alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> 

                              EXHIBIT 11
             STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


<CAPTION>

                       For the Three Months Ended September 30,
                             1996                  1995
                     ---------------------  ---------------------
                                   Fully                  Fully
                       Primary    Diluted     Primary    Diluted
                     ---------- ----------  ---------- ----------
<S>                   <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Weighted Average 
  Shares Outstanding:

 Common Stock        12,195,891 12,195,891  12,195,891 12,195,891
 Shares Available 
  Under Options         254,947    374,247     161,763    161,763
                     ---------- ----------  ---------- ----------
Weighted Average 
 Common and Common 
 Equivalent Shares 
 Outstanding         12,450,838 12,570,138  12,357,654 12,357,654
                     ========== ==========  ========== ==========


Net Income           $   40,745 $   40,745  $   77,880 $   77,880
                     ========== ==========  ========== ==========
 

Earnings per Share   $     0.00 $     0.00  $     0.01 $     0.01
                     ========== ==========  ========== ==========
 


</TABLE>
REF ID:A64594 

_,,=;;, e.1ES?o 

..,.. ~ •• I 

~T ~ ' 

Colonel Barton s. Pullln8, USAF 

BU:lID' l.Q:adan 

lJoar Bart. s 

g6 October l9!S4 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

l ho.ve done Vhat you ·~•ted in ~ .letter ot 

6 October 1954 (Serial 0094o}, in ro thol \ I -.tter, 

and enc~ tor vour into,t1on a copy ot a lAtte:r which 

I aa Hlll1U& toj _ via Colonel I J m.o here. 

1 ..-rtt v;t,th ;you that wbe.t w do in tltia conneat1ou 

1• to balance qul:tiw.ting Wilk• 1tpin#t the inconv•niencB 

aJ:id. fi'Ol$1bl$ i:rri i;.&tion Qt' QUr OCltQ t'r1end.• • lo I :U° fQU 

&X"* con.ulted.,.d.Qn1t Wliaite.t& tony that you 1mov tba.t 

llO tar u :RSA f'olQ al'e' eou~erned,, ve by no llef:Ul8 WJ:lt ≪Y-

'bod,y at 0CHQ t.o teel that we 1Mllt tWm urgent}¥ to q:rea 

'io the propol$.l. l really •&n vbat I ~ 1n the penultimt& 

PL~ of 'lfl¥ letter to Joah. 

~l$ 

Cy ltr. tol 

dtd. 26 OctO~bi,.,,....,,.r-119..__54 ..... ----

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

WILLlAM r. 11\.Iil'MAM 

lptcial .Ulietant 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 07-16-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

-

..
# CE2004084EN.01075701.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/757 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/757

---

(2004/C 84 E/0852)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0068/04

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject:   International Convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and their families

Subject:

To date, not a single one of the 15 current Member States nor any of the ten future Member States of the European Union has signed the International Convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and their families, which was adopted at the 45th session of the UN General Assembly on 18 December 1990 and entered into force on 1 July 2003.

What is the Commission position on the Convention referred to above?

| 1. | To what extent is the Convention in line with the policy pursued by the EU and the policy objectives established? |
| --- | --- |

1.

To what extent is the Convention in line with the policy pursued by the EU and the policy objectives established?

| 2. | On what issues is the Convention not in line with the policy pursued by the EU and the policy objectives established? |
| --- | --- |

2.

On what issues is the Convention not in line with the policy pursued by the EU and the policy objectives established?

| 3. | From the European point of view, are there any serious objections to the signing of the Convention by a Member State of the Union? |
| --- | --- |

3.

From the European point of view, are there any serious objections to the signing of the Convention by a Member State of the Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

(5 March 2004)

The Member States are [probably] better placed than the Commission to explain their reasons for not ratifying the United Nations International Convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and members of their families.

Nevertheless, one of the main obstacles to ratification seems to be that the Convention recognises rights in respect of all migrant workers regardless of whether they are in the host country legally or illegally.

Furthermore, it seems that many of the rights listed in the Convention are also guaranteed at EU level for citizens and third-country nationals alike in other instruments (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, European Convention on Human Rights). However, the wide range of provisions guaranteeing the same rights leads to varying interpretations which could prove damaging to legal certainty for individuals.

Because of the complexity of the provisions of this Convention, the Commission intends to launch a study on the points in common with — and those on which it differs from — common immigration policy as it has developed at EU level since the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam.

---
., • 

Present: 

.· 

Colonel Kullbeck 

Colonel Ro-.:lett. 

Lt. Col. Clerk 

Lt. Col:. Frier 

Major Jones 

Lt. Sulliw.n 

illr. Sterlin 

REF ID:A66750 

CIV!LIAN U.PLODr~.~T BOA.RD 

~inutcs of MFetini Hrld 

22 April 1946, Roow 117 

Hee C.:qua rters 

l ~ qT.ATE; •. tN'IS OF ftVAILABILITY 

..... 

• 

The cases of Mr. Frl!lnklin Porter enc :;r. Lloyd Feust, wlio hr.vc been 

reque~1ed ry Netj~nel HouPinP. Authority end OversPes Drench, Office Secretary or ~er, rrEpectively, "''rf' considered. In th"t both intlivicuels ere 

bf':ing offered posj l.:!om= 01. h:l?hrr f'P.lery and rre rl"in('ntly quslif.:led for 

the positions, a.nd in view of the preeeont circrnr.ste:.nc~e surrounding the 

jobF in which t~('Y sre no• inc~mbent, it l'i8S the opinion of the Boarc tnet 

no obj ... ction y;oulci l:e interposed to tht=>ir releafe by tl-is Aec-nc;r. 

2. CHALLF.NG~D POSI'l'IO~: ALLOC~.'IIONS 

The ellocetfo. of lransportstion A~ent for Arrry Security Agency r.tis 

djscussed. The sllocetion of CAF-7 bad been challtnged es being too low0 

Lt. Col. Frier stated, howevFr, thPt it ~~s no lon~~r an immediate ~roblem 

as Lt. UcCulloug~ hos ~lectec to remain jn the Arr.y for another :year. The 

case WAS th~·efore tebled. · 

The pof':itfon of ~e:JretFriat undE>r Deputy Cli:lef of Steff with e challAnged 

"alloca'tion of CAF··? ?iBf' introduced. It 1\'at> etated that thE' ~ob deFcrj ption is 

presently bPing re-written And in vjew or this fr.ct the case WBS also tabled pertdin~ l"eceipt and review of the new job description .. 

3. ffi.QJdQ!1:9NAL ACTION 

68 requests for pro~otion ~ere reviewed by the Beare. 13 of these wer• 

considered of such werit, bott froc the duties end responsibilitie~ of the 

positjo:n and the incumbent of the position, that promotjonsl act:fon be taken 

11·itbout an immeeiate ce:::k aucHt. The rer.lfljning reQuests fire to be reviewed 

by Divisjon Chiefs T.ith the operetin~ officiels concerned Pnd to he preEented 

et the next meet]~ of the P.oerd. It ...as euggested that in the future an 

agenda b~ subttitted to Board members witl. a list or names of promotional action 

to be consicered as well as a notificmtjon to persons -most concerned Yi th 

challenged allocations th~t ere to be reviewed. 

f(/4 /)+. -- ~ J., "hv' -t~~ .... ·: ~. ~~. ~ ··1-'"-~-._..,. 

Cheir~an, Civilian breplornent 

Board 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 04-18-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
Exhibit 10.3 - Amended Trust Agreement.





Exhibit 10.3



TRUST AGREEMENT

 

BETWEEN:

MULTI METAL MINING CORP. (Trustee)

AND:

EARTH DRAGON RESOURCES INC. (Earth Dragon)

IT IS AGREED THAT:

This Trust Agreement is made this 17th day of October 2008.

MULTI METAL MINING CORP. currently owns holds right to remove all minerals from the property described as the Mountain Queen Lode Mining Claim, located in Clark County Nevada, registered in the Certificate of Location Book & Instrument #20071130-0003367 in Map Book and instrument # 2007113000-00033366.


	Lode Mining Claim Name  	Claim Number  	Expiry Date  
	  
	Mountain Queen  	NMC#980946  	September 1, 2009  
	(the Claim)  	  	  




The Trustee, for a payment of US$6,500 previously paid to Larry Sostad hereby does declare and hold upon trust the aforementioned Claim on behalf of Earth Dragon from this day forward.

The Trustee agrees that it will not transfer its interest to anyone other than Earth Dragon; will only transfer title to the claim to Earth Dragon; will not demand payment for the claim when it transfers the same to Earth Dragon; acknowledges that it does not have the right to sell or transfer the interest in and to the claim to anyone but Earth Dragon; does not have the right to profit from the transfer of the claim if mineralized material is found on the claim; and, must transfer title to the claim to Earth Dragon without payment of any kind, upon demand of Earth Dragon, whether mineralized material is found on the claim or not.

Earth Dragon shall have the responsibility to keep the Claim in good standing in terms of filing and work and all other requirements.

 

 

 

 






The laws of the state of Nevada will govern the terms of this Trust Agreement and the parties consent to jurisdiction and venue of any action arising out of the terms of this Amended Trust Agreement by in the state or federal courts of Clark County, Nevada.

DATED at Las Vegas, Nevada.

Acknowledged and agreed to this

17th day of October 2008.



EARTH DRAGON RESOURCE INC.



YUAN KUN DENG

Per: Authorized Signatory (ies)



MULTI METAL MINING CORP.



LARRY SOSTAD

LARRY SOSTAD
roP MSR!i'i' = tJ. S. EfilS eNLY 

SUBJECT NUMBER 

Mf !11: r±vE' 

F""' f\J AL 

USCIB: 13.5/65 

Subject: 

Item 6 of the Agenda for the Fourteenth Meeting of 

USCIBEC, held on 2f) April 1954. 

Violation of USCIB Policy Re Classification of 

Subject Matter Related to C()IINT (USCIB 13.5/54). 

'lliE CHAIRMAN stated that he felt the report contained in USCIB 

13.5/54 dated 20 April 1954 spoke for itself and further exploration 

was unnecessary. 

CAPTAIN McCORMICK said that he had recently been on Capitol Hill 

reviewing certain material and had been assured that·ma.tter which is 

known to be classified is handled accordingly. He concluded by asking 

if a solution might not be in advising the Congressional Cormnittees or 

desired handling. 

THE CHAIRMAN· replied that he felt it could be done on .a cooperative basis. However, he. continued, the provisions of Public Law 513 

carefully state "Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, 

upon lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted 

committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United 

States of America, or Joint Committee thereor.n 

With regard to the Pearl Harbor investigation, CAPTAIN AGNE1'1 

stated that the Military Departments could, within the militar,r. including those on the retired list, circulate a ban against such public 

utterances. 

THE CHAIRMAN expressed his opinion that steps should have been 

taken at the time of the investigation to ensure that such information 

was kept secret. He then asked if there was anything that could be 

done in the way or a declaration of a policy that could be implemented? 

The members discussed possible administrative steps that could be 

taken to enforce advanced review of public statements and publications 

by individuals who are under the control of USCIB member departments 

.and agencies. The consensus was that present directives and reguls.-

tions on this subject should be reviewed for possible revision. The 

discussion concluded with acceptance of the Chairman's report (USCIB 

13.5/54) and a suggestion that the Security Committee study ways and 

means of alerting key congressional individuals when sensitive 

info:nnation is involved. 

USCIB: 13.5/65 - 12 -

TO>." SECRB'l' 

• Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 04-08-2014 pursuant to E. 0. 1352B 
• 

'POP SEiSRl!i'i' = l::J. 5. EYES ONLY 

USCIB: 13.5/65 

• 

CAPTAIN AGNEW then pointed out a minor inaccuracy. The NSA portion 

of the report ref erring to wartime US-UK COMINT collaboration citing the 

US grant of a 11Purple Machine~' should apply, he said, only to prewar. 

'lliE CHAIBMAN 1 s suggestion that the word "wartime" be deleted was 

accepted. 

DECISION: (29 April 1954) USCIBEC agreed: 

(1) To accept the report and recommendations contained in USCIB 

13.5/54 dated 20 April 1954. 

(2) To request the Security Committee to recommend a method of 

alerting key congressional individuals when classified COMINT is involved. 

USCIB: 13.5/65 - 13 -

To-P SBOltEf'
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O
. 09

- 20

- 00050

- CV

__________________ CARMEN DEL AGUILA , Appellant
V.
MARK J. FIELDS REVOCABLE TRUST , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 258 th District Court San Jacinto County, Texas Trial Cause No. CV15,430

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Carmen Del Aguila appealed from a judgment signed on November 13, 2019. On June 29, 2020, we notified the parties that the clerk’s record had not been filed due to appe llant’s failure to pay , or to arrange to pay, the District Clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record. The notice also warned appellant that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless she established that she paid the fee or
needed addi tional time to do so. Appellant did not respond to this Court’s notice.2 Appellant did not file an affidavit of indigence on appeal and has not shown that she is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. There being no satisfa ctory explanation for the failure to file the clerk’s record, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b); Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 24, 2020 Opinion Delivered August 31, 2020 Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 39 (Friday, February 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 10727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04130]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

[Docket No. 50-391-OL; ASLBP No. 15-938-01-0L-BD01]


Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

    Pursuant to delegation by the Commission, see 37 FR 28,710 (Dec. 
29, 1972), and the Commission's regulations, see e.g., 10 CFR 2.104, 
2.105, 2.300, 2.309, 2.313, 2.318, 2.321, notice is hereby given that 
an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) is being established to 
preside over the following proceeding:

Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2)

    This proceeding concerns motions, dated February 5, 2015 and filed 
February 6, 2015, by Southern Alliance for Clean Energy to (1) reopen 
the record; and (2) admit a new contention in the captioned matter 
regarding the updated application by Tennessee Valley Authority for a 
facility operating license for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, to be 
located in Rhea County, Tennessee.
    The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges:

Paul S. Ryerson, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

Dr. Gary S. Arnold, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

Dr. Richard E. Wardwell, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed 
in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule. See 10 CFR. 2.302.

Rockville, Maryland.

    Dated: February 23, 2015.
E. Roy Hawkens,
Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. 2015-04130 Filed 2-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
#### In the Matter of Grand and Mercer Street Corporation et al., Respondents, v Stephanie Eisenberg et al., Appellants.

[773 NYS2d 347]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), entered January 29, 2003, which, upon confirming an *117arbitration award in a dispute between shareholders of a small housing cooperative, inter alia, voided the parties’ shareholders agreement, fashioned new mechanisms of corporate governance and directed respondents to pay petitioners’ attorneys’ fees, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the award of attorneys’ fees, and otherwise affirmed, with one bill of costs to petitioners payable by respondents-appellants. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered December 2, 2002, which granted petitioners’ application to confirm the arbitration award and denied respondents’ cross motion to vacate the award, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The arbitrators did not exceed their authority by voiding a shareholders agreement that authorized them to decide any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to it, and then, in effect, writing a new shareholders agreement for the parties *(see Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats],*61 NY2d 299, 307-308 [1984]; *Integrated Sales v Maxell Corp.,*94 AD2d 221, 225 [1983]). Such remedy rationally addresses the deadlocks caused by an agreement that required shareholder unanimity with respect to all matters of management, impeding even normal operations, and none of the award’s provisions violates a strong public policy *(see Silverman,*61 NY2d at 308). Moreover, respondents, who participated in what was an extensive arbitration proceeding, and who themselves affirmatively sought to arbitrate the effect of the agreement on the corporation’s governance, will not be heard to argue that the arbitrators were without authority to grant any relief that rationally determined that issue, including rescission of the shareholders agreement *(see id.*at 309, citing, inter alia, *Rochester City School Dist. v Rochester Teachers Assn.,*41 NY2d 578, 583 [1977]; *see also Matter of Shannon [Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.],*236 AD2d 231 [1997]). The award of attorneys’ fees should be vacated given an arbitration clause that does not expressly provide therefor. We have considered and rejected respondents’ other arguments. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan and Lerner, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Novadigm, Inc. (the
"Company") for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Albion J.
Fitzgerald, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



By: /s/ Albion J. Fitzgerald
   -------------------------
Name: Albion J. Fitzgerald
Chief Executive Officer
June 30, 2003



     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Novadigm, Inc. and will be retained by Novadigm, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

     This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 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
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)
 
 (i)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the
periods indicated.
 Date: February 10, 2011
    
    /s/ DANA M. KELLEYDana M. KelleyVice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer
. _,..,...-- REF ID:A68329 

S£0lJHITY INF~ 'lllAT .ON 

=s~• ~?! m BIAJt ~ Wtt#llft 

a..,usa 

EO 3.3(h)(2) 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

st.'mCTt ~ta ~ VON ~ CJ.Uaft.91 Do0!i•11tk oodabS"f "'4•'la .r~oldKC•-1~ 

J.. Iba ............... s .., 19SI ,.. .. n.po"' \.;$CD °'*"1S.rlat.r ~ ~ !k"lOII ..... 'S c..l"t.t.e Oil .. An,co ... 41 ...... 

oa2J •tll ••-.oru.. ••~weot u~ ( • a. 11 • ._ *· c. e. c.-,. -. -. ..... ot u. lft1IP -.~ -. ~s..i or • ....... •• -~ tor \M i.tt .. w ¥Pt ot 

4"1IFF•\tf ...wt be Of --1 ~ 

2,. !2)a Ul ••••n9"wo a\6.W th&\ 1n ~-1.r o;dn1• a_.. lirilt 

to; a. ... u ~ -~ .s MllttM..,... • d1n1DP1.a.t ~ u.. _.. wotd tw *- aw OiJntilS!d"' ~ .. .t ~ ol ottttwt __... u .... tn ftftNo ~ d•t7Pff .. ..u ftWI.\.. ta ••• Ul ~ ~ 

--~ tor tll• COPllWf _. jlftd:•u, _ "6 io. --.i Uiat • tl11' a._ .t 

J*ip]..9 • m'ald ....._.. ~,.,,_ for V. M\holl• _. etd •lU. ao 

~ n:q.u. ~-ff'J/I .... ,......" .......... 

~ 

.). 1• ._. f.t'\ "7 ._ tj ,.._.••tatift!I VA\. .._ ~ of a 

~ 

.. watd .wt .-al\ 1a v. .......... t• .. ~ -

Laport .... dlWft•ttict 

iA Yi..- of 

.,. 

.. 

.. 

tao\ 

.,,. 

th&"\ 

~. 

aW:tlU 

--

or 911Wcte•~i. 

.. ~-

~ 

........ bi.&"1' u.LW. ~ llhl• .. -~ .... ,. ... Ja. I\ - tel\ 1rr Mu. mW V.\ b ~ .r Snd.olilt.fA1.1.GB 

1l9lllal beo~ .U .t.pl• .S mftc ~ llftll ta. pllOJt'ttt ti'WStd•, Slt 

-.i it •-14 e. •1 ,.,...., to ..- _, ..u. ot tbe fflt\c\ • ••• 

ot u. oomn _, pt«t•' to ~ ....... ~ '4.lll. ~· a ...._ Jdqqa, .. 1n ~ 1\. weld be ••• .., • .,.,, '° tli'ftl.ae w ~-- JW•t• 

.......... ot:tlT --,. ..... ad #Nl.•ti• Of .. OOJUJ'f ':=:-' .. hiP11' ~ .......... ~· ... 1a .. 4-t' ot ~ ... ~ .. s. 1\ ..... t.\\ -. ..... ~ ~ • "4t --,. ....,,. 

~-- ... nald ., .. Os ... Sfj," M •"D•&'n& - 1'M'd - .... of iU &Gt~ :;tr ..,,... .. --~J ~~ ii ._. t«l.' \be..\ .. oOlle 

... 1\..U nnd -..ot .. ~ - 1.S ...... """ t.t' .. - pNdQOt.. 

-6. ti i. ~ IW'••lltd tMt- .- uam ~-......, "° ~ pea.u.. tbat ~\a _. ..._ for ~ aitthad• -' O..,"<JUNr 

.. pWC!utt. tbaQ1d bo ~-

.~-

, ' \; 

- ' 

TOP SECRET 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 06-16-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a- -- ----