alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUANA INES SALAZAR-ARMENTA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-70389

Agency No. A074-820-499

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 9, 2012** 

Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Juana Ines Salazar-Armenta, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) order denying her motion to

reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v.

FILED

OCT 15 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-70389

Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in

part the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Salazar-Armenta’s motion to

reopen for failure to comply with the requirements set forth in Matter of Lozada,

19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), where the ineffective assistance she alleges is not

plain on the face of the record. See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 596-99 (9th

Cir. 2004).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua

sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See MejiaHernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
GRANT MICHAEL CAMADINE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-2851

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 3, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Mark J. Borello, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., BENTON and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
r 

l 

I 

REF ID:A71104 

. CSGAS-14 Purchaae ot Yamacripa of Colonel J'lgl 

Director ot Intelligenae 

GS USA 

Chiet, ASA 18 APR1949 1 

Jlr. F:r1admaD,. 147/f;trt. 215 

l. On 21 Carch 1949 the Anti Seaar1t7 Agena,. •• asked to nalaate the 

prospec:tuae11 ot two marmacript11 wb1oh bad. 'been wr11;ten "1' Colonel Andreaa Figl, ~ 

tor:nerq abief' cryptographer of the Juatro•!lunp1"1an A'l!fl7 amt which were now being'~ 

ottered b;y his personal agent. L'rr. Arthur Schutz, for purchase b,r '\he Unit.ad Statea ' 

Govermam. The i'irlt ot tbeae mamacr1pta daale with methoda ot dec1pherment1 

the second. contains the Cl'1Ptographlc memoirs ot Colonel Plgl. 

,a. Inasmuch as both manusar1pta are concerned with the World War 1 period, it ia the opinion ot thia Agency that they are Dt 1'Dauf'fie1ent interest to warrant 

their purcbaae b7 the Department of th• A1'm7. It is also bel18"Cl that the bool1 

contain nothing ot a campromlaillg nature. 

~ 

3. Attached hereto la a proposed dratt of a letter of repq to Ir. lrtlmr 

Schutz concerning thia matter. The original letter hom Mr. SChutz and the 

proapectuaea of Colonel Pigl are herewith retu:rned. 

2 Inola 

1. Proposed letter 

2. Ltr tr iJr. Schutz, 3/21/49 

w/2 prospaotueea attached CHA~a.x;;; H. nlSER 

' Lt. ~9.:.~lt Sisnal OOl'JPll 

Affj.~ ~PlltJ' Chi~ • ...,, 

~ @<;CIUl':t.t711&emr" 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 05-29-2014 pursuant to E.O. 1352e 
I - .. • 

Mr. Arthur Schutz 

610 Regester Avenue 

Baltimore l2, Maryland 

Dear Sir: 

REF ID:A71104 • 

DRAFT 

The prospectuses which 7ou submitted with 7our letter of 21 March 

1949, of the two manuscripts of Colonel Andreas Figl, tormer chief 

OJ'1Ptographer ot the Imperial Royal Austro-~ungarian Army, have been 

subnitted to appropriate authorities within the Department of the 

Arm1. 

It is with regret that I must inform you that the Department or 

the Army does not desire to purchase the manuscripts ottered in your 

letter. 

Please conve7 to Colonel Figl the Department's appreciation ot 

the consideration shown by him in offering these manuscripts tor purchase. Inasmuch as Colonel Figl may wish to submit them'.ttor purchase 

or publication to other departments of this Government oz• elsewhere, 

the prospectuses are herewith returned, as requested. 

Sincerely 7ours,
# C_2014213EN.01000801.xml

| 8.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/8

---

Call for proposals under the work programme of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking

2014/C 213/03

Notice is hereby given of the launch of a call for proposals under the work programme of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking.

Proposals are invited for the following call: ECSEL-2014-1.

ECSEL-2014-1

Call documentation including deadline and budget is given in the call text, which is published on the following websites:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal (funding opportunities — calls)

http://www.ecsel.eu/Call2014.html

---
# C_2014209EN.01000101.xml

| 4.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

3 July 2014

2014/C 209/01

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3646 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 139,06 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4569 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,79650 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3286 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2147 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,4810 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,439 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 311,39 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1471 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3888 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,9102 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4552 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4530 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5770 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5563 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7008 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 376,98 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,7099 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,4769 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5875 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 278,74 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3596 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,467 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 46,7050 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,212 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0388 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,7357 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 81,3916 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3646

JPY

Japanese yen

139,06

DKK

Danish krone

7,4569

GBP

Pound sterling

0,79650

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3286

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2147

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,4810

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,439

HUF

Hungarian forint

311,39

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1471

RON

Romanian leu

4,3888

TRY

Turkish lira

2,9102

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4552

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4530

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5770

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5563

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7008

KRW

South Korean won

1 376,98

ZAR

South African rand

14,7099

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,4769

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5875

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 278,74

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3596

PHP

Philippine peso

59,467

RUB

Russian rouble

46,7050

THB

Thai baht

44,212

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0388

MXN

Mexican peso

17,7357

INR

Indian rupee

81,3916

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>       5
<LEGEND>        THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
                INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 10Q DATED
                JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
                ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
                STATEMENTS
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000

<S>             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                           59,126
<SECURITIES>                    169,687
<RECEIVABLES>                    43,122
<ALLOWANCES>                          0
<INVENTORY>                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                298,030
<PP&E>                           78,527
<DEPRECIATION>                   60,129
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  432,851
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            61,277
<BONDS>                               0
<COMMON>                            943
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<OTHER-SE>                      353,587
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    432,851
<SALES>                          98,388
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 98,388
<CGS>                            69,036
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    69,036
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  35,230
<INCOME-TAX>                     13,925
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              21,305
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                     21,305
<EPS-BASIC>                      2.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                      2.26




</TABLE>
#### White vs. Sherry and another.

Pbacticb. *Discontinuance as to one defendant, abates pending motion made by Mm. Other defendants cannot appeal from, superfluous order denying it.*

After judgment against all the defendants as joint obligors, two of them moved to vacate the judgment; and, pending that motion, plaintiff, by leave of court, discontinued the action as to those two. *Held,*

1. That the motion to vacate was *abated*by such discontinuance; and a subsequent order denying it was merely superfluous and inoperative.

2. That the other defendants could not in any case appeal from an order denying a motion in which they did not join.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Winnebago*County.

The plaintiff, as sheriff of Winnebago county, seized a quantity of logs by virtue of a writ of attachment issued in a suit brought by one Brei against William Smith and Frederick H. Smith, to enforce a specific lien upon such logs, pursuant to the statute. The Smiths procured a redelivery of the logs by delivering to the plaintiff a bond in the penal sum of one thous- and dollars, executed by themselves and the appellants, jointly and severally, and conditioned for the payment of any judgment that Brei might recover' against the Smiths. Brei afterwards recovered judgment in that suit for $250 and costs.

This action was brought upon the bond, against all the obligors, and resulted in a judgment against the appellants only, for the amount unpaid on Brei’s judgment. The defendants William Smith and Frederick H. Smith thereupon moved the court to set aside the judgment in this action, for reasons stated in the motion. The appellants did not join therein. Pending the motion, the plaintiff, by leave of court, discontinued the action as against the Smiths, and an order was entered to that effect. The court then made an order denying the motion to set aside the judgment, and defendants *Sherry*and *Haskins*appealed from that order.

*226
      *Warner, Ryan &*Allen, for appellants.

*D. J. Parkinson,*for respondent.

Lyojst, J.

The appellants were not parties to the motion to set aside the judgment; and the Smiths, who alone made such motion, were not parties to the judgment. When the action was discontinued as to the Smiths, the motion thereby abated and disappeared from the case; and the order denying it was entirely unnecessary and inoperative. Hence such order could work no injury to any one. Besides, the appellants can have no appeal from an order denying a motion in which they did not join, and to which they are strangers. The appeal must be dismissed.

*By the Court.*— Appeal dismissed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 21, 2016

No. 04-16-00017-CR

James MOODY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 15, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 413867

The Honorable Robert Behrens, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file his pro se appellant’s brief is granted. We 

order appellant, James Moody, to file his appellant’s brief by December 21, 2016.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of November, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit
10.13


 


This
agreement, hereby dated April 25, 2021, concerning the parties,


 


Sensasure
Technologies, Inc., “the Client”,


 


and


 


Michael
Doron “the Contractor,”


 


agree
to the following terms, conditions, and details to which both parties are hereby obligated to follow;


 


SERVICES
PROVIDED


 


The
client hereby agrees to engage the contractor to provide “the Services” stated in the PAYMENT Section;


 


The
services may additionally include any ad hoc tasks that the parties may agree upon prior to the signing of this agreement.


 


THE
TERM GOVERNING THIS AGREEMENT


 


The
term of which “the Services” are to commence and reach completion are as follows;


 


Start
Date May 1, 2021


 


End
Date Upon Project Completion stated in PAYMENT Section


 


PAYMENT


 


Both
parties, i.e., the client and the contractor, should note that, for the purposes of this agreement, all monetary values are to be denoted
in U.S dollars and payable in the form of class B preferred shares of the Client. “Compensation Shares”


 


The
contractor hereby agrees to charge the client:


 


500
Compensation Shares upon completion of $10 million fundraising in aggregate for the Client through sales of common shares or equivalent
of the Client. “Project Completion”


 


The
Client hereby agrees that such Compensation Shares will be issued upon Start Date.


 


CONVERSION
AND FREE TRADING OF COMPENSATION SHARES


 


The
Compensation Shares can be converted into common shares of the Client upon one month after the Client completes its OTC listing. (“Converted
Common Shares”)


 


The
Converted Common Shares can be freely trading without restrictions only upon the Project Completion and 12 months after the completion
of Nasdaq listing of the Client:


 


Any
and all expenses concerning progress and/or completion of the services, if applicable, are borne by the Contractor unless the Client
agrees to reimburse such expenses in written.


 


SIGNATURE
of the “Client”


 


 


 


DATE:
April 25, 2021


 


SIGNATURE
of the “Contractor”


 


 


 


DATE:
April 25, 2021
TO Mr. Friedman DATB 10 Dec•ber 1952 

ll'B.OM r Paul IC. Bartatall 

PL $6-36/50 USC 3605 

EO 3 .3(.ll) (2) (""'" 

SUBJBCT Turkish and Portuguese CrJPtograph1c Praeticea 

1. Attached. is a can ot a report, Mlle at JOU' request, on Turkish Crntogrflbic practices • Dr. Sinlmv baa not yet seen th1"' but since it ae4!mle4). adequate 

to•, I have taken the libert7 ot sending it &long. We have kept a cop,. 

2. Portuguese practices M7 have roved to a certain extent but inautt1c1e 

<?c..J,te. ""'~- PAUL IC. BAR'l'S'l'ALL 

Assistant to Technical Director 

Incloaure - a/s 

eclassifi ed and a 
tor WBB'l 

Beou1t1 1nt0l'lll&ti•_u~w~~i=it-:ttfii=rtr 

SECDRI I Y INFORMATION 

'1\Jrki•h CrJPtopa.pbio lraottaea 1D. llepe>1't1Dg 

BAm IntOl'&t1on 

IftltOJJUC.UOll 

3. 3 (h) (2) 

86-36/50 USC 3605 

I !URllSB AftITUDB .fOWARD OCllllD1IICA'!I01'S SICUllift 

Vh1Ie the t\JrJm ue aaN or tbe •ed ror eeoUN oztntopapb1c 

p.-ooedurea 1 d.n4 oisoaalonallJ' mJm ett01'ta 1D tbat d1Not1on. 1D .,. praotlce tbe7 •bov a voef'ul l.aok ~ Ulldeziat&Dd1Dg or the ba.s:S.o 

pr1nc1ple• involved. ... - Bul.7 1D 1949. tbe '1'urll:1•h ael••te to tile Ulf vaa told bJ' tbe 

delegate Gr tbat \'urk1ab d1plOJSt1C COi'• 

~ reapondenoe iae tnaeoure and -.a be1Dg NA4 b7 otbel' coun.tl'1ea 

.. 
~6=i~~~~l use 36osTbat the 'forks are sometimes ave.re of the need for aecurit7 1a 

indicated bJ' their negotiations 111 April. 1952 .. vith tile United 

States. tor the purcba.se of cipber mcb1Dea 
- -- - ~ - . ~ - - ~ ---. ~ ~ -- - - --

In. ahoz-t. the 'lm'k1•b 1Dteat10D8 1A the mtter or cQPtopapb1c 

securtt7 al'& good. but their 1p01'8D.Ce or aoundpatooedures det•ta 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

the1P purpoae Eo. 3. 3 ( h l ( 2 l 

I')_ --- ---~- __ _x_ 
EO 3 . 3 ( h) ( 2 ) 

REF ID:A66948 PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 
REF ID:A66948 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

EO 3 . 3 ( h) ( 2 ) 
REF ID:A66948 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

EO 3 . 3 ( h) ( 2 ) 
yep ~Hi~ · 10 J:eo l952 

;;, _ " eueavttJ . lnfm.1'*81 ISOOJfif!7f86~B.& _ ... _.....,... _ ....... •OE 

Turkish CrJPto:grapbio Practices 1A lepo:rtin NATO Intorrnt1on,, oODt. 

COBC:WSIOB o EO 3.3(h) (2) 

PL86-36/50 usc.3605 

Althoggh tbe 'lmike ue •boV1DS •:l&U @t bN«mdDS -.. aao1U11t7-

oouc1oua, tb87 an •till 1A ~ ot alig'bteDD.JDt.om:acezans.ag ao\and 

ezantcpaphlo Pl'OO•dmie•. 

AFSA F- 781-CUS TOP SECRET CJtWt?~wttom 

-- -- - --~·- ... :io&..... -- - - - - --
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Oscar Ortega, Roggie Law, Steven Murdock, and Don Egdorf v. Alan

Pean

Appellate case number: 01

- 18

- 00249

- CV

Trial court case number: 2016

- 43519

Trial court: 127t h District Court of Harris County

The motion for reconsideration en ban c is denied

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

____

/s/ Peter Kelly

_______  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Panel consis ts of Chief Justice Radac k and Justices Keyes, Lloyd, Kelly, Goodman, Landau,

Hightower, Countiss, and Adams.

Date: __ December 3, 2020

_____
#### Patrick Price et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[772 NYS2d 816]

*207Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered December 20, 2002, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The claims of these former Housing Authority police officers—who became employees of the New York City Police Department as a result of the merger of the departments in 1995—to elect certain lump-sum payments upon retirement were barred by res judicata *(O’Brien v City of Syracuse,*54 NY2d 353, 357 [1981]) and collateral estoppel *(D’Arata v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,*76 NY2d 659, 664 [1990]). Such claims could have been litigated in *Nickels v New York City Hous. Auth.*(208 AD2d 203 [1995], *affd*85 NY2d 917 [1995]), when the merger was challenged. In *Nickels,*this Court found that although Housing Authority police officers would lose certain retirement benefits as a result of the merger, the transfer would “not cause a diminution in their pension and related rights” (208 AD2d at 211), and that in any event, any losses would be offset by their acquisition of new rights of equivalent value. Furthermore, in *Nickels*we concluded that these officers did not have an unalterable right to the continued enforcement of the terms of their employment with the Housing Authority Police Department.

Accordingly, plaintiffs herein were properly barred from relitigating the issue, even though the precise premerger benefit they now seek to enforce was not expressly at issue in *Nickels.*We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them to be unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Ellerin and Friedman, JJ.
# C_2015059EN.01000102.xml

| 19.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 59/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7495 — APAX/EVRY)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 59/02)

On 13 February 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7495. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7495. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
MEMO RO 1 NAME OR TITLE ~ 

INFORMATION 

"G.-r, l- rt - \~ 

r~ t~r~ ~1 ~() ~ lO.Q 0~~1-~ 

~~_..,is' """'-~I ~~'l 

~ J~oA, ~ Vt~ ~~·t . .t 

~ .~~0P. 

i-i> ~~ 1.<>¥ ~e.e. '~ OAT: 

NSA on 03-26-2014 

DD FORM 9 5 Replaces DA AGO Form 805, I Apr 48, and A.FHQ I FEB 50 Form 12, 10 Nov 117, wbioh may tio used. 

J; 

--

_: : ~- ~ - - :- __ : - - _: ·-=--=--~= ....:....:....-= -- - ---=- ------------- ------ --

- - - - . - - -- - -· -

.. - ~ -~:_-=~- - ~----- ~~~-=-~- ~~~ ~~=:~~ - -~-;- ~~--~--~--=----~ ~-=--=::..._-::· 

.. -· -.- ·- • __ ,, _ .... '::i • ...r .... .H:" ... 

. : ... : .. -7·-.-: -~~~ .. _.-~ ~::_-=:·_~r:;:or=~-~ _-:~ ·:~.:.:-= . --- -- --- - ------- ------·- ..:. ___ ----..:.... - - .:.::- -- - --- - --- - - .:-.:-:::;: -=-----·-

_- - -- -~-: _: - =-:-·--:- -- -.:-: --- - ---- ---- - - -~-~------

.. ----- --- --- . - - ---- - - -- ::.:._::..:.:....:..:::-:..:....:.=...=... ""- - - - ---- ···-- -------=------:-~"'."""':~-::-::',_,_"::'."'""".:"'."~ ...... --'."'-:-0-.....,;--~-~--~·-~-~-----~:·:~_-_~_~:~_-_-~;_~---~-~--_:_~---~~~----~----_--_-~~---- • - • ----- ---- --- ~ ~~-..... ---_----~--~ - ..... 

----·~·-~-~-=--~-=~--:-:~~~~~--~,~-~-~-~--~--- _.,: ___ ....... ~..,,;=;.-.::..::;;:; 

·--=---·~.::....:..- _____ ........ :.- ==---- :-:s:::.:. • .:-·-=--:. -· •• -:"::"= --=·-=-= = ... - ....... ..-··=-=---==--==----= ... .:. ____ .. --11 --- ... _ ,_ .. _ ....... -.-......... ...... :.:-.::-.....--