alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Championship Auto Racing Teams, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Christopher R. Pook, 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:

      (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 results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Christopher R. Pook

Christopher R. Pook
Chief Executive Officer
September 29, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Championship Auto Racing Teams, Inc. and will be retained by
Championship Auto Racing Teams, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       34
** ****EXHIBIT 31.2**I, Robert D. Burr, certify that:1. I have reviewed this 10-QSB for the period endedSeptember 30, 2007 of Bayou City Exploration, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the small businessissuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer’s certifying officer(s) areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuerand have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small businessissuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;   (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the smallbusiness issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation;  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in thesmall business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during thesmall business issuer’s most recent fiscalquarter (the small business issuer’s fourthquarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the smallbusiness issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s certifying officer(s) havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the smallbusiness issuer’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent function): (a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the small business issuer’s ability torecord, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small businessissuer’s internal controls over financialreporting.           Date: November 13, 2007  /s/ Robert D. Burr           Acting Chief Financial Officer             
- 19 -
No. 49586.

#### Protest 28784-K of Collin & Gissel (Galveston).

*250Opinion by

Walker, J.

At the hearing it was stipulated that the item on the invoice described as—

> 16'pcs. 6" x 8" — 14' Fir Stanchions

> 6 pcs. 6" x 8" — 10' Fir Stanchions

consists of timber and therefore is not subject to assessment under the Revenue Act of 1932. In *Laurence Phillips Lumber Co.*v. *United States*(T. D. 47810) and *same*v. *same*(T. D. 49624) on rehearing, wood 6 by 6 inches or over, in cross section, measuring not less than 6 inches on any one side, was held to be timber as distinguished from lumber. However, the enactment of subsection (b) of section 3424, Internal Revenue Code, which provision was reenacted from section 704, Revenue Act of 1938, which became law on May 26, 1938, and the negotiation of the Canadian Trade Agreement, *supra,*which became effective January 1, 1939, and the fact that the merchandise at bar was imported and entered on September 15, 1939, it was apparent that at the time of importation the international obligation of the United States and the internal revenue law applicable were in complete harmony on the subject. It appeared therefore that the assessment made by the collector was correct and the protest was overruled.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, 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 September 4, 2012

s0827 

# Order

September 4, 2012

145125

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145125

COA: 300757

Saginaw CC: 09

- 032749

- FH

JAMES STEPHAN ZIMMERMANN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 10, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Part 1

SUPPLEMENT

DRAFT 

ID

Simple or

Special Name Type Description Error Message 

83 SPECIAL

Limited Use of 439700 with Authority Type "B" and/or Fund Type "EP" Compound

The use of USSGL 439700 with Authority Type Code "B" and/or Fund Type "EP" is restricted to specific TAS.

This TAS is not permitted to report USS439700 with Authority Type Code "B" and/or Fund Type "EP". 

U.S. Government Standard General Ledger

Data Validations - Summary

Bulletin No. 2017-01 VII VSR - 1
No. 66775.

#### I. B. Cohen & Sons Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 317272-K, 59/2205, and 61/3478 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists *of*miniature knives similar in all material respects to those the subject of *M. Pressner & Co.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 10, C.D. 2145), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133310 & (56) (57) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133310 

 COA: 265049 

Oakland CC: 2003-188878-FC 

FRANK VELIZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 18, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motions 

for miscellaneous relief are DENIED. 

s0521 

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. 

May 30, 2007 

 Clerk
# Sheet1

Part 2SUPPLEMENT	DRAFT	Fiscal Year 2016 Reporting Section IV

DRAFT &P of &N	IRC Handout 8/6/15
|  |
|--|

| **Strategic Plans**
Strategic Plan 2003Strategic Plan 2002Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2000 - 2005

**Selected NIST Technical Notes**

**NIST Measurement Service for DC Standard ResistorsPredicted and Measured Field Strengths in the Boulder, Colorado, Area from Two Proposed Terrestrial Digital Television Tower SitesMeasurements for Competitiveness in Electronics...**

**2003 Technical Programs, Activities, and Accomplishments (all********):**

ElectricitySemiconductor ElectronicsRadio-Frequency TechnologyElectromagnetic TechnologyOptoelectronicsMagnetic Technology DivisionOffice of Microelectronics ProgramsOffice of Law Enforcement StandardsArchives
 						

Date created: February 22, 2001						Last updated: March 31, 2004 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
January 10, 1945

No. 49957.

#### Protest 75335-K of Edward Boote.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EVELINA and EDWARDO EDUVALA :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4327

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04327-AB Document 8 Filed 09/20/2002 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LEE ARTERS t/a GREENDALE : CIVIL ACTION

BUILDERS :

 v. :

:

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., : NO. 02-4388

t/a ZURICH NORTH AMERICA as

successor in interest to

ASSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, 

ET AL.

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 20th day of November, 2003, in accordance

with the Memorandum and Order of the court filed on this date,

IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be and the same is hereby

entered in favor of DEFENDANTS ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., t/a

ZURICH NORTH AMERICA as successor in interest to ASSURANCE CO. OF

AMERICA, ET AL. and against PLAINTIFF LEE ARTERS t/a GREENDALE

BUILDERS.

BY THE COURT:

 ATTEST:

 Rosalind Burton-Hoop 

 Deputy Clerk

COPIES BY MAIL ON 11/20/03 TO: Francis X. Nolan, Esq.

 Donald Saunders Litman, Esq.

 Andrea Kochan Neagle, Esq.

 Carl H. Delacato, Esq.

 Frank J. Marcone, Esq.

Civ 1 (8/80)

Case 2:02-cv-04388-JF Document 25 Filed 11/20/2003 Page 1 of 1
20 Leading Occupations of Employed Women

Full-time Wage and Salary Workers

2001 Annual Averages

(Employment in thousands)

Women’s

Total Median

Total Employed Usual

Employed (Men and Percent Weekly

Occupation Women Women) Women Earnings

 

Total, 16 years and older 

 (all employed women, full time 

wage and salary workers) 43,671 99,599 43.8 $511

Retail and personal sales workers, 

 including cashiers 1,971 3,474 56.7 313

Managers and administrators, n.e.c. 1,836 5,747 31.9 762

Secretaries 1,821 1,846 98.6 475

Elementary school teachers 1,596 1,959 81.5 731

Registered nurses 1,459 1,604 91.0 820

Sales supervisors and proprietors 1,423 3,380 42.1 502

Nursing aides, orderlies, 

 and attendants 1,309 1,472 88.9 356

Cashiers 1,075 1,383 77.7 292

Bookkeepers, accounting, 

 and auditing clerks 975 1,058 92.2 474

Accountants and auditors 793 1,374 57.7 687

Investigators and adjusters,

 except insurance 752 998 75.4 487

Receptionists 697 712 97.9 401

Secondary school teachers 651 1,155 56.4 759

Administrative support occupations, n.e.c. 632 830 76.1 512

Cooks 546 1,382 39.5 305

General office clerks 536 624 85.9 462

Managers, medicine and health 508 665 76.4 725

Social workers 500 711 70.3 630

Teachers, pre-kindergarten

 and kindergarten 487 495 98.4 476

Janitors and cleaners 466 1,536 30.3 318

 

 (1) Median not available where base is less than 50,000 male workers.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Annual Averages 2001.
NO. 04-13-00892-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

DORA GULLEY,

Appellant

V.

STATE FARM LLOYDS

Appellee

On Appeal from

Cause No. 2008-Cl-03371

288th District Court, Bexar County, Texas

APPELLANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION

TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellant, Dora Gulley, respectfully requests the Courl to grant a

twenty (20) day extension to file her Motion for Rehearing, and would show

the Court as follows:

1. The deadline for filing Appellant's Motion for Rehearing is

January 7,2015.

2. The requested extension is20 days, to January 27,2015.

ACCEPTED

04-13-00892-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

1/6/2015 12:22:27 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 01/6/2015 12:22:27 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
3. This extension is needed in part because Appellant's counsel

was on vacation from December 23,2014 through January 2,2015, and

had notified the Court on February 7,2014 of same. The Judgment and

Opinion were issued on December 23,2014. The Opinion is 22 pages long

and requires extensive analysis.

4. There have been no previous extensions granted regarding this

Motion for Rehearing.

Certificate of Conference

Appellant's counsel has conferred with Appellee's counsel, who does

not oppose the relief sought in this Motion.

Praver for Relief

For the reasons set forth above, Appellant respectfully requests that

this Court grant a twenty (20) day extension, or until January 27, 2015 to

file her Motion for Rehearing.

Respectful ly su bmitted,

Rrlrv nruo Rtev

Arronruevs Ar Lnw

320 Lexington Avenue

San Antonio, Texas 78215

(210\ 225-7236

(210) 227 -7907 Facsimile

da rbyri ley@ ri levlawfi rm. com

ATTORN EYS FOR APPELLANT

DARBY RILEY

sBN. 16924400
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Appell n to

Extend Time to File Motion for Rehearing has been sent on th day

of January,2015 to the following counsel of record:

Elliot Clark

eclark@winstead. com

Linda J. Burgess

lbu rqess@wi nstead. com

WrrusreRo SecHnesr & MrNrcr pC

401 Congress Ave., Suite 2100

Austin, Texas 78701

Telephone: (512) 370-2881

Fax: (512) 370-2850

Ray R. Ortiz

ray@ao-law.com

JoNES, Aruonrws &Onlz, P.C.

10100 R6union Pl.. Suite 600

San Antonio TX 78216

Telephone: (210) 344-3900

Fax: (210) 366-4301

3
Case No. 13,713.

#### SYLVIA v. CORYELL.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 32.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

July Term, 1801.

Slavery — Bringing into State — Suit por Freedom.

If the owner of a slave in Virginia send his slave out of the state for three years, and bring the slave back, it is not such a bringing into the commonwealth as entitles the slave to freedom, under the second section of the act of 17th December, 1792

Assault and battery, to try the right of the plaintiff [Negro Sylvia] to her freedom.

Verdict for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court on the following case: The plaintiff was born a slave in Virginia, in 1779, and became the property of the defendant [George Coryell], a citizen of Virginia. In June, 1789. the defendant sent her to New Jersey, where she remained three years in the service of the defendant’s mother, but continued all that time the property of the defendant. At the end of the three years, the plaintiff returned to Virginia, to the service of the defendant, and has so remained until the time of bringing her action.

Judgment for the defendant, by MAE-'SHALL, Circuit Judge, and CRANCH, Circuit Judge. KILTY, Chief Judge, doubted.

See Act Assem. Va. December 17, 1792 (Ed. 1832) p. ISO.
**CONSENT OF LAWRENCE B. COCHRANE**
     The undersigned hereby consents to the reference to him as having responsibility for thestatements as to the ore reserves (1) as of December 31, 2003 with respect to Inco Limited’soperations in Ontario and Manitoba, the Voisey’s Bay project and PT International Nickel IndonesiaTbk (“PT Inco”) and (2) as of December 31, 2004 with respect to Inco Limited’s operations inOntario and Manitoba, the Voisey’s Bay project, the Goro project and PT Inco in the Annual Reporton Form 10-K of Inco Limited for the year ended December 31, 2004 under the headings “Ore Reservesand Mining Rights”, “Goro Nickel S.A.”, “Voisey’s Bay Nickel Company Limited”, “PT InternationalNickel Indonesia Tbk” and “Exploration and Project Development”.
     Dated the 14th day of March, 2005.                                                                (Signed) LAWRENCE B. COCHRANE    Lawrence B. Cochrane       
 

 

**CONSENT OF ROBERT A. HORN**
     The undersigned hereby consents to the reference to him as having responsibility for thestatements as to the ore reserves of the Goro project as of December 31, 2003 in the Annual Reporton Form 10-K of Inco Limited for the year ended December 31, 2004 under the headings “Ore Reservesand Mining Rights” and “Goro Nickel S.A.”.
     Dated the 14th day of March 2005.                                                                (Signed) ROBERT A. HORN    Robert A. Horn      
 

 
     
**CONSENT OF ROBERT C. OSBORNE**
     The undersigned hereby consents to the reference to him as having responsibility for thestatements as to the ore reserves of PT International Nickel Indonesia Tbk as of December 31, 2003in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Inco Limited for the year ended December 31, 2004 under theheadings “Ore Reserves and Mining Rights” and “PT International Nickel Indonesia Tbk.”
     Dated the 14th day of March 2005.                                                                (Signed) ROBERT C. OSBORNE    Robert C. Osborne      
 

 
     
**CONSENT OF S. NICHOLAS SHEARD**
     The undersigned hereby consents to the reference to him as having responsibility for thestatements as to the ore reserves as of December 31, 2004 with respect to Inco Limited’s operationsin Ontario and Manitoba, the Voisey’s Bay project, the Goro project and PT International NickelIndonesia Tbk in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Inco Limited for the year ended December 31,2004 under the headings “Ore Reserves and Mining Rights”, “Goro Nickel S.A.”, “Voisey’s Bay NickelCompany Limited”, “PT International Nickel Indonesia Tbk” and “Exploration and ProjectDevelopment”.
     Dated the 14th day of March, 2005.                                                                (Signed) S. NICHOLAS SHEARD    S. Nicholas Sheard
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"Part 1SUPPLEMENT &"Arial,Regular"	&"Arial,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	&"Arial,Bold"Fiscal Year 2019 ReportingSection VII&"Arial,Regular"

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2019-10	&"Arial,Bold"&KFF0000DRAFT&K000000 VII ESR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"IRC Handout 4/23/19
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1398 

To direct the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, 

to release an interim report related to aquatic nuisance species control, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 21, 2017 

Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mr. PETERS, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. BROWN, Mr. 

FRANKEN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. DURBIN, Ms. DUCKWORTH, and Mrs. 

GILLIBRAND) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Army, acting through the 

Chief of Engineers, to release an interim report related 

to aquatic nuisance species control, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop the Asian Carp 

5 Now Act of 2017’’. 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1398 IS

1 SEC. 2. BRANDON ROAD STUDY. 

2 Not later than 7 days after the date of enactment 

3 of this Act, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the 

4 Chief of Engineers, shall release for public comment the 

5 interim report relating to the Tentatively Selected Plan 

6 for the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin 

7 Study Brandon Road Study that was scheduled for release 

8 on February 27, 2017. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANISH KUMAR,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-74144

Agency No. A089-127-173

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 13, 2014** 

Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Manish Kumar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d

FILED

MAY 19 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and review de novo claims of due process violations, Liu

v. Holder, 640 F.3d 918, 930 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kumar’s motion to reopen

because it was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Kumar failed to establish

materially changed circumstances in India so as to qualify for the regulatory

exception to the time limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(3); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996 (setting forth requirements for

prevailing on a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions). We reject

Kumar’s contention that the BIA failed to consider his evidence or arguments. 

Contrary to Kumar’s contentions, the BIA did not otherwise abuse its discretion in

denying his motion. See Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 992 (“This Court defers to the

Board’s exercise of discretion unless it acted arbitrarily, irrationally or contrary to

law.”).

In light of our conclusions, Kumar’s due process claim fails. See Lata v.

INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due

process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 12-74144
Case 2:05-cv-02330-CMR Document 309 Filed 02/26/08 Page 1 of 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

#   32

#   33

#   34

#   35

#   36

#   37

#   38

#   39

#   40

#   41

#   42

#   43

#   44

#   45

#   46

#   47

#   48

#   49

#   50

#   51

#   52

#   53

#   54

#   55

#   56

#   57

#   58

#   59

#   60

#   61

#   62

#   63

#   64

#   65

#   66