alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 50 (Monday, March 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 13639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05944]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[NRC-2015-0007]


Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and 
Combined Licenses Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Considerations and Containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards 
Information and Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive 
Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information; Corrections

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: License amendment request; opportunity to comment, request a 
hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order, correction.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is correcting a 
notice that was published in the Federal Register on February 3, 2015, 
that contained an amendment request for Perry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1. 
This action is being taken to correct the date of the NRC's Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) accession number for the 
amendment request from FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eva A. Brown, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2315; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c085b6a1ee82b2afb7ae80aeb2a3eea7afb6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c88dbea9e68abaa7bfa688a6baabe6afa7be">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of February 3, 2015 
(80 FR 5816), FR Doc. 2015-01917, on page 5819, in the middle of the 
second column, under ``FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Docket 
No. 50-440, Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Lake County, Perry 
Ohio,'' after ``Date of amendment request,'' the date ``September 12, 
2014'' is corrected to read ``October 8, 2014.''

    Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of March, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Eva A. Brown,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing III-2 and Planning and Analysis 
Branch, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2015-05944 Filed 3-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
RECONSIDERATION DOCKET

91-1259.

#### Forbes v. Midwest Air Charter, Inc.

Cuyahoga App. No. 56815. Reported at 86 Ohio St.3d 83, 711 N.E.2d 997. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Moyer, C.J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
# EXHIBIT 32.4

# 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 the Quarterly Report of Iomega Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 28, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Barry Zwarenstein, Chief Financial 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:

(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 results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Barry Zwarenstein
Barry Zwarenstein
Chief Financial Officer
November 12, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Iomega Corporation and will be retained by
Iomega Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 14162]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06169]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-85,665]


Mondi Bags USA, LLC, New Philadelphia Plant, Including Workers 
Whose Wages Are Reported Under Graphic Packaging Industrial, New 
Philadelphia, Ohio; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
on December 11, 2014, applicable to workers of Mondi Bags USA, LLC, New 
Philadelphia Plant, New Philadelphia, Ohio. The Notice of Determination 
was published in the Federal Register on December 30, 2014 (79 FR 
78495).
    At the request of a State Workforce Official, the Department 
reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The 
workers' firm is engaged in the production of multiwall bags.
    The investigation confirmed that the worker group includes workers 
whose wages are reported under Graphic Packaging Industrial. Based on 
these findings, the Department is amending this certification to 
include those workers.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-85,665 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Mondi Bags USA, LLC, New Philadelphia Plant, 
including workers whose wages are reported under Graphic Packaging 
Industrial, New Philadelphia, Ohio, who became totally or partially 
separated from employment on or after November 13, 2013 through 
December 11, 2016, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance 
under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, 
and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment 
assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.


    Signed in Washington, DC, this 24th day of February, 2015.
Michael W. Jaffe,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2015-06169 Filed 3-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
. -~,. 

""" 
l.litl;'I~: A59341 

.U-- ,, . 

-. -·. ~-· ' U~l:. . ~~· ----
,. 

I· 

11 

.I 

~t.1~:11n1:tJ ,.l~"I , I • 

Ii!· 

I. I ~ I 

_... ........ -.._. D ;' isl: ai.-u ---
-- ' 

DIY. 11...... , Room 

Addraaonflr 

-r•e C-mlaelonor or Patenta. 

WUlllqton, D. C ," 

and not all)' olBclal ~ - .... 

.say REF ID ~6'flri:&S , 

,. ' alEPARTMENT OF COMMERC~ UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE • 

WASHINGTON 3Wl8 7 e 193 7 

Pleaae find belom a communication from the EXAMINEB In 

8 

Paper No. 

All ftllllmonlc:itlons n!S[ll!Cllni: this 

appllcallon Bh1>uhl 111n. lhe ...,.,., number, dalt. 1>r Rh11K and n111110 or lhL :1pplleao\ 

charge of this apglication. Q . ~ 

... 11- ~Comm1uloncro/Patcn1a, Applicant: 0hilliam r. Fr1eclman 

et el 

Robel-\ v, Laughlin a:. 

Cbarlea A. Rowe, 

o/o Cb1et ot the A1r 

llun1' 1ona Bldg. , Waah1Dgton, D.c. 

Ser. No. 

Filed 

For 

36,868 

Aug. 191 1935 

Eleotr1oal Lw1tob1ng !~eohaniam 

In :reaponae to amendment ot February l, 

ReteZ'ence addecl: 

~ 

1937(' .Jlllf f m1 

.. _ .. ,4'/l. ... 

Sept. 21, 1926 200-92uzrA3 

Thie oaae now oonta1ns claims 6 throU£h 23. 

Clalma 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19 and 23 are reJecte4 

ea m1a4eacr1pt1ve in aetttng forth the relatively movable bodies 

or oontaot clrum and oontact em aa "independently" movable. Both 

are clr1Yen by the. eame motor and operate at the eame time, hence 

are not moved independently. 

Claim 1 1a turther rejected aa 1ndet1n1te in the laat 

line. There 1• no antecedent tor "gearing". 

' 

Claims 8 encl 9~ 4epen41ng trom claim 7, are rejected 

tberewStb. 

Claimll 101 121 13, 14 and 16 are rejected aa inaccurate 

1n ••''Ing forth means "to Yary the c1rou1t connections in a 

:ran4om «24er• (olatma 10 -an4 16J.1 "to effect random permutatlona CJJ! the atrouit oonneot1oae" (ola1m 12); "tor Yary1ng the 

relation between aa14 oontaota in a random order" (claims 13 and 

14>• Coataot ta m,a4e an4 broken ln a clet1n1te order or aequenoe 

anl alwa7a tn the aame or4er. The Tar1at1on 1a in the E?eeda 

' of th• mo'Yable element• am\ not 1n the aequenoe. 

Claim 13 1• turtber rejeote4 aa not patentably 41•-

t1Ugu18blng t~ the •truowre ot Boarc1man 1 eupre. Boarclman 

abcnr• an a4luatable trlc-lon 4rl'Ye tor a control clztum. 

ClaSa 15 ta r•3••'•4 •• ln4ef1n1te 1n line• 3 encl 4, 

•haY1ag lt• oontaot element• electr1oall7 oonnecte4 1n irregular 

r ved for Release b NSA on 09-06-2013 ursuant to E. 0. 1352 __ ......... __ __.,__:____~----=----=----=--==--==-- ---- - -

,_ 
• • 

/ 

-... --

• REF ID:A6771036,~----2 

order". To what-are the contaot elements 0C1111neotecl? 

Claim 15 le further reJ eoted ae tunct ional. There is 

no eiruoture ill"DV1d11J6 tor the periodic operation set forth in 

the laat line. 

Claim 18 1a rejected aa fully met by Boardman, eupra. 

Claims 19 and 20 are reJeoted as reading on the a~ruoture ot Boardman, Fig. 4• Tbe reference ahowe two contact elements driven by tr1ct1on 4r1vea and independently variable. 

21 and 22 are rejected as dlreotly readable on either 

Boardman, supra, or ~•V87 or .Turhomme et al both ot reoord. 

Examiner 

-- - - -- ---=-=-=--==-=-----

L 

I
Exhibit 31.1
  CERTIFICATIONS
    1.
    I have reviewed this annual report on
    Form 10-K
    (the Report) of Revlon Consumer Products Corporation
    (the Registrant);2.
    Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue
    statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
    necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
    circumstances under which such statements were made, not
    misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report;3.
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
    financial information included in this Report, fairly present in
    all material respects the financial condition, results of
    operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the
    periods presented in this Report;4.
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I are
    responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
    and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
    Rules 13a-15(e)
    and
    15d-15(e))
    and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in
    Exchange Act
    Rules 13a-15(f)
    and
    15d-15(f))
    for the Registrant and have:          5.
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I have
    disclosed, based on the Companys most recent evaluation of
    internal control over financial reporting, to the
    Registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
    Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
    equivalent functions):
NO. 07-02-0205-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A AUGUST 20, 2002

______________________________ LUPE MANUEL MEDELLIN, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A PPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 6 4TH DIST RICT COURT OF SW ISHER COUN TY; NO. A3673-0201; H ONORABLE JAC K R. MILLER, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS an d JOHNSON, JJ. ABA TEMENT AND REMAND Pursuant to a plea of gui lty, appel lant Lupe Manuel Medellin w as convic

ted of indecency with a c hild and punishment was asses sed at ten yea rs confinement. Although represented by

appointed counsel at trial, appointed counsel corre sponded with appellant notifying him that pursuant to his gui lty plea, he could only appeal wi th permission of the2

trial court and sug gested that he fil e a pro se notice of appeal. Appellan t, proceeding pro se , timely pe rfected his appeal
. Both the cler k’s recor d and reporter’s

record have been filed. Appellant’sbrief was due to be filed by June 27, 2002, but ha s yet to befiled. Also, no motion for extension oftime has b een filed. By letter dated July 23, 2002, this Court notified appellant of the defect a nd also direc ted him to expl ain by Aug ust 5, 2002, w hy the brief h as not b een fi led. App ellant d id not re spond a nd the b rief rem ains out standi ng. Therefore, we now

abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial cour t for further proceedi ngs pursuant to Rul e 38.8(b)(2) and (3) of the Texas Rules of Appel late Procedure. Upo n re mand, the t ria l co urt shal l im medi atel y c ausenoti ce of a hearing tobe given and, therea fter co nduct a hearing to determ ine the followin g: 1. whether appel lant desiresto prosecute t he appeal; and 2. whether appellant is indigent and entitled to appointed counsel. The trial court shall cause the hearin g t o be transcri bed. Should it b e determined that appellant

desires to continue the appe al and is indigent, then the trial court shall also take such measures asmay be necessary to assure appellant eff ective assistance of counsel, wh i ch measures may include the appo intment of new counsel. If new counsel is appointed, the name, address, telephone number, and state bar number of said counsel shall be included in the order appointing new counsel. Finally , the trial court shall execute findin gs of fact, conclusion s of law, and such orders as t he court may enter regar ding the afore mentioned issues, and cause its finding s and conclusi ons to be incl ude d in a3

supplemental clerk's record. A supplemental record of the hearing shall also b e included in the appellate r

ecord. Final ly, thetrial courtshall file th e supplemental cl erk's record and the supplemental reporter's record with the Clerk of th is Courtby Fri day, October 4, 2002. It is so or

dered. Per Curiam Do not publish
.
Converted by EDGARwiz

  EXHIBIT 10.1
 AMENDMENT TO THE
 PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.
 AMENDED AND RESTATED
 1997 DIRECTORS’ STOCK AND DEFERRED FEE PLAN
 

 

 Pursuant to Article VIII of the Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. Amended and Restated 1997 Directors’ Stock and Deferred Fee Plan, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2008 (the “Plan”), the Plan is hereby amended as follows:
 

 

 Effective May 17, 2011, the first sentence of Section 6.1 of the Plan is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:
 Effective from and after May 17, 2011, each Eligible Director shall be granted a Restricted Unit Award on each Date of Grant for a number of shares of Stock having an aggregate Fair Market Value, determined as of the Date of Grant, equal to such dollar amount as may be fixed from time to time by the Board prior to the applicable Date of Grant (after consideration of the Compensation Committee’s recommendations), which amount shall initially be set at One Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($125,000) (the “Annual Restricted Unit Grant”).  Any fractional shares resulting from the calculation of the Annual Restricted Unit Grant shall be rounded up to the next highest whole number of shares.
 

 

 

 EXECUTION
 

 To record the adoption of this Amendment to the Plan, Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. has caused its appropriate officers to execute this Amendment as of the 17th day of May, 2011. 
 

 

 PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.
 

 By:  /s/ Thomas J. Haughey
  
 Title:  Executive Vice President, Chief Administrative
      Officer, General Counsel and Secretary
ATTACHMENT I V – 

 HUMAN EXPOSURE AND ENVIROMENTAL RELEASES 

INDUSTIRAL SITES CONTROLLED BY THE SUBMITER 

1. (d) Process Description 
2. Occupational Exposure 

3. Environmental Releases
#### Schweitzer, Respondent, vs. Hanna, Administrator, imp., Appellant.

*October*22

*November 8, 1895.*

*Replevin: Right of possession: Chattel mortgage.*

The vendee in a bill of sale given as security, who has given the vendor a lease of the property and left it in his possession, cannot maintain replevin against an officer taking the property from the possession of the vendor, without showing that he had a present right of possession when his action was commenced.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Douglas county: R. D. Marshall, Circuit Judge.

*Rever sed.*

The action is replevin. One August Ruhnke, a saloon keeper, borrowed money from the plaintiff, and to secure its repayment gave him a bill of sale of his stock in trade, furniture, and fixtures. Plaintiff gave Ruhnke a lease of the property, and left it in his possession. The defendants, *319who were the sheriff and deputy sheriff of Douglas county, took the property from Euhnke, under attachments against him. The plaintiff replevied from the sheriff. There was a verdict for the plaintiff, a motion by the defendants for a new trial denied, and judgment for the plaintiff, from which this appeal is taken by the administrator of the estate of the sheriff.

For the appellant there was a brief signed by *W. M.*Steele, attorney, and *Whitford dé Steele*and *Loud dé*O'Brien, of counsel, and oral argument by *W. M. Steele.*

For the respondent there was a brief *by.Boss, Dwyer & ILanitch,*and oral argument by *W. D. Dwyer.*

NewMAN, J.

Several errors are assigned in the admission and rejection of evidence ánd in the charge of the court. None of them involve new questions or a new application of old principles. Nothing would' be gained by considering them at length. One error, presented by the motion for a new trial, is decisive of the case. It does not appear by the evidence that the respondent was entitled to the possession of the property at the time when his action was commenced. The property was in the actual possession of Euhnke at the time when the sheriff took it. Euhnke held it by virtue of the provisions of his lease. Probably the bill of sale and so-called lease are to be construed together as in effect a chattel mortgage, giving the right of possession to Euhnke until condition broken; for it does not appear that by the terms of the mortgage or lease the respondent had a right of possession until condition broken, and it does not appear that the condition upon which his right of possession depended had yet arisen. So, clearly, the evidence failed to show that the respondent had present right of possession when his action was commenced. Cobbey, Replevin, § 16; *Frisbee v. Langworthy,*11 Wis. 375; *Wheeler & W. Mfg. Co. v. Teetzlaff,*53 Wis. 211; *Gage v. Wayland,*67 Wis. 566; *Gaynor v.**320Blewitt, 69 Wis. 582. The verdict should have been set aside and a new trial granted.

*By the*Court.— The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Maeshall, J., took no part.
-

REF ID:A487435 

~~f9)~[f' 

PRIORITY 0-3 

OCSigO 

OCSigO 311.5 Gen. 

R.W. Minckler, Lt. Col., Signal Corps 

NOVEMBER 26, 1941 

SIGNALS HAWAIIAN DEPT FORT SHAFTER .T H 

SIGNALS PHILIPPINE DEPT MANILA P I 

FOR MONITORING STATION REQUEST ALL JAPANESE DIPLOMATIC TRAFFIC 

HAVING INDICATOR GROUP BYGAB REPEAT BAKER YOKE GEORGE AFFIRM 

BAKER APPEARING WITHIN FIRST SIX GROUPS OP TEXT BE FORWABDED 

BY RADIO IN SYSTEM THIRTEEN STOP GENERAL TYPE TRAFFIC FURTHER 

IDENTIFIED BY FIVE DIGIT GROUP NEAR END OF MESSAGE STOP DESIRED 

INDICATOR USED ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER TWENTY SIXTH EXPEDITE 

OLMSTEAD 

COPY 

!Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 11-07-2013 pursuant to E. 0. 1352§
# CA2014160EN.01000101.xml

| 27.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 160/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 160/1

---

Cancellation notice

2014/C 160 A/01

The European Medicines Agency has decided to cancel the following selection procedure:

| — | EMA/AD/359: Head of IT Operations Department, Information Technology Division (AD 10) |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/AD/359: Head of IT Operations Department, Information Technology Division (AD 10)

EMA/AD/359: Head of IT Operations Department, Information Technology Division (AD 10)

---
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-16-00409-CR

_________________

IN RE JEREMY JOMARD GOUDEAU

________________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

252nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 11-12314

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Jeremy Jomard Goudeau filed a petition for writ of mandamus, in 

which he seeks to compel the trial court to rule on his motion for a free copy of his 

trial record, which he desires to use in conjunction with a post-conviction writ of 

habeas corpus.1 Goudeau attached as exhibits a copy of his motion for a free 

record, the cover letter requesting that the district clerk file his motion, and an 

 1

This Court previously dismissed Goudeau's appeal from his conviction 

because the trial court certified that his conviction was the result of a plea bargain 

and Goudeau had no right to appeal. See Goudeau v. State, No. 09-11-00675-CR,

2012 WL 112975 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Jan. 11, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication).
2

internal prison document in which he inquired as to the date the prison mailed his 

motion. 

A relator seeking mandamus relief must demonstrate that he has brought the 

motion to the trial judge’s attention, and that the trial judge then failed or refused 

to rule within a reasonable time. In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—

Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). The clerk’s knowledge of the filing of a motion 

cannot be imputed to the judge. Id. 

Goudeau has not demonstrated that he brought the motion to the trial court’s 

attention and requested a ruling from the trial judge. See id. Therefore, Goudeau 

has not demonstrated that he is entitled to mandamus relief from this Court. See 

State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2001). Accordingly, we deny relief on the petition for writ of 

mandamus.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on November 15, 2016

Opinion Delivered November 16, 2016

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
: ..... 

-· . - .. - . ;~ 

. I 

' .'.• . 

, ..... 

~ El~~roved for Release b~ NSA on O 1-23-2015 ~ursuantto E .0. 1352~ 
PO BOX +as 

Dear Genera] Churchill: 

GEORGE FABYAN 

CHICAGO 

. ., ...... 

'.-

September 2,1919. 

I sent you a copy of the letter v.e sent to 

the Signal Corps .,,hich will explain itself. I don't want to bother 

you but I think it is a matter of courtesy to keep you informed.The 

point of the whole thing is.that Riverbank is of' the opinion that the 

Sirnal Corps do not want the cipher broken and th~ hit bird flutters • . 

~ It is entirely possible to use the cipher machine in er.\practical sort 

of a way and [et out messages which it would be most difficult to decipher. Our pa.st experience is tha.t Colonel Mauborgne "'ill do the 

same thinf; with the cipher me.chine as he did with the DeYau1:1 Cipher 

and that is, put in some extra refinements to put one over on Fiverbank and this is not our idea of co-operation. 

I want to thank you for ~he disposition shown 

towards Riverbank and you can rest assured thet the Sena.tors and Congressmen whom I kn~, will be informed as occasion offers in regard to the purposes of' a General Ste.ff e.s compared to a bunch of bureaus with drawers 

that stick. 

If you happen to run accross that crippled 

bue;ler who can bugle and who would appreciate a good home and lots of 

work, will :fou kindly ship him c.o.D. to 

To General l{. Churchill, 

Vioodward Apartrnent, 

2301 Connecticut Ave., 

We.shin ton D. c. 

Sincere~ly yours, ,,. ·" 

~ ~-~l/2 r I