alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). LR / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T MANO L I T O D I L AG , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E RJ r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 74147 A ge nc yN o. A 042- 825- 432 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e bruary16, 2010 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , G O U L D , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M anol i t o D i l a g, na t i ve and c i t i z e n of the P hi l i ppi ne s , pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i grat i on j ud ge’ s ( “ IJ ”) deci si on deem i ng hi s c ance l l at i on of re m ov al 

# FI LED FEB 23 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSL R/ Res ea r ch 07- 74147 2 appl i cat i on w ai ved. W e have j uri sdi ct i on pu rs uantt o 8 U . S . C . § 1 25 2. W e r evi ew d e n o v o qu e s tio n s o f

law . A l tam i rano v. G on zales , 42 7 F . 3d 58 6, 59 1 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he a ge nc ypr ope r l yde t e rm i ne d tha tD i l a g w a i ve d hi s appl i c a t i on f or c an c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l w h e r e h e f

a ile dto f ile it w ith in th e tim e lim it s e t b yth e I J . See 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 31 (c ) ( autho ri zi ng the IJt o setfi l i ng deadl i nes and t o d ee m w ai ved any appl i cat i on no tfi l ed by the deadl i ne). D ila g ’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s ar e u n av a ilin g . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

)

INDEPENDENT PARTY OF )

FLORIDA and PARTY FOR )

SOCIALISM AND LIBERATION, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Case No. 4:20-cv-00110-MW-CAS

)

LAUREL M. LEE, Florida )

Secretary of State, in her official )

capacity, )

)

Defendant. )

)

DECLARATION OF ERNEST Wm. BACH

I, Ernest Wm. Bach, hereby declare that:

1. My name is Ernest Wm. Bach. I make this declaration based on 

my own personal knowledge. I am competent to testify to the matters 

stated herein.

2. I reside in Largo, Florida.

3. I am the Chairman of The Independent Party of Florida.

4. I received a letter dated September 7, 2016 from the Secretary of 

State’s office indicating that the new definition of “national party” 

Case 4:20-cv-00110-MW-MAF Document 9-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 1 of 3
2

would be enforced, notwithstanding the fact that it had not been 

previously enforced, and the Independent Party of Florida was barred 

from the presidential and vice-presidential ballot.

5. The letter filed as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Richard Winger 

is a true and correct copy of the letter I received in 2016.

6. The Independent Party of Florida was unable to appeal the 

Secretary of State’s decision to preclude the party’s candidate for 

President and Vice President before the ballots were completed

7. The Independent Party of Florida has been active in Florida since 

April 27, 1993 and have nominated candidates for president in elections

since then, except 2016 when we were denied access to the ballot.

8. The Independent Party of Florida is truly independent and 

prefers to maintain complete control over which candidate is nominated 

for president on behalf of the party.

9. The Independent Party of Florida cannot afford to spend the 

money or time necessary to perform a signature gathering campaign 

that satisfies 137,000 signatures. If the signature requirement is 

enforced, there will be no candidate for the Independent Party of 

Florida on the 2020 presidential ballot.

Case 4:20-cv-00110-MW-MAF Document 9-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 2 of 3
3

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury the 

foregoing is true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge 

and belief.

Dated: March 30, 2020.

 Ernest Wm. Bach 

Ernest Wm. Bach

Case 4:20-cv-00110-MW-MAF Document 9-7 Filed 04/06/20 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5
<MULTIPLIER>             1
                         <S>  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>            YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>        DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>           JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                   364,796
<SECURITIES>             0
<RECEIVABLES>            0
<ALLOWANCES>             0
<INVENTORY>              870,260
<CURRENT-ASSETS>         1,580,917
<PP&E>                   550,703
<DEPRECIATION>           180,646
<TOTAL-ASSETS>           2,141,530
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>    273,549
<BONDS>                  7,592,500
<COMMON>                 218,542
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>    430,860
<PREFERRED>              0
<OTHER-SE>               (6,738,871)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  2,141,530
<SALES>                  203,860
<TOTAL-REVENUES>         218,095
<CGS>                    667,896
<TOTAL-COSTS>            1,506,065
<OTHER-EXPENSES>         3,553
<LOSS-PROVISION>         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>       614,840
<INCOME-PRETAX>          (2,499,694)
<INCOME-TAX>             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>      (2,499,694)
<DISCONTINUED>           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>          0
<CHANGES>                0
<NET-INCOME>             (2,499,694)
<EPS-PRIMARY>            (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>            (0.12)
        

</TABLE>
Amendment Number Five 401(k) Savings Plan March 4, 2005



 Exhibit 10.44 
  
 AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE 
 TO THE 
 HEALTH NET, INC. 401(k) SAVINGS PLAN 
 (as amended and restated effective January 1, 2001) 
  
 WHEREAS, Health Net, Inc. (the “Company”) heretofore has adopted and maintains the Health Net, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan (the
“Plan”) for the benefit of eligible employees of the Company and certain of its affiliates; 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan, effective March 28, 2005, to decrease the small benefits cash-out amount from $5,000 to $1,000; and

  
 WHEREAS, the Company has the power to amend the Plan
pursuant to Section 15.1 thereof. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that pursuant to the power of amendment contained in Section 15.1 of the Plan, Section 8.5 of the Plan is hereby amended to substitute the dollar amount “$1,000” for the phrase “$5,000 (or such other amount prescribed by
section 411(a)(11) of the Code)” as it appears therein. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this instrument to be executed by its duly authorized officer this 4th day of March, 2005. 
  

			
	HEALTH NET, INC.
		
	By	 	 /s/ D J Colia


	 	 	Debbie J. Colia
		
	Its:	 	Vice President, Organization
	 	 	Effectiveness, Consulting Services
#### In the Matter of West Farms Estate Company, Respondent, v Consolidated Edison Co. of N. Y., Inc., Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, which pursuant to CPLR 103, was converted into an action for a declaratory judgment, Consolidated Edison Company appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 7, 1979, which declared that it is obligated to install 11 service laterals as part of a normal service installation, without charge. Judgment reversed, on the law, with costs, and it is declared that the appellant is not obligated to install 11 service laterals as part of a normal service installation, without charge. On the facts presented, we are of the opinion that the petitioner failed to adequately establish the elements of an equitable estoppel. Any reliance by the petitioner on the vague oral assurance of one of the appellant’s service representatives, coupled with the failure of appellant to respond to two of petitioner’s engineer’s letters, was wholly unreasonable under the circumstances. Hopkins, J. P., Lazer, Gibbons and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1940

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1940 appear at 80 FR 9876, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1940.553-1940.559 [Reserved]
#### § 2500.107 Matching.

Matching funds are not required as a condition of receiving awards under this subpart.
EXHIBIT 32

<PAGE>


In connection with the quarterly report of Holloman Energy  Corporation,  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended  March 31, 2008 as filed with
the  Securities  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Grant Petersen,  the Principal Executive and Financial Officer of the Company,
certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Sec. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 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 operation of
          the company.


Date:   May 14, 2008                     /s/ Grant Petersen
                                         -------------------------------------
                                         Grant Petersen, Principal Executive
                                         and Financial Officer
GERALD DUPONT ENTERPRISES, INC.
                               PETROLEUM ENGINEER
                                  P.O. BOX 1590
                          SUGAR LAND, TEXAS 77487-1590

                         (713)240-2822 FAX (713)242-2822

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

Gerald W. DuPont Enterprises, Inc. consents to the incorporation by reference of
our evaluation of the estimated reserves and future net revenues of certain
interest owned by Blue Dolphin Energy Company in the Galveston Block 288 Field,
dated December 31 1996, included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Blue
Dolphin Energy Company for the year ended December 31, 1996.


Petroleum Engineer

Date: FEBRUARY 18, 1997
#### § 27.32 Order of classification.

All cotton for which classifications requests shall be pending shall be classified as far as practicable in the order in which proper samples thereof, ready for such classification, shall have been delivered to the Marketing Services Office, except as otherwise provided in this subpart or when the Area Director or the Director shall find that an emergency exists and shall order otherwise.

[48 FR 49211, Oct. 25, 1983]
Order entered August 16, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00725-CV

IN RE JEROME JOHNSON, Relator

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F01-53637-JH

ORDER

Before Justices Whitehill, Partida-Kipness, and Pedersen, III

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s June 19, 2019 petition for 

writ of mandamus.

/s/ ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS 

JUSTICE
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:95CR3093/LAC 

 

CHARLES J. SPIGNER

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Senior Judge Collier on December 10, 2007

Type of Motion/Pleading: MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

Filed by: DEFENDANT on 12/10/07 Document 165

( ) Stipulated/Consented/Joint Pleading

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

 /s/ Elizabeth Cooley

Deputy Clerk: Elizabeth Cooley

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 17th day of

December, 2007, that:

(a) The requested relief is DENIED.

(b) To the extent a certificate of appealability would be required in

the appeal of the denial of a motion for correction nunc pro

tunc, the defendant has not made a substantial showing of a

denial of a constitutional right.

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:95-cr-03093-LC-CJK Document 167 Filed 12/17/07 Page 1 of 1
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-22-00402-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 325th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 325-710726-21

Before Birdwell, Kerr, and Bassel, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN THE INTEREST OF A.G., A CHILD
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant B.H. (Mother) appeals the termination of her parental rights to her 

child A.G.1 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (b)(2).

Mother’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief asserting that this appeal 

is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); 

see also In re K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774, 776–77 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, order) 

(holding that Anders procedures apply in parental-rights termination cases), disp. on

merits, No. 2-01-349-CV, 2003 WL 2006583, at *1–3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 1, 

2003, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.). The brief meets the Anders requirements by

presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no 

arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. We provided Mother the opportunity to 

obtain a copy of the appellate record and to file a pro se response, but she did not do

so. The Department has agreed that Mother has no meritorious grounds for appeal 

and thus has declined to file a responsive brief.

When an Anders brief is filed, we must independently examine the appellate 

record to determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. In re C.J., No. 02-18-

00219-CV, 2018 WL 4496240, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 20, 2018, no pet.) 

(mem. op.); see also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays 

v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). We also 

1

In a termination-of-parental-rights case, we use aliases or initials for the names 

of the children and their parents. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. 

P. 9.8(b)(2).
3

consider the Anders brief itself and any pro se response. In re K.M., No. 02-18-00073-

CV, 2018 WL 3288591, at *10 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 5, 2018, pet. denied) 

(mem. op.); see In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. 

proceeding).

We have carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the appellate record. Finding no 

reversible error, we agree with counsel that this appeal is without merit. See Bledsoe v.

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 

(Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgment 

terminating Mother’s parental rights to A.G.2

Per Curiam

Delivered: January 23, 2023

2

Mother’s counsel remains appointed in this appeal through proceedings in the 

supreme court unless she is otherwise relieved of her duties for good cause in 

accordance with Family Code Section 107.016. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016;

In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016).
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEvaluating the Effectiveness of the 2000-2001 NASA "Why?" Files ProgramNASA 'Why?' Files, a research and standards-based, Emmy-award winning series of 60-minute instructional programs for grades 3-5, introduces students to NASA; integrates mathematics, science, and technology by using Problem-Based Learning (PBL), scientific inquiry, and the scientific method; and motivates students to become critical thinkers and active problem solvers. All four 2000-2001 NASA 'Why?' Files programs include an instructional broadcast, a lesson guide, an interactive web site, plus numerous instructional resources. In March 2001, 1,000 randomly selected program registrants participated in a survey. Of these surveys, 185 (154 usable) met the established cut-off date. Respondents reported that (1) they used the four programs in the 2000-2001 NASA 'Why?' Files series; (2) series goals and objectives were met; (3) programs met national mathematics, science, and technology standards; (4) program content was developmentally appropriate for grade level; and (5) programs enhanced/enriched the teaching of mathematics, science, and technology.Document ID20020088730Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsPinelli, Thomas E.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA United States)*Frank, Kari Lou*(College of William and Mary Williamsburg, VA United States)*Ashcroft, Scott B.*(Mount Saint Mary's Coll. Emmitsburg, MD United States)*Williams, Amy C.*(Old Dominion Univ. Norfolk, VA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 2002Subject CategoryDocumentation And Information ScienceReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:211775L-18224NASA/TM-2002-211775Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 727-04-20-30Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20020088730.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Historical editions are availabe via Internet Archive here: https://web.archive.org/web/2019*/https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p3998.pdf
&,<ED9UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY$j=$ATLANTAFEDERALCENTERREGION4%t\o61FORSYTHSTREET''6~~0x6"ATLANTA, GEORGIA30303-8960RonaldW.Gore, ChiefiliY062010Air DivisionAlabama DepartmentofEnvironmental ManagementP.O.Box301463Montgomery, Alabama36130-1463DearMr.Gore:Enclosedisthe final end-of-year report for youragency'sFY2009Air PollutionControl grant authorizedby$105ofthe CleanAir Act.Thisreport outlines youragency's various grant commitmentsandtheir status.Sincethere were no issues,yourreportisnow finalized and the granthasbeen closed out. This letterdocuments theconclusionofthe joint evaluation process required by40CodeofFederal Regulations35.115andidentifiedasacommitmentinyourFY2009Air Planning Agreement underCrossCuttingIssues.Weappreciate the progressyoumade inFY2009andlook forward to workingwithyouinFY2010and futureyears tocontinue our joint efforts to protect and improveair quality.Ifyouhaveany questions or comments, please contact me at(404)562-9097orMarie Persinger at(404)562-9048.Sincerely,rR. DouglasNeeleyChiefAir Toxics and Monitoring BranchAir,Pesticides and Toxics Management DivisionEnclosureInternetAddress(URL)http://www.epa.govRecycied/Recyclabie.PrintedwilhVegetableOilBasedInksonRecydedPaper(Minimum30%Postconsumer)
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Inline Operating Limited d/b/a Inline Digital Image, Appellant

No. 06

- 14

- 00006

- CV v.

Healthmarkets Lead Marketing Group, Inc. and Healthmarkets, L.L.C., Appellee s Appeal from the 67th Dist rict Court of Tarrant County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 067

- 259145

- 12 ). Memorand um Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice

Morriss and Justice Carter participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appellant ’ s unopposed

motion t o dismiss the appeal should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that each party shall bear its own costs of appeal.

RENDERED JULY 2, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Case 1:03-cv-01519-MP-AK Document 171 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 1 of 4

Case 1:03-cv-01519-MP-AK Document 200 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 4Case 1:03-cv-01519-MP-AK Document 171 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 2 of 4

Case 1:03-cv-01519-MP-AK Document 200 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 4Case 1:03-cv-01519-MP-AK Document 171 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 3 of 4

Case 1:03-cv-01519-MP-AK Document 200 Filed 03/28/06 Page 3 of 4Case 1:03-cv-01519-MP-AK Document 171 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 4 of 4

Case 1:03-cv-01519-MP-AK Document 200 Filed 03/28/06 Page 4 of 4
#### § 201.24a Inoculated seed.

Seed claimed to be inoculated shall be labeled to show the month and year beyond which the inoculant on the seed is no longer claimed to be effective by a statement such as, “Inoculant not claimed to be effective after____(Month and year).”

[32 FR 12779, Sept. 6, 1967]
**EXHIBIT 32.2** **CERTIFICATION    OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**     In connection with the Quarterly Report of American Commercial    Lines Inc. (the “Company”) on    Form 10-Q    for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the    Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the    “Report”), I, Christopher A. Black, Chief    Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to    18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to    § 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    result of operations of the Company. /s/  Christopher    A. Black    Christopher A. Black
|Exhibit 23.1


CONSENT OF
INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements (Forms  S-8 Nos. 33-43290, 33-65380, 33-65382,
33-80433 and 333-53602) pertaining to the Health Management Associates, Inc. Retirement
Savings Plan and various employee  and directors stock option plans of Health Management
Associates, Inc. and Registration Statements (Form S-3 No. 333-48820, Form S-3 No.
333-86034 and Form S-4 No. 333-41953) of Health Management Associates, Inc. and in the
related Prospectuses of  our report dated October 23, 2002, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Health Management Associates, Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 30, 2002.


/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Tampa, FloridaDecember 18, 2002


64
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------