alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1 - CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
               RULE 13a-14(b)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Gallery of History, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Todd Axelrod, Chief Executive Office of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

1.	 The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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/ Todd Axelrod
-----------------------
Todd Axelrod
Chief Executive Officer

August 15, 2005




A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
List of IAAR Forms

1953.370-21 The Broadcasting Board of Governors Form IA-21, Abstract of Quotations.

1953.370-44 The Broadcasting Board of Governors Form IA-44, Requisition-Purchase - Order-Invoice

for Professional Services.

Parent topic: SUBCHAPTER H - CLAUSES AND FORMS
2809.503 Waiver.

The HCA is the agency head for the purpose of waiving any general rule or procedure prescribed in

FAR subpart 9.5. As prescribed in FAR 9.503, the authority delegated to the HCA to waive any

general rule or procedure prescribed in FAR subpart 9.5 may not be delegated below the level of the

HCA.

Parent topic: Subpart 2809.5 - Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest
22.7404 Waiver.

(c) Requests for waivers shall be submitted to the Agency Labor Advisor.

Parent topic: SUBPART 22.74 – RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF MANDATORY ARBITRATION

AGREEMENTS
This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in 

the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the 

citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computergenerated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of 

Appeals.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-41428

CITIMORTGAGE, INC,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOHN DAVID GARFIELD,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

JANE DOE GARFIELD, SALLY

G. GARFIELD, and JOHN DOE A.,

Defendants.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY

Matthew J. Wilson, District Court Judge

Aldridge Pite LLP

David Wertz

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

John David Garfield

Santa Fe, NM

Pro Se Appellant

MEMORANDUM OPINION

HANISEE, Judge.
{1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 

proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has 

been filed and the time for doing so has expired. AFFIRMED.

{2} IT IS SO ORDERED.

J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

WE CONCUR:

JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Chief Judge

KATHERINE A. WRAY, Judge
2106.7001 Applicability.

FAR part 6 has no practical application to the FEGLI Program because 5 U.S.C. chapter 87 exempts

the FEGLI Program from competitive bidding.

Parent topic: Subpart 2106.70 - Applicability
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RICHARD MARSHALL, ) 

)

Plaintiff, )

 ) CIV. ACT. NO. 2:06cv701-ID

v. )

)

CHRIS WEST, et al., ) 

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

The parties are hereby reminded of the obligation, imposed by Rule 26(f) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to confer and to develop a proposed discovery plan. 

The Rule 26(f) report containing the discovery plan shall be filed as soon as practicable,

but no later than June 12, 2007.

The longstanding practice in this district is that dispositive motions shall be filed

no later than 90 days prior to the pretrial date. If the parties seek to vary from that

schedule, they should present, in the plan, specific case related reasons for the requested

variance. 

This case will be set for trial before the undersigned judge during one of that

judge's regularly scheduled civil trial terms. The pretrial date is normally set within 4 to

6 weeks of a scheduled trial term. The dates of each judge's civil trial terms are available

on the court's website, www.almd.uscourts.gov.

Case 2:06-cv-00701-ID-CSC Document 15 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

The court may or may not hold a scheduling conference before issuing a

scheduling order. If the court holds a scheduling conference, counsel may participate in

the scheduling conference by conference call.

The scheduling order entered by the court will follow the form of the Uniform

Scheduling Order adopted by the Judges of this court. The Uniform Scheduling Order is

also available on the court's website. 

The report of the parties should comply with Form 35 of the Appendix of Forms to

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

DONE this 29 day of May, 2007. th

 /s/ Ira DeMent 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00701-ID-CSC Document 15 Filed 05/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

Phoenix Management, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 62202

)

Under Contract No. FA4654-18-C-0005 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Johnathan M. Bailey, Esq.

Kristin E. Zachman, Esq.

 Bailey & Bailey, P.C.

 San Antonio, TX

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq.

 Air Force Deputy Chief Trial Attorney

Jason R. Smith, Esq.

 Trial Attorney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: September 4, 2020

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62202, Appeal of Phoenix 

Management, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: September 4, 2020

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD

Administrative Judge

Vice Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2007-28059 Directorate Identifier: 2007-NE-13-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection (onwing/in-shop 

visual)

4.0 $ 340.00 $0 $ 340.00 136 $46,240.00

Inspection (in-shop 

Eddy Current) 2.0 $ 170.00 $0 $ 170.00 136 $23,120.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $69,360

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): 108 Trent 800 

engines and 28 Trent 700 engines in service (US Registry) as of 7/2010, latest COS sharepoint site 

data available. For in-shop inspections, I assumed all engines would get one shop visit eddy

current inspection. Work hour estimates changed from 3.5 on-wing to 4, and 2.2 in-shop to 2, per 

request from Legal ANE-07.

Indicates related information in AD Manual, FAA-IR-M-8040.1C. DOUBLE CLICK to follow the link
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
#### Anna Zaldin et al., Appellants, v Kiamesha Concord, Inc., Sued Herein as Concord Hotel, Respondent.

(1) from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court at Trial Term, entered October 23, 1979 in Sullivan County, which denied an application by plaintiffs for adjournment and dismissed the complaint on the merits for failure to proceed to trial, and (2) from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered March 26, 1980 in Sullivan County, which denied a motion by plaintiffs to vacate both the order of dismissal and the judgment entered thereon. The plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages allegedly caused by a burglary of the accommodations provided by defendant. The causes of action at issue herein sought damages for psychological injury and mental anguish, as well as for loss of consortium. It should also be noted that the burglary occurred as the plaintiffs were sleeping. The issues were scheduled for trial on October 17, 1979, and on October 16, 1979 the plaintiffs’ attorney sought an adjournment on the ground that an appeal in a companion action for property loss was pending in the Court of Appeals. That request was denied in the absence of an order of stay. On October 17, 1979 the plaintiffs’ attorney appeared and again sought an adjournment, based on a brief letter from one of the plaintiff’s physicians stating that an appearance by Mr. Zaldin "in the court may be detrimental to his health.” The court denied the motion for adjournment and, when plaintiffs’ attorney refused to proceed to trial because he was not ready to proceed, the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution (CPLR 3216) and judgment was entered thereon pursuant to CPLR 3215. It is noted that there was no request for *745adjournment on behalf of Anna Zaldin, and the matter was treated by the court as appropriate for default judgment. Accordingly, the order entered on October 23, 1979 is not appealable *(First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of*Ellenville v *Classic Collateral Corp.,*44 AD2d 868). On or about November 16, 1979 the plaintiffs followed the appropriate procedure of moving to vacate the default judgment and the underlying order dismissing their complaint. Special Term denied that motion, stating: "Moreover, with respect to the excuse put forward for the default, the court notes that no explanation has been advanced as to why plaintiff Anna Zhldin could not attend the trial. With respect to the excuse proffered on behalf of Abraham Zaldin, movants now come forward with an affidavit of Dr. Robbin to substantiate that excuse. Movants’ counsel fails to set forth any reasonable explanation as to why this new evidence, which existed at the time of the original motion was not placed before the court then *(Matter of Hooker v Town Bd. of Town of Guilderland,*60 AD2d 684, 685).” Appeal from order and judgment entered October 23, 1979 dismissed, without costs. Order entered March 26, 1980 affirmed, with costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Mikoll, Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
801.000 Scope of part.

This part includes general Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Acquisition Regulation (VAAR)

policies, including information regarding the maintenance and administration of the VAAR,

acquisition policies and practices, and procedures for deviation from the VAAR and the Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

Parent topic: PART 801 - DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ACQUISITION REGULATION

SYSTEM
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 238 (Monday, December 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 77638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31125]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than January 6, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Clifford Stanford, Vice 
President) 1000 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
    1. First Guaranty Bancshares, Inc., Hammond, Louisiana; to merge 
with Greensburg Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting 
shares of Bank of Greensburg, both of Greensburg, Louisiana.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 7, 
2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-31125 Filed 12-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, EASTERN DIVISION

OWEN J. ROGAL, D.D.S., )

P.C. d/b/a THE PAIN CENTER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:06cv711-MHT

) 

SKILSTAF, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

OWEN J. ROGAL, D.D.S., )

P.C. d/b/a THE PAIN CENTER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:06cv728-MHT

) 

SKILSTAF, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the parties show cause, if any

there be, in writing by October 13, 2006, as to why both

of the above-styled cases should not be consolidated.

DONE, this the 20th day of September, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 22 Filed 09/20/2006 Page 1 of 1
-78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0

 38.5

 39.0

 39.5

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

08/30

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 30 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.90 N 76.65 W Meters AGL
PUBLIC LAW 109–370—NOV. 27, 2006 120 STAT. 2643

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 435:

SENATE REPORTS: No. 109–189 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 151 (2005): Dec. 16, considered and passed Senate.

Vol. 152 (2006): Nov. 13, considered and passed House.

Æ

Public Law 109–370

109th Congress

An Act

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of the Farmington

River and Salmon Brook in the State of Connecticut for study for potential

addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘Lower Farmington River and

Salmon Brook Wild and Scenic River Study Act of 2005’’.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL SEGMENT OF FARMINGTON

RIVER AND SALMON BROOK IN CONNECTICUT FOR

STUDY FOR POTENTIAL ADDITION TO NATIONAL WILD

AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM.

(a) DESIGNATION.—Section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers

Act (16 U.S.C. 1276(a)) is amended by adding at the end the

following:

‘‘(139) LOWER FARMINGTON RIVER AND SALMON BROOK, CONNECTICUT.—The segment of the Farmington River downstream from

the segment designated as a recreational river by section 3(a)(156)

to its confluence with the Connecticut River, and the segment

of the Salmon Brook including its mainstream and east and west

branches.’’.

(b) TIME FOR SUBMISSION.—Not later than 3 years after the

date on which funds are made available to carry out this Act,

the Secretary of the Interior shall submit to Congress a report

containing the results of the study required by the amendment

made by subsection (a).

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized

to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this

Act.

Approved November 27, 2006.

Reports.

Lower

Farmington

River and

Salmon Brook

Wild and Scenic

River Study Act

of 2005.

Conservation.

16 USC 1271

note.

Nov. 27, 2006

[S. 435]
#### R.K., a minor, by and through his parents, T.K. and C.K., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. HAYWARD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 07-15288.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Aug. 14, 2007.

Filed Aug. 28, 2007.

*475Mandy G. Leigh, Esq., Leigh Law Group, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Kimberly Anne Smith, Esq., Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost, Los Angeles, CA, Amy Bisson Holloway, Esq., California Department of Education, Complaints Management Unit, Sacramento, CA, Carol L. Healey, Esq., Bishop Barry Howe Haney & Ryder, Emeryville, CA, Barbara Ann E. Caulfield, Gordon & Rees LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: SILER,* McKEOWN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

R.K., a minor, by and through his parents, T.K. and C.K., appeals the district court’s order dismissing, for lack of jurisdiction, his request for a “stay put” order as provided for in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400*et seq.*We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed R.K’s request for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because the record reflects that he made, and then withdrew, his request for a due process hearing. *See Robb v. Bethel Sch. Dist. # 403,*308 F.3d 1047, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal of claims predicated on IDEA where plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies). By dismissing the underlying due process complaint, R.K. placed his stay put request outside the express language of the IDEA. *See*20 U.S.C. § 1415® (providing for a stay put “during *the pendency of any proceedings*conducted pursuant to this section ... ”) (emphasis added).

*476We find unpersuasive R.K’s contention that the mediation settlement agreement constituted a proceeding for purposes of section 1415(j) because the relevant time-frame of that agreement had already passed by the time R.K. filed suit in federal court.

We find unpersuasive R.K’s argument that maintaining his administrative due process complaint would have been futile because he has failed to show that his underlying claims would not be resolved in course of the state administrative process.1*See Robb,*308 F.3d at 1050 (“The dispositive question generally is whether the plaintiff has alleged injuries that could be redressed to any degree by the IDEA’S administrative procedures and remedies.”).

R.K.’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Should R.K. reapply for administrative relief and obtain a new stay put order from the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), as the record suggests he has in fact done, nothing in this memorandum prevents him from seeking injunctive relief from the district court if it appears that the terms of the stay put order will not be enforced.
Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 2 Filed 07/20/2006 Page 1 of 1
%-HE ,+ITORNEY GENERAL 

TEXAS 

July 11, 1957 

Hon. Les Procter Opinion No. kfW-183. 

Distrf ct Attorney 

Austin, Texas Re: Whether a member of the State Highway Patrol would be eligible for 

the,position of parole officer under the Adult Probation and Parole 

Law of 1957, Senate Bill 154, Acts 

55th Leg., 1957, Ch. 226, p* 466, 

assuming ,that such officer resigned 

his position as a State Highway 

Patrolman prior to appofntment as a 

Dear Sir: parole officer LI 

You have presented for our determfnatfon the question 

of whether a member of the Texas Highway Patrol, in view of 

Section 31 of S.B. 154, Acts 55th Leg., 1957, Ch. 226, p. 466, 

would be eligible for appointment as a parole officer under such 

a statute, assuming he resigned his posf.tfon as a highway patrolman prior to his appofntment as such parole offfcer. 

Section 31 reads as fol.lows: 

“No person ,who is serving as a sherfff, deputy 

sheriff, constable 9 deputy constable, city policeman, Texas Ranger, state highway patrolman, or similar law enforcement officer, or as a prosecutfng 

attorney, assIstant prcsenutfng attorney .or investfgator for a prosecutfn,g attorney, shall act as a 

parole officer or be responsfble for the supervfsion 

of persons on paroleO1’ 

It is to be noted that throughout Section 31 the present tense is ysed, and the section can be read, “No person who 

is Lpresently/ servfu as a D -. O State hfghway patrolman D . . 

shall act Lpresently/ as a parol,e officer or be responsfble for 

the supervision of persons on parole.” It is our interpretation 

of this section, and we belfeve ft to-be.the intent of the Legislature, that the named officers should not act At the same 

m as a parole officer under this law, and that the situation 

which Section 31 prohfbfts is the supervfsion of persons on parole by persons then serving as law enforcement officers. Accordingly, if the highway patrol officer or sheriff, or constable, or any of the other named officers in Section 31 were to 
Hon. Les Procter, page 2 ('dW-183) 

resign his position prior 

officer, we see no reason 

as such. 

to ~accepting appointment as a parole 

why he should not be able to serve 

Accordingly, It is our opinion that an officer presently serving as a member of the Texas Highway Patrol would be 

eligible for appointment as a parole officer under the provisions of 5.B. 154, Acts 55th Leg., 1957, Ch. 226, p. 466, in 

the event he resigned his position with the Texas Highway Patrol prior to his appointment as a parole officer.. 

SUMMARY 

Sect ion 

Ch. 226, p. d 

1 of S.B. 154, 4cts 55th Leg., 1957, 

4 6, would not prohibit then appointment 

of a member of the Texas Highway Patrol as a parole 

officer under such statute, provided such highway 

patrolman resigned his position with the Highway 

Patrol prior to his appointment as a parole officer. 

Very truly yours, 

WILL WILSON 

JM:wb 

APPROVED: 

CPINION ‘COMMITTEE 

H. Grady Chandler, Chairman 

Marietta McGregor Payne 

Wayland C. Rivers, Jr. 

Roger I. Daily 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Gee; P. Blackburn 

_- 

BY: