alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
March 8, 2012

Mr. Steven Randall 2833 Alnwick Avenue, Unit 13 Livermore, CA 94551

Dear Mr. Randall:

We have received your January 24, 2012, letter and we have entered it into the public docket (No. FAA-2012-0122).

On November 9, 2011, we sent you a letter requesting additional information that was missing from your original October 17, 2011, petition for exemption. Among other items, we had asked that you respond with the reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole. As we indicated in our November 9 letter, this information is required by 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 11.81. We must have this information before we can consider your petition for exemption.

The information you provided in your January 24, 2012, letter still does not address the public interest requirements of part 11, so we will take no further action on your petition. We have forwarded your correspondence to the FAA’s Airmen Certificate and Training Branch (AFS-810). They have committed to responding to your correspondence in writing as a general regulatory inquiry (rather than as a petition for exemption) within 30 days of the

date of this letter.

Sincerely,

/s/

John W. McGraw Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch
Preferred Capital Trust III and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding III, L.P.
(the "Partnership") for the period ended July 1, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kathleen Skero, Controller of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the General
Partner of the Partnership, 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
    Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING III, L.P.

                              By:  MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner


                              By:  /s/ KATHLEEN SKERO
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    Kathleen Skero *
                              Title:   Controller, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.








Dated: August 11, 2005
______________________

*  Kathleen Skero functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906
   of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         419,280
<SECURITIES>                                   518,879
<RECEIVABLES>                                  132,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,008,159
<PP&E>                                          53,661
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,982
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,125,338
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,731
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       853,426
<OTHER-SE>                                     206,262
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,125,338
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               458,134
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               326,706
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,593
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                126,835
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            126,835
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   126,835
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 8611)

Entry Nos. 99-C; 100-C.

#### United States *v.*American Smelting And Refining Company

(Decided June 27, 1956)

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the plaintiff.

Defendant not represented by counsel.

Johnson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that these appeals be consolidated for trial, and

> It is further stipulated and agreed that at the time of exportation of the merchandise invoiced as “Zinc Bearing Flue Dust”, such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, at $64.16 per ton of 2,000 pounds for said merchandise covered by Entry 99-C herein and at $64.66 per ton of 2,000 pounds for said merchandise covered by Entry 100-C, herein.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher foreign value, as defined in Section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, for the merchandise involved herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that this case may be submitted for decision upon the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the zinc bearing flue dust here involved, and that such value is $64.16 per ton of 2,000 pounds for *471said merchandise covered by entry 99-C, and $64.66 per ton of 2,000 pounds for said merchandise covered by entry 100-C.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1266 Referred in House (RFH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1266

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 13, 2017

             Referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to enter into contracts 
  with nonprofit organizations to investigate medical centers of the 
                    Department of Veterans Affairs.

    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 ``Enhancing Veteran Care Act''.

SEC. 2. INVESTIGATION OF MEDICAL CENTERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
              AFFAIRS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may contract 
with a nonprofit organization that accredits health care organizations 
and programs in the United States to investigate a medical center of 
the Department of Veterans Affairs to assess and report deficiencies of 
the facilities at such medical center.
    (b) Authority of Directors.--
            (1) In general.--Subject to coordination under paragraph 
        (2), the Secretary shall delegate the authority under 
        subsection (a) to contract for an investigation at a medical 
        center of the Department to the Director of the Veterans 
        Integrated Service Network in which the medical center is 
        located or the director of such medical center.
            (2) Coordination.--Before entering into a contract under 
        paragraph (1), the Director of a Veterans Integrated Service 
        Network or the director of a medical center, as the case may 
        be, shall notify the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the 
        Inspector General of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and 
        the Comptroller General of the United States for purposes of 
        coordinating any investigation conducted pursuant to such 
        contract with any other investigations that may be ongoing.
    (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be 
construed--
            (1) to prevent the Office of the Inspector General of the 
        Department of Veterans Affairs from conducting any review, 
        audit, evaluation, or inspection regarding a topic for which an 
        investigation is conducted under this section; or
            (2) to modify the requirement that employees of the 
        Department assist with any review, audit, evaluation, or 
        inspection conducted by the Office of the Inspector General of 
        the Department.

            Passed the Senate November 9, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                JULIE E. ADAMS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
# C_2019082EN.01003901.xml

| 4.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission

(Case T-53/16) (1)

((State aid - Agreements between the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Nîmes-Uzès-Le Vigan and Ryanair and its subsidiary Airport Marketing Services - Airport services - Marketing services - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Notion of State aid - Imputability to the State - Chamber of Commerce and Industry - Advantage - Private investor test - Recovery - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right of access to the file - Right to be heard))

(2019/C 82/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin) (represented by: G. Berrisch, E. Vahida, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, S. Petrova and J. Kneale, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/633 of 23 July 2014 on State aid SA.33961 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of Nîmes-Uzès-Le Vigan Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Veolia Transport Aéroport de Nîmes, Ryanair Limited and Airport Marketing Services Limited (OJ 2016 L 113, p. 32).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ryanair DAC and Airport Marketing Services Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ryanair DAC and Airport Marketing Services Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.

---
Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Memorandum 

Subject: Ex Parte Communication Report 

Docket #: FAA-2015-1621 

Date: March 14, 2016 

Place of contact: The Boeing Company, Everett, Washington 

Type of contact: Meeting 

FAA Contactffitle: W. Michael Reyer, Aerospace Engineer 

On March 14, 2016, Mr. Michael Reyer, a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) aerospace 

engineer working on the part 23 rulemaking activity, attended a subcommittee meeting of the 

Part 25 Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC). The subcommittee is tasked with 

structural rotorburst requirements for Part 25 transport category airplanes. During this meeting, 

an industry representative briefly presented the proposed § 23.405(d) which addresses structural 

rotorburst requirements for small airplanes. A brief discussion followed among the industry 

representatives, during which industry recommended that the wording in proposed § 23.405(d) 

be changed to be similar to the wording in current § 23.903(b )(1 ). This is because current 

§ 23.903(b)(l) language may be more alleviating when compared to the proposed§ 23.405(d), in 

that it allows an applicant to 'minimize' the hazards due to rotorburst. 

Attendees at the ARAC subcommittee meeting included: 

Federal Aviation Administration Michael Reyer 

Greg Edwards 

Michael Goerlick 

Larry llcewicz 

Rusty Jones 

Patrick Safarian 

Walter Sippel 

Foreign Airworthiness Authorities Pedro Caldeira ANAC (Brazil) 

Richard Minter EASA (European Union) 

Maurizio Molinari Transport Canada 

Jacki Yu Transport Canada 

Manufacturers: Richard Kawaguchi Boeing 

Steven Chisholm Boeing 

Kevin Donahue Boeing 

Diana Elting Boeing 

Mike Dostert Boeing 

Michael Gruber Boeing 
2 

Don 

Jensen Boeing 

Wayne Lugg Boeing 

David Polland Boeing 

John Ostic Boeing 

Rupert Whee

l

er Boeing 

Sean 

Harper Boe

ing 

Mark Farthing Boeing 

Robert Bigelis Boe

ing 

Marc Bozzo

lo Airbus 

Antoine Pilon Airbus 

Alain Santgerma Airbus John Van Doeselaar Airbus Alex Vinitsky Bombardier 

Salamon Haravan Bombardier 

Luiz Perin 

Embraer 

Antonio Barbosa Embraer 

Kevin 

J

ones Gu

lfstr

eam 

Ralph Sykes Lockheed Martin David Nelson Textron 

Airlines Phil Ashwell Bri

t

i

sh Airways 

Pirn Hogenes Royal Dutch Air

lines 

Kazuki 

Shimi

zu Japan Air

lines 

Thorsten Koch Deutsche Lufthansa 

Mike Matthews De

lta 

Airlines 

Joe Moses United Airlines 

Phil Y annaccone American Airlines 

Shinichi Yoshizaki 

All Nippon 

Airways 

Andrew Gallag

h

er 

United Parcel Serv

ice 

Doug Jury De

lta 

Airlines 

Hideaki Morisaki 

J

apan 

Airlines 

Lam Nguyen American Airlines 

Steven Rife Federal Express 

Victor Gasior Federal Express 

Mark 

Yerger Federal Express 

Ethan Bradford Lynden Air Cargo 

Joe Freese ABX 

Vinnie 

P

loubis Southwest Airlines 

w ael 

Re y er 

Ae

rospace 

E

ngine

er
Wednesday, September 15, 2021

10:00 am – 11:30 am EST | 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm EST

WHAT’S NEW IN CARS?

Webinar Series

Save Time with New CARS Email 

Notifications and Standardized 

Forms 

New CARS Year-End Transaction 

Module (YETM) Scheduled to 

Open on October 4

Session #1

Session #2

Central Accounting Reporting System (CARS) 

Budget, Appropriations & Analysis Section (BAAS)

baasgroup@fiscal.treasury.gov
SAVE TIME WITH NEW CARS EMAIL 

NOTIFICATIONS & STANDARDIZED FORMS

10:00 AM – 11:30 AM EST | 90 minutes
A FEW 

NOTES

3

• We want to hear from you! Please send your 

questions through the “Questions” tab on 

GoToWebinar panel.

• Today’s presentation is available as a 

“Handout” through your GoToWebinar panel.

• Your feedback is important to us. Please 

complete our post-webinar survey.

• Today’s sessions will be recorded and posted at 

www.fiscal.treasury.gov/training/videos.html
4 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

Meet Your Experts

Bayley Towner

Senior Accountant

Budget, Appropriations & Analysis 

Section (BAAS)

Fiscal Accounting Operations

MODERATOR

ManDi Glover

Accountant

Budget, Appropriations & Analysis 

Section (BAAS)

Fiscal Accounting Operations

SPEAKER

Amanda Richards

Accountant

Budget, Appropriations & Analysis 

Section (BAAS)

Fiscal Accounting Operations

SPEAKER
6

What’s New: CARS Subscriber Service and New Forms
CARS 

SUBSCRIBER 

SERVICE

7
CARS Subscriber Service: Email Notifications OPTIONS

• Provides users 

the option to 

sign-up to 

receive emails 

when Warrants 

are posted to an 

account in their 

Access Group.

PERSONALIZATION

• Users may tailor 

email 

notifications to 

specific Warrant 

types.

8
CARS Subscriber Service: Enrolling Screen

9
LIVE DEMONSTRATION:

CARS Subscriber Service
Fiscal Service recommends that each 

agency reach out to their own IT 

department and ensure email address 

noreply@cars.for.fiscal.treasury.gov is on 

the “exceptions” or “safe senders” list.

Agency’s 

internal IT 

control may 

block CARS 

Subscriber 

Service email 

notifications or 

send them to a 

junk folder.

Why Can’t I Find My CARS Subscriber Service Emails?

September 15, 2021

13
CARS Subscriber Service: Email Notification Example

14
NEW FISCAL 

SERVICE FORMS

15
STREAMLINE REQUEST PROCESS IMPROVE EFFICIENCY CONSISTENT AUDIT POSTURE

FOR AGENCIES

Fiscal Service Forms

16

We designed forms with these criteria in mind.

16
New Fiscal Service Forms for Account Maintenance

17

Account 

Maintenance 

Forms

Form 000109

Treasury Account 

Action Request 

Form 000110

Treasury Account 

Amendment 

Request 

Form 000111

Inter-Agency 

Agreement TAS 

Request 

Form 000112

BETC Request 

Form
LIVE DEMONSTRATION:

New Fiscal Service Forms
Fiscal Service Forms

21

In the future, new forms will be published on 

the Fiscal Service website 

Agencies can also request forms from 

baasgroup@fiscal.treasury.gov
# 1

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2017-16	&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000DRAFT &K01+000VII EDR - &P      	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 12/5/17 

# 4

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2017-16	&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000DRAFT &K01+000VII EDR - &P      	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 12/5/17 

# 50

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2017-16	&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000DRAFT &K01+000VII EDR - &P      	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 12/5/17
# C_2018123EN.01002101.xml

| 9.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/21

---

Order of the General Court of 7 February 2018 — AEIM and Kazenas v Commission

(Case T-436/16) (1)

1

((Action for damages - Limitation - No proof of loss - Action manifestly bound to fail))

(2018/C 123/28)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Application électronique industrielle moderne (AEIM) (Algrange, France) and Philippe Kazenas (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Wizel, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: S. Delaude and S. Lejeune, and subsequently by S. Delaude, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of acts of corruption committed by a servant of the Commission.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Application électronique industrielle moderne (AEIM) and Mr Philippe Kazenas shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Application électronique industrielle moderne (AEIM) and Mr Philippe Kazenas shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.

1

---
No. 53497.

protest 138609-K (St. Louis).

#### George A. Breon & Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the concentrated ox gall passed upon in *G. D. Searle & Co.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 112, C. D. 1138). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was therefore sustained.
Case No. 6,691.

#### HOPKINS v. SIMMONS.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 250.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

July Term, 1805.

Evidence — Opinion—Handweitinq.

The opinion of a witness (who has seen the party sign a paper) that another paper is also in the handwriting of the same party is competent evidence, although his opinion is the result of comparison.

Assumpsit The defendant offered in evidence an account, said to be in the plaintiff’s handwriting; and Robert Ellis, a witness, testified that he saw the plaintiff sign a certain receipt; and that, by comparing the account with the signature to the receipt, he believed the account to be in the plaintiff’s handwriting.

Mr. Key objected, on the authority of Peake’s Law of Evidence (page 69), that comparison of hands is no evidence in any case.

But THE COURT

admitted the evidence.
# Map            cover page
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

 : 

LEE ARTERS t/a GREENDALE BUILDERS : CIVIL ACTION - LAW 

 : 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : 

 : 

 v. : 

: No. 02-CV-4388 

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. t/a, : 

ZURICH NORTH AMERICA as successor in : 

Interest to ASSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, et al. : JURY OF TWELVE (12) 

 : DEMANDED 

 : 

 Defendants. : 

 : 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that on this day a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Sur Declaratory Judgment Action and 

Memorandum in support thereof was served by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as 

follows: 

Carl Delacato, Jr., Esquire 

Hecker, Brown, Sherry & Johnson, LLP 

1700 Two Logan Square 

18th and Arch Streets 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Philip A. Charamella, Esquire 

Law Offices of Michael D. Fioretti 

The Bourse Building 

111 South Independence Mall East, Suite 790 

Philadelphia, PA 19106-2323 

 VAUGHAN, DUFFY & CONNORS, LLP 

 

 By: ________________________________ 

 Francis X. Nolan, Esquire, I.D. No. 09237 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 102 Pickering Way, Suite 400 

 Exton, PA 19341 

Date: September 9, 2003 (610) 524-2100 

Case 2:02-cv-04388-JF Document 18-3 Filed 09/09/2003 Page 1 of 1
Dolan Chemical Laboratory

4001 Bixby Road

Groveport, OH 43125

T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221

F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168

http://aepenv/labs

Water Analysis

Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 5/10/2012

Form REP-702

Rev. 0, 4/2012

Sample Number: 122009-001 Date Collected: 05/02/2012 Date Received: 5/2/2012

 Trip Blank

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Mercury, Hg < 0.5 ng/L 0.5 0.2 BSS 05/08/2012 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 122009-002 Date Collected: 05/02/2012 09:15 Date Received: 5/2/2012

 Field Blank

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Mercury, Hg < 0.5 ng/L 0.5 0.2 BSS 05/08/2012 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 122009-003 Date Collected: 05/02/2012 09:15 Date Received: 5/2/2012

Plant Outfall #001 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Mercury, Hg 5.0 ng/L 3 1 BSS 05/08/2012 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 122009-004 Date Collected: 05/02/2012 09:25 Date Received: 5/2/2012

CPS Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Mercury, Hg 1070 ng/L 20 6 BSS 05/08/2012 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 122009-005 Date Collected: 05/02/2012 09:10 Date Received: 5/2/2012

Bioreactor Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Mercury, Hg 27.6 ng/L 3 1 BSS 05/08/2012 EPA 1631E

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN 

APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, 

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II

Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224

Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 122009 Page 1 of 1