alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2016

- 0464 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2015

- NM

- 046

- 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 a nd then out of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

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

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

for U.S. Fleet



### AL S incorporation 1.0 $ 85.00 

### 0 $ 85.00 

### 8 $ 680.00 $ 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 $ 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: $ 680 

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

**On**

**- Condition Costs:** 

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$8 5/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analys **is** ( 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) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant reg ulatory action”?

YES * NO

* Expla nation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**
Is the AD significant?

YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory 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 an swer.
YES NO Explanation:

**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 

### :
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000883327
<NAME> SIGNATURE BRANDS USA, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1997
<CASH>                                           1,270
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,843
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     38,262
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                91,573
<PP&E>                                          17,101
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 250,985
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,536
<BONDS>                                        149,156
<COMMON>                                            91
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,215
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   250,985
<SALES>                                        213,255
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               213,255
<CGS>                                          147,565
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  198,815
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (349)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,041
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    748
<INCOME-TAX>                                       449
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                299
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       299
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
#### McCarthy BARNES, Jr., Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Respondent

2016-1754

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

January 10, 2017

Frederic Willard Schwartz, Law Office of Frederic W. Schwartz, Jr., Washington, DC, argued for petitioner.

Reta Emma Bezak, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by Mark E. Porada, Claudia Burke, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Benjamin C. Mizer.

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam (O’Malley, Bryson, and Reyna, Circuit Judges).

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1281 

AN ACT 

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs communitybased outpatient clinic in Gaylord, Michigan, as the 

‘‘Navy Corpsman Steve Andrews Department of Veterans 

Affairs Health Care Clinic’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1281 EH

1 SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

2 COMMUNITY-BASED OUTPATIENT CLINIC, 

3 GAYLORD, MICHIGAN. 

4 The Department of Veterans Affairs community5 based outpatient clinic located at 2782 S. Otsego Avenue, 

6 Gaylord, Michigan, shall after the date of the enactment 

7 of this Act be known and designated as the ‘‘Navy Corps8 man Steve Andrews Department of Veterans Affairs 

9 Health Care Clinic’’. Any reference to such clinic in any 

10 law, regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of 

11 the United States shall be considered to be a reference 

12 to the Navy Corpsman Steve Andrews Department of Vet13 erans Affairs Health Care Clinic. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 20, 

2021. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1281 

AN ACT 

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs comic’’. partment of Veterans Affairs Health Care Clin- gan, as the ‘‘Navy Corpsman Steve Andrews De- munity-based outpatient clinic in Gaylord, Michi-
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-11316

ROBERT M. BARNARD, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Director; GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; CARLA STOVALL, Attorney General of Kansas, Respondents-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:97-CV-38-C

- - - - - - - - - - July 23, 1998 Before JOLLY, WIENER and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Robert M. Barnard (#568435), a Texas state prisoner, has applied for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) for an appeal from the district court’s denial of his application, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, for a writ of habeas corpus. Barnard’s habeas application challenges the legality of a detainer lodged against him by the State of Kansas, Department of Corrections, in connection with a parole-violator’s warrant. Because Barnard isNo. 97-11316 -2- not detained pursuant to a “process issued by a State court,” a COA is not required. 28 U.S.C. § 2253. No further briefing is necessary to decide the appeal. See Dickinson v. Wainwright , 626 F.2d 1184, 1186 (5th Cir. 1980). Barnard contends that his right to due process has been violated by the failure of Kansas authorities to grant him an immediate parole-revocation hearing, in accordance with Morrissey v.
Brewer , 408 U.S. 471 (1972). Essentially for reasons adopted by the district court, we hold that Barnard has failed to present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Barnard v. Johnson , No. 1:97- CV-038-C (N.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 1997) (unpublished); see also Moody v. Daggett , 429 U.S. 78, 86-87 (1976); Cook v. United States Atty. Gen. , 488 F.2d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 1974). Because Barnard’s appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
COA DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; APPEAL DISMISSED.
FINAL INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 98-141 & 142 ENGINEER: Prothero/TMB PV (kg/yr): SUBMITTER: USE: OTHER USES:

MSDS: Yes Label: No General Eqp.: impervious gloves, arm covers and apron/chemical tight goggles, full face shield in addition if splashing is possible/permitted ventilation adequate to maintain safe levels/remove contaminated clothing and wash before rewearing Respirator: if needed, use MIOSH-NIOSH approved respirator for organic vapors, mists and fumes Health Effects: irritant to skin/eyes TLV/PEL (PMN or raw materials): None assigned CRSS: Chemical Category:

Trade Name: VP: <1E-06 torr @25 E C S-H 2 O: dispersible MW: Phys State: Additional Info:

Consumer Use:INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page # 2 PMN: 98-141 & 142 SAT (concerns): Migration to Groundwater = negl - slow Health: 1-2 inhalation and dermal Eco: 3 all releases to surface waters OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2-3 ASSUMPTIONS:

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEWINITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT Page # 3 PMN: 98-141 & 142 USE: Site/Location: Days/yr: Process Description:

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES (Eqpt. cleaning, container residue, etc.):

from:

from: OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE Tot. # of workers: Days/yr: Inhalation: Dermal: contact with

Basis:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 25 (Monday, February 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 6902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02534]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of 
the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the 
Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on 
Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at 
www.sec.gov.

STATUS: The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to 
the public via webcast on the Commission's website at www.sec.gov.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
    1. The Commission will consider whether to propose rules and 
amendments under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act'') 
for private fund advisers and whether to propose amendments to the 
compliance rule under the Advisers Act.
    2. The Commission will consider whether to propose new rules to 
address cybersecurity risk management for investment advisers and 
investment companies as well as related amendments to certain rules 
regarding adviser and fund disclosures under the Investment Advisers 
Act of 1940 and the Investment Company Act of 1940.
    3. The Commission will consider whether to propose rules and rule 
amendments under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to shorten the 
standard settlement cycle for most securities transactions. The 
proposed rules and rule amendments would be applicable to broker-
dealers and certain clearing agencies. The Commission also will 
consider whether to propose rule amendments under the Investment 
Advisers Act of 1940 to require investment advisers to maintain certain 
related records.
    4. The Commission will consider whether to propose amendments to 
its whistleblower rules.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary 
at (202) 551-5400.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: February 2, 2022.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-02534 Filed 2-3-22; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
EXHIBIT
32.2



ONCOLOGIX
TECH, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL

FINANCIAL
OFFICER 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 Annual Report of Oncologix Tech, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended August
31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Michael A. Kramarz,
Chief Financial 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 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
                                         Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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



|Date: December
    16, 2013 | Oncologix Tech, Inc.
|--------------------------- | --------------------
|                            | By                  
|                            |                     



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
STATE EX REL. Delis PIERRE v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-0385

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF TANGIPAHOA**

PER CURIAM:

Writ denied. Relator fails to show recusal was required under the standard of *Rippo v. Baker* , --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 905, 197 L.Ed.2d 167 (2017). Relator also fails to show the state withheld material exculpatory evidence in violation of *Brady v. Maryland* , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). In addition, relator fails to show he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Finally, relator's remaining claims were not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Relator has now fully litigated two applications for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the Legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
### M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 229TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF DUVAL COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on March 25, 2015, the cause upon appeal to

revise or reverse your judgment between

Peter Barton, Appellant

V.

Ana Lisa Garza, Appellee

No. 04

- 14

- 00207

- CV and Tr. Ct. No. DC

- 12

- 308

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, the

judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that Appellee Ana

Lisa Garza recover her costs of this appeal from Appellant Peter Barton.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on June 3, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853BILL OF COSTS



### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04

- 14

- 00207

- CV

Peter Barton

v.

Ana Lisa Garza

(NO. DC

- 12

- 308 IN 229TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF DUVAL COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

REPORTER'S RECORD

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

FILING

INDIGENT

SUPREME COURT CHAPTER 51

FEE

STATEWIDE EFILING FEE

MOTION FEE $578.00

$10.00

$10.00

$100.00

$25.00

$50.00

$20.00

$10.00 PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID HECTOR GONZALEZ, PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY

HECTOR GONZALEZ

HECTOR GONZALEZ

HECTOR GONZALEZ

HECTOR GONZALEZ

HECTOR GONZALEZ

HECTOR GONZALEZ

DARRELL BARGER

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

**Court costs in**  **this cause shall**  **be paid as**  **per the**  **Judgment issued by**  **this Court.** 

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this June 3, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                        47301
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 15258
<ALLOWANCES>                                  25550
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              72559
<PP&E>                                       391251
<DEPRECIATION>                               166666
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1843415
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        923548
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                      23085
<OTHER-SE>                                   802218
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1843415
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            1199400
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            1638305
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             443372
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            37000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (443472)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (443472)
<DISCONTINUED>
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              115509
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                (327863)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0




</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1189 

To amend the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 to permit the construction of 

deepwater ports in Federal water adjacent to certain coastal States 

that do not have an active Coastal Zone Management Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 18, 2021 

Mr. YOUNG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 to permit the 

construction of deepwater ports in Federal water adjacent to certain coastal States that do not have an active 

Coastal Zone Management Program. 

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 ‘‘Deepwater Port Parity 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO DEEPWATER PORT ACT OF 1974. 

7 The Deepwater Port Act of 1974 is amended— 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1189 IH

1 (1) in section 4(c)(9) (33 U.S.C. 1503(c)(9)), 

2 by inserting ‘‘except for a State which developed an 

3 approved coastal zone management program pursu4 ant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 

5 and had withdrawn such plan prior to January 1, 

6 2012’’ before ‘‘the adjacent coastal State’’; and 

7 (2) in section 9(c) (33 U.S.C. 1508(c)), by 

8 striking ‘‘The Secretary’’ and inserting ‘‘Except for 

9 a State which developed an approved coastal zone 

10 management program pursuant to the Coastal Zone 

11 Management Act of 1972 and had withdrawn such 

12 plan prior to January 1, 2012, the Secretary’’. 

Æ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with BILLS
William STEPHENS, Carol Grey, and Keely Cinkota, Appellants, v. HENDRY COUNTY, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3714

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Kwanell FINNIE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2781

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Cecil Madison FERGUSON v. STATE

CR-15-0980

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
C.J., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0023

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Jessie DORSEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3801

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 13, 2018

Jessie Dorsey, Okeechobee, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and L. Charlene Matthews, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.