alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Mr. Frank Nuno

### Assistant Professor

### Terrorism and Crime in Cyberspace

### 

**Areas of Interest:**

Information warfare, terrorism, crime in cyberspace 

Geronimo “Frank” Nuño is an Assistant Professor in the NDU CIC CS&I department.  Recently retired from the US Navy, Professor Nuño’s final tour was on the Navy Staff at OPNAV N09D as the Executive Assistant to the Navy’s Chief Digital Transformation Officer.  Professor Nuño earned a BA in History from University of California, Los Angeles, MS in Information and Telecommunication Systems, from Johns Hopkins University and a Master of Military Arts and Science in Military History from the Army Command and General Staff College.  He is currently pursuing a PhD in War Studies from the Royal Military College of Canada.  

He trained as a Naval Flight Officer in nuclear command and control and served with the "Ironmen" of VQ-3 and the "Shadows" of VQ-4, and onboard USS NIMITZ and USS JOHN C. STENNIS.  He has also served tours at the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. 

Previously, as a member of the NDU CIC military faculty from 2016-2020, Professor Nuño was course director for Cyber Terrorism and Cyber Crime, Cyber Intelligence, and served on numerous teaching teams including Continuity of Operations, and Critical Information Infrastructure Protection.  In addition, he served as the NDU CIC faculty representative to United States Cyber Command and served as Assistant Dean of Academic Affairs in 2020.
No. 11-9228.

#### Harris *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
<PAGE>

           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
           --------------------------------------------------------
                   OF COTELLIGENT GROUP, INC. - EXHIBIT 3.3
                   ----------------------------------------

                    Pursuant to Section 242 of the Delaware
                            General Corporation Law

        MICHAEL L. EVANS, President, and LORRAINE E. VEGA, Secretary, of
COTELLIGENT GROUP, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Delaware, hereby certify as follows:

        FIRST:  The Certificate of Incorporation of Cotelligent Group, Inc. was
filed in the Office of the Secretary of State of Delaware on October 18, 1995.

        SECOND:  Article FIRST of the Certificate of Incorporation of
Cotelligent Group, Inc. is hereby amended to read as follows:

           "FIRST:  The name of the Corporation is: COTELLIGENT, INC."

        THIRD:  The foregoing amendment has been duly adopted in accordance with
the provisions of Sections 141(f), 228 and 242 of the General Corporation Law of
the State of Delaware. Written consent to the foregoing amendment has been given
to the stockholders of Cotelligent Group, Inc. in accordance with Section 228 of
the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware. That this Certificate of
Amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation shall be effective on September 9,
1998.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have made and signed this
Certificate of Amendment as of this 9th day of September, 1998.

                                        /s/ MICHAEL L. EVANS
                                        ------------------------------------
                                        Michael L. Evans
                                        President

ATTESTED:

/s/ LORRAINE E. VEGA
--------------------------------
Lorraine E. Vega
Secretary
#### § 32.6563 Amortization expense—tangible.

This account shall include only the amortization of costs included in Accounts 2681, Capital leases, and 2682, Leasehold improvements.

[69 FR 44607, July 27, 2004]
#### § 32.17 Interpretation of accounts.

To the end that uniform accounting shall be maintained within the prescribed system, questions involving significant matters which are not clearly provided for shall be submitted to the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, for explanation, interpretation, or resolution. Questions and answers thereto with respect to this system of accounts will be maintained by the Wireline Competition Bureau.

[67 FR 13225, Mar. 21, 2002]
# Comments on: 2019-1825: Rothschild Connected Devices v. Coca-Cola Company
#### Lydell M. WHITE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joan PALMATEER, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 03-35454.

D.C. No. CV-00-00619-REJ(JE).

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 1, 2004.

Decided March 17, 2004.

Kendra Matthews, Ransom Blackman, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Timothy A. Sylwester, Esq., Salem, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before GOODWIN, MCKEOWN and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

The district court did not err in concluding that Oregon state prisoner Lydell M. White procedurally defaulted his claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. *See Coleman v. Thompson,*501 U.S. 722, 750, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991). White failed to include the claim at issue — that counsel was ineffective for failing to object properly to White’s 800-month sentence for murder — in his post-conviction relief petition. Nor is the claim at issue “directly traceable to” or “within the scope of’ the claims White actually alleged in the petition. *See Abbott v. Baldwin,*178 Or. App. 289, 36 P.3d 516, 520 (Or.Ct.App. 2001). Consequently, the claim is waived under Oregon law. *See*Or.Rev.Stat. § 138.550(3) (‘All grounds for relief claimed by petitioner ... must be asserted in the original or amended petition, and any grounds not so asserted are deemed waived----”); *Bowen v. Johnson,*166 Or. App. 89, 999 P.2d 1159, 1160-61 (Or.Ct. App.2000) (“[T]he allegations in the petition frame — indeed, limit — the issues for determination by the post-conviction court.”). White’s attempt to raise the issue in his state post-conviction memoranda is insufficient to “fairly present” it in the absence of an amendment to White’s post-conviction relief petition, *see*Or.Rev.Stat. § 138.590(5), or some indication that the state consented to litigate the issue. *Cf. Banks v. Dretke,*—U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 1256, 157 L.Ed.2d 1166 (2004). The record reveals neither.

White makes no showing of cause or prejudice or actual innocence sufficient to excuse his default. *See Gray v. Netherland,*518 U.S. 152, 162, 116 S.Ct. 2074, 135 L.Ed.2d 457 (1996); *Murray v. Carrier,*477 U.S. 478, 496, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**HOME | 	  ABOUT US | 	  CONTACT | 	  REGIONAL MANAGERS**Nautical Charts & Pubs****Surveys & Wrecks****GIS & Other Products****Research & Development****Customer Service****Business Opportunities****Education****NGA Chart: 91140          Scale: 200,000          Edition: 4          Edition Date: 24-JUN-95          CORRECTED TO NTM:  1995/32**Notice ListingOCVLeftIndex-  **Click the +/- buttons and drag the slider tool (solid triangle) 				to zoom in and out.** 
-  **Click the arrow buttons to pan left/right and up/down.** 
-  **Drag 				the navigation box in the upper left hand corner to move around 				the chart image.								This chart display or derived product can be used as a planning or analysis tool and may not be used as a navigational aid. 								NOTE: Use the official, full scale NGA nautical chart for real navigation whenever possible.  These are available from authorized 				NGA nautical chart sales agents.  Screen captures of the on-line viewable charts available here do NOT fulfill chart carriage 				requirements for regulated commercial vessels under Titles 33 and 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations.								Adobe Flash Player		  		is required to view the chart image.				Powered by Zoomify.** 
Privacy  |  Disclaimer  |  NOAA's National Ocean Service  |  NOAA  |  U.S. Department of Commerce **
§ 27.302 Eligibility. ( a ) General. Authorizations will be granted upon proper application if: ( 1 ) The applicant is qualified under the applicable laws and the regulations, policies and decisions issued under those laws, including § 27.12;
( 2 ) There are frequencies available to provide satisfactory service; and
( 3 ) The public interest, convenience or necessity would be served by a grant.
( b ) Alien Ownership. A WCS authorization may not be granted to or held by an entity not meeting the requirements of section 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. section 310 insofar as applicable to the particular service in question.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 156 (Monday, August 14, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 46514]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6901]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--National Glass Association

    Notice is hereby given that, on July 11, 2006, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), National Glass Association 
(``NGA'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the 
name and principal place of business of the standards development 
organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development 
activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is National Glass 
Association, McLean, VA. The nature and scope of NGA's standards 
development activities are: The development of a Repair of Laminated 
Automotive Safety Glass Standard (``ROLAGS''). The goal of ROLAGS is to 
provide a nationally recognized standard to aid in the decision to 
repair or replace damaged laminated auto glass; to assist the public to 
understand what is achieved through windshield repair; to encourage 
technicians to follow the industry's best practices; and to codify a 
consensus statement of the industry's best practices.

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 06-6901 Filed 8-11-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### BENJAMIN MAY, Plaintiff in Error, *v.*THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Defendants in Error.

*Indictment*— transfer *of, from Oyer and Terminer to Sessions*— when *order directing it need not appear in retw’n to writ of error.*

Where an indictment was found and the prisoner pleaded not guilty in the Court of Oyer and Terminer, and he was thereafter tried and convicted in the Court of Sessions, and the return to the writ of error did not show the entry of any order transferring the indictment to the latter court nor any objection by the prisoner to the trial in such court on the ground that such order had not been entered, *held,*that the conviction should be affirmed.

Writ of error to tlie Court of Sessions of the Peace of the county of Richmond, to review the conviction of the plaintiff in error of robbery.

*WilUam F. Howe,*for the plaintiff in error.

*John Crook,*for the defendants in error.

Barnard, P. J.:

The plaintiff in error was convicted of the crime of robbery at a Court of Sessions, held in Richmond county. The indictment was found at the Oyer. The accused pleaded not guilty in the Oyer.

The return to the writ of error does not set forth the entry of an order transferring the indictment to the Court of Sessions for trial. No objection to the trial before the Sessions was taken for the reason that such order was not in fact entered. The Court of Sessions had jurisdiction to try the offense. We think the question arising upon the absence of the order from the return cannot now be raised. The presumption is in favor of the regularity of the proceedings. *(Ferris*v. *The People,*48 Barb., 18.)

If the formal order was notv entered, the question was not pre sented to the court at the trial. *(Thompson*v. *The People, 3*Parker’s Cr., 208.)

The omission to enter the order was not prejudicial to the prisoner. (2 R. S., 728, sec. 52.)

*381Whether any order is necessary is questioned. *(H. B. Lambert*v. *The*People, 7 Cow., 166; *Meyer*v. People, 8 Hun, 528.)

The conviction should be affirmed.

Gilbert and Dykman, JL, concurred.

Conviction affirmed.
#### § 27.1502 Permanent discontinuance of 900 MHz broadband licenses.

A 900 MHz broadband licensee that permanently discontinues service as defined in § 1.953 must notify the Commission of the discontinuance within 10 days by filing FCC Form 601 requesting license cancelation. An authorization will automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if service is permanently discontinued as defined in this chapter, even if a licensee fails to file the required form requesting license cancelation.
§ 63.14 Prohibition on agreeing to accept special concessions. ( a ) Any carrier authorized to provide international communications service under this part shall be prohibited, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, from agreeing to accept special concessions directly or indirectly from any foreign carrier with respect to any U.S. international route where the foreign carrier possesses sufficient market power on the foreign end of the route to affect competition adversely in the U.S. market and from agreeing to accept special concessions in the future. Carriers may rely on the Commission's list of foreign carriers that do not qualify for the presumption that they lack market power in particular foreign points for purposes of determining which foreign carriers are the subject of the prohibitions contained in this section. The Commission's list of foreign carriers that do not qualify for the presumption that they lack market power is available from the Office of International Affairs' website at *https://www.fcc.gov/international-affairs*.
( b ) A special concession is defined as an exclusive arrangement involving services, facilities, or functions on the foreign end of a U.S. international route that are necessary for the provision of basic telecommunications services where the arrangement is not offered to similarly situated U.S.-licensed carriers and involves: ( 1 ) Operating agreements for the provision of basic services;
( 2 ) Distribution arrangements or interconnection arrangements, including pricing, technical specifications, functional capabilities, or other quality and operational characteristics, such as provisioning and maintenance times; or
( 3 ) Any information, prior to public disclosure, about a foreign carrier's basic network services that affects either the provision of basic or enhanced services or interconnection to the foreign country's domestic network by U.S. carriers or their U.S. customers.
( c ) This section shall not apply to the rates, terms and conditions in an agreement between a U.S. carrier and a foreign carrier that govern the settlement of U.S. international traffic, including the method for allocating return traffic.
[62 FR 64754, Dec. 9, 1997, as amended at 64 FR 19063, Apr. 19, 1999; 64 FR 34741, June 29, 1999; 66 FR 16881, Mar. 28, 2001; 69 FR 23154, Apr. 28, 2004; 78 FR 11112, Feb. 15, 2013; 88 FR 21443, Apr. 10, 2023]
No. 11-9093.

#### Wright *v.*Bondi, Attorney General of Florida, et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 25.273 Duties regarding space communications transmissions. ( a ) No person shall: ( 1 ) Transmit to a satellite unless the specific transmission is first authorized by the satellite network control center;
( 2 ) Conduct transmissions over a transponder unless the operator is authorized to transmit at that time by the satellite licensee or the satellite licensee's successor in interest; or
( 3 ) Transmit in any manner that causes unacceptable interference to the authorized transmission of another licensee.
( b ) Satellite operators shall provide upon request by the Commission and by earth station licensees authorized to transmit on their satellites relevant information needed to avoid unacceptable interference to other users, including the polarization angles for proper illumination of a given transponder.
( c ) Space station licensees are responsible for maintaining complete and accurate technical details of current and planned transmissions over their satellites, and shall require that authorized users of transponders on their satellites, whether by tariff or contract, provide any necessary technical information in this regard including that required by § 25.272. Based on this information, space station licensees shall exchange among themselves general technical information concerning current and planned transmission parameters as needed to identify and promptly resolve any potential cases of unacceptable interference between their satellite systems.
( d ) Space stations authorized after May 10, 1993 which do not satisfy the requirements of § 25.210 may be required to accept greater constraints in resolving interference problems than complying ones. The extent of these constraints shall be determined on a case-by-case basis.
[58 FR 13421, Mar. 11, 1993, as amended at 78 FR 8431, Feb. 6, 2013]
No. 10-10749.

#### Greene *v.*Washington.

Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.
§ 101.511 Permissible services. ( a ) Authorizations for stations in the 24 GHz Service will be granted to provide services on a common carrier basis or a non-common carrier basis or on both a common carrier and non-common carrier basis in a single authorization.
( b ) Stations may render any kind of digital communications service consistent with the Commission's rules and the regulatory status of the station to provide services on a common carrier or non-common carrier basis.
( c ) An applicant or licensee may submit a petition at any time requesting clarification of the regulatory status required to provide a specific communications service.
[65 FR 59360, Oct. 5, 2000]
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.14(b)


Schedule identifying Non-Employee Directors 
of Park National Corporation covered by form 
of Split-Dollar Agreement,  made and 
  entered into effective as of December 28, 2007  


The following directors of Park National Corporation (“Park”) are covered by Split-Dollar Agreements (the “Split-Dollar Agreements”) as identified below, which Split-Dollar Agreements are identical to the form of Split-Dollar Agreement, made and entered into effective as of December 28, 2007, filed as Exhibit 10.2(a) to Park’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated and filed on January 2, 2008 (File No. 1-13006):


	
			
	Name of Director
	Subsidiary of Park which is a Party to
Split-Dollar Agreement
	Date of Split-
Dollar Agreement

	 
	 
	 

	Donna M. Alvarado
	The Park National Bank
	December 28, 2007

	F. William Englefield IV
	The Park National Bank
	December 28, 2007

	Robert E. O’Neill
	The Park National Bank
	December 28, 2007

	Rick R. Taylor
	The Park National Bank (as successor by merger to The Richland Trust Company)
	December 28, 2007

	Leon Zazworsky
	The Park National Bank
	December 28, 2007
§ 27.1301 Designated entities in the 600 MHz band. ( a ) *Small business.* ( 1 ) A small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests, and the affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $55 million for the preceding three (3) years.
( 2 ) A very small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests, and the affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $20 million for the preceding three
( 3 ) years.
( b ) *Eligible rural service provider.* For purposes of this section, an eligible rural service provider is an entity that meets the criteria specified in § 1.2110(f)(4) of this chapter.
( c ) *Bidding credits.* ( 1 ) A winning bidder that qualifies as a small business as defined in this section or a consortium of small businesses may use the bidding credit specified in § 1.2110(f)(2)(i)(C) of this chapter. A winning bidder that qualifies as a very small business as defined in this section or a consortium of very small businesses may use the bidding credit specified in § 1.2110(f)(2)(i)(B) of this chapter.
( 2 ) An entity that qualifies as eligible rural service provider or a consortium of rural service providers may use the bidding credit specified in § 1.2110(f)(4) of this chapter.
[80 FR 56817, Sept. 18, 2015]
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING FALL 2018 ADMISSIONS TO THE SPRING 2019 TERM
 
    **Admissions to the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Chief Information Officer (CIO), Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), Cyber Leadership (Cyber-L) and Information Technology Program Management (ITPM) certificate programs are closed.**
            ****Admissions to the Master of Science in Government Information Leadership (M.S. GIL) with concentrations in CIO, Cyber Security (Cyber-S), and ITPM is only open to existing CIC students who have successfully completed at least 3 courses applicable to the selected concentration. New applicants will not be admitted.****
            **Admissions to the M.S. GIL with a Cyber-L concentration are closed. No new applications will be accepted.**
            **Admissions to the Data Strategy and Analytics (DSA) certificate program is open to existing CIC students and new applicants.**
            **Admissions to the M.S. GIL with a CFO concentration is open to existing CIC students and new applicants.**
            **Admissions to the Chief Information Officer - Leadership Development Program (CIO-LDP) is open to existing CIC students and new applicants.**  Additional details regarding Fall 2018 Admissions for the Spring 2019 Term can be found on our **Admissions Page**.
§ 11.45 Prohibition of false or deceptive EAS transmissions. ( a ) No person may transmit or cause to transmit the EAS codes or Attention Signal, or a recording or simulation thereof, in any circumstance other than in an actual National, State or Local Area emergency or authorized test of the EAS; or as specified in §§ 10.520(d), 11.46, and 11.61 of this chapter.
( b ) No later than twenty-four (24) hours of an EAS Participant's discovery (*i.e.,* actual knowledge) that it has transmitted or otherwise sent a false alert to the public, the EAS Participant shall send an email to the Commission at the FCC Ops Center at *FCCOPS@fcc.gov ,* informing the Commission of the event and of any details that the EAS Participant may have concerning the event.
( c ) If the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency or a State, local, Tribal, or territorial government entity becomes aware of transmission of an EAS false alert to the public, they are encouraged to send an email to the Commission at the FCC Ops Center at *FCCOPS@fcc.gov ,* informing the Commission of the event and of any details that they may have concerning the event.
[83 FR 39621, Aug. 10, 2018, as amended at 86 FR 46791, Aug. 20, 2021; 87 FR 34215, June 6, 2022]
#### § 50-204.4 Tools and equipment.

Each employer shall be responsible for the safe condition of tools and equipment used by employees, including tools and equipment which may be furnished by employees.
# Information Resources Management College Biographies

Information Resources Management College Biographies RSS Feed

- Dr. Dorothy Potter Areas of Interest:Management, business organization, financial management, acquisitions Academic
No. 11-5352.

#### Johnson *v.*Kansas Parole Board.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.