alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.5



 Exhibit 10.5 (1 of 2) 

DEGOLYER AND MACNAUGHTON 

5001 SPRING VALLEY ROAD 

SUITE 800 EAST 

DALLAS, TEXAS 75244 

April 25, 2017 
  

Dr. José Antonio González Anaya 
 Director
General 
 Petróleos Mexicanos 
 Avenida Marina Nacional
329 
 Torre Ejecutiva, Piso 41 
 Colonia Verónica
Anzures 
 11300 Ciudad de México, México 
 Dear
Dr. González Anaya: 
 We hereby consent to the references to DeGolyer and MacNaughton as set forth under the
headings “Presentation of Information Concerning Reserves,” “Item 4. Information on the Company – Business Overview – Exploration and Production – Reserves,” and “Item 19. Exhibits. Documents filed
as exhibits to this Form 20-F” in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the Form 20-F), and to the filing as Exhibit 10.6 to the Form 20-F of our third-party report dated April 17, 2017, describing our review of the estimates of proved oil, marketable
gas, sales gas, condensate, natural gas liquids (NGL), and oil equivalent reserves that PEMEX has represented are owned by the United Mexican States (México) as of January 1, 2017, for certain fields located in the Burgos area of
México, which include reserves that PEMEX has represented that it has the right to extract and sell. These estimates were prepared in accordance with the reserves definitions of Rules 4-10(a) (l)-(32)
of Regulation S-X of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. 
  

	
	Very truly yours,
	
	




	DeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTON
	Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-716









 Exhibit 10.5 (2 of 2) 

DEGOLYER AND MACNAUGHTON 

5001 SPRING VALLEY ROAD 

SUITE 800 EAST 

DALLAS, TEXAS 75244 

April 25, 2017 
  

Dr. José Antonio González Anaya 
 Director
General 
 Petróleos Mexicanos 
 Avenida Marina Nacional
329 
 Torre Ejecutiva, Piso 41 
 Colonia Verónica
Anzures 
 11300 Ciudad de México, México 
 Dear
Dr. González Anaya: 
 We hereby consent to the references to DeGolyer and MacNaughton as set forth under the
headings “Presentation of Information Concerning Reserves,” “Item 4. Information on the Company – Business Overview – Exploration and Production – Reserves,” and “Item 19. Exhibits. Documents filed as exhibits
to this Form 20-F” in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the Form 20-F), and to the filing as Exhibit 10.6 to the Form 20-F of our third-party report dated April 17, 2017, describing our review of the estimates of proved oil, marketable
gas, sales gas, condensate, natural gas liquids (NGL), and oil equivalent reserves that PEMEX has represented are owned by the United Mexican States (México) as of January 1, 2017, for certain fields located in the Veracruz area of
México, which include reserves that PEMEX has represented that it has the right to extract and sell. These estimates were prepared in accordance with the reserves definitions of Rules 4-10(a) (l)-(32)
of Regulation S-X of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. 
  

	
	Very truly yours,
	
	




	DeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTON
	Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-716
H. Res. 96

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

February 16, 2005.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order without intervention of any point of order

to consider in the House the bill (S. 5) to amend the procedures that apply to consideration of interstate class actions

to assure fairer outcomes for class members and defendants,

and for other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read.

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) 90 minutes of debate on the

bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; (2)

the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the

report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by Representative Conyers of Michigan or his

designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any

point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and controlled
2

•HRES 96 EH

by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to

commit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
Amendment dated February 5, 2010 to Employee Offer Agreement



 Exhibit 10.59 
 AMENDMENT OF KEITH PEDEN’S 
 APRIL 9, 2001 OFFER
LETTER 
 The employment offer letter dated April 9, 2001, from Raytheon Company to Keith Peden and the enclosures with it are amended as
follows, effective as of January 1, 2010: 
 All references to continuation of perquisites after a separation from service,

 whether in connection with a Change in Control or otherwise, are deleted. 
 By signing below, Raytheon Company and Keith Peden agree to the terms of this Amendment. 
  

							
	Raytheon Company	  		  	Keith J. Peden	  	
				
	 /s/ Jay B. Stephens
	  		  	 /s/ Keith J. Peden
	  	
	 Jay B. Stephens
	  		  	February 5, 2010	  	
	 Senior Vice President, General
	  		  		  	
	 Counsel and Secretary
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7290 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7290

   To prohibit corruption in the office of any State or local chief 
                              prosecutor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2024

Mr. Mills (for himself, Mr. McCormick, and Mr. Donalds) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit corruption in the office of any State or local chief 
                              prosecutor.

    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 ``Against Federal Funds for Allowing 
Inappropriate Relationships Act'' or the ``AFFAIR Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.

    No Federal funds may be awarded to the office of any State or local 
chief prosecutor if any individual in such office has been convicted 
for engaging corruption or any other unlawful activity.
                                 <all>
```
---

---

Exhibit 14.3

CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements of NUR Macroprinters Ltd. on Form S-8 (File Nos.
333-102288 and 333-92491) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pertaining to
the 1995 Israel Stock Option Plan, the 1997 Stock Option Plan, the 1998 Non-Employee
Director Share Option Plan and the 2000 Stock Option Plan of NUR Macroprinters Ltd. and
Form F-3 (File Nos. 333-115826, 333-114428, 333-47842 and 333-92493) of our report dated
June 1, 2005 relating to the financial statements of NUR Asia Pacific Limited for the year
ended December 31, 2003 with respect to the Consolidated Financial Statements of NUR
Macroprinters Ltd., included in its annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December
31, 2004 filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

/s/ Grant Thornton
Grant Thornton
Hong Kong
July 14, 2005



---

---
Aug~st16, 2012 

Michael 0. Matthews 

Chief Financial Officer 

Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. 

1 022 Airport Parkway 

Cheyenne, WY 82001 

l't'U•· J40"5 l 't1,·l102..- Re: EAS OST 1997 29~Qr and OST 199~ l@Q,g 

Town of Silver City, et al. 

Dear Mr. Matthews, 

'' ·, J1 ., r 1..1 L 'I 1l II: Ol 

I am Town Attorney for the Town of Silver City and will be the initial contact for EAS 

matters. The Town is in receipt of Great Lakes' proposal, and in the absence· of a narrative, the 

Town has a few questions that need to be answered prior to the Town making its comments. 

Your proposal eliminates Albuquerque as a hub and proposes Denver/Phoenix in 

substitution. 

- Is it the intention of Great Lakes to loop Phoenix with Denver so that Silver City/ Grant 

County passengers will have both hubs at their disposal on any given flight ? 

- If not, then are you leaving it to the Town in this EAS proceeding to indicate its preference 

of one hub rather than the other ? 

- Does Great Lakes favor one hub over the other ? 

- Will there be any intermediate stops between Grant County Airport and the two 

mentioned hubs, specifically Albuquerque and/ or Santa Fe ? 

The Town is also aware that Great Lakes had been in contact with Clovis where the issue of 

having TSA representatives on the ground as a condition to particular hub service was discussed. Is 

it cOntemplated that Grant County will require the presence of TSA personnel as a condition to 

interline with carriers in Phoenix or Denver? Further, will passengers flying through the mentioned I 

hubs be able to check baggage to their ultimate destinations ? 
·The Town of Silver City is a bit disappointed that there has been little, if any, direct contact 

with Great Lakes. It was unfortunate that the Town had to learn about the Notice of Termination 

without a courtesy call, with no apparent interest on the part of Great Lakes to engage in preliminary 

negotiations for mutual benefit. The efforts at communication and cooperation that your airline 

exhibited when it first appeared in Silver City have disappeared. The Town hopes that your airline 

will reverse this trend and work its way back to a more productive relationship, especially during this 

period of reassessment. A good start would be an expeditious and full response to the questions 

posed herein. 

Very truly yours, 

Robert L. Scavron 

Town Attorney 

- . . . OIT·lqt:Url't02. .. pc: Brian Swanson, for filing in Dockets ~~T 1997 29~Ql O~T 199g lBO~ OST 1996-1903 

Hon. Senator Bingaman
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7349 

To criminalize the intentional obstruction of roadways on the Interstate 

System. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2024 

Mr. COLLINS (for himself, Mr. YAKYM, Mr. NEHLS, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. 

WEBER of Texas, and Mr. OWENS) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To criminalize the intentional obstruction of roadways on 

the Interstate System. 

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 ‘‘Safe Passage on Inter5 states Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. OBSTRUCTION OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 65 of title 18, United 

8 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 


dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7349 IH

1 ‘‘§ 1370. Obstruction of interstate highways 

2 ‘‘(a) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘inter3 state highway’ means a highway on the Interstate System 

4 (as defined in section 101(a) of title 23). 

5 ‘‘(b) OFFENSE.— 

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful to 

7 knowingly engage in an activity described in para8 graph (2) on an interstate highway with the intent 

9 to obstruct the free, convenient, and normal use of 

10 the interstate highway. 

11 ‘‘(2) ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED.—The activities 

12 described in this paragraph are— 

13 ‘‘(A) deliberately delaying traffic on an 

14 interstate highway; 

15 ‘‘(B) standing or approaching a motor ve16 hicle on an interstate highway; or 

17 ‘‘(C) endangering the safe movement of a 

18 motor vehicle on an interstate highway. 

19 ‘‘(3) EXCEPTION.—Paragraph (1) shall not 

20 apply to any lawful activity conducted or authorized 

21 by the United States, a State, or a political subdivi22 sion of a State. 

23 ‘‘(c) PENALTIES.— 

24 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Any person who violates 

25 subsection (b) shall be fined not more than $10,000, 

26 imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both. 


dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7349 IH

1 ‘‘(2) OBSTRUCTION OF EMERGENCY VEHI2 CLE.—Any person who, in the course of violating 

3 subsection (b), knowingly obstructs the passage of 

4 an authorized emergency vehicle (as defined in sec5 tion 1001.4 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, 

6 or any successor regulation) shall be fined not more 

7 than $15,000, imprisoned for not more than 20 

8 years, or both. 

9 ‘‘(3) VIOLATION RESULTING IN DEATH.—Any 

10 person who commits a violation of subsection (b) 

11 that results in the death of any other person shall 

12 be fined not more than the applicable amount under 

13 paragraph (1) or (2) of this subsection, imprisoned 

14 for any term of years or for life, or both.’’. 

15 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.— 

16 The table of sections for chapter 65 of title 18, United 

17 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol18 lowing: 

‘‘1370. Obstruction of interstate highways.’’. 

Æ 


dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
Editorial Note on Part 189
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 189 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; and 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005.

§ 189.301 Tin-coated lead foil capsules for wine bottles. ( a ) Tin-coated lead foil is composed of a lead foil coated on one or both sides with a thin layer of tin. Tin-coated lead foil has been used as a capsule (i.e., as a covering applied over the cork and neck areas) on wine bottles to prevent insect infestation, as a barrier to oxygen, and for decorative purposes. Information received by the Food and Drug Administration establishes that the use of such a capsule on wine bottles may reasonably be expected to result in lead becoming a component of the wine.
( b ) The capping of any bottles of wine after February 8, 1996, with a tin-coated lead foil capsule renders the wine adulterated and in violation of section 402(a)(2)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act because lead from the capsule, which is an unsafe food additive within the meaning of section 409 of the act, may reasonably be expected to become a component of the wine.
[61 FR 4820, Feb. 8, 1996]
#### WILKINS *against*CROFT.

ON OEBTIOBABI.

Reversal of judgment on judgment note, without confession or proof.

The record sent up by the justice is as follows:



Kirkpatrick. C. J.

— This proceeding is irregular. It pretends to be a judgment on a note of hand *with leave to enter judgment.*But this cannot be done upon mere inspection. Either the party or his attorney must appear and confess the judgment, or proof of the signing the warrant, *86must be exhibited. And it is much to be questioned whether even this is admissible in a justice’s court, without summons to the party, and an opportunity offered him at least, of cross-examining the [*] witness. It is to be observed that this [67] is not a proceeding under the act contained in *Paterson, page*AU- That respects sealed instruments with regular warrants of attorney, this is a note without any such warrant.

*Pearson,*for plaintiff.

I think the judgment is wrong in its principle, and therefore must be reversed.

Rossell and Pennington, Justices, concurred.

Judgment reversed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1
                              LEVEL 8 SYSTEMS, INC.
              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES BY JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION


All Companies are 100% owned unless otherwise noted.


Argentina:

     SEER Technologies de Argentine S.A.


Australia:

     Level 8 Systems Australia Pty Limited

     Template Software SE Asia Pty


Austria:

     Milestone Software GmbH

Barbados:

     Level 8 FSC, Inc.


Benelux:

     Level 8 Benelux B.V.


Brazil:

     SEER Technologies do Brazil Ltda.


Canada:

     Level 8 Canada, Inc.
          Domestic Province:           Ontario

          3020126 Canada Inc.
          Domestic Province:           Canada

Denmark:

     Level 8 Denmark ApS

France:

                                       1
<PAGE>

     Level 8 France S.A.R.L.

     Template Software S.A.

Germany:

     Level 8 Europe (Deutschland) GmbH

     Template Software GmbH

     Template Software Holding GmbH

     Template Software Geschaftsfuhrungs GmbH




Ireland:

     Level 8 Ireland Limited


Italy:

     Level 8 Italia S.r.L.


Mexico:

     SEER Technologies de Mexico S.A. de C.V.

     Template Software de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

Korea:

     SEER Korea Co., Limited


Spain:

     Level 8 Espana, S.L.


Sweden:

     Level 8 Systems Nordic AB

Switzerland:

     Milestone Software AG (20% owned)

United Kingdom:

                                       2
<PAGE>

     Level 8 Systems (U.K.) Limited

     Template Software, UK Limited

     Template Software Limited


United States:

Parent Company:

   Level 8 Systems, Inc.
     State of Incorporation:           Delaware

Subsidiary:

     SEER Technologies, Inc.
          State of Incorporation:      Delaware

     Level 8 Technologies, Inc.
          State of Incorporation:      New York

     SEER Technologies (Worldwide Holdings) Limited
          State of Incorporation:      Delaware

     ProfitKey International, Inc.
          State of Incorporation:      Delaware

     Momentum Software Corporation
          State of Incorporation:      Delaware

     Transfer Flow, Inc.
          State of Incorporation:      Delaware

     TSAC, Inc.
          State of Incorporation:      Delaware

     TSGS, Inc.
          State of Incorporation:      Delaware

                                       3
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7302 

To require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to require 

public housing agencies to disclose contracts entered into, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2024 

Mr. TORRES of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 

to require public housing agencies to disclose contracts 

entered into, 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 ‘‘Contracting Account5 ability and Transparency Act’’ or the ‘‘CAT Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE REQUIRED. 

7 The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 

8 shall, not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment 

9 of this Act, require each public housing agencies to pubVerDate Sep 11 2014 20:52 Feb 09, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7302.IH H7302

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7302 IH

1 licly disclose, on the website of the public housing agency, 

2 with respect to each contract entered into by such public 

3 housing agency the following information— 

4 (1) all material information about the contract, 

5 including the goods and service provided; 

6 (2) the vendor; 

7 (3) the date of the solicitation of the contract; 

8 (4) the bids and quotes solicited; and 

9 (5) and the official who solicited the contract. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
§ 3485.22 Does this part apply to me? This part applies to you if you are— ( a ) A participant or principal in a “covered transaction” (see subpart B of this part and the definition of “nonprocurement transaction” in § 180.970 of this title).
( b ) A respondent in a suspension or debarment action of the Department.
( c ) An ED deciding official; or
( d ) An ED officer authorized to enter into any type of nonprocurement transaction that is a covered transaction.
(Authority: E.O. 12549 (3 CFR 1986 Comp., p. 189); E.O. 12689 (3 CFR 1989 Comp., p. 235); sec. 2455, Pub. L. 103-355, 108 Stat. 3327 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note); 20 U.S.C. 1082, 1094, 1221e-3, and 3474)
Order entered July 13, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 22 - 00010 - CV FARMLAND PARTNERS INC. , Appellant

V. FIRST SABERPOINT CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L . P . , ET AL. , Ap pellee s

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 21 - 08643

O RDER Before the Court is appellees’ July 11, 2022 unopposed second motion for an extension of time to file their brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to August 3, 2022 . We caution appellees that f urther extension requests will be disfavored.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 98

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to free 

trade negotiations that could adversely impact the sugar industry of 

the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2005

Mr. KILDEE (for himself, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. CASE, 

Mr. FILNER, Mr. POMEROY, Mr. STUPAK, Mr. MELANCON, Mr. 

HASTINGS of Florida, and Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 

Means 

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with 

respect to free trade negotiations that could adversely 

impact the sugar industry of the United States.

Whereas the President concluded negotiations with Costa 

Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua 

to form a Central American Free Trade Agreement (referred to in this resolution as ‘‘CAFTA’’), and the Dominican Republic joined the agreement in August of 

2004; 

Whereas CAFTA seeks to provide those countries with increased access to the United States sugar market; 
2

•HRES 98 IH 

Whereas simultaneously, the Administration has embarked on 

a multitude of free trade agreements with major sugar 

producing nations such as members of the South Africa 

Customs Union, Thailand, nations of the Western Hemisphere, and others, and has made it clear that access to 

the United States sugar market is on the negotiating 

table; 

Whereas the United States sugar market is already oversupplied, with declining consumption forcing domestic 

sugar producers to store extremely high quantities of 

sugar; 

Whereas significant increases in sugar imports under CAFTA 

and other trade agreements currently under negotiation 

could render inoperable basic elements of the United 

States sugar program enacted under the Farm Security 

and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107–

171); 

Whereas effects on the United States sugar program would 

wreak havoc in the United States sugar industry, and result in the loss of thousands of jobs and farms involved 

in sugar production in 19 States across the country; and 

Whereas any constructive effort to address distortion in the 

world sugar market should be handled multilaterally 

through the World Trade Organization, in a manner that 

addresses comprehensively and simultaneously the sugar 

subsidy programs of all major world producers, and 

should not be handled through bilateral or regional agreements: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that—
3

•HRES 98 IH 

1 (1) the President should renegotiate provisions 

2 of CAFTA relating to access to the United States 

3 sugar market, so as to grant no greater access to 

4 the United States sugar market than is currently en5 joyed by the signatories to the agreement; and 

6 (2) the President should not include sugar as 

7 an element of negotiations in any bilateral or re8 gional free trade agreement.

Æ