alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-4.1



 Exhibit 4.1 
  






 
 NUMBERACSHARESATLANTIC CAPITAL BANCSHARES, INC.INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF GEORGIACOMMON STOCK
SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONSis the owner of FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK, WITHOUT PAR VALUEATLANTIC CAPITAL BANCSHARES, INC.transferable only on the books of the Corpo1·ation by the holder hereof in
pe1·son OJ’ by Attorney upon sw’l’ender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not vah’d until countersigned by the Transfe1·Agent and registered by the Registrar.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said
C01p01·ation has caused this Certificate to be signed by the facsimile signatures ofits duly authorized officers and its Corporate seal to be hereunto affixed.DATED:CAROL H.TIARSMITH,SECRETARYDOUCI AS L. WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT AND
CEOCOUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTEREDCOMPUTERSHARE TRUST COMPANY, N.A.TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRARBYAUTHORIZED SIGNATUREM.BURR KEIM, PHILA.ATLANTIC CAPITAL BANCSHARES, INC 







 



 
 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were
written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:TEN COM—as tenants in commonTEN ENT —as tenants by the entiretiesJT TEN —as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in commonUNIF GIFT MIN ACT-
Custodian(Cust) (Minor)Actu nder Uniform Gifts            to Minor_sAdditional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.For Value Receivect hereby sell, assign and trans
fer untoPLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE)Shares o fthe Common Stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby
irrevocably constitute and appointto trans fer the said Shares on the books o f the within named Corporation with fullpower o f substitution in the premises.Dated: XXNOTICE. THE SIGNATURE(S) TO THISASSIGNMENT MUSTCORRESPONDWITHTHENAME(S). AS WRITTEN
UPON THE FACE OF THIS CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR.WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.Signa ture(s) GuaranteedBY:_ — — ——-THE SIGNATURE($) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTORINSTITUTION (BANKS,
STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
§ 19.98 Duration of permit. The proprietor may conduct the operations authorized by the operating permit on a continuing basis unless: ( a ) The proprietor voluntarily surrenders the permit;
( b ) TTB suspends or revokes the permit pursuant to § 19.99; or
( c ) The permit is automatically terminated under its own terms or in accordance with § 19.127.
(26 U.S.C. 5271)
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 Quarterly Report of Beacon Power Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James M. Spiezio, 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, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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/ James M. Spiezio

James M. Spiezio

Chief Financial Officer

 

February 17, 2006
§ 300.513 Hearing decisions. ( a ) *Decision of hearing officer on the provision of FAPE.* ( 1 ) Subject to paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a hearing officer's determination of whether a child received FAPE must be based on substantive grounds.
( 2 ) In matters alleging a procedural violation, a hearing officer may find that a child did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies— ( i ) Impeded the child's right to a FAPE;
( ii ) Significantly impeded the parent's opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the parent's child; or
( iii ) Caused a deprivation of educational benefit.
( 3 ) Nothing in paragraph (a) of this section shall be construed to preclude a hearing officer from ordering an LEA to comply with procedural requirements under §§ 300.500 through 300.536.
( b ) *Construction clause.* Nothing in §§ 300.507 through 300.513 shall be construed to affect the right of a parent to file an appeal of the due process hearing decision with the SEA under § 300.514(b), if a State level appeal is available.
( c ) *Separate request for a due process hearing.* Nothing in §§ 300.500 through 300.536 shall be construed to preclude a parent from filing a separate due process complaint on an issue separate from a due process complaint already filed.
( d ) *Findings and decision to advisory panel and general public.* The public agency, after deleting any personally identifiable information, must— ( 1 ) Transmit the findings and decisions referred to in § 300.512(a)(5) to the State advisory panel established under § 300.167; and
( 2 ) Make those findings and decisions available to the public.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(3)(E) and (F), 1415(h)(4), 1415(o))
(No. 78-CC-1538

#### Benjamin Lazarovitz, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 13,1979.*

Per Curiam.

This claim coming to be heard on the Respondent’s stipulation and this Court being fully advised in the premises:

This Court finds that the Claimant is making a claim for back salary arising out of a collective bargaining agreement between A.F.S.C.M.E. and the Department of Public Aid. The back salary in question was attributable to Claimant’s deceased spouse, Natalie Lazarovitz, for Fiscal Year 1978 between July 1, 1977, and November 4, 1977, the date of her death.

The collective bargaining agreement provided that employees who were not in active status for all 12 months of Fiscal Year 1978 would be entitled to a lump sum retroacative payment on a pro-rated basis for the number of months worked.

Employees affected had to file a claim with the Department of Public Aid within 60 days of the end of *809Fiscal Year 1978 or August 30,1978. The Director of the Department of Personnel extended this deadline until October 14,1978. The Claimant herein filed his claim with the Department of Public Aid on September 26, 1978.

An investigation of this claim by the Department of Public Aid determined that money was appropriated for this expenditure by the following appropriations;

a. Field Level Operation 001-47810-1120-00-00

b. Retirement 001-47810-1161-00-00

c. Social Security 001-47810-1170-00-00

and that the following amounts were returned to the State Treasury at the time of the lapsing of said appropriations;

a. $86,477.78

b. $ 4,142.04

c. $ 5,066.04

The amount of $180.00 which was due and would have been paid in the regular course of business had the claim been presented to the proper office at the appropriate time. The sole reason said claim was not previously paid is due to the lapse of the appropriation for the period during which the debt was incurred, the same having been confirmed by the written report of the Department of Public Aid, a copy of said report being attached to the stipulation by Respondent submitted herein.

We find that Claimant is entitled to back salary credited to his deceased spouse in the amount of $180.00. Pursuant to the Comptroller’s Uniform Statewide Accounting System Procedure 23.5.20, no deductions are taken from any salary due a State employee which is paid after the death of such employee. -

It is therefore ordered that Claimant, Benjamin Lazarovitz, surviving spouse of Natalie Lazarovitz, *810deceased, be and is hereby awarded the sum of $180.00 in full satisfaction of any and all claims arising herein.
#### Hillard Hotel Company v. The City of New York and Others. Waldorf-Astoria Hotel Company v. The City of New York and Others. Hawk *&*Wetherbee v. The City of New York and Others. Haverty's Taxicabs, Incorporated, v. The City of New York and Others. Frawley Transportation Company v. The City of New York and Others. Motor Taximeter Company v. The City of New York and Others. American Taximeter Company v. The City of New York and Others. Imperial Auto Company v. The City of New York and Others. Garden Taxicab Company v. The City of New York and Others. Greeley Square Hotel Company v. The City of New York and Others. Yellow Taxicab Company v. The City of New York and Others. New Taxicab and Auto Company v. The City of New York and Others. Universal Taximeter Company v. The City of New York and Others. Mason-Seaman Transportation Company v. The City of New York and Others.

Motions to continue injunction and for stay denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of CorVu Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Justin M. MacIntosh, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

      Dated: May 10, 2004


                                       /s/ Justin M. MacIntosh
                                       ---------------------------------------
                                           Chief Executive Officer
CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

DELTA SMELT AND SPLITTAIL

November-04

Note: Bold numbers are not verified by DFG.

Delta Smelt Splittail Pumping

Daily Total Daily Total

Daily Combined Daily Combined In CFS In Acre Feet

DATE Total Daily 14-Day Total Daily 14-Day

SWP CVP Total Average SWP CVP Total Average

1-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4,035 4,360 8,396 8,004 8,649 16,653 

2-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4,203 4,142 8,344 8,336 8,215 16,551 3-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5,042 4,356 9,398 10,000 8,641 18,641 4-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4,728 4,223 8,950 9,377 8,376 17,753 5-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 24 0 24 3 5,427 4,395 9,823 10,765 8,718 19,483 6-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4,113 4,312 8,425 8,159 8,552 16,711 7-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4,764 4,232 8,996 9,449 8,395 17,844 8-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5,124 4,171 9,295 10,164 8,273 18,437 9-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5,109 4,157 9,266 10,134 8,246 18,380 

10-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4,910 4,233 9,142 9,738 8,396 18,134 11-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3,548 4,329 7,876 7,037 8,586 15,623 12-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4,458 4,272 8,730 8,842 8,473 17,315 13-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4,465 4,255 8,719 8,856 8,439 17,295 14-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4,473 4,273 8,746 8,872 8,476 17,348 

15-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4,788 4,338 9,126 9,497 8,604 18,101 16-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4,732 4,329 9,061 9,385 8,587 17,972 17-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4,684 4,274 8,957 9,290 8,477 17,767 18-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4,519 4,316 8,835 8,964 8,560 17,524 19-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,368 4,295 7,663 6,680 8,520 15,200 20-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,913 4,305 7,218 5,777 8,539 14,316 21-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,607 4,297 7,904 7,154 8,524 15,678 22-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,913 4,338 7,251 5,778 8,604 14,382 23-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,439 4,336 6,774 4,837 8,600 13,437 24-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,359 4,285 6,645 4,680 8,500 13,180 25-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,240 4,321 5,560 2,459 8,570 11,029 26-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,507 4,299 5,806 2,989 8,527 11,516 27-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,530 4,314 5,844 3,035 8,557 11,592 28-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,513 4,296 5,809 3,001 8,521 11,522 

29-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,594 4,320 8,914 9,113 8,568 17,681 30-Nov-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,676 4,328 8,004 7,292 8,584 15,876 

Total 0 0 0 XXXX 24 0 24 XXXX 114,779 128,700 243,479 227,664 255,277 482,941 XX

Delta Smelt Incidental Take LevelsBelow Normal Water Year TypeDelta smelt risk assessment matrix (DSRM) Adult level of concern = 892Re-consultation level for November = 100

S

D

Banks Tracy Combined Banks Tracy Combined
Due to the use of Java scripts for http://healthymeals.nal.usda.gov/recipes the functionality of the web site has not been replicated. All recipes can be found in: ~\netsite-docs\gpo17723\gpo17723\healthymeals.nal.usda.gov\schoolmeals\Recipes
#### § 75.650 Participation of students enrolled in private schools.

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70333, Aug. 29, 2024.

If the authorizing statute for a program requires a grantee to provide for participation by students enrolled in private schools, the grantee shall provide a genuine opportunity for equitable participation in accordance with the requirements that apply to subgrantees under 34 CFR 76.650-76.662.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 497

 557

 571

 565

 618

 657

 533

 325

 250

 261

 264

 285

 285

 276

 279

 299

 303

 359

 239

 257

 271

 276

 270

 264

 258

 253

 251

 262

 257

 254

 250

 240

 256

 262

 249

 258

 263

 190

 147

 162

 197

 235

 189

 173

 184

 186

 170

 158

 153

 144

 159

 190

 179

 192

 208

 216

 217

 171

 166

 170

 170

 179

 326

 361

 379

 350

 379

 468

 319

 212

 202

 227

 255

 237

 228

 222

 228

 220

 211

 219

 185

 208

 221

 221

 225

 232

 233

 234

 222

 208

 206

 206

 208

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JANUARY 2017 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE:February 1, 2017

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 217

 239

 250

 232

 250

 305

 213

 147

 141

 156

 174

 162

 157

 153

 157

 152

 146

 151

 130

 145

 153

 153

 155

 159

 160

 161

 153

 145

 143

 143

 145

TOTAL 7,852

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT HEADWORKS
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 173

 184

 185

 180

 181

 191

 196

 199

 203

 208

 209

 208

 227

 236

 286

 250

 217

 212

 204

 182

 175

 180

 188

 191

 192

 200

 200

 199

 199

 203

 200

 158

 161

 165

 170

 175

 179

 183

 188

 193

 194

 194

 196

 197

 198

 200

 201

 198

 190

 175

 152

 155

 153

 159

 169

 175

 184

 188

 190

 192

 188

 189

 163

 168

 171

 174

 178

 183

 189

 193

 196

 199

 201

 203

 207

 206

 214

 211

 206

 202

 191

 173

 164

 163

 171

 177

 184

 192

 194

 194

 196

 196

 194

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MARCH 2003 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: April 15, 2003

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 2,188

 2,180

 2,190

 2,208

 2,230

 2,264

 2,308

 2,349

 2,389

 2,432

 2,480

 2,530

 2,582

 2,631

 2,682

 2,725

 2,760

 2,788

 2,801

 2,791

 2,766

 2,736

 2,711

 2,689

 2,672

 2,661

 2,648

 2,636

 2,618

 2,603

 2,591

 156

 156

 156

 158

 159

 162

 165

 168

 171

 174

 177

 181

 184

 188

 192

 195

 197

 199

 200

 199

 198

 195

 194

 192

 191

 190

 189

 188

 187

 186

 185

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
Order filed, October 01, 2015

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00684

- CR

____________ QUINTON COX , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 434th Judicial District Court

Fort Bend County, Tex as Trial Court Cause No. 13

- DCR

- 064794



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due September 29, 2015

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the
record. The record has not been filed with the co urt. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Karen Woolsey , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
### §1677l. Repealed. Pub. L. 116–113, title VI, §601, Jan. 29, 2020, 134 Stat. 78

Section, Pub. L. 103–182, title VI, §691(a), Dec. 8, 1993, 107 Stat. 2223; Pub. L. 114–125, title VIII, §802(d)(2), Feb. 24, 2016, 130 Stat. 210, related to annual reports on antidumping and countervailing duty collections.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective on the date the USMCA entered into force (July 1, 2020), see section 601 of Pub. L. 116–113, set out as a note under former section 3301 of this title.
### §105. Repealed. Pub. L. 89–554, §8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 643

Section, act Sept. 8, 1916, ch. 463, §708, 39 Stat. 798, related to unauthorized divulging of information and punishment for offenses.
<PAGE>

 EXHIBIT 23.1



              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in (a) Amendment No. 3 to the 
Registration Statement (Form S-3, No. 33-56610) pertaining to shares of 
common stock IMPCO Technologies, Inc. and in the related Prospectus, (b) 
Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 33-38649) 
pertaining to the 1989 Incentive Stock Option Plan of IMPCO Technologies, 
Inc. and in the related Prospectus, (c) the Registration Statement (Form S-8, 
No. 33-72008) pertaining to the 1991 Executive Stock Option Plan of IMPCO 
Technologies, Inc. and in the related Prospectus, (d) the Registration 
Statement (Form S-3, No. 33-37035) pertaining to the 1996 Incentive Stock 
Option Plan of IMPCO Technologies, Inc. and (e) the Registration Statement 
(Form S-8, No. 33-62889) pertaining to the IMPCO Investment and Tax Savings 
Plan, of our report dated June 30, 1998 except for Note 16, as to which the 
date is July 27, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements 
and financial statement schedule of IMPCO Technologies, Inc. included in this 
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended April 30, 1998.

                                                   /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Long Beach, California
July 28, 1998
§ 19.513 Distinctive liquor bottles. ( a ) *Application.* A proprietor must submit form TTB F 5100.31, Application for and Certification/Exemption of Label/Bottle Approval, to the appropriate TTB officer in order to obtain approval to use domestic liquor bottles of distinctive shapes or designs. The proprietor must certify as to the total capacity of a representative sample bottle before closure (expressed in milliliters) on each copy of the form. In addition, the proprietor must affix a readily legible photograph (showing both front and back of the bottle) to the front of each copy of TTB F 5100.31 along with the label(s) to be used on the bottle. The proprietor must submit to TTB an actual bottle or accurate model only when specifically requested to do so.
( b ) *Approval.* The appropriate TTB officer will approve a distinctive liquor bottle on a properly completed TTB F 5100.31 if the bottle is found to: ( 1 ) Meet the requirements of part 5 of this chapter;
( 2 ) Be distinctive;
( 3 ) Be suitable for its intended purpose;
( 4 ) Not jeopardize the revenue; and
( 5 ) Be not misleading to the consumer.
( c ) *Retention.* A proprietor must keep on file at his premises a copy of the complete approved TTB F 5100.31 for the distinctive liquor bottle.
( d ) *Cross reference.* For procedures regarding issuance, denial and revocation of distinctive liquor bottle approvals, as well as appeal procedures, see part 13 of this chapter.
(26 U.S.C. 5301)
432 P.2d 399

#### Glenna Lee GALLEMORE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Howard Johnson GALLEMORE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 8399.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Oct. 9, 1967.

Thomas M. Thompson, Albuquerque, for appellant.

Botts, Botts & Mauney, Albuquerque, for appellee.

OPINION

CARMODY, Justice.

The only question raised by the appellant-husband is that the granting of alimony was an unwarranted and unreasonable abuse of sound judicial discretion and was inequitable.

The husband seeks to have us, on review, in effect, substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. This is not the rule in New Mexico. On appeal, we examine the record only to determine if the trial court abused its discretion in fixing an amount which was contrary to all reason. Jones v. Jones, 1960, 67 N.M. 415, 356 P.2d 231; Redman v. Redman, 1958, 64 N.M. 339, 328 P.2d 595; Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 1962, 70 N.M. 11, 369 P.2d 398; and Sloan v. Sloan, 1967, 77 N.M. 632, 426 P.2d 780.

Having carefully reviewed the transcript, we do not believe that the award of alimony as made in this case was an abuse of discretion, nor is it inequitable to the appellant in view of all of the circumstances.

Appellee seeks an additional attorney’s fee for services in this court and a fee in the sum of $500.00 will be allowed, which will be taxed as costs.

The judgment will be affirmed. It is so ordered.

CHAVEZ, C. J., and COMPTON, J., concur.
(No. 6268

#### Dominic Roscetti, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 11, 1973.*

Dominic Roscetti, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.