alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

THOMAS E

. KELLY
, Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL P. HART
, Appellee.

No. 4D2023

- 1965

[ February 22, 2024 ]

Appeal of a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Elizabeth A. Metzger, Judge; L.T. Case

No. 22

- 00775CAAXMX.

Brian J. Lee of Morgan & Morgan, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Bretton C

. Albrecht of Kubicki Draper, P.A., Fort Lauderdale

, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

C IKLIN
, G ERBER and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-02-486-CR

CHRISTIAN JAMAAL SEABROOK 	APPELLANT

A/K/A CHRISTIAN J. SEABROOK

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant Christian Jamaal Seabrook entered an open plea of guilty to the offense of attempted sexual assault.  The trial court found Seabrook guilty and sentenced him to ten years’ confinement.  In a single issue on appeal, Seabrook claims that the State failed to introduce evidence into the record in violation of article 1.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.15 (Vernon Supp. 2003).  Specifically, Seabrook complains that the record on appeal does not indicate that the alleged complainant, Leticia Martinez, was ever identified.

	The record before us does not contain a reporter’s record from the plea hearing.  The clerk’s record, however, contains a waiver of rights executed by Seabrook waiving, under code of criminal procedure article 1.14, “all rights given to me by law, whether of form, substance, or procedure.”  Id. art. 1.14. We construe this waiver as a waiver of Seabrook’s right to have a court reporter make a record of the plea proceedings.

	Without a transcription of the plea proceedings, we cannot review whether the State introduced evidence at the plea proceeding, and we must presume there was sufficient evidence to sustain and support the judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(c)(5) (requiring that if sufficiency complaint is raised in criminal case, record “must” include all evidence); Allison v. State, 618 S.W.2d 763, 765 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981) (holding that without statement of facts from plea hearing, court could not determine whether transcript constituted all evidence presented to trial court); McDougal v. State, No. 02-02-00281-CR, slip op. at 4-5, 2003 WL 1777331, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 3, 2003, pet. filed) (holding defendant failed to bring forward sufficient record to support his challenge to sufficiency of evidence when he waived right to have plea proceeding recorded); Williams v. State, 950 S.W.2d 383, 385 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref’d) (holding lack of statement of facts from plea hearing is sufficient reason to overrule sufficiency challenge); see also Bauge v. State, No. 01-99-00182-CR, slip op. at 4-5, 2000 WL 730668, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 8, 2000, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication) (same).  We overrule Seabrook’s sole point.  We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

							SUE WALKER

							JUSTICE

PANEL B:	DAY, LIVINGSTON, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: June 5, 2003
;f6 StqT

~

S 

2~ yv 

C ~ 

35 W 

o ~ 

z Q 

o= 

4Tqt PROSE'

OS

~ 

UN3`rED STA'TES ENt1lRONhAENi°AL PROTEC1'ION AGEFIGY 

Vt/ASHfNGTOhI, D.C. 20460 

t & APR 2WB OffICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

David Moody, Ph.D., Manager 

Carlsbad Field Office 

U.S. Department of Energy 

P.O. Box 3090 

Carlsbad, NM 88221-3090 

Dear Dr. Moody: 

In your April 14, 20081etter, the Department of Bnergy (DOE), Carlsbad Field Office 

(CBFO) informed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of a plan to change the 

configuration of non-destruetive assay (NDA) equipment at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project (AMWTP). Specifrcally, DOE plans to change the 

method of cooling gamma detectors in NDA systems used to characterize weste for WIPP 

disposal. This should achieve more reliable and consistent cooling of the NDA systems than the 

eurrent liquid nitrogen cooling. Aeeording to the requirements of 40 CFR 194.8 (b), and the 

tiering detailed in EPA's baseline approval of AMWTP, EPA eoncurs that DOE appropriately 

categorized this change as a Tier II change to the AMWTP baseline approval. 

From informal discussions between our staffs, DOE has indicated that additional NDA 

equipment at other waste eharacterization sites will likely be converted to the new coolers. In 

order to be informed more quickly about the results of this change, EPA requests that 

information generated based on the first item (Drum Assay System Detector Calibration and 

Verification — TRUW-8.1.1) in the table in section 4.6.1 of Facility Modiflcation Proposal-0688 

be forwarded to EPA for review as soon as all DOE reviews are completed. 

If you have any questions, please contact Ed Feltcorn at (202) 343-9422 or Rajani 

Joglekar at (202) 343-9462. 

Icternet Address (URL) s http7Avww.epa.gov 

RecyciedlRecyclabie s Printed with gegetable Oil Based Inks on 104% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
cc: Electronic Distribution 

Frank Marcinowski, DOE HQ 

Alton Harris, DOE HQ 

Vernon Daub, CBFO 

Casey Gadbury, CBFO 

George Basabilvazo, CBFO 

Ava Holland, CBFO 

Courtland Fesmire, CBFO 

Norma Castaneda, CBFO 

Martin Navarrete, CBFO 

Dennis Miehis, CBFO 

Ailison Pangle, CTAC 

Wayne Ledford, CTAC
**Exhibit 24.8****POWER OF ATTORNEY**     KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS, that I, the undersigned, do hereby appoint Lionel Reilly or NealSoderquist, or either of them, attorney for me and in my name and on my behalf to sign the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of PROFESSIONAL VETERINARY PRODUCTS, LTD. for the fiscal year ended July 31,2005, and any such amendment thereto, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(“SEC”) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, to file any such amendment to theForm 10-K, exhibits thereto and documents required in connection therewith with the SEC, andgenerally to do and perform all things necessary to be done in the premises as fully andeffectually in all respects as I could do if personally present.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 20th day of October, 2005.       /s/ William Swartz, D.V.M.     William Swartz         STATE OF VIRGINIA      )      )  ss.COUNTY OF FAIRFAX  )        On this 20th day of October, 2005, before me, a Notary Public qualified for saidCounty, personally came William Swartz, known to me to be the identical person who signed theforegoing instrument and acknowledged the execution thereof to be his voluntary act and deed.       /s/ Edward F. Byrne II     Notary Public    My commission expires: September 30, 2007
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-06-122576-CV

JACKIE COLLINSMiItTxX, LtTdD., WhHiItTeE ReEnNoO InNvVeEsStToOrRsS, LtTdD., 	APPELLANTS

AND WeElLlLsS ReEnNoO InNvVeEsStToOrRsS, LtTdD.	APPELLANT

	V.

TARRANT APPRAISAL DISTRICTGoOrRdDoOnN S. SwWiIfFtT CoOnNsSuUlLtTiInNgG EnNgGiInNeEeErR, InNcC.	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM THE 236thTH236TH  DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------NO. 2-   -        -CV

	APPELLANT	

	V.

	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM THE        DISTRICT COURT OF           COUNTY

	NO. 2-08-241-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF T.D., MINOR CHILD

	----------

	FROM THE 158TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	On N n July 15, 2008, j aUGUST                           August 9July 5, 2006, we notified appellant[s] that the trial court clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal had informed theis court that arrangements had not been made to pay for the clerk’s record as required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 35.3(a)(2).  See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(a)(2).  We stated that we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless appellant[s], within fifteen days, made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record and provided this court with proof of payment.  

	Because appellant[s] [hasves/have] not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s record, it is the opinion of the court that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.   Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b).

	Appellant[s] shall pay all costs of the appeal, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM 		 	

PANEL D:  HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.   HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED:   August 3 0, 1, 20062006July 27, 2006aUGUST August 7July 31, 2008
**TED =r4y 

t 

=+! 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Q 5 P REGION IX 

4( PROT~~ 

\ 75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 941 05-3901 

Robert D. Fletcher 

Deputy Executive Officer 

California Air Resources Board 

Post Office Box 28 15 

Sacramento, CA 958 12 

Dear Mr. Fletcher: 

On February 16, 2010, CARB submitted revisions to the California Air Resources Board 

Consumer Products Regulation. We have reviewed materials submitted with the following 

regulation and found that it fulfills the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 5 1, Appendix V. 

This addresses all the revisions in this submittal. In the coming months we will review 

the complete revision for action pursuant to Clean Air Act section I lO(k). 

APCDIAQMD 

California Air 

Resources Board 

Questions regarding our completeness review should be directed to Cynthia G. Allen at 

(415) 947-4120. 

Sincerely, 

Rule # 

8.5 

fi3-G Deborah Jordan 

Rule Title 

California Code of Regulations Title 17, 

Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 8-5, Article 2 

Director, Air Division 

c: Mr, R-obert Senne 

Assistant Chief Counsel 

Office of Legal Affairs 

Mr. David Mallory, Manager 

Measures Development Section 

Stationary Source Division 

Prcrzted on Recycled Paper 

- -. - -- .
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

RONALD SATISH EMRIT, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THE GRAMMY AWARDS ON CBS, d/b/a 

The Recording Academy/National 

Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences

(NARAS), 

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 24-1056

(D.C. No. 1:24-CV-00122-LTB)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________

Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Ronald Satish Emrit, proceeding pro se, sued “The Grammy Awards on CBS,” 

alleging the Los Angeles Chapter of the Grammy Awards ended his membership in 2010 

and denied his request to rejoin in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He appeals 

the district court’s dismissal of his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 

except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may 

be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 

10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 16, 2024

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 24-1056 Document: 010111095933 Date Filed: 08/16/2024 Page: 1
2

failure to state a claim and for improper venue. We review the dismissal de novo. Kay v. 

Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007).

1

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and for substantially the same 

reasons stated in the district court’s dismissal order, we affirm. Mr. Emrit provides no 

basis in this brief for this court to decide otherwise. We deny his motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis because he has not presented any “reasoned, nonfrivolous argument” in 

support of his appeal. Lister v. Dep't of the Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 

2005).

2

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Scott M. Matheson, Jr.

Circuit Judge

1 Because Mr. Emrit proceeds pro se, we construe his filings liberally but we 

do not act as his advocate. See James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 

2013).

2 The district court noted: Mr. Emrit “has filed at least nineteen cases against the 

Grammys since 2023 in federal courts in” fourteen states, “all of which have been 

dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for failure to state a claim.” ROA, Vol. 1 at 23.

Appellate Case: 24-1056 Document: 010111095933 Date Filed: 08/16/2024 Page: 2
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATJON OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

## 13>1800 8N!8\f3H 

## SIOZ 9I Wvr 

# 031\13038 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0682 MIAMI TECH AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE, INC. FAA CASE NO. 2010S0190295 Judge I.E. Sullivan Respondent

Joint Section 13.217/Rule26(f) Report
I. The parties have agreed to and recommend the following discovery plan:
a. The parties will exchange the discovery disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(l) by Friday, January 30, 2015; b. Initial discoveryrequests will be.·made by Friday, January 30, 2015. The parties will have tmtil February 27, 2014, to respond to initial discovery requests;
c. Follow-up discovery requests will be made by Friday, March 13, 2015. The parties have until Monday, April 13, 2015, to respond to follow-up discovery requests; d. All dispositive motions must be filed by Thursday, April 30, 2015; responses thereto byWednesday, May 20, 2015; replies by Friday June 5, 2015;
e. Theheming should be held in Mirmnar I Miami area.. Respectively submitted this 6th day ofJanuary, 2015.Is/ William Vines

------- Mr. William Vines Complainant's Counsel General Attorney Federal Aviation Administration Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 Sonthern Region 1701 ColumbiaAvenue College Park, GA 30337 Ph: 404-305-5200 Email: William.Vines@faa.gov Is/Juan R. Serrano. JuanR. Scnano, Esq. Respondent's Counsel Griffin, Scnano & Ewing, PA 707 SE 3rd Ave. 61hFloor Fort Lauderdale, FL 3 3316 Ph: 954-462-4002 Email: jsenano(cilgriffmscnano.com scrvicc(Q)griffinserrano.com

CERTIFICATE OJ<" SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing Section 13.217/Rule 26(f) Report was sent the following as follows:
Federal Aviation Administration (byregular mail only
_____ ______, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20, Room E12-320 U.S. Depmimcnt ofTransporiation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE East Building Ground Floor Washington, DC 20590 Facsimile: (202) 366-7536

01/06/2015
_____ _ Dated (by facsimile
____ _
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2009 - 1221 Directorate Identifier: 2008NM097AD

767 -28A0085, R1 --- 6/25/09 767 -28A0085 --- 1/10/08 767 -28A0083, R1 --- 4/26/07 767 -28A0083 --- 5/3/06 767 -28A0083 IN 02 --- 1/31/08

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supp lemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 3, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51289

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMIE BERNARD GRIMSLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-511-ALL

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jamie Bernard Grimsley appeals the 60-month sentence imposed

upon his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to

distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. See 21 U.S.C.

§ 841. He argues that he received two criminal history points

based on the district court’s erroneous finding that he was on

probation for traffic offenses at the time that he committed the

instant offense. He argues that but for those two points, he

would have been eligible for a two-level “safety valve” decrease
No. 05-51289

-2-

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(7), which would have resulted in

a lesser sentence. 

In rejecting Grimsley’s argument, the district court relied

on the state court judgment and probation violator’s warrant for

three separate case numbers, all of which involved Grimsley’s

convictions of violations of various traffic laws. The judgment

set forth one sentence for all three case numbers, multiple fines

that correlated with the respective case numbers, and one

outstanding amount owed on those fines. Although the probation

violator’s warrant bore the number of a case that was not scored

in the criminal history section of the presentence report, the

warrant included a list of the offenses charged in the case that

was scored as well as a notation of the outstanding fine owed on

all three cases. 

The documents relied on by the district court had sufficient

indicia of reliability to support their probable accuracy. See

United States v. Angeles-Mendoza, 407 F.3d 742, 749-50 (5th Cir.

2005). The district court’s finding that the warrant related to

all three cases was plausible in light of the record as a whole. 

Id. at 750. Grimsley has not shown that the district court’s

factual findings and inferences therefrom were clearly erroneous. 

See Angeles-Mendoza, 407 F.3d at 750; United States v. Caldwell,

448 F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 05279

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

05279\05279_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 05279\05279_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05279\05279_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05279\05279_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05279\05279_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05279\05279_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

05279\Certification Statement Plant ID 05279.pdf Plant certification statement

05279\Supplemental Documents\05279_Part A A5-2 Map-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 05279\Supplemental Documents\05279_Part A A5-3 WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 05279\05279_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

05279\05279_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
,‘-., . 
Yhao nr w wiobm l r thr l totato gauoe 

twiag the dtiesr ho or euld rim ne*lro tha amount 

uuw* -* “‘tr 

wlolao of Art. 3883 w the bftlM T h o a te p m 1 0 wlo aa lxpoditurmo 6a J or the h aa 

ecdn&-lntodo haaao,lm8paotlro d rhahorwlo wouat 

wntioaed in the mrtlolo van ounea or l ollootob 'Ihuc
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





The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of BEFUT International Co., Ltd. (the “Company”), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:





(1)           The Company’s Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2011 (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.





Dated:  September 16, 2011





/s/ Hongbo CaoName: Hongbo CaoPresident and Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)





This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (8.74 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery