alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Summary of Annual Base Salaries Approved for Named Executive Officers of WOR



 Exhibit 10.45 
 ANNUAL BASE SALARIES APPROVED FOR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 
 OF

 WORTHINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. 

Effective June 29, 2011, the Compensation and Stock Option Committee of the Board of Directors of Worthington
Industries, Inc. approved the base salaries for the named executive officers identified below, which base salaries became effective June 26, 2011. 
  

					
	 Name and Principal Position
	  	Base Salary	 
	 John P. McConnell
	  			
	 Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	625,000	  
		
	 George P. Stoe
	  			
	 President and Chief Operating Officer
	  	$	600,000	  
		
	 B. Andrew Rose
	  			
	 Vice President – Chief Financial Officer
	  	$	400,000	  
		
	 Mark A. Russell
	  			
	 President – The Worthington Steel Company
	  	$	420,000	  

 Harry A. Goussetis, the other named executive officer of the Registrant for purposes of
this Annual Report on Form 10-K, retired effective July 31, 2011. He received a $53,333 base salary for the months of June and July 2011.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
136015 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan DAVID SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 136015 COA: 272749 WCAC: 04-000162 EXEMPLAR MANUFACT URING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 31, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0519 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 27, 2008

Clerk
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00133-CR

CLIFTON DELMAR JACKSON,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 278th District Court

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 27251

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Clifton Delmar Jackson, attempts to appeal from his conviction entered 

in the 278th District Court in Walker County on April 6, 2016. The trial court’s 

certification of appellant’s right of appeal indicates that appellant waived his right to 

appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). In addition to the trial court’s certification, the following 
Jackson v. State Page 2

exchange between appellant and the trial court at the punishment phase of trial is 

particularly instructive:

THE COURT: By accepting this plea bargain, and the Court is not 

bound by the plea bargain; however, I will advise you 

that the Court is going to honor that recommendation 

and honor your request, if I’m sure that you 

understand that in so doing you give up any right of 

appeal. You give up your right to any further jury 

proceedings and all other constitutional privileges that 

go along with entering an agreement of that fashion. 

Do you understand that?

MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. 

THE COURT: Are you asking me to go along with that 

recommendation?

MR. JACKSON: Yes, I am.

(Emphasis added.)

Based on the foregoing, we hereby dismiss appellant’s appeal. See Chavez v. State, 

183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (en banc) (“A court of appeals, while having 

jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant . . . is permitted to appeal . . . must dismiss 

a prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”); 

Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 621 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (holding that an appellant who 

has executed a waiver of appeal, whether negotiated or non-negotiated, could not appeal 

without the permission of the trial court); see also Perez v. State, 885 S.W.2d 568, 570 (Tex. 

App.—El Paso 1994, no pet.) (“Merely filing a notice of appeal is not sufficient to 
Jackson v. State Page 3

overcome the prior waiver of appeal.” (citing Ex parte Tabor, 565 S.W.2d 945, 946 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1978))).

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed November 16, 2016

Do not publish 

[CRPM]
Order filed November 17, 2016 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00821-CV

____________

LEISURE LIFE SENIOR APARTMENT HOUSING, LTD, Appellant

V.

NORTHEAST BANK, Appellee

On Appeal from the 80th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-11949

O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed October 10, 2016. To date, the filing 

fee of $205.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant is excused by statute or 

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying costs has been filed. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 5. Therefore, the court issues the following order. 

Appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $205.00 to the clerk 

of this court on or before November 30, 2016. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellant 

fails to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal will be 

dismissed.

PER CURIAM
FINAL RULE TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT (TSD): 

Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps and 

Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

July 2009 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Assistant Secretary 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Building Technologies Program 

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards 

Washington, DC 20585 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 101
This Document was prepared for the Department of Energy 

by staff members of 

Navigant Consulting, Inc., and the Lighting Research Center 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 101
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6033

THOMAS ANDREW ESTES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WILLIAM ANDERSON, Superintendent; MIKE EASLEY, Attorney General of North Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-257-2-1-MU) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 4, 2001Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Andrew Estes, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Andrew Estes seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’sorders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Estes v. Anderson , No. CA-00-257-2-1-MU (W.D.N.C. filed Dec. 8, 2000; entered Dec. 11, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 3(c)

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                          AMENDED AND RESTATED BY-LAWS
                        CITATION COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.


         The undersigned Chairman of the Board and Secretary of CITATION
Computer Systems, Inc. (the "CORPORATION") hereby certifies that the following
resolution amending the Amended and Restated By-laws of the Corporation (as
previously adopted on April 24, 1992, and as previously amended in certain
other respects) was duly adopted by its Board of Directors at a regular meeting
held on June 22, 1998:

         BE IT RESOLVED that Section 2 of Article III of the By-laws of the
Corporation is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:

                  Section 2. Annual Meeting. An annual meeting of the
         shareholders shall be held on such day in the months of July through
         December each year, and at such times of day, as shall be determined
         by the Board of Directors, at which time the shareholders shall elect
         directors to succeed those whose terms expire and transact such other
         business as may properly come before the meeting.

         The undersigned hereby further certifies that the following amendment
has not been changed or revoked and is in full force and effect as of the date
hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Certificate was executed as of the 15th day
of July, 1998.


                                       CITATION COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.


                                       By /s/ Robert Copper
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         J. Robert Copper, Chairman of the
                                         Board


                                       By /s/ Richard D. Neece
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Richard D. Neece, Secretary
•
 

RCRA REVISION CHECKUST56
 

Identification and Usting of Hazardous Waste; Removal of
 

Iron Dextran from the Ust of Hazardous Wastes
 

53 FR 43878-43881
 

October 31, 1988
 

(Non-HSWA Cluster V)
 

STATE ANALOG IS:
 

FEDERAL ANALOGOUS MORE BROADFEDERAL RCRA STATE EQUIV- STRIN- ER IN 

REQUIREMENT CITATION CITATION ALENT GENT SCOPE 

PART 261 -IDENTIFICATION AND USTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE - WAC 173-303
 

SUBPART D - USTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
 

DISCARDED COMMERCIAL CHEMICAL PRODUCTS, OFF-SPECIFICATION SPECIES, CONTAINER RESIDUES, 

AND SPIU RESIDUES THEREOF 

t	 remove listing 261.33(f) 9903 X 

The following waste has been removed from the 261.33(f) list: 

·U139...9004-66-4...Iron dextran" •	 APPENDIX VIII TO PART 261 

HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS 

t remove listing Appendix VIII 9905 X 

. The following waste has been removed from Appendix VIII: 

"Iron dextran...Same...9004-66-4" 

•	 October 31, 1988 - Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains  summary  information  extracted  from the Consolidated
Balance  Sheet as of  September  28,  1997 and the  Consolidated  Statement  of
Operations for the fiscal year ended  September 28, 1997 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
 </LEGEND>
<CIK>                                         890096
<NAME>                                        Uniroyal Technology Corporation 
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-28-1997
<CASH>                                             244
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,041
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (257)
<INVENTORY>                                     34,528
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,692
<PP&E>                                          97,463
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (29,149)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 181,491
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,334
<BONDS>                                         88,370
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           138
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,894
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   181,491
<SALES>                                        208,524
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               208,524
<CGS>                                          161,122
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  197,930
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,808
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,384
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,210
<INCOME-TAX>                                       831
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                379
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       379
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1997 AND DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          64,324
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  120,347
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               184,671
<PP&E>                                      12,644,769
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,490,936
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,338,504
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,062
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,279,442
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,338,504
<SALES>                                        404,620
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               405,243
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               249,245
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            155,998
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   155,998
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    28.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    28.28
        

</TABLE>
MEMO ROUTING SLIP 

I 10 0 

2 

ALc.arr l-JAL'-

OGA 

3 

4 

ITIALS CIRCULATE 

COORDINATION 

FILE 

INFORMATION 

NECESSARY 

ACllON 

NOTE ANO RETURN 

SEE ME 

SIGNATURE 

DD FORM 9 5 Replaces DA AGO Form 895, l Apr 48, and A.FRQ I FEB 50 Form 12, 10 Nov 47, which ma:v be used.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

June 22, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00357

- CR & 04

- 18

- 00358

- CR

Carlos Javier CHAVEZ, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 6, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 551667 , 55169 Honorable Wayne A. Christian, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

In the interest of the efficient administration of the court ’ s docket, we order Appeal Nos. 04

- 18

- 00357

- CR and 04

- 18

- 00358 consolidated. The parties must file motions, briefs, and other pleadings as if the appeals were one but put both appeal numbers in the style of the case. However, a record must be filed in each appeal, the record in each case will remain separate and, if supplementatio n of the record becomes necessary, the supplemental material must be filed in the appeal to which it applies. The cases must be argued together in one brief, as in a single appeal, and if oral argument is requested and granted, the entire case must be arg ued as a single appeal, with the total time limit for each party equal to the ordinary time limit for a party in a single appeal. The court will dispose of both appeals in the same judgment, opinion, and mandate.

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on all counsel, the district clerk, and the court reporters.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF , I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 22nd day of June, 2018

.___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 96-4154WM

_____________ Vincent Canalli Lee, * * Appellant, *

* v. * * Richard Stinson, Employee of the U.S. * Real Property Disposal; George * Appeal from the United States Prochaska, Employee of the U.S. Real * District Court for the Western Property Disposal; Mark Duffy, * District of Missouri. Employee of the U.S. Real Property * Disposal; Blaine Hastings, Employee of * [UNPUBLISHED] the U.S. Real Property Disposal; Glen * W. Overton, Employee of the U.S. Real * Property Disposal, * * Appellees. *

_____________ Submitted: November 5, 1997

Filed: November 26, 1997

_____________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Vince nt Canalli Lee sued Richard Stinson and other officials of the General Servic es Administration (GSA) after Lee's unsuccessful effort to purchase the former federal building in Kansas City, Missouri. The district court granted summary-2-

judgmen t in favor of the public officials. After careful review of the record and th e parties' briefs, we conclude that an extensive discussion is not warranted, and we also d e cline to consider the arguments Lee raises for the first time on appeal. We believe the district court's decision is correct, and we affirm substantially for the reasons given by the district court. See8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2088 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to improve the process by which 

a member of the Armed Forces may be referred for a mental health 

evaluation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 16, 2021 

Mr. KELLY (for himself, Mr. CRAMER, and Mr. DURBIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to improve the 

process by which a member of the Armed Forces may 

be referred for a mental health evaluation. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Brandon Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. MANDATORY REFERRAL OF MEMBERS OF THE 

6 ARMED FORCES FOR MENTAL HEALTH EVAL7 UATION. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1090a of title 10, United 

9 States Code, is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2088 IS

1 (1) by redesignating subsection (e) as sub2 section (f); and 

3 (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the fol4 lowing new subsection: 

5 ‘‘(e) PROCESS APPLICABLE TO MEMBER DISCLO6 SURE.—The regulations required by subsection (a) shall— 

7 ‘‘(1) establish a phrase that enables a member 

8 of the armed forces to trigger a referral of the mem9 ber by a commanding officer or supervisor for a 

10 mental health evaluation; 

11 ‘‘(2) require a commanding officer or supervisor 

12 to make such referral as soon as practicable fol13 lowing disclosure by the member to the commanding 

14 officer or supervisor of the phrase established under 

15 paragraph (1); and 

16 ‘‘(3) ensure that the process under this sub17 section protects the confidentiality of the member in 

18 a manner similar to the confidentiality provided for 

19 members making restricted reports under section 

20 1565b(b) of this title.’’. 

21 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subsection (a) of 

22 such section is amended, in the second sentence, by strik23 ing ‘‘subsections (b), (c), and (d)’’ and inserting ‘‘this sec24 tion’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
- REF ID·A40378 . • 

-- --

~~#..:/~ ~ ~dn- - -

-

-

-- -

-- -

- -

-----·--....-- ------------------

- - - --~~-- --~-----·--___.------------~-~ 

---,--------~-

--

---.-- --1---~..---~-----....,-..--~----"'---------- -- ~-

----------~--------- -- -

---------~---~-------- -- -

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

--------~----~-------- - -

-~--1-- @'pp roved for Release by NSA on 09-26-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
rr 

I 

' I 

I \ 

i 

t 

l 

I 

,I 

'I 

~ 

' '' 

I . 0 REF ID:A4~4B9<(j 

Ill' dear Colonel labJana 

Your letta 'of ~ 1& to !he ~ta.at Cene.ra1 of 

the A.rma'1 ~ the A~ w. & ~ •. maohlne ol:pb.e~ .. ha8 bean 

referred to thi• seotlon ~r aotlon. . -

I 

.. - r1n1 ·IOU~ ask mr •. fl'~iman to etate 1n 4etai1 

what he means.- bl Illa le,ta to you o~ Ir.me 12, 1a rete~ It 

to the satev .o~ the 'A .. ~~ & ,. alpb.ai'-.f»7 uaa n.ow usecl"• . '. ~ 

A ooPi ot ~ 1-ettu la bemg sent to mr. rriedllm 

w$tb the enel~aed letter of t:ransm!ssicm. 

Ye17 tnl.7 7oa.Jifl• 

1 encl.• 

' ' 

( 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 11-19-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

' ' 

'.. 

,• . 
r 

4131-626 

.u. 1. a. 

0 REF ID:A4148900 

Mr. '.7. P'. Frlec7.man, 

22& '1'h1ri street, 

Qeneva, .Illinois. 

BOY 

MID 

l arr, enolosins he:rowlth ~i. oow of a letter I have 

written to Colonel Yabyan. 

In wrl Ung about this matter, Colonel Fabpn has 

always oonftlsad tl:le Issue of the A. T. & T. oiphor by insisting on dlsouasing 1 ta '9U.lnaftl.bil1 ty when ~od in sor.ie 

nnnner different from that actually used by the A· T. & T. 

Oompany. 

It is for this reason that I am asking .Colonel 

Jfa.byan to have J'O'll state in de tall Jua t What J'OU mean in 

7our letter to him of Jun11 12 bJ "aa now used"• Until 1 

{a"9t 1our roply through him, I oannot be sure that ha haa 

given JOU the oo:rrsat a7stem. 

__,.,,, 

Of' oouraa we recognise lts wealmeas, but, frankly, 

we have not been able to clealphar a ••sage p:roperq eno1-

phe1'8d; nor tor that matter haa Oo~onel ra.b,-an. 

1 en.o. 

mew 

A oop~ of this letter la baln.g sent to Colonel 

Va'r1f tl'Uly )'OUJ"B, 

He O. Yardle7 

J&a3or, u. Se.le 

.y 
I 

d REF ID:A41489,Q~ 

v OFF?cr 

)~ i:HtEF OfSTArtP. 

-:\>· llOI 

KID 

Ei°'' , .. ,...,. Di.•m!iaD 

tt 4 ;;';~ ;;_, ~ . 

/ 

41.S~BJ 

m. t ••• ,: . -

ca 

·~ Jr 

WAR OE.18ARlMENT 

11r. w ••• ~L. · aaa "''ra sweet, . Gene~• J11~nole11 

·lltv 4eat Fr1o4lt!atU, 

· 1 am en.olostns b.eJrt>wlth a cow of a letta I have 

•1 tten to coJ.cmai fabJ&n•-

Jtl m Ung obO'D.• tbl• matte•• COloael lab~ hat 

al~iJ 4C)d\tied '1>.9 ta~ut Of tbG A •. Q11 & fl!t fl~ bJ tn• 

·ettsHttS • 4laoueaJ.ns 1 te Wlnel'Obtll tJ' •• 1'804 ln eome 

· ~r 4tft•tent ·ll'O• that actunllJ' used bN the A•· ir .. & ~. 

COl\Pl»li • .. , . ·. l~ t• toii tbla ·'l'Uaan ea' I am asldns Colonel , -li'nbJ'Gn '° ba.VO JOU. e~te JJI 4$tal1 "'8t *8t )01I 1111811 in. 

rou 1.dtter to b1m of .11me· 12 bl •ae 1l0\'f uedn• OJltSl l 

aet rov replf tllrO'ldl Mm. l om.mot be nre that hit bae · 

gSTen rma the .oo$ot 9VfatGm. - ' 

/' ' \, ......... 

.,. 

Of q,OUBe wa nooplse Sta wealmels• 'b'llt, tn.nk17• 

\Ye haW 1'01 been abl•· to deo1phe• a UB81888 P"'81'1J eao1-

pbe1$d; liOJ' tor tbat matter haai Ool.onel rab»'•· .--..... 

A CopJ Of '1lle !Gtbr Ua being stat to Coloael 

I 

.,, . , 

~AILED, IA. I. 8., G. s. ~ ll 19'19 

tt •. ·o. Tar4101 

111aJor, U•i•A•