alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"Patrick Chesnut","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/chesnutp\/","title":"Notice of Modifications to Court Operations and New Protocols for In-Person Arguments - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"lsqsyikd9s\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/notice-of-modifications-to-court-operations-and-new-protocols-for-in-person-arguments-2\/\">Notice of Modifications to Court Operations and New Protocols for In-Person Arguments<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/notice-of-modifications-to-court-operations-and-new-protocols-for-in-person-arguments-2\/embed\/#?secret=lsqsyikd9s\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Notice of Modifications to Court Operations and New Protocols for In-Person Arguments” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"lsqsyikd9s\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Effective September 12, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will resume normal operations and reopen the National Courts Building to the public.  Administrative Order 2022-04 and Administrative Order 2022-05 implementing these changes are available on the court\u2019s website. The court has also issued Revised Protocols for In-Person Arguments that will [...]"}
§ 26.1 Basis and purpose. This section contains the statutory basis for the rules in this part and provides the purpose for which this part is issued. ( a ) *Basis.* The rules for Space Launch Services in this part are promulgated under the provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, that vest authority in the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) to regulate radio transmission and to issue licenses for radio stations. All rules in this part are in accordance with applicable treaties and agreements to which the United States is a party.
( b ) *Purpose.* This part states the conditions under which spectrum is made available and licensed for the provision of Space Launch Services. This part does not govern the licensing of radio systems belonging to and operated by the United States.
#### § 101.1307 Permissible communications.

MAS users may engage in terrestrial point-to-point and point-to-multi-point fixed and limited mobile operations.

[66 FR 35111, July 3, 2001]
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC,

Appellant

v.

J. KYLE BASS, ERICH SPANGENBERG,

Appellees

______________________ 

2017-2402

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016-

00254.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

JOHN T. BENNETT, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA, 

argued for appellant. Also represented by SAMUEL 

SHERRY, DARYL L. WIESEN; CYNTHIA LAMBERT HARDMAN, 

New York, NY. 

 GREGORY J. GONSALVES, The Gonsalves Law Firm, 

Falls Church, VA, argued for appellees. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 
ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (MOORE, WALLACH, and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

 November 7, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ronald WASHINGTON, Appellant.

No. 03-2805.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 24, 2004.

Decided March 17, 2004.

Maria R. Moran, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ronald Washington, Greenville, IL, pro se.

Patrick J. Boylan, Haseall *&*Jungers, Bellevue, NE, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Washington pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841 (b)(1)(A)(iii), and 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2. At sentencing, the district court1 granted Washington’s motion for a downward departure, reducing his criminal history from Category IV to Category III, and sentenced him to 135 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release.

On appeal, Washington argues that departure to Category II was warranted. We reject this argument because the extent of the district court’s downward departure is unreviewable, *see United States v. Dutcher,*8 F.3d 11, 12 (8th Cir.1993), and Washington agreed in his written plea agreement that his prison term would be between 121-151 months, *see United States v. Nguyen,*46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1995). Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"Business Opportunities - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"YfJgC5QeSY\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/home\/the-court\/about-the-court\/business-opportunities\/\">Business Opportunities<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/home\/the-court\/about-the-court\/business-opportunities\/embed\/#?secret=YfJgC5QeSY\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Business Opportunities” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"YfJgC5QeSY\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Procurement within the federal judiciary is not subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), which applies to most Executive Branch agencies.\u00a0 Judiciary procurement policies are issued in the Guide to Judiciary Policy, Volume 14 – Procurement (external). Offerors or contractors wishing to find the full text of individual provisions or clauses incorporated by reference in […]"}
No. 11-9767.

#### Bolze *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
§ 27.1021 Reimbursement obligation of licensees at 1915-1920 MHz. A licensee in the 1915-1920 MHz band (Lower H Block) shall, within 30 days of grant of its long-form application, reimburse 25 percent of the total relocation costs incurred by UTAM, Inc. for relocating and clearing incumbent Fixed Microwave Service (FS) licensees from the 1910-1930 MHz band on a *pro rata* shared basis with other Lower H Block licensees as set forth in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section. ( a ) ( 1 ) If Lower H Block licenses granted as a result of the first auction for this spectrum cover, collectively, at least forty (40) percent of the nation's population, the amount owed to UTAM, Inc. by each individual Lower H Block licensee (reimbursement amount owed or RN) will be determined by dividing the gross winning bid (GWB) for each individual Lower H Block license (*i.e.,* an Economic Area (EA)) by the sum of the gross winning bids for all Lower H Block licenses for which there is a winning bid in the first auction, and then multiplying by $12,629,857. RN = (EA GWB ÷ Sum of GWBs) × $12,629,857.00
( 2 ) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, a licensee that obtains a license for a market in which no license is granted as a result of the first Lower H Block auction will not have a reimbursement obligation to UTAM, Inc.
( b ) If Lower H Block licenses granted as a result of the first auction for this spectrum cover, collectively, less than forty (40) percent of the nation's population, then the pro rata amount that the licensee of an individual Lower H Block license must reimburse UTAM, Inc. shall be calculated by dividing the population of the individual EA by the total U.S. population, and then multiplying by $12,629,857. In this event, the same population data, e.g., 2010, used to calculate the RNs for Lower H Block licenses granted as a result of the first auction will apply to subsequent auctions of Lower H Block licenses that were not granted as a result of an earlier auction of Lower H Block licenses. RN = (EA POP ÷ U.S. POP) × $12,629,857.00
( c ) A winning bidder of a Lower H Block license that is not granted a license for any reason will be deemed to have triggered a reimbursement obligation to UTAM, Inc. This obligation will be owed to UTAM, Inc. by the licensee acquiring the Lower H Block license through a subsequent auction. The amount owed by the licensee acquiring the Lower H Block license at such auction will be the RN calculated for the EA license based on the first auction (calculated under paragraphs (a) or (b), as applicable, of this section).
( d ) For purposes of compliance with this section, licensees should determine population based on 2010 U.S. Census Data or such other data or measurements that the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau proposes and adopts under the notice and comment process for the auction procedures.
( e ) A payment obligation owed by a Lower H Block licensees under this section shall be made within thirty (30) days of the grant of the license (*i.e.,* grant of the long form application).
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"18-1796: LABIO v. OPM [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"e443lLPJGn\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-07-2018-18-1796-labio-v-opm-opinion-18-1796-opinion-11-7-2018\/\">18-1796: LABIO v. OPM [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-07-2018-18-1796-labio-v-opm-opinion-18-1796-opinion-11-7-2018\/embed\/#?secret=e443lLPJGn\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“18-1796: LABIO v. OPM [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"e443lLPJGn\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Opinions\/Orders posted: LABIO v. OPM [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 18-1796 Origin: MSPB Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
333P15

#### State v. Dominique Alexander Jones

Def’s *Pro Se*Motion to Expedite (COAP14-734)

Dismissed
46808.

46809.

#### JONES v. SUPERIOR COURT OF COLUMBIA COUNTY, GEORGIA. JONES v. SUPERIOR COURT OF TATTNALL COUNTY, GEORGIA.

(380 SE2d 711)

Gregory, Justice.

In September 1988 the appellant filed a “motion to preserve evidence” in the Superior Court of Columbia County. In October, 1988 the appellant filed various motions in the Superior Court of Tattnall County relating to the preservation of evidence and correction of er*186rors in the record of his habeas corpus proceeding. The appellant has now filed two petitions for mandamus to compel those courts to rule on his motions.

Decided April 13, 1989.

David Jones, Jr., *pro se.*

*Sam B. Sibley, Jr., District Attorney,*for appellee (case no. 46808).

*Dupont K. Cheney, District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Eddie Snelling, Jr., Assistant Attorney General,*for appellee (case no. 46809).

A direct application for writ of mandamus to this court is controlled by the rule of *Brown v. Johnson,*251 Ga. 436 (306 SE2d 655) (1983). The petitions are therefore dismissed.

*Petitions for writ of mandamus dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Searched for **http://www.ssa.gov/international/Agreement_Pamphlets/czech.html**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.ssa.gov/international/Agreement_Pamphlets/czech.html**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
Exhibit 31.1

I, Mark E. Lefanowicz, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of E-LOAN, Inc.;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

March 25, 2005

/s/ Mark E. Lefanowicz   Mark E. Lefanowicz
   Chief Executive Officer and President

---
<PAGE>

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS - EXHIBIT 23.1

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
reports incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K, into the Company's
previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-31914,
File No. 333-33312, File No. 333-67589, File No. 333-10253 and File
No. 333-3388), Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-37586 and
File No. 333-46813) and Registration Statement on Form S-4 (File No. 333-53899).


                                         Arthur Andersen LLP
                                         San Francisco, California
                                         March 30, 2001
46912.

#### WHITLEY et al. v. CREDITHRIFT OF AMERICA, INC. et al.

(382 SE2d 104)

Decided June 23, 1989.

*Ford & Haley, James Lee Ford, David C. Cole,*for appellants.

*Hansell & Post, W. Rhett Tanner, Arnold & Hopkins, Alton H. Hopkins, Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, Kenneth Marc Barre, Wildman, Harrold, Allen, Dixon & Branch, Alfred B. Adams III,**311*Thomas*if. *Beisswenger,*for appellees.

*310Per curiam.

After plenary consideration of this matter, *Credithrift of America v. Whitley,*190 Ga. App. 833 (380 SE2d 489) (1989), it is found not to satisfy the criteria for the grant of certiorari, and the writ is therefore vacated.

*All the Justices concur, except Weltner, J., not participating.*
#### Rauschenberger, Appellant, *v.*Mutual Benefit Fire Insurance Company.

Argued September 28, 1949.

Before Maxey, C. J., Drew, Linn, Stern, Patterson, Stearne and Jones, JJ.

*Carmen V. Marinaro,*for appellant.

*J. Campbell Brandon,*with him *W. D. Brandon, Hugh S. Millar*and *Brandon & Brandon,*for appellee.

November 14, 1949:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Allen M. Stearne,

This is an appeal from the refusal of a new trial following a directed verdict for defendant in an assumpsit suit by plaintiff, the appellant, against a fire insurance company, the appellee.

*120On July 13, 1946, the defendant insurance company issued a *written*fire insurance policy on appellant’s garage. The term of the policy was for one year. It had been obtained by appellant, the owner, through Merle A. McKee, a local soliciting agent of the insurance company. Appellant averred that at the expiration of its term McKee *orally*agreed to continue the policy for another year and that he had paid the premium to McKee. This was denied by McKee. Ten months after the alleged renewal, the garage was destroyed by fire. The insurance company refused to pay the amount of loss and this suit was instituted.

Whether or not there are statutory prohibitions against oral contracts made by fire insurance companies need not be considered. Of. Section 317 of the Act of May 17, 1921, P. L. 682, 40 PS 440 and section 522, as amended, 40 PS 657 (f); *Rossi v. Firemen’s Insurance Company,*310 Pa. 242, 250 et seq., 165 A. 16; *Harris v. Meyers,*160 Pa. Superior Ct. 607, 612, 52 A. 2d 375. In this case the question becomes unimportant because the record clearly reveals that the agent, McKee, had no authority to bind the insurance company by *any*contract, whether oral or written: *Benner v. Fire Association of Philadelphia,*229 Pa. 75, 78 A. 44; *Keystone Mattress and Spring Bed Company v. Pittsburgh Underwriters of Pennsylvania,*21 Pa. Superior Ct. 38; *Ripka v. Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Annville,*36 Pa. Superior Ct. 517. An insurance agent, like any other agent, cannot bind the company where he acts beyond the scope of his authority: *Greene v. Lycoming Fire Insurance Company,*91 Pa. 387; *Russ v. Metro. Life Ins. Company,*98 Pa. Superior Ct. 353.

The written agency contract between McKee and the insurance company, received in evidence, reveals that McKee’s authority to act as the insurance company’s agent was merely *“to receive and accept proposals for insurance”*for such risks *“as the Insurance Company*
      *121
      *and the General Agent*may.......authoriseIt-was not shown that McKee possessed either express or implied authority to enter into any binding contract on behalf of the insurance company. Appellant offered no evidence of ratification of the alleged contract by the insurance company and also failed to show whether appellee had any knowledge of the facts and circumstances narrated by appellant. Cf. *Simonin’s Sons, Inc., v. American Credit Indemnity Company of New York,*318 Pa. 160, 177 A. 807.

The direction for a verdict for defendant was properly given.

Judgment affirmed.
### *&#*&/&J^y /fur***/e?6> s?o/£ /Yc?# Y?# Jo^o A/L^-ff/if /&**«'f*AsfS/+. - fr/* £ 

## //*//&.<** flfetif'. f*s At- **'?-/</ *'• /4/~ +*/*- /¥ >*/£s >/&* *Z&?~< i/fcr 

## drl/Zo-^7 JtSfe^So^t/riS iCs/-)
a.



### AZw*/*&K -A./sx^J?

r RECEIVED IN COUHI Oh CRIMINAL APPEATS" AUG 28 2015 AbetAcosta,Cleri< > r