alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Mondee Stracener, Appellant

No. 06

- 14

- 00079

- CV v.

Doug Stracener, Bernice L. Stracener and Joey Keith Stracener, Appellee s Appeal from the 115th District Court of Upshur County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 135

- 06 ). Opinion delivered by Justice Burgess, Chief

Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We further order that the appellant, Mondee Stracener, pay all cost s of this appeal.

RENDERED JULY 24, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Cyhalofop-butyl Focus Meeting 

July 11, 2014 

10:00-11:00 am, Potomac Yards South- 9100 

M1 c kel(c 12CLh'-l d 1-e 

1)o ~ \)~ 

..------, 1 ~ i I (ct~Q{.Z. -t-te Y\f € vQ 

~ ~-- h 1-<--j 

'lGe-~ ShcM-~\e~ 

~J)l~ 

u ~'1-3o ~"So-­ /J;Jf!(h/J(,f <{ 

N~6~ 

~~~ 

M~~ 

f<a.{ OU-t Pr ~ 

9r~ ~ 

Affiliation/Phone Number 

t--W t03 34t ~to(p 

oP?/tteD (ro3) 3<'5- 535\ 

J)CA.J f\rvS'· ( \ e/Ll.c ~ j 3 I '7- j_3(] -4 b '? 2 

0//( E F t;)J 7o J- fa v_t- ~o 2- / 1 

£f£t:> 103 3 os- ~'1 ( 

P~D 7 o!J 3o0_ gor 1 

VQo . . cf?ff/8ElfD ~3 ?2)'6' 'bo't9 

Arwn r " " ~l.::r-3YI-t 3J-49 D(nJ , ·v . v cl ~L.X/-1 

b6W ( {)\A_ p ) 

tPPr /I~ co c~ pMv-L\ 

a A- J T315Fro c~ ph~) 

Ef A ) Pf-0 ) I D 3 - 3 Lf 7 - 0 l 03
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**SEBASTIAN ENRIQUE OLMEDA,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 221 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 29th day of October, 2015, the Petition for A llowance of Appeal** 

**is** DENIED

**.**
# C o u r t o f A p p e a l s

o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g i a

A T L A N T A

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Th e C o u rt o f A p p e a l s h e re b y p a sse s t h e f o l l o w i n g o rd e r:

A 1 7 A 0 3 9 6

. J A

M E S R

. SIM S e t a l

. v
. A L T ISO U R C E R E SID E NT IA L , L P

.

T h i s c a s e b e g a

n a s a d i sp o s s e s s o r y p r o c e e d i n g i n m a g i st r a t e c o u r t

. A f

t e r t h e

m a g i st r a t e c o u r t e n t e r e d j u d g

m e n t i n f a v o r o f p l a i n t i f

f A l t i so u r c e R e si d e n t i a l

, L P,

d e f e n d a n t s Ja m e s Si m s a

n d M e l v e t a H i l l

- Si m s a p p e a l e d t o t

h e su p e r i o r c o u r t

. T h e

su p e r i o r c o u r t a l so e n t e r e d j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e p l a i n t i f

f

. T h e d e f e n d a n t s t h e n
f i l e d t h i s d i r e c t a

p p e a l

. W e l a c k j u r i sd i c t i o n

.

“ [ A ] p p e a l s f

r o m d e c i si o n s o f t

h e su p e r i o r c o u r t s r e v i e w i n g d e c i si o n s o f l o w e r

c o u r t s b y c e r t i o r a

r i o r d e n o v o p r o c e e d i n g s s h a l l b e b y a p p l i c a t i o n f o r d i sc r e t i o n a

r y

a p p e a l

. ” B u l l o c k v

. S

a n d

, 2 6 0 G a

. A

p p

. 8 7 4

, 8 7 5 ( 5 8 1 SE

2 d 3 3 3 ) ( 2 0 0 3 ) ; se e a l so
O C G A § 5

- 6

- 3 5 ( a ) ( 1 )

. T h e d e f e n d a n t s ’ f a i l u r e t o c o m

p l y w i t h t h e d i sc r e t i o n a

r y

a p p e a l p r o c e d u r e d e p r i v e s u s o f j u r i sd i c t i o n o v e r t h i s a p p e a l

, w h i c h i s h e r e b y
D I SM I SSE D

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g i a C l e r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t l a n t a ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t

r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i t n e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. May 10, 2017

05/10/2017
AmSouth Bank wv

Post Oifice Box 11007 \)
Birmingham, Alabama 35288 “1

AMSOUTH

August 23, 1999

Federal Reserve Bank

Attn.: Cynthia L. Johnson

Financial Management Service, Room 420
401 14th Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20227

Dear Ms. Johnson:

Please accept this response as official comments concerning the proposed rule change regarding
the rate of interest charged on TT&L Depositaries for the use of Treasury Funds.

In the event that the rate is changed to an overnight repurchase agreement rate, it is most likely

that AmSouth Bank would no longer participate as a Note Option Institution. At the very
least. we would lower our note limit considerably.

Should you require further information, | can be reached at 205-326-4803.

Sincerely,

eva WH. “A chm
Dana W. Nolan
Vice President

CC: John Kottmeyer
Barbara Medley
# C_2017006EN.01002901.xml

| 9.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 25 October 2016 — UAB ‘Spika’, AB ‘Senoji Baltija’, UAB ‘Stekutis’, UAB ‘Prekybos namai Aistra’ v Žuvininkystės tarnyba prie Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerijos

UAB ‘Spika’, AB ‘Senoji Baltija’, UAB ‘Stekutis’, UAB ‘Prekybos namai Aistra’

Žuvininkystės tarnyba prie Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerijos

(Case C-540/16)

(2017/C 006/36)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: UAB ‘Spika’, AB ‘Senoji Baltija’, UAB ‘Stekutis’, UAB ‘Prekybos namai Aistra’

Appellants:

Respondent: Žuvininkystės tarnyba prie Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerijos

Respondent:

Other parties: Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerija, BUAB ‘Sedija’, UAB ‘Starkis’, UAB ‘Baltijos šprotai’, UAB ‘Ramsun’, AB ‘Laivitė’, UAB ‘Baltlanta’, UAB ‘Strimelė’, V. Malinausko gamybinė-komercinė firma ‘Stilma’, UAB ‘Banginis’, UAB ‘Monistico’, UAB ‘Rikneda’, UAB ‘Baltijos jūra’, UAB ‘Grinvita’, BUAB ‘Baltijos žuvys’

Other parties:

Question referred

Question referred

Are Articles 17 and 2(5)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC, in the light of Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that, when a Member State exercises the discretion provided for in Article 16(6), it is prohibited from choosing a method of allocation of the fishing quotas allocated to it which causes unequal conditions of competition for economic operators engaging in activity in this field on account of a greater quantity of fishing opportunities, even if that method is based on a transparent and objective criterion?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 354, p. 22.

1

---
No. 62977.

#### L. Batlin & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 58/1562, etc. (New York).

*353Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of toy tea sets similar in all material respects to those the subject of *B. Shackman & Co. et al.*v. *United States*(28 Cust. Ct. 298, C.D. 1426), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 31.1

           Rule 13a-14(a) Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

I, Karen E. Johnson, certify that:

     1. I have  reviewed  this  Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB of  Sunshine  PCS
Corporation;

     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 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 (the registrant's  fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual  report)  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 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.

Date:  April 20, 2004


/s/ Karen E. Johnson
--------------------
Karen E. Johnson
Chief Executive Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 122 (Wednesday, June 25, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14686]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0206; FRL-9912-56-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Wisconsin; 
Nitrogen Oxide Combustion Turbine Alternative Control Requirements for 
the Milwaukee-Racine Former Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of an adverse comment, EPA is withdrawing 
the April 30, 2014, direct final rule approving a revision to the 
Wisconsin State Implementation Plan. EPA will address the comment in a 
subsequent final action based upon the proposed rulemaking action, also 
published on April 30, 2014. EPA will not institute a second comment 
period on this action.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 79 FR 24337 on April 30, 
2014, is withdrawn effective June 25, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Environmental 
Engineer, Attainment Planning & Maintenance Section, Air Programs 
Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6052, 
rosenthal.steven@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is withdrawing the April 30, 2014 (79 FR 
24337), direct final rule approving a revision to the Wisconsin 
nitrogen oxide combustion turbine rule for the Milwaukee-Racine former 
nonattainment area. In the direct final rule, EPA stated that if 
adverse comments were received by May 30, 2014, the rule would be 
withdrawn and not take effect. On May 30, 2014, EPA received a comment, 
which it interprets as adverse and, therefore, EPA is withdrawing the 
direct final rule. EPA will address the comment in a subsequent final 
action based upon the proposed rulemaking action, also published on 
April 30, 2014 (79 FR 24359). EPA will not institute a second comment 
period on this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 11, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
Accordingly, the amendment to 40 CFR 52.2570 published in the Federal 
Register on April 30, 2014 (79 FR 24337) on page 24340 is withdrawn 
effective June 25, 2014.

[FR Doc. 2014-14686 Filed 6-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
Wo pace

IPAC Operational Metrics for August 2022

‘Volume by Transaction Type

Dollar Amount! '% of Total Dollar Amount! ‘Number of Transactions|_% of Total Number of Transactions]
Fiduciary (Investment & Borrowing) 27,255,323,172,474 99.82%| 25,907 17.57%
Buy/Sell 41,958,090,781| 0.15%| 120,237] 81.56%
Benefits (RITS) 7,596,381,582| 0.03%| 370] 0.25%
Check Aftermath (TRACS) 395,117,878 0.00%| 308] 0.62%
[Zero Dollar | 0.00% | 0.00%
[Grand Total - August 2022 27,305,272,762,715| 100.00%| 100.00%|
[Grand Total - July 2022 23,478, 725,660,913 '100.00%| 100.00%|

3,826,547,101,802

16.3%

[Grand Total - August 2021 14,117,292,495,126|
[Aug 2021 to Aug 2022 Change 13,187,980,267,589|
Percentage Change 93.4% |
No. 53466.

protest 138868-K (New York).

#### Hecht Levis & Kahn, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
# C_2017357EN.01001101.xml

| 23.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/11

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2017 — Gillet v Commission

(Case T-578/16) (1)

1

((Civil service - Contract staff - Former employed worker under Belgian law - Allowance applicable pursuant to Articles 6 and 7 of Decision C(2005) 1287 - Recalculation of the amount of the allowance by the administration in the context of an update of management procedures - Act adversely affecting an official or other member of staff - Act which is merely confirmatory - Obligation to state reasons - Recovery of sums overpaid))

(2017/C 357/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Évelyne Gillet (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 12 December 2014 and of 9 April 2015 and subsequent salary statements that reduce the amount of the allowance paid to the applicant, who was employed under an employment contract of indeterminate duration governed by Belgian law, and that require the repayment of amounts overpaid.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the European Commission’s decision of 9 April 2015 in so far as it seeks to recover the amount of EUR 3 959,38 under Article 85 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Article 116 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the European Commission’s decision of 9 April 2015 in so far as it seeks to recover the amount of EUR 3 959,38 under Article 85 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Article 116 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders Ms Évelyne Gillet to bear her own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ms Évelyne Gillet to bear her own costs;

| 4. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 145 of 25.4.2016 (case originally registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under case number F-7/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 132 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 132

To amend title 54, United States Code, to provide for congressional and 
  State approval of national monuments and restrictions on the use of 
                          national monuments.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 12, 2017

 Mr. Crapo (for himself, Mr. Lee, Mr. Risch, and Mr. Rubio) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                    on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 54, United States Code, to provide for congressional and 
  State approval of national monuments and restrictions on the use of 
                          national monuments.

    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 ``National Monument Designation 
Transparency and Accountability Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS.

    Section 320301 of title 54, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``The President may'' 
        and inserting ``After obtaining congressional approval of the 
        proposed national monument, certifying compliance with the 
        National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
        seq.) with respect to the proposed national monument, and 
        determining that the State in which the proposed national 
        monument is to be located has enacted legislation approving the 
        designation of the proposed national monument, the President 
        may''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(e) Restrictions on Public Use.--The Secretary shall not 
implement any restrictions on the public use of a national monument 
until the expiration of an appropriate review period (as determined by 
the Secretary) providing for public input and congressional 
approval.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.3

                     Certification pursuant to Section 1350
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
      --------------------------------------------------------------------


In  connection  with  the Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 on Form 10-Q of DA Consulting Group, Inc.
(the  "COMPANY")  for  the  period  ended  September 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the "REPORT"), I,
Virginia  L. Pierpont, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to  18 U.S.C. Sec.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002,  that:

     1)   the  Report  fully  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended; 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/  Virginia  L.  Pierpont
                         -------------------------------
                         Name:  Virginia  L.  Pierpont
                         Title:   President  &  Chief  Executive  Officer
                         Date:    November  12,  2002


                                       20
<PAGE>
# C_2017392EN.01002301.xml

| 20.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2017 — Kofola ČeskoSlovensko v EUIPO — Mionetto (UGO)

(Case T-176/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark UGO - Earlier EU figurative mark il UGO! - Partial surrender of the earlier mark - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2017/C 392/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kofola ČeskoSlovensko a.s (Ostrava, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mionetto SpA (Valdobbiadne, Italy)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2016 (Case R 2707/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Mionetto and Kofola ČeskoSlovensko.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Kofola ČeskoSlovensko a.s. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Kofola ČeskoSlovensko a.s. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.

1

---
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of Bio Solutions Manufacturing, Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-KSB for the year ended October 31, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Patricia M Spreitzer, Treasurer 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:




(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




Dated:
February 12, 2009




/s/  Patricia M
      SpreitzerPatricia
      M. Spreitzer, Treasurer