alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VANESSA RACINE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

PHW LAS VEGAS, LLC, DBA Planet 

Hollywood Resort and Casino; PHW 

MANAGER, LLC, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-16707

D.C. No.

2:10-cv-01651-LDG-VCF

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Lloyd D. George, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 17, 2016**

San Francisco, California

Before: HAWKINS, CALLAHAN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

In this diversity action, Vanessa Racine sued PHW Las Vegas, LLC and PHW 

Manager, LLC (collectively, “Planet Hollywood”) for failing to prevent her from 

 

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

as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without 

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 19 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

being assaulted at the Las Vegas Planet Hollywood hotel. The district court granted 

summary judgment for Planet Hollywood, and we affirm.

1. To establish negligence under Nevada law, Racine was required to offer 

evidence that “[p]rior incidents of similar wrongful acts occurred on the premises” 

or that Planet Hollywood “failed to exercise due care.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 651.015(3). 

The prior incidents she identified, however, either did not occur in the hotel towers 

of the Planet Hollywood property or involved different levels of violence, and thus 

were not sufficiently “similar” wrongful acts. See Estate of Smith ex rel. Smith v. 

Mahoney’s Silver Nugget, Inc., 265 P.3d 688, 692–93 (Nev. 2011). Moreover, 

Planet Hollywood’s failure to locate and apprehend the assailant within fifteen 

minutes of learning of a previous assault on Planet Hollywood property was not a 

failure to exercise due care. See id. at 691–92 (defining due care as “minimum 

precautions”).

2. Nor did Racine present evidence that Planet Hollywood acted with gross 

negligence, defined in Nevada as without “even a slight degree of care.” Hart v. 

Kline, 116 P.2d 672, 674 (Nev. 1941). Planet Hollywood’s on-site security officers 

timely responded to initial complaints about the assailant made earlier that night and 

promptly contacted local police.
3 

3. Having failed to establish a right to compensatory damages, Racine was 

not entitled to punitive damages. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005(1) (permitting 

punitive damages “in addition to the compensatory damages”).

AFFIRMED.
No. 57323.

protests 507903-G, etc. (New York).

#### Brenner Bros. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kidskin plates are similar in all material respects'to those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion in C. D. 1480, *supra.*
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 CORPORATE PROPERTY ASSOCIATES 16  GLOBAL INCORPORATED
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 Corporate Property Associates 16-Global
Incorporated.
 /s/ Gordon F. DuGan

Gordon F. DuGan
Chief Executive Officer
 
  (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 Corporate Property Associates 16-Global
Incorporated.
 /s/ Mark J. DeCesaris

Mark J. DeCesarisacting Chief Financial Officer
No. 53573.

protests 138610-K and 141150-K (St. Louis).

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

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as the estrogenic hormone passed upon in Roche-*Organon*v. *United States*(35 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 378). The claim at 10 percent under paragraph 34 was therefore sustained.
hifr-ex104_436.htm



Exhibit 10.4

 

SECOND AMENDMENT

to Fifth Amended and Restated Rent Supplement

(ERCOT Transmission Lease)

September 29, 2016

 

This Second Amendment to the Fifth Amended and Restated Rent Supplement (the “Second Amendment”) between Sharyland Distribution and Transmission Services, L.L.C. (“Lessor”) and Sharyland Utilities, L.P. (“Lessee”) is executed and delivered on September 29, 2016 and is effective as of September 22, 2016.  Capitalized terms used herein that are not otherwise defined will have the meanings assigned to such terms in the ERCOT Transmission Lease (as defined below).

 

WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee are Parties to a Lease Agreement (ERCOT Transmission Assets) dated as of December 1, 2014 (as amended from time to time in accordance with its terms, the “ERCOT Transmission Lease”);

 

WHEREAS, on February 26, 2016, the Parties executed the Fifth Amended and Restated Rent Supplement (ERCOT Transmission Lease) effective as of January 1, 2016 (the “Fifth Amended Supplement”);

 

WHEREAS, on June 20, 2016 the Parties executed the First Amendment to the Fifth Amended Supplement in order to update the ERCOT Transmission Rate Allocation effective as of June 13, 2016; and

 

WHEREAS, the Parties now desire to further amend the Fifth Amended Supplement as set forth herein.

 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree to the following:

 

1.Amendment.  The table titled “ERCOT Transmission Rate Allocation” is hereby amended by deleting the table in its entirety and replacing the same with the following:

 

ERCOT Transmission Rate


	
Allocation:
	
before October 3, 2014:  0%

	
 
	
between October 3, 2014 and March 31, 2015: 2.1%

	
 
	
between April 1, 2015 and October 31, 2015: 2.1%

	
 
	
between November 1, 2015 and June 13, 2016: 3.6%

	
 
	
between June 13, 2016 and September 22, 2016:  4.1%

	
 
	
starting September 22, 2016:  3.6%




 

2.Continuing Effect.  Except as expressly amended by this Second Amendment, the provisions of each of the ERCOT Transmission Lease and the Fifth Amended Supplement are and shall remain in full force and effect.  

 

[Signatures on Following Page]




ERCOT Transmission Lease

 



The Parties have executed this Second Amendment as of the date set forth above.

 

 


	
 
	
SHARYLAND UTILITIES, L.P.




 


	
 
	
By:/s/ Greg Wilks

	
 
	
Name:Greg Wilks

	
 
	
Title:Chief Financial Officer




 

 


	
 
	
SHARYLAND DISTRIBUTION &

	
 
	
TRANSMISSION SERVICES, L.L.C.




 


	
 
	
By:/s/ Brant Meleski

	
 
	
Name:Brant Meleski

	
 
	
Title:Chief Financial Officer




 

ERCOT Transmission Lease
## NUMBER 13
- 2 2
- 00 515
- CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

ENRIQUE O. GUILLEN AND VICTORIA GUILLEN , A ppellant s ,

v
. CRISTIAN ANDRES GOMEZ , A ppellee

.

On Appeal from the 445 th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.



## ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Justices Benavides, Tijerina, and Peña Order Per Curiam

This appeal is before the Court on app ellants ’ first amended motion t o compel court
reporter record and appellants ’ dispute of the accuracy of the appellate record which is

construed as a motion to abate

. A conflict regarding the contents of the reporter ’ s record
has arisen, and appellant s request relief regarding inaccuracies in the reporter’s record.2 Pursuant to Texas Rule s of Appellate Procedure 34. 6 (e) ( 2 ) and (3)
, this appeal

is abated, and the cause remanded to the trial court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.6(e)(2) and (3)

. Upon remand, the judge of the trial court shall immediately cause notice to be given
and conduct a hearing to determine whether there are any inaccuracies in the reporter’s

record. See Id

. If inaccuracies exist
, the trial court shall determine what steps are necessary to ensure the prompt preparation of a complete and

accurate reporter’s record and shall enter any orders required to avoid further delay
and to preserve the parties ’ rights.

T he trial court shall prepare and file its findings and orders and cause them
, along with any omitted items, to be included in a supplemental clerk’s record and
supplemental reporter’s record which should be submitted to the Clerk of this Court

within thirty days from the date of this order. Accordingly, appellants’ motion to abate is granted
, and appellants’ motion compel is carried with the case

.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on this th e 15th day of February, 2023.
II 

Calendar No. 438 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4727 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify the nature of judicial 

review of agency interpretations of statutory and regulatory provisions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 11 (legislative day, JULY 10), 2024 

Mr. SCHMITT (for himself, Mr. CRAMER, Ms. ERNST, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. BRAUN, 

Mr. BUDD, Mr. TUBERVILLE, Mr. HAGERTY, Mr. THUNE, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Mr. PAUL) introduced the following bill; which was read the 

first time 

JULY 23, 2024 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify the nature 

of judicial review of agency interpretations of statutory 

and regulatory provisions. 

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 ‘‘Separation of Powers 

5 Restoration Act of 2024’’ or ‘‘SOPRA’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4727 PCS

1 SEC. 2. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF STATUTORY AND REGU2 LATORY INTERPRETATIONS. 

3 Section 706 of title 5, United States Code, is amend4 ed— 

5 (1) by striking ‘‘To the extent necessary’’ and 

6 inserting ‘‘(a) To the extent necessary’’; 

7 (2) in subsection (a), as so designated— 

8 (A) by striking ‘‘decide all relevant ques9 tions of law, interpret constitutional and statu10 tory provisions, and’’; 

11 (B) by inserting after ‘‘of the terms of an 

12 agency action’’ the following ‘‘and decide de 

13 novo all relevant questions of law, including the 

14 interpretation of constitutional and statutory 

15 provisions, rules made by agencies, and inter16 pretative rules, general statements of policy, 

17 and all other agency guidance documents. Not18 withstanding any other provision of law, this 

19 subsection shall apply in any action for judicial 

20 review of agency action authorized under any 

21 provision of law. No law may exempt any such 

22 civil action from the application of this section 

23 except by specific reference to this section’’; and 

24 (3) by striking ‘‘The reviewing court shall—’’ 

25 and inserting the following: 

26 ‘‘(b) The reviewing court shall—’’; and 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 4727 PCS

1 (4) by striking ‘‘In making the foregoing deter2 minations’’ and inserting the following: 

3 ‘‘(c) In making the foregoing determinations’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 438 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4727 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify the 

tions of statutory and regulatory provisions. nature of judicial review of agency interpretaJULY 23, 2024 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
EPA Meeting with ASTSWMO August 28, 2012 Attendees: EPA OUST: Mark Barolo, L inda Gerber, Tim S mith, Paul Miller, Tim Roberts, L iz McDermott, Erin Knighton
ASTSWMO: Bob McCoy (OR), Jennifer Pruett (NM), Rebecca Key ser (DE), Patricia Ellis (DE), Russ Brauksieck (NY), Therron Blatter (UT), Charles Reyes (ASTSWMO), Bob Daniel (NH) , Paul Nelson (IA), Larry Brinkerhoff (AK), John Olko (NJ), Alison Hathcock (SC), Leslie Carr (KY), Mahesh Albuquerque (CO), Tara Rosie (AZ), Ken Koon (MO) At this meeting , EPA and the states d iscussed questions related to the proposed regulations, including questions regarding new technologies, spill prevention and overfill prevention, deferrals, compatibility

and interstitial monitoring, operator training, and ground water and vapor monitoring

. The questions discussed are attached.
Attachment 1 

Brandon Shores FGD System Process Flow Diagram 

Attachment 2 

Brandon Shores FGD Wastewater Treatment System Process Flow Diagram
SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

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

4813-7207-0400.1 -1-

RICHARD L. ALLEY, SBN 144430

HARDY ERICH BROWN & WILSON

A Professional Law Corporation

1000 G Street, Second Floor

Sacramento, California 95814

P.O. Box 13530

Sacramento, California 95853-4530

(916) 449-3800 • Fax (916) 449-3888

Attorneys for Defendant ARIZONA PARTNERS

RETAIL INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KATHLEEN CHANDLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARIZONA PARTNERS RETAIL INVESTMENT

GROUP, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability

Company, and DOES 1 through20, inclusive,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: 2:04-cv-02218-DFL-JFM

AMENDED SUBSTITUTION 

OF ATTORNEY

THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES ARE NOTIFIED THAT ARIZONA PARTNERS

RETAIL INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC makes the following substitution:

1. FORMER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: Hardy Erich Brown & Wilson

2. NEW LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: David S. Worthington, SBN 73233, at Lewis

Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, 2500 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 200, Sacramento,

California 95833; telephone 916/564-5400, fax 916/564-5444.

3. The party making this substitution is a defendant. 

I consent to this substitution:

DATED: April ___, 2006 ARIZONA PARTNERS RETAIL INVESTMENT

 GROUP, LLC

By: /s/ Sandra O’Clock (signature maintained on file)

 SANDRA O’CLOCK 

///

Case 2:04-cv-02218-DFL -JFM Document 29 Filed 05/19/06 Page 1 of 2
SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

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

4813-7207-0400.1 -2-

I consent to this substitution:

DATED: April 11, 2006 HARDY ERICH BROWN & WILSON

By: /s/ Richard L. Alley (signature maintained on file)

Richard L. Alley, Former Attorneys for Defendant:

ARIZONA PARTNERS RETAIL INVESTMENT

GROUP, LLC 

I consent to this substitution:

DATED: May 16, 2006 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH

By: /s/ David S. Worthington 

David S. Worthington, New Attorneys for Defendant:

ARIZONA PARTNERS RETAIL INVESTMENT

GROUP, LLC 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 5/18/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02218-DFL -JFM Document 29 Filed 05/19/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 50069.

#### Protests 1818-K, etc., of Ungerer & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

 

I, Michael J. Koss, Chief Executive Officer of Koss Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended June 30, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 
| Date:   September 2, 2011           |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                     |   |
| /s/   Michael J. Koss                    |   |
|                                     |   |
| Michael   J. Koss                        |   |
| Chief   Executive Officer, President and |   |
| Chief   Operating Officer                |   |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32


                            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 Case Financial, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Michael Schaffer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Lawrence Schaffer,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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



                             /s/ Michael Schaffer
                             -------------------------------
                             Michael Schaffer
                             Chief Executive Officer
                             January 11, 2008



                             /s/ Lawrence Schaffer
                             -------------------------------
                             Lawrence Schaffer
                             Chief Financial Officer
                             January 11, 2008
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Borough of Walnutport :

:

v. :

:

Timothy Dennis, :

Appellant : No. 1803 C.D. 2014

O R D E R

NOW, August 24, 2015

, having considered appellant ’s application for

reargument, the application is denied.

DAN PELLEGRINI,

President Judge
No. 42909.

Suit 4182.

#### United *States*v. *Finchley, Inc.*

Abstract 38380 reversed.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-15-0000086 14-JUL-2015 07:52 AM
No. 45004.

#### Protests 687294-G, etc., of Langfelder, Homma & Hayward, Inc. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Olives. P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of balls similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Woolworth*(24 C. C. P. A. 338, T. D. 48770). The claim at 30 percent under paragraph 1502 was therefore sustained.
No. 65483.

#### The Ruby Importing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/17493, etc. (Los Angeles).

*433Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cotton pistol belts similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 64074, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case 2:04-cv-01783-FCD-KJM   Document 11    Filed 02/16/06   Page 1 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-01783-FCD-KJM   Document 11    Filed 02/16/06   Page 2 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-01783-FCD-KJM   Document 11    Filed 02/16/06   Page 3 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-01783-FCD-KJM   Document 11    Filed 02/16/06   Page 4 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-01783-FCD-KJM   Document 11    Filed 02/16/06   Page 5 of 5

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-20T12:23:28-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4696 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4696

To provide an exemption from certain dredging restrictions for vessels 
    that arrive at or depart from the Helen Delich Bentley Port of 
                   Baltimore, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 11 (legislative day, July 10), 2024

    Mr. Lee introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide an exemption from certain dredging restrictions for vessels 
    that arrive at or depart from the Helen Delich Bentley Port of 
                   Baltimore, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Restore the Port of Baltimore Act''.

SEC. 2. TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FROM DREDGING RESTRICTIONS FOR VESSELS 
              ARRIVING AT OR DEPARTING FROM THE PORT OF BALTIMORE.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding sections 55102, 55109, and 55110 
of title 46, United States Code, any vessel that, after the date of 
enactment of this Act, arrives at or departs from the Helen Delich 
Bentley Port of Baltimore shall be exempt from--
            (1) the requirements of section 55109 of title 46, United 
        States Code;
            (2) the requirements of section 55110 of such title; and
            (3) the requirements of section 55102 of such title, with 
        respect to the transportation of valueless material or dredged 
        material as described in such section 55110.
    (b) Applicability.--This section, and any exemption under this 
section, shall cease to have effect on the day that is 5 years after 
the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 32.3**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CanoPetroleum, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Ricketts, Principal Accounting Officer ofthe Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company, as of, andfor, the periods presented in the Report.

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished as anexhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K andSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 202 (subsections (a) and(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and,accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is notincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made beforeor after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language insuch filing.
| May  9, 2007 | /s/ Michael J. Ricketts                         |   |
|-------------------|-------------------------------------------------|--------|
|              | Michael J. Ricketts                             |   |
|              | Vice President and Principal Accounting Officer |   |

 

----