alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6397
JOSEPH ZIADEH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus W. DAVID STUFFREGEN; MONUMENTAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:05-cv-00787-RLW) Submitted: October 18, 2006 Decided: November 17, 2006 Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Ziadeh, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Joseph Ziadeh appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint for failure to pay the filing fee and denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the district court’s previous order denying his request to proceed in forma pauperis. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ziadeh v. Stuffregen , No. 3:05-cv-00787-RLW (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2006). 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.

AFFIRMED
91 NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Note 6. General Property, Plant, and Equipment, Net

General Property, Plant, and Equipment, net as of September 30, 2020, and 2019

Cost

Accumulated 

Depreciation/ 

Amortization Net Cost

Accumulated 

Depreciation/ 

Amortization Net

(In billions of dollars) 2020 2019

Buildings, structures, and facilities.................. 791.4 487.9 303.5 775.8 469.7 306.1

Furniture, fixtures, and equipment ..................1,390.7 809.6 581.1 1,387.5 809.5 578.0

Construction in progress................................ 201.8 N/A 201.8 171.6 N/A 171.6

Internal use software..................................... 56.8 35.4 21.4 51.5 32.1 19.4

Land............................................................. 22.1 N/A 22.1 21.7 N/A 21.7

Other general property, plant, and 

equipment................................................... 38.0 22.9 15.1 31.7 21.6 10.1

Total general property, plant, and 

equipment, net ...........................................2,500.8 1,355.8 1,145.0 2,439.8 1,332.9 1,106.9

Note: "N/A" indicates not applicable.

DOD comprises approximately 69.0 percent of the government’s reported general PP&E, as of September 30, 2020.

DOD continues to implement SFFAS No. 50, Establishing Opening Balances for General Property, Plant, and Equipment

which permits alternative methods in establishing opening balances for general PP&E and has elected to exclude land and 

land rights. The total acreage excluded was 23,521,368 as of September 30, 2020 and 20,926,485 as of September 30, 2019. 

The following entities comprise over 90.0 percent of the government’s reported general PP&E net of $1,145.0 billion as 

of September 30, 2020. Please refer to the entities’ financial statements for additional information.

• DOD

• DOE

• GSA

• DOC

• Treasury

• HHS

• DOI

• USPS

• DHS

• USDA

• SSA

• NASA

• VA

• TVA

• State

• DOJ

• DOT

Certain PP&E are multi-use heritage assets, see Note 25—Stewardship Property, Plant, and Equipment for additional 

information on multi-use heritage assets.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

JOSE VILLOCH : CIVIL ACTION

Petitioner, :

 :

v. : NO. 05-1913

: 

MARILYN BROOKS, WARDEN, et al. :

Respondents :

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

ORDER

AND NOW, this 19th day of September, 2006, upon careful and independent consideration of

the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Response thereto, and after review of the September

5, 2006 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Arnold C. Rapoport, to

which no objections have been made, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) the Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

(2) the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED with prejudice and DISMISSED

without an evidentiary hearing;

(3) there is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability; and

(4) the Clerk’s Office shall close this case for statistical purposes.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s Paul S. Diamond, J.

 

Paul S. Diamond, J.

Case 2:05-cv-01913-PD Document 21 Filed 09/21/06 Page 1 of 1
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 241ST DISTRICT COURT OF SMITH COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 22nd

day of July, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

DENNIS MONTRELL BENDY, Appellant

NO. 12-14-00255-CR; Trial Court No. 241-1575-13

Opinion by James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the 

same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court 

below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for 

observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court 

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

Tyler, this the 29th day of December, 2015.

PAM ESTES, CLERK

By: _______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk
IC 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1395 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 25, 2018 

Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

AN ACT 

To revise the boundaries of certain John H. Chafee Coastal 

Barrier Resources System units in Delaware. 

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


ebenthall on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
2 

S 1395 RFH

1 SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL 

2 BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM MAP. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The map subtitled ‘‘Delaware 

4 Seashore Unit DE–07P, North Bethany Beach Unit 

5 H01’’ and dated December 6, 2013, that is included in 

6 the set of maps entitled ‘‘Coastal Barrier Resources Sys7 tem’’ referred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier 

8 Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)) and relating to certain 

9 John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System units 

10 in the State of Delaware, is replaced by the map entitled 

11 ‘‘Delaware Seashore Unit DE–07/DE–07P, North Beth12 any Beach Unit H01’’ and dated March 18, 2016. 

13 (b) AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary of the Interior 

14 shall keep the replacement map referred to in subsection 

15 (a) on file and available for inspection in accordance with 

16 section 4(b) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 

17 U.S.C. 3503(b)). 

Passed the Senate January 23, 2018. 

Attest: JULIE E. ADAMS, 

Secretary. 


ebenthall on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1176

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TRACIE L. GREEN, a/k/a Tracie Ledora Mitchem-Green,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

CARDINAL PINES HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC.; PALMETTO 

CITIZENS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (3:22-cv-04215-SAL)

Submitted: September 28, 2023 Decided: October 2, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1176 Doc: 17 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Tracie L. Green, Appellant Pro Se. John S. Kay, HUTCHENS LAW FIRM, Columbia, 

South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1176 Doc: 17 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Tracie L. Green seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate 

judge’s recommendation and remanding Appellee’s action against her to the state court 

from which it was removed. The district court remanded the case after determining that it 

lacked subject matter jurisdiction. “Congress has placed broad restrictions on the power 

of federal appellate courts to review district court orders remanding removed cases to state 

court.” Doe v. Blair, 819 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted); 

see 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (providing that remand orders generally are “not reviewable on 

appeal or otherwise”). Section 1447(d) prohibits us from reviewing remand orders based 

on the grounds specified in § 1447(c), including “a district court’s lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction.” Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 2008) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). We look to the substance of a remand order to 

determine whether it was issued under § 1447(c). Doe, 819 F.3d at 67.

Here, the district court remanded the case after having expressly determined that it 

lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We are therefore without jurisdiction to review the 

remand order. See id. at 66. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

We deny Green’s motion to seal documents. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1176 Doc: 17 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
----

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 June 2006 — Le Maire v Commission

(Case F-27/05) (1)

(Officials - Remuneration - Refusal to grant the daily subsistence allowances)

(2006/C 190/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Viviane Le Maire (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Bournéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities refusing the applicant the right to the daily subsistence allowances provided for in Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities, following her entry into service on 16 February 2004

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

----

(1)OJ C 182 of 23.07.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-191/05 and transferred to the European Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).

----
### -79.5 -79.0 -78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5
38.5 39.0 39.5 40.0



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 05/26 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 26 May 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
<M pape

IPAC Operational Metrics for September 2021

Volume by Transaction Type

Dollar Amount] 3% of Total Dollar Amount] ‘Number of Transactions| _% of Total Number of Transactions|
Fiduciary (investment & Borrowing) 3,950,517,959,073 39.39%] 20,372] 12.32%
[Buy/sell 45 453,255,952] 0.50% 142,247 26.83%
[penefits (RITS) 8,828,670,755| (0.30% 509] 0.31%
[check Aftermath (TRACS) 255,300,087] 0.00% as2 0.58%
[Zero Dollar | (0.00% o| (0.00%
[Grand Total - September 2021, 18,005,054 985,807| 7100.00% 163,820]
[Grand Total - August 2021 24, 147,292,495, 126| 100.003 139,081

[August to September change ~5,112,237,508,319|
[Percentage Change 36.2%
[Grand Total - September 2020

[Sept 2020 to Sept 2021 change ~7,989,253,951,352|
[Percentage Change 47.)

j 28,739}
po 856)
=_——F
p20, 819}
ee
EXHIBIT 10.11(f)



October 18, 1994



Mr. Stewart Hall
President
Hughes Supply, Inc.
P. O. Box 2273
Orlando, Florida 32802

Dear Stewart:

This letter is to confirm our agreement to extend the leases for
all locations currently leased by USCO, Incorporated from either
Union Warehouse & Realty Company or Monoco Realty Company.  Below
is a listing of the locations involved and the current monthly
rental.

     610 E. Windsor Street         Monroe         $5,287
     1927 S. Tryon Street          Charlotte      $4,966
     602 Rigsbee Avenue            Durham         $3,279
     1234 S. Pleasantburg Drive    Greenville     $5,219
     320 Second Street             Cheraw         $1,750
     300 McCaskill Road            Pinehurst      $3,004
     1515 Morgan Mill Road         Monroe         $4,500
     1840 Shelton Avenue           Statesville    $4,386
     1065 Sunset Boulevard         Columbia       $4,877
     850 East Pine Log Road        Aiken          $2,582
     113-117 Henderson Street      Monroe         $2,340

It is further understood that even though some of these properties
were not currently under lease at the time that USCO was acquired
by Hughes Supply, Inc., that by means of this agreement all
properties listed above are now covered by the same provisions of
the lease agreement consummated as a part of said purchase
agreement with the following exceptions:

     1)   Lease term is extended until February 1, 1998;

     2)   Lease amount will remain constant per the schedule above;

     3)   Relative to item (a) on page 3 of the lease agreement be
          it further refined that the purchase price be established
          by taking an average of the two appraisals referenced or
          by other means mutually acceptable;

     4)   Relative to the item (b) on page 3 of the lease agreement
          the following should be added, or by other means mutually
          agreed upon to include stock of Hughes Supply, Inc.;

     5)   As a point of clarification, the lessor is responsible
          for the maintenance of roofs and exterior walls whereas
          the lessee is responsible for interior walls and
          mechanical systems.  This represents no change from
          historical responsibilities.

A sample copy of the original lease and the amendment are attached
for your convenience.  Please signify your agreement by signing
below.  Thank you for your assistance in resolving this matter.

Sincerely,

UNION WAREHOUSE & REALTY COMPANY        MONOCO REALTY COMPANY



J. C. Plyler                            J. C. Plyler
President                               Managing Partner




Accepted by:




______________________________
A. S. Hall, Jr.
President
Hughes Supply, Inc.
Anexo B (Formulario 941-PR):

Registro de la Obligación Contributiva para los Depositantes de Itinerario Bisemanal

(Rev. enero de 2017) Department of the Treasury — Internal Revenue Service

OMB No. 1545-0029

Número de identificación 

patronal (EIN) —

Nombre (el de usted, no

el de su negocio)

Año natural (Marque también el trimestre a la derecha).

Informe para este trimestre... 

(Marque uno).

1: enero, febrero, marzo

2: abril, mayo, junio

3: julio, agosto, septiembre

4: octubre, noviembre, diciembre

Use este anexo para mostrar su OBLIGACIÓN CONTRIBUTIVA para el trimestre; no lo use para mostrar sus depósitos de contribución. 

Cuando radique este formulario con el Formulario 941-PR no cambie su obligación contributiva por ajustes declarados en todo Formulario 

941-X (PR) o 944-X (SP). Tiene que llenar este formulario y adjuntarlo al Formulario 941-PR si es depositante de itinerario bisemanal o si su 

obligación contributiva acumulada en un día determinado fue $100,000 o más. Anote sus obligaciones contributivas diarias en el espacio 

numerado que corresponda a la fecha en la cual se pagaron los salarios. Vea el apartado 11 de la Publicación 179 para más detalles.

Mes 1

1 .

2 .

3 .

4 .

5 .

6 .

7 .

8 .

9 .

10 .

11 .

12 .

13 .

14 .

15 .

16 .

17 .

18 .

19 .

20 .

21 .

22 .

23 .

24 .

25 .

26 .

27 .

28 .

29 .

30 .

31 .

Obligación contributiva 

para el Mes 1

.

Mes 2

1 .

2 .

3 .

4 .

5 .

6 .

7 .

8 .

9 .

10 .

11 .

12 .

13 .

14 .

15 .

16 .

17 .

18 .

19 .

20 .

21 .

22 .

23 .

24 .

25 .

26 .

27 .

28 .

29 .

30 .

31 .

Obligación contributiva 

para el Mes 2

.

Mes 3

1 .

2 .

3 .

4 .

5 .

6 .

7 .

8 .

9 .

10 .

11 .

12 .

13 .

14 .

15 .

16 .

17 .

18 .

19 .

20 .

21 .

22 .

23 .

24 .

25 .

26 .

27 .

28 .

29 .

30 .

31 .

Obligación contributiva 

para el Mes 3

.

Escriba el total de su obligación contributiva para el trimestre (Mes 1 + Mes 2 + Mes 3) ▶

El total tiene que ser igual a la cantidad de la línea 12 del Formulario 941-PR.

Obligación total para el 

trimestre

. Para el Aviso sobre la Ley de Reducción de 

Trámites, vea las instrucciones por separado.

IRS.gov/form941pr Cat. No. 12465Z Anexo B (Formulario 941-PR) (Rev. 1-2017)
No. 57659.

#### W. R. Zanes and Co. *v.*United States,

protest 95706-K (Galveston).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

It was stipulated that the record made in protests 78497-K, etc. (Abstract 57658), decided concurrently herewith, be incorporated as a part of the record in this case, and that the amount of money disallowed by reason of the method used in liquidation and handling of applicable documents, to which the plaintiff is entitled to refund, amounts to $2,118.09. On the record presented, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN MOORE,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID DIGUGLIELMO, et al.,

Respondents.

CIVIL ACTION

No. 05-2796

ORDER

AND NOW, this 18th day of May, 2010, for the reasons enumerated in the

accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

(1) Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 51) is GRANTED IN

PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the motion is granted to the extend that it

seeks reconsideration of the factual conclusion that petition did not present to the PCRA

court his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for not investigating for not investigating

or calling Lapricia Jessup as a witness, and this court’s Order dated March 27, 2009

(Docket No. 50) is VACATED IN PART to the extent that it adopts that factual

conclusion. The motion for reconsideration is otherwise denied;

(2) Petitioner’s Motion to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Docket No. 52) is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. In refiling the Motion, petitioner must comply with Federal
Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1);

(3) Petitioner’s Motion for the Court to Take Judicial Notice (Docket No. 55) is

DENIED AS MOOT;

(4) The Clerk is directed to forward petitioner’s two Motions for a Certificate of

Appealability (Docket Nos. 56 and 57) to the United States Court of Appeals for the

Third Circuit;

(5) Petitioner’s Motion for Clarification (Docket No. 61) is GRANTED;

(6) Petitioner’s Motion for Leave of Court to File Amendment (Docket No. 62) is

DISMISSED; and

(7) Petitioner’s Motion to Compel the State to Present Discovery Documents

(Docket No. 66) is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/Louis H. Pollak

Pollak, J.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 28, 2010 

s0621 

Order 

 

June 28, 2010 

139349 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139349 

 COA: 291649 

Genesee CC: 88-039224-FC 

MELISSA L. CHAPMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 12, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
No. 49114.

#### Protests 505138-G, etc., of Genuine Panama Hats Works, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain of the items in question are known as harvest hats and are similar to those involved in *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664), the record in which case was admitted in evidence herein. In accordance therewith those imported and withdrawn for consumption prior to the Netherlands Trade Agreement were held dutiable at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) and those subsequent thereto were held dutiable at 12)4 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (5) and said trade agreement.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DARRYL W. PETERS, )

 ) Civil Action

Plaintiff ) No. 05-CV-02038

 )

vs. )

 )

AIR PRODUCTS & CHEMICALS, INC. )

 and )

ASHLAND-ACT )

 )

Defendants )

O R D E R

NOW, this 30th day of March, 2006, upon consideration

of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint,

which motion was filed on July 21, 2005; upon consideration of

Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion

to Dismiss the Complaint, which response was filed on August 4,

2005; upon consideration of the letter request to file a reply

brief by defendants Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. and Ashland

ACT, presented on August 19, 2005; and for the reasons expressed

in the accompanying Memorandum,

IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ request to file a reply

brief is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Count I of plaintiff’s

Second Amended Complaint is dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Count II of plaintiff’s

Second Amended Complaint is dismissed insofar as it states a

claim for unlawful retaliation in violation of the ADEA.

Case 2:05-cv-02038-JKG Document 14 Filed 03/31/06 Page 1 of 2
-iiIT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in all other respects

defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the within case is remanded

to the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James Knoll Gardner 

James Knoll Gardner

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02038-JKG Document 14 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 2
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

Case No. 5D2023-0781

LT Case No. 2021-CF-691

_____________________________ 

GARY L. MCKENZIE, 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee.

_____________________________ 

On appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County. 

R. Lee Smith, Judge.

William Mallory Kent, of Kent & McFarland, Jacksonville, for 

Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marissa V. 

Giles, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

April 23, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, LAMBERT, and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________