alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 


EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 


UNITED NATIONAL INSURANCE ) 

COMPANY, DIAMOND STATE INSURANCE) 

COMPANY and UNITED NATIONAL ) 

SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ) 

) 

Plaintiffs, 	 ) No. 04-CV-539 (LHP) 

) 

v. 	 ) 

) 

AON LIMITED, ALEXANDER HOWDEN ) 

LIMITED and ALEXANDER HOWDEN ) 

NORTH AMERICA, INC., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the undersigned counsel for 

all the parties to this action, pursuant to Rule 41 (a)(l)(A)(ii), Fed.R.Civ.Proc., that this action 

shall be and hereby is voluntarily dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice and without costs, 

disbursements or other relief to any party. 

No party to this action is a minor, an incapacitated person, or a decedent's estate 

in which a minor or incapacitated person has an interest. 

Appellate bond No. 6648481 (Surety: Safeco Insurance Company of America), 

filed by the defendants in this case, shall be and hereby is released and discharged, and may be 

closed. 

Case 2:04-cv-00539-LP Document 295 Filed 03/02/11 Page 1 of 2
Dated: January 31, 2011 

SO ORDERED: 

L H. P,lr~ I1UiSH:Pollak, U.S.D.J. 

ROPES &. \ RAY LLP 

1211 Avenue ofthe Americas 

New York, New York 10036 

(212) 596-9000 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

::L?J~ Alan 1. Sorkowitz 

787 Seventh Avenue 

New York, New York 10019 

(212) 839-5300 

Attorneys for Defendants 

2 


Case 2:04-cv-00539-LP Document 295 Filed 03/02/11 Page 2 of 2
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 5, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00466

- CV

Felix LUERA , Jr. and Bianca Luera,

Appellant s

v.

BASIC ENERGY SERVICES, INC. , Basic Energy Services, L.P., ARI Fleet Services, Inc.

D/B/A ARI Fleet LT and Servando Garcia,

Appellee s

From the 79th Ju dicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13

- 06

- 52391

- CV Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

T he court reporter s responsible for preparing the reporter ’ s record in this appeal , Sonia G.

Trevino , Sylvia Kerr, and Kim Grigg, have filed a notification of late reporter’s record, stating that the appellant s ha ve failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the

reporter ’ s record.

We, therefore, ORDER appellants to provide written proof to this court within ten days of the date of this order that either (1) the reporters ’ fee s ha ve been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the reporters ’ fee; or (2) appellant s are entitled to appeal without paying the

reporters ’ fee s . If appellant s fail to respond within the time provided, appellants ’ brief will be due within thirty days from the date of th is order, and the court will only consider those issues or points raised in appellants ’ brief that do not require a reporter ’ s record for a decision. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 37.3(c).

___________ ______________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 5th day of August, 201 5

.

______________ _____________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JAMES ARTHUR WELLS

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00098

- CR

Appeal from the

104th Judicial District Court

of Taylor County, Texas

(TC# CR23133

- B )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the

judgment. We therefore modify the trial court’s Judgment of Conviction for the aggravated assault

to delete the imposition of $1 00 fine, the $260 reimbursement fee, and the $290 court costs. We

otherwise affirm the judgment as modified. We affirm the Judgment of Con viction for the

into xication manslaughter , including the assessment o f the reimbursement fee and court costs. This

decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023.

J EFF ALLEY

, Chief Justice

Before Alley , C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 986 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 986

     Expressing support for the designation of Journeyman Lineman 
                            Recognition Day.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 10, 2018

 Ms. Sanchez (for herself, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Norcross, Mr. Garamendi, 
  Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Welch, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. 
Lowenthal, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Aguilar, Ms. 
 Wilson of Florida, Mr. Jones, Mr. Khanna, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. 
  DeFazio, Mr. Connolly, Ms. DelBene, Mr. Hastings, Ms. Barragan, Mr. 
Blumenauer, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Gomez, Ms. Bonamici, Ms. Jackson Lee, and 
Ms. Hanabusa) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Expressing support for the designation of Journeyman Lineman 
                            Recognition Day.

Whereas journeymen linemen provide a vital service on a daily basis;
Whereas journeyman linemen put their lives on the line every day to assure safe 
        and reliable power for the American people;
Whereas journeyman linemen work at heights and in close proximity to energized 
        electric lines, and in emergencies they often work extremely long hours 
        under sometimes dangerous conditions to restore power;
Whereas Henry Miller, the first elected president of the International 
        Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, was killed on July 10, 1896, at just 
        38 years old;
Whereas Henry Miller died of injuries sustained while troubleshooting an 
        electrical outage; and
Whereas there should be a day to honor those industry first responders who have 
        given their lives in the line of duty along with those who provide 
        skillful service in times of local or national crisis: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) supports the designation of Journeyman Lineman 
        Recognition Day;
            (2) honors and recognizes the contributions of the 
        countless individuals who often place themselves in harm's way 
        to serve their communities; and
            (3) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        Journeyman Lineman Recognition Day with appropriate reflection.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2015279EN.01003602.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/36

---

Action brought on 28 May 2015 — Novartis Europharm v Commission

(Case T-269/15)

(2015/C 279/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis Europharm Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision; and

| — | order the European Commission to pay its own costs and those of Novartis. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay its own costs and those of Novartis.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 1977 final of 18 March 2015 granting a marketing authorisation to Pari Pharma for the medicinal product for human use ‘Vantobra — tobramycine’.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Commission is unlawful in that it constitutes an infringement of the orphan market exclusivity rights of Novartis Europharm Ltd. for its product TOBI Podhaler pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000 (1) because the period of orphan market exclusivity has not yet expired while the conditions for granting a derogation of market exclusivity pursuant to Article 8(3) of the same Regulation are not fulfilled. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Commission is unlawful in that it constitutes an infringement of the orphan market exclusivity rights of Novartis Europharm Ltd. for its product TOBI Podhaler pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000 (1) because the period of orphan market exclusivity has not yet expired while the conditions for granting a derogation of market exclusivity pursuant to Article 8(3) of the same Regulation are not fulfilled.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Commission is also unlawful because it does not contain a statement of reasons as required by Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 81(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004 (2). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of the European Commission is also unlawful because it does not contain a statement of reasons as required by Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 81(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004 (2).

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ L 18, 22.1.2000, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1).

---
# ! ! 

# 2 ! ! 

# 2

! ! 

# 2 ! ! 

# 2 ! ! 

# 2

! ! 

# 2 ! ! 

# 2

! ! 

# 2 ! ! 

# 2 ! ! 

# 2 ! ! 

# 2
! ! 

# 2 ! ! 

# 2

! ! 

# 2 ! ! 

# 2

! ! 

# 2

! ! 

# 2 ! ! 

# 2 ! ! 

# 2 ! ! 

# 2 ! ! 

# 2 ! ! 

# 2

! ! 

# 2
! ! 

# 2 ! ! 

# 2 ! ! 

# 2

! ! 

# 2

! ! 

# 2

! ! 

# 2 ! ! 

# 2

! ! 

# 2 ! ! 

# 2 ! ! 

# 2 ! ! 

# 2

! ! 

# 2 ! ! 

# 2 ! ! 

# 2

! ! 

# 2 ! ! 

# 2

! ! 

# 2 ! ! 

# 2 

# ) ! C
A n h e u s e r - B u s c h S h e l t e r W o r k s

S t L o u i s D o w n t o w n A i r p o rt O c c i d e n t a l C h e m i c a l

U p c h u r c h R e a d y M i x C o n c r e t e P l a n t J e t Av i a t i o n S t L o u i s I n c A p e x O i l C o

A l t o n & S o u t h e r n R a i l r o a d C o S t L o u i s A u t o S h r e d d i n g

Wo o d R i v e r P i p e L i n e s C e r r o F l o w P r o d u c t s J o i n t A m e r i c a n B o t t o m s & S a u g e t T

r e a t m e n t F a c i l i t y K i n d e r M o r g a n C a h o k i a T

e r m i n a l

E n v i r o n m e n t a l M a n a g e m e n t C o r p S T . L O U I S P o s t D i s p a t c h

N A T I O N A L G E O S PA T I A L - I N T E L L I G E N C E A G E N C Y - S T L O U I S E N E R G Y C E N T E R ( T H E ) - S T . L O U I S U N I V H E A L T H S C I E N C E S C E N T E R T R I G E N - S T . L O U I S E N E R G Y C O R P - A S H L E Y S T R E E T S T A

T I O N T H E D I A L C O R P O R A T I O N - S T. L O U I S

Po l y O n e C o r p

S c h a e f fe r M fg R e s o u r c e R e c o v e ry G r o u p Af t o n C h e m i c a l

S o l u t i a I n c A n h e u s e r - B u s c h U S P a i n t C o r p

S i g m a A l d r i c h M F G

C o n o c o P h i l l i p s P i p e L i n e C o S u p e r i o r S o l v e n t & C h e m i c a l H E R T Z S T . L O U I S O N E , L L C - L A C L E D E G A S B U I L D I N G

B i g R i v e r Z i n c C o r p



### V

e o l i a E S T

e c h n i c a l S o l u t i o n s

J D S t r e e t t B u l kT e r m i n a l C e n t e r E t h a n o l

R a l s t o n F o o d s E xx o n M o b i l O i l C o r p S T L O U I S U N I V E R S I TY H O S P I T A L S T L O U I S H e l i p o rt

A R C H V. A . M E D I C A L C E N T E R

F O S T A I R E

C L A R I O N

G A T E W A

Y 2 3 R D S T R E E T

E A S T S A I N T L O U I S Y A * S C F D e v e l o p m e n t L L C

S o u rc e : E s r i , D i g i t a l G l o b e , G e o E y e , i
- c u b e d , U S D A , U S G S , A E X , G e t m a p p i n g , A e ro g r i d , I G N , I G P, s w i s s t o p o , a n d t h e G I S U s e r C o m m u n i t y 

# F a c i l i t i e s R e p o rt i n g H A P S 2 0 1 1 N E I & T R I

1 m i l e 2

m

i l e 3m i l e
No. 60723.

#### Gematex Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 275827-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From a review of the record in this case, the court found that the protest was not filed within the 60-day statutory period provided by section 514, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1514). The protest was, therefore, dismissed as untimely.
No. 68634.

protests 63/21245 and 63/21247 (Philadelphia).

#### Lanston Industries, Inc., and Lanston Monotype Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of monophoto machines or parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Lanston Industries, Inc.*v. *United States*(49 CCPA 123, C.A.D. 807), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, J. Paul Sorbara, President and Chief Executive Officer of Golden Goliath Resources Ltd . (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.

This Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended August 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.

The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: March 14, 2008





/s/  J. Paul Sorbara

J. Paul Sorbara,

President and Chief Executive Officer













#
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER 
  PURSUANT TO 
  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Melanie Farrand, the Principal Financial Officer of Shoshone
  Silver Mining Company (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, that to the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company, for the
      fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) oar 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                        



| | By:    | /s/ Melanie Farrand            
| | ------ | -------------------------------
| | Name:  | Melanie Farrand                
| | Title: | Treasurer and Financial Officer
| | Date:  | November 27, 2006              



A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-KSB to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-KSB), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000664

03-APR-2017

09:19 AM
DATE: February 1 , 2022

The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued published opinions have been

appealed to the Supreme Court:

1. Thomas Othel Thompson

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 1262

- 20

- 2

Opinion rendered by Chief Judge Decker on

November 23, 2021

2

. Eric Torez Clark

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 0017

- 21

- 1

Opinion rendered by Judge Ortiz on

November 23, 2021

3

. Rebecca Benedict

- Miller

v. Virginia Department of Social Services

Record No. 0323

- 21

- 1

Opinion rendered by Judge Lorish on

November 23, 2021

4

. Commonwealth of Virginia

v. Tyekh Chamon Davis

Record No. 0368

- 21

- 2

Opinion rendered by Judge Fulton on

November 23, 2021

5

. John Stark

v. Firouzeh Dinarany

Record No. 0356

- 21

- 4

Opinion rendered by Judge Beales on

November 30, 2021

6

. Firouzeh Dinarany

v. John Stark

Record No. 0166

- 21

- 4

Opinion rendered by Judge Beales on

November 30, 20217

. James Eberhardt

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 0028

- 21

- 2

Opinion rendered by Chief Judge Decker on

December 14, 2021The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued published opinions have been

disposed of by the Supreme Court:

1. Rakim Malik Nottingham

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 0340

- 20

- 1

Opinion rendered by J udge O’Brien

on May 25, 2021

Refused ( 210551 )

2. Brian Wesly Ruff

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 0694

- 20

- 2

Opinion rendered by Judge Athey

on July 27, 2021

Refused (210808)

3

. Nicholas DeLuca, s/k/a, etc.

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 1150

- 20

- 4

Opinion rendered by Judge Russell

on October 26, 2021

Appeal not perfected in Supreme Court of Virginia (no petition for appeal filed)

4

. Nicholas DeLuca

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 1151

- 20

- 4

Opinion rendered by Judge Russell

on October 26, 2021

Appeal not perfected in Supreme Court of Virginia (no petition for appeal filed)On January 13, 2022 the Supreme Cour t issued an opinion in the following case, which had

been appealed from this Court

1

. Robert Lee Smallwood

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 0844

- 19

- 4

Memorandum opinion rendered by Judge Petty on May 12, 2020

Judgment of Court of Appeals affirmed by opinion rendered on January 13, 2022

( 200803 )
No. 65398.

#### Macy’s California Div. and Hoyt, Stepston & Sciaroni et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/25042, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# C_2015406EN.01003701.xml

| 7.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/37

---

Action brought on 29 September 2015 — Bimbo v OHIM — ISMS (BIMBO BEL SIMPLY MARKET)

(Case T-571/15)

(2015/C 406/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: International Supermarket Stores (ISMS) SA (Croix, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BIMBO BEL SIMPLY MARKET’ — Application for registration No 10 335 321

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 July 2015 in Case R 1297/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | modify the decision of the Board of Appeal dated on 17 July 2015 in accordance with Article 65(3) CTMR, rejecting the CTM Application No 10 335 321 in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

modify the decision of the Board of Appeal dated on 17 July 2015 in accordance with Article 65(3) CTMR, rejecting the CTM Application No 10 335 321 in its entirety;

| — | subsidiarity and only in the case the above claim would be rejected, the annulment of the Board of Appeal decision, dated 17 July 2015; |
| --- | --- |

—

subsidiarity and only in the case the above claim would be rejected, the annulment of the Board of Appeal decision, dated 17 July 2015;

| — | order the defendants to pay the procedural costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to pay the procedural costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(5), 42(2)(3), and 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(5), 42(2)(3), and 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Case No. 6,651.

#### HOLY et al. v. RHODES.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 245.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

May Term, 1821.

PitoMissoKT Note — Maker—Defence—Assignment.

It is no defence, at law, to an action by the as-signee against the maker of a promissory note, that it was given for the purchase of land which the payee had not conveyed to the defendant as he had covenanted to do upon a previous cash payment made by the defendant; although the note was assigned to the plaintiffs after it was dishonored.

Debt by the assignees of John Johnston’s promissory note for $550.

*440Mr. Swann, for defendant'

[William Rhodes], offered evidence that the note was assigned to the plaintiffs [Holy & Suckley] after it was dishonored; that it was given to Johnston in part payment for a house and lot; and that Johnston had not made the title which he had bound himself by his covenant under seal, and under a penalty to make, on payment of $500 in cash, which were paid. The defendant had not demanded the conveyance, and Johnston was always ready and able to make it.

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent),

upon the motion of Mr. Taylor, for plaintiffs, instructed the jury that this was no defence. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs.
No. 53429.

protest 120458-K/506 (Chicago).

#### J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of sponges similar in all material respects to those the subject of *James H. Rhodes & Co.*v. *United States*(18 Cust. Ct. 62, C. D. 1045), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00636

- CV

JIMIE DIANNE OWSLEY

v. BRIAN LEON OWSLEY
On Appeal from the 319th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2014

- FAM

- 1876

- G

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having consider ed this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellant. We further order this decision certified below for ob servance. November 10, 2022
- Bureau of the Fiscal Service
- EagleCash
- Photo Gallery

# Photo Gallery 

Last modified 04/02/21