transfer receipts 2132.8 2296.4 17 Government social benefits to persons 2096.8 2259 18 Old-age, survivors, disability, and health insurance benefits 1164.5 1213.9 19 Government unemployment insurance benefits 128.6 136.6 20Veterans benefits 52.3 61.4 21 Family assistance\1\ 20.1 19.8 22 Other 731.3 827.4 23 Other current transfer receipts, from business (net) 36 37.4 24Less: Contributions for government social insurance, domestic 970.3 1003.5 25 Less: Personal current taxes 1140 1166.3 26 Equals: Disposable personal income 11034.9 11374.7 27 Less: Personal outlays 10379.6 10720.7 28 Personal consumption expenditures 10001.3 10349.1 29 Personal interest payments\2\ 216.8 198.9 30Personal current transfer payments 161.4 172.7 31 To government 95 100.8 32 To the rest of the world (net) 66.5 71.9 33 Equals: Personal saving 655.3 653.9 34Personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income 5.9 5.7 Addenda: 35 Personal income excluding current transfer receipts, billions of chained (2005) dollars\3\ 9191.1 9219.6 Disposable personal income: 36 Total, billions of chained (2005) dollars\3\ 10099.8 10236.6 Per capita: 37 Current dollars 35888 36680 38 Chained (2005) dollars 32847 33010 39 Population (midperiod, thousands) 307483 310106 Percent change from preceding period: 40Disposable personal income, current dollars 0.7 3.1 41 Disposable personal income, chained (2005) dollars 0.6 1.4

1. Consists of aid to families with dependent children and, beginning with 1996,assistance programs operatingunder the Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. 2. Consists of nonmortgage interest paid by households. 3. The current-dollar measure is deflated by the implicit price deflator forTable 2.1. Personal Income and Its Disposition [Billions of dollars]
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Nos.333-08181, 333-61011, 333-87041, 333-58742, 333-124979 and 333-126455) and the RegistrationStatement on Form S-3 (No. 333-129477) of Maxtor Corporation of our report dated February 21, 2006relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
#### 225.7022-1 Scope.

This section implements section 855 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (Pub. L. 117-263) and 10 U.S.C. 4661.

[88 FR 37797, June 9, 2023]
#### 2110.7003 Significant events.

The contractor is required to inform the contracting officer of all significant events.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.3

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                               TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT

         This Amendment No. 1 (the "Amendment") to the Rights Agreement (the
"Rights Agreement") dated as of July 14, 1998 between Parker Drilling Company, a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. (the
"Rights Agent") is effective as of September 22, 1998.

                                    RECITALS

         The Company desires to amend the Rights Agreement to revise the
redemption provisions of Section 24(b) and remove the restrictions on redeeming
the Rights Agreement if the Board of Directors is not comprised of Continuing
Directors, and certifies that the Amendment complies with the terms of Section
29 of the Rights Agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual
agreements herein set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows:

         1. Section 24(b) of the Rights Agreement is hereby amended to read as
follows:

                  "(b) The Board of Directors of the Company may, at its option,
         at any time prior to the Shares Acquisition Date redeem all but not
         less than all the then outstanding Rights at a redemption price of one
         cent ($.01) per Right then outstanding, appropriately adjusted to
         reflect any adjustment in the number of Rights outstanding pursuant to
         Section 12(i) herein (such redemption price being hereinafter referred
         to as the "Redemption Price"). Any such redemption of the Rights by the
         Board of Directors may be made effective at such time, on such basis
         and with such conditions as the Board of Directors in its sole
         discretion may establish."

         2. Section 1, Certain Definitions, is hereby amended to delete the
definitions of "Transaction" and "Transaction Person."

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1
to the Rights Agreement to be duly executed, effective as of the day and year
first above written.

                                             PARKER DRILLING COMPANY


                                             By    /s/ James J. Davis
                                               ---------------------------------
                                                James J. Davis
                                                Senior Vice President -- Finance


                                             NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA, N.A.,
                                             As Rights Agent


                                             By       /s/ Barbara M. Novak
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Name:  Barbara M. Novak
                                               Title: Vice President
#### In the Matter of J. W. Mays, Inc., Respondent-Appellant, v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, Appellant-Respondent.

In consolidated proceedings to review the assessments of certain real property in the Borough of Queens, City of New York, for taxation for the tax years hereinafter mentioned, the parties cross-appeal as follows from a final order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, made March 19, 1963, upon the court’s decision after a nonjury trial, which reduced the assessment for 1959-60 from $1,175,000 to $1,120,000; for 1960-61 from $6,350,000 to $5,775,000; and for 1961-62 from $6,350,000 to $5,875,000: The Tax Commission of the City of New York appeals from the entire order. The petitioner appeals from said order insofar as it failed to direct further reductions. Order modified on the facts by further reducing the assessments to the following amounts:

> *Tax Years Unimproved Improved*

> 1959-60 $ 750,000 $ 750,000

> (improvement

> not completed)

> 1960-61 1,000,000 5,400,000

> 1961-62 1,000,000 5,400,000

As so modified, order, insofar as appealed from by the respective parties, affirmed, with costs to petitioner. Findings of fact inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. Our calculation of the reproduction cost of the improvement, which took into consideration increased costs from the period of construction to the respective tax status dates, and also *802depreciation, results in a valuation of $4,472,410 for 1960-61 and $4,467,464 for 1961-62. We have regarded these figures, plus the amount we have found as the worth of the land alone for those two respective years, $1,000,000, as the maximum at which the property could lawfully be assessed for those years *(People ex rel. Parklin Operating Corp.*v. *Miller,*287 N. Y. 126). We have also given further significance to those figures by reason of our additional finding that the improvement is well suited to the site *(Matter of 860 Fifth Ave. Corp.*v. *Tax Comm.,*8 N Y 2d 29). However, the economic worth of the improvement has persuasion *(People ex rel. Parklin Operating Corp.*v. *Miller,*supra;*Matter of Pepsi-Cola Co.*v. *Tax Comm.,*19 A D 2d 56, 61; *People ex rel. Gale*v. *Tax Comm.,*17 A D 2d 225); and on that theory we have reached the following valuations: unimproved for 1960-61 and 1961-62, $980,750 and $986,175, respectively; the building alone for said two years, $3,315,260 and $3,330,740, respectively. Considering the valuations we have found on- both theories, it is our opinion that the amounts to which we have reduced the assessments for those two years fairly reflect the worth of the property for those years. We also believe the reduction to $750,000 for 1959-60 is fair. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.