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":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"20-1947: CELLSPIN SOFT, INC. v. CANON U.S.A., INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Scr74VuUbT\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-14-2022-20-1947-cellspin-soft-inc-v-canon-usa-inc-rule-36-judgment-20-1947-rule_36_judgment-10-14-2022_2018538\/\">20-1947: CELLSPIN SOFT, INC. v. CANON U.S.A., INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-14-2022-20-1947-cellspin-soft-inc-v-canon-usa-inc-rule-36-judgment-20-1947-rule_36_judgment-10-14-2022_2018538\/embed\/#?secret=Scr74VuUbT\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“20-1947: CELLSPIN SOFT, INC. v. CANON U.S.A., INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"Scr74VuUbT\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\"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":"RULE 36 JUDGMENT Posted: CELLSPIN SOFT, INC. v. CANON U.S.A., INC. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 20-1947 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
# Professor Ryan Published Article in Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems

/ Published Oct. 13, 2017

Philip William Sisson, and CIC Professor Julie J.C.H. Ryan published a new article titled "New rationale for the need for CKOs long-term: a systems perspective on observations", VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. 47 Issue: 3, pp.337-352, 

Abstract: This paper clarifies the need for Chief Knowledge Officers (CKOs) and explains how some recent views on competencies for educational guidelines, a Knowledge Management (KM) competency model and expansion of practice management concepts make the need for CKOs clearer. This viewpoint was developed in response to recent publications disparaging the idea of a CKO. The method used was to extract ideas from published and in-work papers to establish the basis for and explain the postulated Unified Competency Theory of KM and its implications regarding the need for CKOs. The findings of this research show that CKOs are needed to ensure that all organizationally relevant functions’ knowledge and KM assessments and/or audits are individually complete and collectively sufficient. A risk/opportunity management role also provides justification.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW ARTICLE
Exhibit
32(a)








This
Certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise
subject to the liability of that section.  This Certification shall
not be incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other
document pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, except as otherwise stated in
such filing.








Certification
Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


of Title
18 of the United States Code








In
connection with the Annual Report of Appalachian Power Company (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael G. Morris,
the chief executive 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,
based on my knowledge (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Michael G.
Morris  _


Michael
G. Morris


Chief
Executive Officer








August 4,
2009








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
American Electric Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by American Electric
Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
{"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":"2019-1591: SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. US - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"dGveBTZPjP\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/4-06-2020-2019-1591-solarworld-americas-inc-v-us-audio-uploaded\/\">2019-1591: SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. US<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/4-06-2020-2019-1591-solarworld-americas-inc-v-us-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=dGveBTZPjP\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2019-1591: SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. US” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"dGveBTZPjP\" 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":"Oral argument audio posted: SolarWorld Americas, Inc. v. US (mp3) Appeal Number: 2019-1591 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
No. 11-5407.

#### Lopez *v.*Trani, Warden, et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 42

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make the low-income

housing credit permanent.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make

the low-income housing credit permanent.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. LOW-INCOME HOUSING CREDIT MADE PERMA4 NENT.

5 (a) GENERAL RULE.—Section 42 of the Internal

6 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subsection

7 (o) (relating to termination).

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

9 subsection (a) shall apply to periods after June 30, 1992.

Æ
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with this Quarterly Report of HIV-VAC Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the year period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin Murray, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the
         period ending June 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all material
         respects, the financial condition and results of operations of HIV-VAC
         Inc.

Date: September 30, 2011

/s/ Kevin Murray
Kevin Murray
Chief Executive Officer
No. 11-953.

#### Hassebrock *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4517

To reinstate the emergency unemployment compensation program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 26, 1994

Mr. KLINK introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the

Committees on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Agriculture

A BILL

To reinstate the emergency unemployment compensation

program.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF PROGRAM.

4 (a) GENERAL RULE.—Sections 102(f)(1) and

5 106(a)(2) of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation

6 Act of 1991 (Public Law 102–164, as amended) are each

7 amended by striking ‘‘February 5, 1994’’ and inserting

8 ‘‘August 5, 1994’’.

9 (b) MODIFICATION OF FINAL PHASEOUT.—Para10 graph (2) of section 102(f) of such Act is amended—
2

•HR 4517 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘February 5, 1994’’ and insert2 ing ‘‘August 5, 1994’’, and

3 (2) by striking ‘‘April 30, 1994’’ and inserting

4 ‘‘September 30, 1994’’.

5 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subsection (e) of

6 section 101 of such Act is amended by striking ‘‘February

7 5, 1994’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘August 5,

8 1994’’.

9 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

10 this section shall apply to weeks of unemployment begin11 ning after February 5, 1994.

12 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF RAILROAD WORKERS.

13 (a) GENERAL RULE.—

14 (1) Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 501(b) of

15 the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of

16 1991 (Public Law 102–164, as amended) are each

17 amended by striking ‘‘February 5, 1994’’ and insert18 ing ‘‘August 5, 1994’’.

19 (2) Subsection (a) of section 501 of such Act is

20 amended by striking ‘‘February 1994’’ and inserting

21 ‘‘August 5, 1994’’.

22 (b) TERMINATION OF BENEFITS.—Subsection (e) of

23 section 501 of such Act is amended—

24 (1) by striking ‘‘February 5, 1994’’ and insert25 ing ‘‘August 5, 1994’’, and
3

•HR 4517 IH

1 (2) by striking ‘‘April 30, 1994’’ and inserting

2 ‘‘September 30, 1994’’.

3 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

4 this section shall apply to days of unemployment after

5 February 5, 1994.

6 SEC. 3. EXTENSION FUNDED BY REPEAL OF EXPORT EN7 HANCEMENT PROGRAM OF DEPARTMENT OF

8 AGRICULTURE.

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 301 of the Agricultural

10 Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5651) is hereby repealed.

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

12 subsection (a) shall apply to fiscal years beginning after

13 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Exhibit
32.1











SECTION
1350


CERTIFICATION








The
undersigned officer hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (1) the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of COMFORCE Corporation for the quarter ended September 28,
2008 as to which this Certification is an exhibit fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and (2) the information contained in such Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of COMFORCE Corporation.





Signed
November 5, 2008.








/s/
      John C. FanningJohn
      C. Fanning,Chairman
      and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.20

               SECOND AMENDMENT TO UNDERWRITING SERVICES AGREEMENT

     This Amendment to Underwriting Services Agreement (the "Amendment") is
entered into between E-LOAN. a California corporation, located at 6200 Village
Parkway, Dublin, CA 94568 (E-Loan"), and PMI MORTGAGE SERVICES CO., a California
corporation, located at 601 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111 ("PMI").

     WHEREAS, PMI and E-Loan entered into an Underwriting Services Agreement
(the "Agreement") on or about June 11, 1998, and amended said Agreement on or
about July 31, 1998, and;

     WHEREAS, PMI and E-Loan wish to amend the Agreement with respect to the
underwriting guidelines and to the Review Fees payable and under the Agreement;

     NOW, THEREFORE, PMI and E-Loan agree to amend the Agreement on the
following terms and conditions.

     1.   The address for Customer in the-first paragraph of the Agreement is
          amended to read as follows:

         "This Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered between E-LOAN, a
         California corporation, located at 5875 Arnold Drive, Dublin, CA 94568
         ("Customer"), and PMI MORTGAGE SERVICES CO., a California corporation,
         located at 601 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111 ("PMI")."

          2.   Exhibit A is amended to include the following:

                  NORWEST FUNDING, INC. ("NORWEST")
                  FIRST UNION MORTGAGE CORPORATION ("1ST UNION")
                  INTERFIRST ("INTERFIRST")

          3.   This Amendment shall become effective as of the date of the last
               party to sign.

          4.   Except as amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full
               force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused their duly authorized
officers to execute this instrument on the date set forth below.

E-LOAN                               PMI MORTGAGE SERVICES CO.

/S/ JAN HAMMOND                      /S/ ILLEGIBLE
    ------------------------------       --------------------------------------
By: JAN HAMMOND                      By:  Gene Campion
    ------------------------------
Its: VP UNDERWRITING                 Its:  National Underwriting Vice President
    ------------------------------

Date:  4/27     , 1999             Date:   MAY 3   , 1999
       ---------                          ---------
Page 1 of 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Cause No. DA 21-0332

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF

JENNIFER S. CONROY, 

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL SCOTT CONROY, 

Respondent And Appellee.

.

 

ORDER

Upon unopposed motion of Appellant, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT DeAnn Cooney is appointed as mediator 

in this case pursuant to M.R.App.P. 7(5).

DATED this ____day of September, 2021

By ______________________________

 SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 3 2021

09/03/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0332
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with this Quarterly Report of HIV-VAC Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the year period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin Murray, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the
         period ending March 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all material
         respects, the financial condition and results of operations of HIV-VAC
         Inc.

Date: September 30, 2011

/s/ Kevin Murray
Kevin Murray
Chief Financial Officer
No. 11-9494.

#### LaCour *v.*Cain, Warden.

Sup. Ct. La. Cer-tiorari denied.
§ 22.1037 Application requirements for offshore stations. Applications for new Offshore Radiotelephone Service stations must contain an exhibit showing that: ( a ) The applicant has notified all licensees of offshore stations located within 321.8 kilometers (200 miles) of the proposed offshore station, by providing the following data, at least 30 days before filing the application: ( 1 ) The name, business address, channel coordinator, and telephone number of the applicant;
( 2 ) The location and geographical coordinates of the proposed station;
( 3 ) The channel and type of emission;
( 4 ) The height and type of antenna;
( 5 ) The bearing of the main lobe of the antenna; and,
( 6 ) The effective radiated power.
( b ) The proposed station will not interfere with the primary ORS channels by compliance with the following separations: ( 1 ) Co-channel to a distance of 241.4 kilometers (150 miles).
( 2 ) If interstitial channels are used, adjacent channels (±12.5 kHz) to a distance of 80.5 kilometers (50 miles).
( 3 ) Third order intermodulation channels (±12.5 kHz) to a distance of 32.2 kilometers (20 miles).
( 4 ) If the proposed transmitting antenna site is located west of longitude W.93°40′, and within 32.2 kilometers (20 miles) of the shoreline, and proposed use of the channels listed in § 22.1007(b), no third-order intermodulation interference would be caused to any base or mobile station using the channels between 488 and 494 MHz.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ethan Jerome MOORE, a/k/a Nate, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-6043.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 11, 2004.

Decided March 19, 2004.

Ethan Jerome Moore, Appellant pro se. Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Ethan Jerome Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on April 24, 2002. The notice of appeal was filed on November 24, 2003. Because Moore failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
exv10w17



 





Exhibit 10.17




WABASH NATIONAL CORPORATION

CHANGE-IN-CONTROL POLICY




     The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company approved an executive
change-in-control policy on December 8, 2005, and amended as of February 8, 2007, that is
applicable to the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, Senior Vice President Sales and Marketing, Senior Vice President Human Resources, Senior
Vice President Manufacturing, and Vice President General Counsel. The initial term of the policy
will be two years from December 8, 2005, during which time the policy will be irrevocable, and the
policy will be renewable for subsequent one year terms. Benefits under the policy are payable in
the event of a qualifying termination, which is a termination within twelve months after a
change-in-control that is either by the Company without cause or by the executive for good reason,
unless the executive is entitled to greater benefits under the terms of an employment agreement. An
executive must execute a release in favor of the Company to receive the benefits under the policy.



     In the case of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, the benefits under the policy upon a
qualifying termination are a severance payment of two times base salary plus two times the
executive’s target bonus. In addition, a payment will be made for a pro-rata portion of the
executive’s target bonus for the current year, and health benefits will be continued for two years
(or until comparable coverage is obtained by the executive). In the case of the Company’s Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President Sales and Marketing, Senior Vice
President Human Resources, Senior Vice President Manufacturing, and Vice President General Counsel,
the benefits under the policy upon a qualifying termination of employment are a severance payment
of one and one-half times base salary plus one and one-half times the executive’s target bonus.



     In addition, a payment will be made for a pro-rata portion of the executive’s target bonus for
the current year, and health benefits will be continued for one and one-half years (or until
comparable coverage is obtained by the executive).
No. 11-9792.

#### Kaialau *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-5185.

#### Dorsey *v.*Texas.

Ct. App. Tex., 3d Dist. Cer-tiorari denied.