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

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-30049

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHARLES JOHNSON, also known as Chuck Johnson, also known as Leon 

Johnson,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:12-CR-309-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Charles Johnson has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Johnson has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow

us to make a fair evaluation of Johnson’s claims of ineffective assistance of 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 28, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-30049 Document: 00513774844 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/28/2016
No. 16-30049

2

counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to 

collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). 

Johnson’s motion for the appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

referenced therein, as well as Johnson’s response. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused 

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-30049 Document: 00513774844 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/28/2016
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2538 

To reauthorize a program of grants to hospitals and emergency departments 

to develop, implement, enhance, or study alternatives to opioids for pain 

management, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 29, 2021 

Mr. BOOKER (for himself and Mrs. CAPITO) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To reauthorize a program of grants to hospitals and emergency departments to develop, implement, enhance, or 

study alternatives to opioids for pain management, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Alternatives to Opioids 

5 in the Emergency Department Reauthorization Act of 

6 2021’’ or the ‘‘ALTO Reauthorization Act of 2021’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2538 IS

1 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF EMERGENCY ALTER2 NATIVES TO OPIOIDS PROGRAM. 

3 Section 7091 of the SUPPORT for Patients and 

4 Communities Act (42 U.S.C. 294i note) is amended— 

5 (1) in the section heading, by striking ‘‘DEM6 ONSTRATION’’; 

7 (2) in the headings of subsections (a) and (b), 

8 by striking ‘‘DEMONSTRATION’’ each place it ap9 pears; 

10 (3) in subsections (a)(1) and (b), by striking 

11 ‘‘demonstration’’ each place it appears; 

12 (4) in subsection (f)— 

13 (A) by striking ‘‘Not later than 1 year 

14 after completion of the demonstration program 

15 under this section’’ and inserting ‘‘Not later 

16 than the end of each of calendar years 2022 

17 and 2028’’; and 

18 (B) by striking ‘‘demonstration’’ after ‘‘re19 sults of the’’; and 

20 (5) in subsection (g), by striking ‘‘2019 through 

21 2021’’ and inserting ‘‘2022 through 2026’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Hankersen International Corp.
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Pengcheng Chen, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1. The Report 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.

July 10, 2006


By: /s/ Pengcheng Chen
    -------------------
    Pengcheng Chen, CEO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF KEVCO, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             799
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,107
<ALLOWANCES>                                       740
<INVENTORY>                                     95,999
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               157,688
<PP&E>                                          56,101
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,107
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 331,835
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,554
<BONDS>                                        105,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            69
<OTHER-SE>                                      42,818
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   331,835
<SALES>                                        897,450
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               904,847
<CGS>                                          781,339
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  881,282
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,577)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,143
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,999
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,132
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,867
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,867
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27
        

</TABLE>
#### Royston, by guardian, vs. Wilson.

*November 25*

December *13, 1881.*

*Plea to plaintiff’s competency to bring the suit.*

The person by whom this action was brought claiming as guardian of Roys-ton under the proceeding adjudged invalid in the foregoing case, and the defendant herein having-pleaded in abatement that such person was not the legal guardian of said Royston, the court erred in finding against defendant on that plea. „

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Bane*County.

Replevin, brought .by *Jones*as guardian of John Royston. Defendant appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

For the appellant there was a brief by *Keyes <&*Ghrynoweih,. and oral argument by *Mr. CTvynoweth.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Vilas <& Brycmt,*and oral argument by *Mr. Bryant.*

Taylor, J.

This action was brought by the respondent, as guardian of John Royston, to recover the property of «said Royston in the hands of the appellant, *Wilson.*The appellant contested the right of the respondent to recover, on the ground-*626that he was not the guardian of the said Eoyston. The same record of the proceedings of the county court of Dane county, showing the appointment of *Jones*as guardian, was relied' upon by the respondent to show his light as guardian, which was under discussion in the opinion in the matter of the appeal of John Eoyston from the order of ,the county court of Dane county appointing a guardian of his person and estate, herewith filed. Having decided in that matter that the proceedings of the county court appointing *Jones*guardian were void for want of jurisdiction in the county court, it follows that the circuit court erred in finding against the appellant upon his plea in abatement. The evidence ‘ offered by the respondent failed to show that he was the duly appointed guardian of John Eoyston; and, having failed in that, he failed to show any right to maintain his action against the appellant to recover the property of said Eoyston.

*By the*Court.— The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to that court to enter judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2011

- 0982 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2011

-NE

- 09

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into an d then out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:**
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost (@$8 5 /h our) Parts Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet 

### borescope instect 3R Packing 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 

### 688 $58,480.00 

### shop inspect 3R Packing 1.0 $ 85.00 $ 

### 0 $ 85.00 

### 688 $58,480.00 

### replacement of 3R Packing 1.0 $ 85.00 $488 $ 573.00 

### 21 $12,033.00 

### total replacement cost of LLPs affected b y unacceptable flows 120.0 $10,200. 00 $1,191,000 $1,201,200.0 0 

### 1 $1,201,200.0 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $1, 330,193 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### 70513 **Special considerations for Economic Analysis** ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### : 

### 1) Per Industry

Support Information in GE S/B 72

- A1385, Rev.1: GE will provide a 100 percent back

- end discount from current catalog list price on a new 3R Packing P/N 1471M25P04 (*** and this P/N only ! ***) to o perators who scrap the non

- conforming 3R Packing. GE will also provide a one hour labor credit for the inspection required. 2) There are 21 nonconforming 3R Packings that need to be located in the fleet and replaced

.Indicates related information in AD Manual, FAA

-IR

-M

- 8040.1C . DOUBLE CLICK to follow the link 

### Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO
* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES * NO
* Explanation: **Reg ulatory Flexibility Act:**  Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: 

### T he regulatory impact is not likely

to be “significant” . This rule will not affect “subs tantial number” of small entities

. **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO 

### * Explanation 

### :
# C_2015122EN.01000301.xml

| 16.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 122/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 122/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 April 2015

(2015/C 122/04)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0579 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 126,52 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4671 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,71680 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3115 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0321 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,4150 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,415 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 297,85 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0178 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4197 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8711 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,3945 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3277 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,2004 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,4104 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4402 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 159,50 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 12,8567 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 6,5644 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5798 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 13 686,90 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9206 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 47,086 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 53,6110 |
| THB | Thai baht | 34,327 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,2661 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,2123 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 65,9826 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0579

JPY

Japanese yen

126,52

DKK

Danish krone

7,4671

GBP

Pound sterling

0,71680

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3115

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0321

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,4150

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,415

HUF

Hungarian forint

297,85

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0178

RON

Romanian leu

4,4197

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8711

AUD

Australian dollar

1,3945

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3277

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,2004

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,4104

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4402

KRW

South Korean won

1 159,50

ZAR

South African rand

12,8567

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

6,5644

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5798

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

13 686,90

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9206

PHP

Philippine peso

47,086

RUB

Russian rouble

53,6110

THB

Thai baht

34,327

BRL

Brazilian real

3,2661

MXN

Mexican peso

16,2123

INR

Indian rupee

65,9826

---

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

1

Source

---
EX-10.1





 Exhibit 10.1 

Lease Agreement – Essener Bogen 7 

Since January 1 2011, Evotec AG (the “Company”) has rented office and laboratory space located at Essener Bogen 7 in Hamburg,
Germany. The current monthly gross rent amounts to EUR 164,266.34, including ancillary costs of EUR 7,000. The landlord for the property is EuroCore Magnet S.à r.l (the “Landlord”). To date, the lease has been amended eight times.

 The rental property features 11,000 square meters of office and laboratory space. Pursuant to the terms of the lease, the Company is
permitted to sublet the rental space without the consent of the Landlord. As part of the eighth amendment to the lease made in September 2020, the Company agreed to a new fixed term of 15 years (with the first 18 months of such term to be rent free)
and two extension options, in each case, for up to five years. The new lease term will commence with the start of the term of a second lease entered into between the Landlord and the Company, for a neighboring property that is currently under
construction. The extension option can only be exercised simultaneously for both properties. 
 The lease provides for statutorily mandated
extraordinary termination rights as well as provisions that allow the Landlord to terminate the lease if the Company fails to comply with its contractual obligations without timely cure [despite notice] or if the Company repeatedly fails to pay rent
in a timely manner. 
 The Company is obliged to perform certain structural alterations in the rented property at the beginning of the
rental period. The costs of these measures were subsidized by the Landlord up to an aggregate amount of EUR 1,500,000 and only have to be repaid proportionately if the lease is terminated prior to December 31, 2022. As security for
the repayment obligation, the Company provided to the Landlord an unconditional guarantee from an approved credit institution in the amount of EUR 1,850,000. 

Any further structural changes require the Landlord’s prior approval and are to be paid for by the Company. At the Landlord’s
request, such changes shall be removed at the Company’s expense upon termination of the lease agreement. In addition, all movable laboratory equipment must be removed. 

The Company has provided a rental security for all obligations under the lease agreement in the amount of three months’ net rent by
pledging a savings account held with Hamburger Sparkasse.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1537

WILLIAM WAYNE COONTS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RANDOLPH COUNTY COMMISSION; RANDLOPH COUNTY PROSECUTORS’

OFFICE; PHILLIP ISNER; PHILIP RIGGLEMAN, In His Individual 

Capacity; THERESA COGAR, In Her Individual Capacity; RICHARD 

WALLACE SHRYOCK, JR., In His Individual Capacity,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

RANDOLPH COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE; DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 

AND HUMAN RESOURCES,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, 

District Judge. (2:15-cv-00021-JPB-MJA)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

William Wayne Coonts, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Clee Chenoweth, 

Peter G. Zurbuch, BUSCH, ZURBUCH & THOMPSON, PLLC, Elkins, West 

Virginia; David K. Hendrickson, HENDRICKSON & LONG, PLLC, 

Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

William Wayne Coonts appeals the district court’s order 

granting the Defendants’ motions to dismiss Coonts’ civil 

action. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised 

in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because 

Coonts’ informal brief does not challenge the district court’s 

dispositive analysis, Coonts has waived appellate review of the 

court’s order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 

430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
---

---

EXHIBIT 8

List of Subsidiaries

|Subsidiary Name                        | Jurisdiction of Incorporation     
|-------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|1. Easy Park Ltd                       | Israel                            
|                                      
|2. Easy Park Israel Ltd.               | Israel                            
|                                      
|3. Soft Chip Technologies (3000) Ltd.  | Israel                            
|                                      
|4. OTI America, Inc.                   | Delaware, United States of America
|                                      
|5. InSeal SAS                          | France                            
|                                      
|6. OTI Africa, Inc.                    | South Africa                      
|                                      
|7. ASEC Spolka Akcyjna                 | Poland                            
|                                      
|8. Millennium Cards Technology Limited | Hong Kong, China                  
|                                      
|9. Millennium Cards Technology Limited | Shenzhen, China                   
|                                      
|10. InterCard Systemelectronic GmbH    | Germany                           



---

---
# C_2016030EN.01000101.xml

| 27.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7880 — Mitsubishi Heavy Industries/UniCarriers Holdings)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 30/01)

On 21 January 2016, 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 the 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 32016M7880. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7880. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
### -81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

36 37 38 39 40 

## ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 07/09 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 09 Jul 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.90 N 76.65 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 58 (Thursday, March 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 15998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07090]


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

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY:  Election Assistance Commission.

DATE & TIME:  Tuesday, March 31, 2015 AT 10:00 a.m.

PLACE:  1335 East-West Highway (First Floor Conference Room), Silver 
Spring, MD 20910.

STATUS:  This Meeting Will Be Open To The Public

ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION: 
<bullet> Draft Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines (VVSG 1.1)
<bullet> Draft Certification Program Procedural Manual, Version 2.0
<bullet> Draft Laboratory Accreditation Program Manual, Version 2.0
<bullet> Requests for HAVA Funding Advisory Opinions

Agenda

    The Commission will receive presentations on the DRAFT Voluntary 
Voting System Guidelines (VVSG 1.1) and consider the proposed VVSG 1.1 
for adoption. The Commission will receive presentations on the DRAFT 
Certification Program Procedural Manual, Version 2.0, and consider the 
proposed final document for approval. The Commission will receive 
presentations on the DRAFT Laboratory Accreditation Program Manual, 
Version 2.0, and consider the proposed final document for approval. The 
Commission will consider approval of advisory opinion requests related 
to expenditure of HAVA funds from the state and local election offices 
in the States of Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Montana, Washington State 
and California. The Commission will consider other administrative 
matters.

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Bryan Whitener, Telephone: (301) 
563-3961.

    Submitted: March 24, 2015.
Bryan Whitener,
Director of Communications & Clearinghouse.
[FR Doc. 2015-07090 Filed 3-24-15; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 6820-KF-P