alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

81–891 WASHINGTON : 2013

113th Congress, 1st Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 113–46 

LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA, BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION PROJECT 

LAFOURCHE, JEFFERSON, AND PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LOUISIANA FINAL REPORT 

COMMUNICATION

FROM

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ARMY, 

CIVIL WORKS, THE DEPARTMENT OF 

DEFENSE

TRANSMITTING

LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA, BARATARIA BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION PROJECT LAFOURCHE, JEFFERSON, AND 

PLAQUEMINES PARISHES, LOUISIANA FINAL REPORT 

PART 1 OF 3 

JULY 8, 2013.—Referred to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure and ordered to be printed 

04:18 Jul 17 2013 Jkt 081891 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4012 Sfmt 4012 E:\HR\OC\HD046P1 XXX HD046P1

(iii)
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
xvi
xvii
xviii
xix
xx
xxi
xxii
xxiii
xxiv
xxv
xxvi
xxvii
xxviii
xxix
xxx
xxxi
xxxii
xxxiii
xxxiv
xxxv
xxxvi
xxxvii
xxxviii
xxxix
xl
xli
xlii
xliii
xliv
xlv
xlvi
xlvii
xlviii
xlix
l
(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
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
#### M. C. WARD et al., Petitioners, v. Luther LANCE et al., Respondents.

No. 41055.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 28, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS, Mc-CAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

BOYD, J., dissents.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 202 (Monday, October 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 54497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27679]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice PN 2605]


Office of Defense Trade Controls; Reinstatement of Eligibility To 
Apply for Export/Retransfer Authorizations Pursuant to Section 38(g)(4) 
of the Arms Export Control Act

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of persons who have had their 
eligibility to apply for export/retransfer authorizations reinstated 
pursuant to section 38(g)(4) of the Arms Export Control Act, (the 
AECA), (22 U.S.C. 2778(g)(4)) and section 127.11(b) (formerly section 
127.10(b)) of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (the ITAR), 
(22 CFR Parts 120-130).

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 28, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip S. Rhoads, Chief, Compliance 
Enforcement Branch, Compliance Division, Office of Defense Trade 
Controls, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State 
(703) 875-6644.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 38(g)(A) of the AECA and section 
127.11 (a) of the ITAR prohibit the issuance of export licenses or 
other approvals to a person, or any party to the export, who has been 
convicted of violating certain U.S. criminal statutes enumerated at 
section 38(g)(1) of the AECA and section 120.27 of the ITAR. The term 
``person'' means a natural person as well as a corporation, business 
association, partnership, society, trust, or any other entity, 
organization, or group, including governmental entities. The term 
``party to the export'' means the president, the chief executive 
officer, and other senior officers of the license applicant; and any 
consignee or end user of any item to be exported.
    The statute permits reinstatement of eligibility to apply for 
export/retransfer authorization on a case-by-case basis after 
consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and after a thorough 
review of the circumstances surrounding the conviction or ineligibility 
to export and finding that appropriate steps have been taken to 
mitigate any law enforcement concerns.
    In accordance with these authorities, effective August 28, 1997, 
eligibility for Delft Instruments N.V., (Delft) to apply for export and 
retransfer authorizations has been reinstated pursuant to section 
38(g)(4) of the AECA and section 127.11 of the ITAR.
    The effect of this notice is that Delft may once again participate 
in the export or transfer or defense articles or defense services 
subject to section 38 of the AECA and the ITAR.

    Dated: October 2, 1997.
William J. Lowell,
Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of Political-
Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State.
[FR Doc. 97-27679 Filed 10-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-25-M
Memorandum

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Subject: INFORMATION: NCHRP Report 711: 

Guidance for the Selection, Use, and 

Maintenance of Cable Barrier Systems

Date: November 27,2012

From: Michael S. Griffith In Reply Refer To:

Director, Office of Safety Technologies HSST

Office of Safety

To: Division Administrators

Federal Lands Division Engineers 

Safety Field

This memorandum responds to Recommendation H-11-24 from the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and updates the July 20, 2007, Office of Safety 

memorandum “Cable Barrier Considerations.” The 2007 memorandum listed a number of 

design factors that highway agencies need to consider when selecting, locating, installing, 

and maintaining cable roadside and median barriers. The memorandum noted that 

research was underway to address many of the gaps in our knowledge and understanding 

of cable barrier performance. The research was recently completed, and the NCHRP 

Report 711, “Guidance for the Selection, Use, and Maintenance of Cable Barrier Systems” 

has been published by the Transportation Research Board and is available for free 

download at: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_711.pdf

NTSB Recommendation H-11-24 asked FHWA to:

Provide to state transportation agencies information from current research, such as

National Cooperative Highway Research Program Project 22-25, Development of 

Guidance for the Selection, Use, and Maintenance of Cable Barrier Systems, about the

safety risks associated with the installation of cable barrier systems that differs from the

configuration of the system as designed and tested; information should include the risks

associated with the dynamic deflection that may occur when installation distances

between cable barrier anchorages differ from the 600-foot test length prescribed in the

Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware.

Report 711 resulted from Project 22-25 and is provided for the information of FHWA 

Division Offices and for State and local highway agencies that use, or are interested in 

using, cable barriers. Of special note is Appendix E, “Summary of Recommended 

Guidelines,” found at the end of Report 711. This summary of guidance provides a solid 

basis for agencies that have been using cable barriers to update their practices to enhance 

safety performance or cost effectiveness of cable barrier systems, as well as to aid 

agencies interested in considering the use of cable barriers for the first time. Whereas 

most barriers were crash tested on flat terrain with a length of 300 to 600 feet, many real 
2

world installations go for thousands of feet between anchors, are located on sloping 

embankments, are used in horizontal or vertical curves, etc. The guidance in Report 711 

should be consulted to account for these real world installation issues.

FHWA:HSST:NArtimovichr:sf:x61331:10/31/12: Updated 11/19/12

File: s://directory folder/HSST/NCHRP Report Memo.docx

cc: HSST (NArtimovich; BFouch)
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 131775 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 131775 

 COA: 267158 

Oakland CC: 93-123822-FC 

TOMAS L. KOWALAK, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 22, 2006 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). 

d1120 

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. 

November 29, 2006 

 Clerk
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

In
connection with the Annual Report of American National Insurance Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), We, Robert L. Moody, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and John J. Dunn, Jr., Corporate Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:

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

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



/s/ Robert L. MoodyRobert L. MoodyChairman of the Board,Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ John J. Dunn, Jr.John J. Dunn, Jr.Executive Vice President,Corporate Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)


Dated: February 26, 2015

This certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, will not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification will not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company
specifically incorporates it by reference.
#### Marjorie BAIRD and Milton Baird, individually and d/b/a Baird Funeral Home, a co-partnership, Appellants, v. Louise HUSTON and Marvin James Leininger, Appellees.

No. 2383.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Sept. 29, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Nor. 10, 1969.

John R. Beranek, of Jones, Adams, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Will A. Nason, of Nason, Gildan & Yeager, West Palm Beach, and Irvin Frank, Jr., Fort Pierce, for appellee Huston.

Errol S. Willes of Willes, Bittan & Griffin, Fort Pierce, for appellee Leininger.

PER CURIAM.

Our review of the record convinces us that the issue of implied consent was properly a jury issue and accordingly we affirm on the authority of Thomas v. Atlantic Associates, Inc., 226 So.2d 100, Supreme Court Case, opinion filed July 30, 1969, and Whalen v. Hill, Fla.App.1969, 219 So.2d 727. The other appellate points have been examined and found to be without merit.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, REED and OWEN, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT TANYA HELENA TECCE, Petitioner

v. JOHN MICHAEL HALLY, Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : No. 154 MAL 2015 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 21st day of August, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
Exhibit 23
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-58311, 333-34645, 333-77793, 333-88671, 333-95883, 333-36982, 333-51856, 333-60500 and 333-81128), and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-04717, 333-50391, 333-92905 and 333-89764), of ProxyMed, Inc. of our report dated February 18, 2003, except as to Note 21, which is as of March 13, 2003, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
/s/ Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
EXHIBIT 31.1

                           SECTION 302 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Mark Scott, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IA Global, Inc.
("registrant");

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. As the registrant's certifying officer, I am responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and I have:

   a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
      that material information relating to the registrant, including its
      consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
      entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
      prepared;

   b) [omitted pursuant to the guidance of Release No. 33-8238 (June 5, 2003)];

   c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of
      the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

   d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
      over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
      fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
      annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
      reporting; and

5. As the registrant's certifying officer I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

   a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
      operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
      process, summarize and report financial information; and

   b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
      employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
      over financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2005                 /s/ Mark Scott
                                        Mark Scott
                                        President and Chief Financial Officer
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: SE03512

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
SERVED MAY 24, 2011 .-CITATION 

.Y n i P ?:• 31 

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION 

FAA DOCICET No. CPIONMOOII 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMSFAA-2010-0977 

IN THE MATTER OF 

CORPORATE AIR 

FAA DOCKET No. CPIONMOOIO 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMSFAA-2010-0975 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 

Respondents in these matters. Federal Express Corporation ("Federal Express") 

and Corporate Air ("Corporate"), respectively, have filed in their respective dockets 

Motions to Consolidate (hereinafter "Motions"). In support, the parties state that judicial 

economy would be served because both cases arise from the same facts and 

circumstances and that the witnesses and exhibits are expected to be the same for both. 

The parties represent that the Complainant, the Federal Aviation Administration, also 

consents to consolidation. 

The Motion is hereby GRANTED. 
Hearing dates will be set by subsequent order. The parties will decide which 

matter will be heard first, and will advise the undersigned of their decision prior to the 

start of the hearing. 

SO ORDERED. 

Attachments - Service List 

Lichard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 
FAA Docket No. CPlONMOOll 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Cynthia Chandler-Snell, Respondent's Counsel 

Senior Attorney, Federal Express, Inc. 

3620 Hacks Cross Road 

Building B, 3'' Floor 

Memphis, TN 38125^8800 

TEL: 901-434-8361 

FAX: 901-434-8283 

Glenn P. Wicks, Respondent's Counsel 

Roncevert D. Almond 

The Wicks Group, PLLC 

1215 17^ Street, NW 

Sumner Annex, Fourth Floor 

Washington, DC 20036 

TEL: 202-457-7790 

FAX: 202-457-7799 

Scott R. Morris, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7, FAA 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Ronton, WA 98057 

TEL; 425-227-1417 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

The Honorable Richard C, Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL; Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: 

Hearing Docket, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building - Room 

2014, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
#### William Jack WRIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-629.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Sept. 3, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DAVID SCOTT GRAY, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No. 06-22 Erie

v. )

)

WARDEN JAMES SHERMAN, )

)

Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This habeas corpus action was received by the Clerk of Court on February 6,

2006, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for

report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 11], filed on

August 2, 2006, recommended that Petitioner’s Petition be dismissed as moot and that

a certificate of appealability be denied. The parties were allowed ten (10) days from the

date of service to file objections. Service was made on Petitioner by certified mail and

on Respondent. No objections were filed. After de novo review of the petition and

documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, the following

order is entered:

AND NOW, this 29th day of August, 2006; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus is DISMISSED as moot and a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 11] of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed

on August 2, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:06-cv-00022-SJM-SPB Document 12 Filed 08/29/06 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1

QUEPASA CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As
Adopted

Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Robert B. Stearns, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Quepasa Corporation (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) | This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | That the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                       |  |                        
|---------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | --------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: August 15, 2007 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Robert B. Stearns
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | Name:                 |  | Robert B. Stearns      
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | Title:                |  | Chairman and           
|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                       |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### Robert L. SHIRMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. HH-228.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 21, 1978.

Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, and Margaret Good, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted for the offenses of burglary and attempted grand larceny. The convictions are affirmed. However, the judgment and sentence form, although adjudicating appellant guilty of each offense, fails to reflect a pronouncement of sentence for the offense of attempted grand larceny. This is improper. *Helton v. State,*106 So.2d 79 (Fla.1958); *Bateh v. State,*101 So.2d 869 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1958), cert. disch. 110 So.2d 7 (Fla.1959); *Slay v. State,*347 So.2d 730 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1977). Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are reversed and the cause remanded for the imposition of a proper sentence.

McCORD, C. J., and MILLS and BOYER, JJ., concur.