alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 21-1845

Filed January 25, 2023

MARKUS EARL HARDING,

Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Andrea J. Dryer, 

Judge.

Markus Harding appeals the district court’s denial of his postconvictionrelief application. AFFIRMED.

Scott M. Wadding of Sease & Wadding, Des Moines, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee State.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Blane, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 

(2023).
2

VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.

A jury found Markus Earl Harding guilty of first-degree burglary, domestic 

abuse assault, domestic abuse assault while using or displaying a dangerous 

weapon, false imprisonment, and fourth-degree theft. Harding raised a single 

issue on direct appeal: whether the district court erred in admitting statements of 

an unavailable witness under the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” exception to the 

hearsay rule and the confrontation clause. See State v. Harding, No. 18-1060, 

2020 WL 4497926, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2020). The court of appeals 

affirmed his convictions. Id. at *3.

Harding filed a postconviction-relief action raising several claims. The 

district court held an evidentiary hearing, addressed the claims on the merits, and 

denied them. On appeal, Harding raises entirely new claims. 

First, Harding contends his attorneys on direct appeal and at the 

postconviction hearing were ineffective in “failing to challenge the district court’s 

exclusion of the alleged victim’s prior inconsistent statements.” The State 

responds that Harding failed to preserve error but acknowledges a “narrow 

exception that can allow an appellate court to reach the merits of an unpreserved 

claim on appeal if the existing record is already sufficiently developed to enable 

consideration and resolution.” See Goode v. State, 920 N.W.2d 520, 526–27 (Iowa 

2018). The record is inadequate to address the claim. 

Second, Harding claims his criminal trial attorney was ineffective in failing 

to make an offer of proof and in failing to object to testimony on why domestic 

abuse victims recant their statements. The record is also inadequate to address 

this claim. 
3

We preserve the claims for “possible future litigation.” Brown v. State, 

No. 19-1815, 2021 WL 1661157, at *6 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2021); see also 

Karns v. State, No. 21-0758, 2022 WL 2348144, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. June 29, 

2022). 

AFFIRMED.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1983

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 16, 1996

Referred to the Committee on Resources

AN ACT

To amend the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act to provide for Native Hawaiian organizations, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1983 RFH

1 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIVE AMERICAN

2 GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION

3 ACT.

4 (a) WRITTEN CONSENT REQUIRED IF NATIVE AMER5 ICAN REMAINS ARE EXCAVATED OR REMOVED FOR PUR6 POSES OF STUDY.—Section 3(c) of the Native American

7 Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C.

8 3002(c)) is amended—

9 (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the

10 end of the paragraph;

11 (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and

12 inserting ‘‘; and’’; and

13 (3) by adding at the end the following new

14 paragraph:

15 ‘‘(5) in the case of any intentional excavation or

16 removal of Native American human remains for pur17 poses of study, such remains are excavated or re18 moved after written consent is obtained from—

19 ‘‘(A) lineal descendants, if known or read20 ily ascertainable; or

21 ‘‘(B) each appropriate Indian tribe or Na22 tive Hawaiian organization.’’.

23 (b) REQUIREMENTS FOR INADVERTENT DISCOV24 ERIES.—Section 3(d) of the Native American Graves Pro25 tection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3002(d)) is

26 amended—
3

S 1983 RFH

1 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘with respect

2 to tribal lands, if known or readily ascertainable’’

3 and inserting ‘‘. With respect to tribal lands, such

4 notification shall be provided to each appropriate In5 dian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization,’’; and

6 (2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the

7 following: ‘‘Any person or entity that disposes of or

8 controls any such cultural item shall adhere to the

9 applicable requirements of subsection (c).’’.

Passed the Senate September 13, 1996.

Attest:

Kelly D. Johnston,

Secretary.
-----"Berger, Andy" <aberger@tristategt.org> wrote: ----- 

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: "Berger, Andy" <aberger@tristategt.org> 

Date: 07/09/2010 12:52PM 

cc: "Walz, Barbara" <bwalz@tristategt.org>, "Gilbreath, Christopher S." 

<cgilbreath@tristategt.org>, "Johnson, Chantell" <cjohnson@tristategt.org> 

Subject: Questionnaire Extension Request Letter 

Ms. Alicea-Virella, 

With the attached letter, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. requests a 120-day extension 

to the deadlines for returning EPA’s Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines 

for Craig Generating Station and Escalante Generating Station.

A hard copy of the letter is in the mail to you.

Please contact me if you have questions regarding this request.

Thank you,

Andy Berger

Andy Berger | Environmental Policy Analyst

Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.

Office: 303.254.3171 | Cell: 303.916.1289

 

Privilege and Confidentiality Notice

The electronic message above is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt 

from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended 

recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in 

error, please notify the sender by e-mail or telephone and delete the original message immediately.

 

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C3C0426DO... 8/26/2011
##### 



Exhibit 32.1  Chief Executive Officer Certification (Section 906)
 CERTIFICATION
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; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and result of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Willem M. SmitWillem M. SmitChief Executive OfficerPresident and Director
2004 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-20-2004

USA v. Wiggins

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 03-3527

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Wiggins" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 800.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/800
In The Matter Of: 

SERVED JULY 23, 2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Docket No. F AA-20 12-0020 

·Jn 1 "l 

L~L: 

BRENDAN AIRWAYS, LLC, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2011 EA 170024 

Respondent 

ORDER GRANTING SECOND CONTINUANCE OF 

RULE 16 LITIGATION SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

?L! 

On June 27,2012 an Order Granting Continuance of Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling 

Conference was filed. Among other things, this Order directed the parties to reappear on July 23, 

2012 for the rescheduled Litigation Conference, 

On July 23, 2012, the parties appeared by telephone for a second Rule 16 Litigation 

Scheduling Conference, and discussed their calendar availability, hearing dates, and other 

litigation procedural matters. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.205(a)(1), (6) and (7), Civ. R. 16, 14 

C.F.R. §13.21,7, and 14 C.F.R. §13.220, and afterreviewing all relevant caselaw, regulation, 

statutory authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: .. 

1. The Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference is continued by agreement of the 

parties. 

2. The third Rule 16 Litigation Scheduling Conference is set, by agreement of the 

parties, for Thurs'day, September 27,2012 at lO:OOam Eastern·time. The Office 

of Hearings shall initiate the conference call. 

3. Prior to September 27, 2012, if the parties reach a settlement and wish to move to 

cancel the conference, they must file the necessary settlement withdrawal notice or 

other necessary document(s) with the Office of Hearings. · 

Attachment - Service List 

Page 1 of1 
FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0020 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL and FAX 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Jason Dickstein, Respondent's Counsel 

Washington Aviation Group 

2233 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., #503 

Washington, DC 20007 

TEL: 202 628-6776 

FAX: 202-628-8948 

ONE COPY 

Zachary M. Berman, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Eastern Region . 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3258 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

.. 

1 

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

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Buildirig,_Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0041

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

ERIC D. YEATON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including November 20, 2020, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 14 2020

10/14/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0041
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1924

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel DAMN YANKEE.

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

3 That notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108

4 of title 46, United States Code, and section 27 of the Mer5 chant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as applica6 ble on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary

7 of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation

8 with appropriate endorsements for employment in the

9 coastwise trade for the vessel DAMN YANKEE (vessel

10 number 263611).

Passed the Senate July 29, 1996.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1924

AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to

YANKEE.wise trade endorsement for the vessel DAMNissue a certificate of documentation and coast-
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, G. William Ruhl, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of D&E Communications, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact 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 presentin 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. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, 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) evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’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

 

(c) disclosed in this report any change inthe 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 isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and 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 function): 

 

(a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely 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’sinternal control over financial reporting.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1666 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  2d Session
                                S. 1666

  To authorize the Federal district court for the Central Division of 
              Utah to hold court in Provo and St. George.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 15, 1996

   Mr. Hatch introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the Federal district court for the Central Division of 
              Utah to hold court in Provo and St. George.

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

SECTION 1. HOLDING OF DISTRICT COURT IN PROVO AND ST. GEORGE, UTAH.

    Section 125(2) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``, Provo, and St. George'' after ``Salt Lake City''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION * IN THE 

FOR REINSTATEMENT OF

RICHARD MARK PAVLICK * COURT OF APPEALS

TO THE BAR OF MARYLAND

* OF MARYLAND

 * Misc. Docket AG No. 39

* September Term, 2021

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Verified Petition of Richard Mark Pavlick for

Reinstatement to the Maryland Bar and Bar Counsel’s Consent to Petition for 

Reinstatement, filed in the above-captioned case, it is this 12th day of January, 2022,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the Petition be, and the 

same hereby is, GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED, that Richard Mark Pavlick is reinstated as a member of the Bar of 

Maryland subject to the terms and conditions of the Monitor Agreement; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court shall replace the name Richard Mark 

Pavlick upon the register of attorneys entitled to practice law in this State and certify that 

fact to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund and the Clerks of all judicial tribunals in 

this State.

/s/ Joseph M. Getty

Chief Judge
Exhibit 32.1

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

In
connection with this Annual Report of UnionBanCal Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Masaaki Tanaka, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



Date:
February 28, 2008

| |  | By: |  | /s/MASAAKI TANAKAMasaaki Tanaka Chief Executive
Officer
| |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-15-0252 SAT Date: 2/10/2015 Print Date: 5/8/2015

Related cases : Yes Health related cases: Ecotox related cases:

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1-2 1

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 3 11

Exposure Based Review : Health: Ecotox: N o Routes of exposure : Health: Inhalation Ecotox: N o releases to water Fate: ; Keywords : Keywords: Summary of Assessment :
Fate : Fate Summary: P-15-0252 FATE: Solid S < 0.001 mg/L at 25 °C (E) VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 °C (E) BP > 400 °C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg > mo Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong PBT Potential: P3B1*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is nil all routes ( p che m ). Concern for lung toxicity if inhaled based on for

Ecotox : Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 * daphnid 48-h LC50 * green algal 96-h EC50 * fish

_ chronic value * daphnid

_ chronic value *
algal

_ chronic value *
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for ; SAR chemical class = ; MW solid; S < 0.001 mg/L at 25 C, p H 7 (P); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and nominal concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) Acute Concentration of Concern ( p pb) Chronic *

SARs SAR Class N ew Chemcial Category N one
Ecotox Factors Comments:
SAT Chair:
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39015

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff-Respondent

,

v.

TIMOTHY DALE HILSCHER

,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 461

Filed: May 3, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN U NPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Cassia County. Hon. Michael R. Crabtree , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and suspended unified sentence s of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years , for delivery of a controlled

substance and seven years, with one year determinate

, for possession of a controlled substance

, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Diane M. Walker, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GUTIERREZ, Judge

PER CURIAM

Timothy Dale Hilscher pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substanc e . Idaho Code

§ 37

- 2732(a)(1)(A). Hilscher also entered an Alford 1 plea to p ossession of a controlled

substance, I.C. § 37

- 2732(c)(1) . The district court sentenced Hilscher to concurrent unified

sentences of ten years, with two years determinate for delivery of a controlled substance, and

seve n years with one year determinate , for possession of a controlled substance . The court

1 See North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 (1970).2 suspended the sentences and placed Hilscher on probation. Hilscher appeals

, asserting that the

district court abused its discretion by imposing excessive sentences.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’ s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness o f the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Id aho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the recor d

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Hilscher ’s judgment of conviction and sentence s are affirmed.
p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

166) ll-E-17 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:59 AM Sheet 166 of 276 
P.2 

/ 

W ^ /T / CONVERSATION RECUrvu 

fK * * . ^ 

s~ i. <-• •-• ,a /*>. i >*\\*hr 

L 

•SIYPE/OV 

Ay /o / DV,SIT 

^ Loca^oh/of Visit/Conf«r«nc*: 

• CONFERENCE 

i^->--

NAMi<0/ 

WlWYOl 

TELEPHONE 

Q INCOMING 

( y OUTGOING 

PERSON(S) CONTACTED OR IN CONTACT 

*-YOU 

^£/^*rV S^iv-U^ 

ORGANIZATION (Office, dept.. Bureau, 

etc.) 

TELEPHONE NO: 

(Hi H) Wilis'? 

SUB0ECT 

\A/E-f?g^O ~ f gy t U/qjV, i *•<-T^-W 

ROUTING 

NAME/SYMBOL 

tUv-U •V 

V-' 

7* 

-tpgfg^ -JUr 

^«M 3 r--u 

Vtfc-* /V\ <.K)lg)uy3> 

INT 

SUMMARY 

'',M»- H^ 

3U-tt w l AUvk> cJ . -fv—- l«Jk I\ + U L^* Ov*. 

w u P C4 J^*>4O ^, -fc . > kuJ^ N i*-*/ tLd ~ "t*My ^ U v ^ j-~b 4"°-!. c-W* ^ f 

jwt ~ o i^a yq^vw . H*- '. nl i c<$4 \~\M« *JA \ o er"f * < *>-• V ELg.) j- j m ^L> VA± 

|1U;0K ^ . a-T <• o r T { U( -A- I? ^^gJ l gyy ^ol t g-g>vo| 0 y j CilA (Lfrv^ ,'t~i> ^ 

f{« - (VsTo ^ i j I cJlA -f-ioX -t~L v wirfl - J-VK I'*-*? U ^ "T^ «iU f ^-Mz/hi >oaY 

T" " * U*/> ?*-

q u " wli'^ T TV<^ S 1*1*3- -T"dLay /u-^iT " ~f~JV~P>><g /)WV« ^ V^ g vu' re*n< T 

f ^v^ajl: ^ Vw & f 7T . 

* • 

ZL-,>,-f*,^i Aiark -T-Ldr V/E-CLP v\ o«f Cg*/H 

* } • 

ACTION REQUIRED 

NAME OF PERSOti DOCUMENTING CONV£»SATION 

CM,'" 

SIGNATURE 

ACTION TAKEN ^ ^ l//p/r » A "///S o 31 k^sX c^CT^iXe^ L Wai t Jt-t V^/ ^ «^ i J <JU 

U*-4 *fJl-Hudt TK»- P^-*T^y j\^M^'j___Qjr 

SIGNATUR ATURE t TITLE 

50271-101 USOPO 19*5 -461-2 7'* CONVERSATION RECORD OPTIONAL FOMM 771 (12-76) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE