alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Lisa MELISSE, as personal representative of the Estate of Gloria Bono, deceased, and Michael Bono, Sr., as personal representative of the Estate of Michael Bono Jr., deceased, Appellants, v. Y.C.C.S. PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation, Judith L. Matthews and Gulick Construction Company, Inc., a Florida corporation for profit, Appellees.

No. 4D17-950

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 3, 2018]

Jay M. Levy of Jay M. Levy, P.A., Miami, and John Leighton of Leighton Law, P.A., Miami, for appellants.

Scott A. Cole of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, and David Bradley and Adam Zhamukhanov of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee, Y.C.C.S. Property Owners Association, Inc.

Benjamin L. Bedard and Dana P. Clement of Roberts, Reynolds, Bedard & Tuzzio, PLLC, West Palm Beach, for appellee, Judith L. Matthews.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

May, Ciklin and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Charles JOHNSON, also known as Chuck Johnson, also known as Leon Johnson, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-30049 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 11/28/2016

Jeffrey Ryan McLaren, Kevin G. Boit-mann, Assistant U.S, Attorney, Diane Hol-lenshead Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Maurice Edwin Landrieu, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Charles Johnson, Pro Se, Beaumont, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

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, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Johnson has filed a response. The record is not suffi*880ciently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Johnson’s claims of ineffective assistance of 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.

*

 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.
SECOND DI VI SI ON
M I LLER, P. J.

, RI CKM A N, P. J.

, and R EESE, J.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

D E A D LIN E S A R E N O LO N G E R TO LLE D IN T

H I S
C O U R T. A LL FILIN G S M U ST B E S U B M I TTE D WITH IN
TH E TIM E S S E T B Y

O U R C O U R T R U LE S

.

June 8, 2021



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 9 A0 84 8

. CLOUTHIER v

. THE M EDICAL CENTER OF CENTRAL GEORGIA, INC.

M I LLE R , Pres i d i n g J u d g e.

In Cl o u t h i er

v. Th e Med

. Cen t er o

f Cen t r a l Ga ., In c. , 3 5 1 Ga. Ap p . 8 8 3 (8 3 3

SE2 d 58 4 ) (2 0 1 9 ), we r e v e r s e d t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d i sm i s s al o f Fran ci s Cl o u t h i er’ s

co m p l ai n t ag ai n st t h e M ed i cal Cen t er o f Cen t ral Geo rg i a, In c. Th e Su p rem e Co u rt o f

G eo rg ia s u b s eq uen t l y v acat ed o u r d eci s i o n an d rem an ded t h e cas e fo r reco nside r a tion

i n l i g h t o f Bo wd

en v. Th e Med

. Cen t er

, In c. , 30 9 Ga. 1 8 8, 2 0 2 (II) (2 ) (b ) (8 4 5 SE2 d

5 5 5 ) (2 0 2 0 ). See Th e Med

. Cen t er o f Cen t r a l Ga

. , I

n c

. v. Cl o ut h i er , Cas e No

.

S1 9 C0 32 6 (d eci d ed Au g u s t 1 0 , 2 0 2 0 ).

Th e M ed ical Cen t er of Cen t ral G e o r g ia, In c., h as fi l ed a co n sen t m o t i o n

req u es t i ng t h at we rem an d t h e in s t an t cas e t o t h e t ri al co u rt b ecau s e t h e p art i es h av ereach ed an ag reem en t wh ereb y t h ei r di s p ut e w i l l b e res ol v ed

. A cco rd i n g t o t h e

m o ti o n , Cl o u t h i er ag rees t o t h i s d i s p os i t i o n. Gi v en t h i s p en d i n g co n s en t m o t i o n , t h e

ju d g m en t o f t h e t ri al co u rt i s rev ers ed

, an d t h i s cas e i s rem an d ed t o t h e t ri al co u rt fo r

t h e p art i es to effect uat e th e ag reem en t

. See Pet t y v. Pet t y , 2 2 7 Ga. 5 2 1 (1 ) (1 8 1 SE2 d

8 5 9 ) (1 9 7 1 ) (rev ers i n g t h e tri al co u rt ’ s ju d g m en t an d rem an d i n g fo r t h e p art i es ’

“ ag reem en t [t o ] b e fi l ed i n o rd er to p erm i t th e ag reed d i s p o s i t i o n o f t he cas e”);

Ba r net t v. Mo s s , 9 8 Ga. A p p. 5 8 1 (1 0 6 SE2 d 6 0 ) (1 9 58 ) (rev ers i ng fo r t h e p art i es “ to

carry ou t [t h ei r] co m

p ro m i s e ag reem en t ”); s ee al so Ch a r ter HR, In c. v. Per r y , 3 2 0 Ga.

Ap p

. 3 1 5 (7 3 9 SE2 d 7 7 0 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (rev ers in g wh ere t h e p art i es fi l ed a co n s en t m o t i o n

t o rem a n d t o al l o w t hem t o s eek t h e St at e Bo ard o f W o rk ers ’ Co m p en s at i o n ’ s

ap p ro v al o f a s et t l em en t ag reem en t ).

Ju d g men t r ever

s ed a n d ca s e r ema n d

ed

. Ri ckma n
, P.J., a n d Rees e, J., co n cu r

.

2
Exhibit 10.2



April 11, 2005



Mr. Charles Zwebner

YAK Communications (America) Inc

55 Town Centre, Suite 610

Scarborough, Ontario, Canada MIP 4X4



|RE: | Invoice Ready Billing and Information Management Services Agreement between Billing Concepts, L (BCI) and YAK Communications (America) Inc. (YAKs) dated
April 27, 2001 (the Agreement)
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dear Mr. Zwebner:



This Letter Agreement will confirm the agreement between BCI
and YAK to extend the Term of the Agreement by an additional three (3) years to April 27, 2008 (the Extended Term.) Accordingly, YAK will be charged the 3 Year Company Processing Fees as specified in Exhibit C of
the Agreement during the Extended Term. Following the Extended Term, the Agreement will renew automatically, at the 1 Year rates in Exhibit C for successive periods of one (1) year (Renewal Term unless (i) the
parties mutually agree in writing to re-extend the Term of the Agreement for another three (3) years, or (ii) the Agreement is terminated by written notice of non-renewal from either Party delivered at least ninety (90) days prior to the scheduled
expiration date. The initial Term, Extended Term, Renewal Terms and any other term extensions will constitute the Term.



Except as set forth herein above the Agreement is not modified in any manner, and all other terms and conditions of the Agreement will remain in full
force and effect to the extent they do not conflict with this Letter Agreement



If this Letter Agreement accurately reflects your understanding and acceptance of the change to the Agreement, please sign in the space provided below and return this original document to me. Thank you.



Sincerely,/S/ Greg CarterExecutive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer




AGREED AND ACCEPTED on this 21
day of April, 2005:



|                                  |  |                    
|--------------------------------- |  | -------------------
|YAK Communications (America) Inc.
|                                  | 
|By:                               |  | /s/ Charles Zwebner
|Name:                             |  | Charles Zwebner    
|Title:                            |  | CEO                



14
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

CRESCENT BANKING COMPANY

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Crescent Banking Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Donald Boggus, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, based on my knowledge, 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/ J. DONALD BOGGUS, JR.                    
| |  |  |  | J. Donald Boggus, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
| |  |  |  | May 17, 2010                                 

This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Doretha SELBY-DIGGS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6286

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 31, 2017

Doretha Selby-Diggs, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Patrick Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia; V. Kathleen Dougherty, Joseph Kosky, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appel-lee.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Doretha Selby-Diggs appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to compel the filing of a motion for a sentence reduction based on substantial assistance. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Selby-Diggs,*No. 2:14-cr-00137-RBS-RJK-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 13, 2017). 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*
No. 12-15-00080-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TWELFTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT

OF TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OFEDSEL AMOS DIXONAND HEATHER

D. DIXON AND IN THE INTEREST OF ASHLEY LYNNDIXON, A CHILD

IT OF APPEALS

12th Court of Appeals District

On Appeal from the

354th Judicial District Court

ofRains County, Texas

In Cause No. 9544 n. \ CATHY S. LUSK, CLER}<

AMENDED REQUEST TO POSTPONE ALL APPEAL DEADLINES

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:

NOW COMES EDSEL AMOS DIXON, Appellant herein, and files this Request to

postpone all appeal deadlines and would show the Court as follows:

1. On May 8th, 2015 Appellant received the attached Exhibit "A" from the Rains County District Clerk in regards to Cause No. 9544. The Notice OfJury Docket Setting sets

the above referenced case on the Court'sjury trial docket for January 19th 2016 at

9:00am.

2. The setting ofthe above referenced case for Jury trial is a clear indication that the final

judgment signed on January 23, 2015 was in fact notfinal. All issues and claims have

not been decided, therefore said judgment signed on January 23, 2015 was not a final

judgment or order, therefore making this appeal aprematurely filed appeal.
Appellant would respectfully request pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 27.1.(a) and 27.2.

that this court accept this appeal as being prematurely filed and that all deadlines for

this appeal be postponed and restarted, holding in reserve all fees currently paid,

pending a Amended Notice ofAppeal being filed pursuant to the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure after aFINAL judgment ofall issues has been signed.

4. This Request is not made for delay, but rather so that Appellant may have the

opportunity to appeal all FINAL orders orjudgments decided in this cause number if

necessary.

Wherefore premises considered, Appellant requests that this Court grant the requested relief

above, restarting this appeal, pending aAmended Notice ofAppeal being filed after a final

judgment of all issues has been reached.

Respectfully Submitted,

Edsel Amos Dixon

Pro Se Litigant

732 Weddle Dr.

Grapevine, TX 76051

682-301-0592

eddixon903@gmail.com
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned hereby certifies thatAppellant has conferred orhasmade a reasonable

attempt to confer with all parties to this appeal. Robert L. Roberts does NOT oppose the

reliefsought in this motion via telephone conference held on 7/27/2015. Mr Henry C. Black,

attorney for Heather Dixon, would not return multiple telephone calls made to his office on '

7/27/2015, therefore indicating the Attorney Mr Henry C. Black holds no position on this

motion.

i—

jzt

Edsel A Dixon

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that atrue and correct copy ofthe above and foregoing was mailed to

Robert L. Roberts, 1260 RS County Road 1310, Point, Texas 75472 and Mr. Henry C.

Black, 2510 Lee Street, Greenville, Texas 75402.

Edsel A Dixon
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 29, 2019

t1021 

# Order

Clerk October 29, 2019

158598

RYAN MITCHELL,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 159598

COA: 338701

Bay CC: 15

- 003594

- CL

DORE & ASSOCIATES CONTRACTING,

INC.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the Septe mber 13, 2018

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
David BAKER, Jr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Amando CRUZ, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1159

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Writ of mandamus is denied.
Tyrone WELLS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-0318

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 31, 2018

Tyrone Wells, pro se, Petitioner.

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

Per Curiam.

We dismissed the appeal in *Wells v. State* , case number 1D17-4309, when Wells failed to respond to an order on untimeliness. We now grant Wells's petition for belated appeal, which we treat as a motion to reinstate, and we reinstate case number 1D17-4309. The initial brief in case number 1D17-4309 shall be filed within thirty days of the date of this opinion.

Lewis, Makar, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4735

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JIMMY JAMES WITHERSPOON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:05-cr-00372-JAB) Submitted: December 14, 2006 Decided: December 19, 2006 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jimmy James Witherspoon appeals the 240-month sentence imposed after he was convicted by a jury of one count of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000). The district court concluded that Witherspoon qualified for sentencing as an armed career criminal pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). On appeal, Witherspoon asserts that his sentence was unconstitutionally enhanced based upon facts, his qualifying prior convictions, that were not alleged in the indictment, admitted by him, or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Witherspoon does not assert that his prior convictions are not valid predicates for sentencing as an armed career criminal, but states only a legal challenge to his sentence. Witherspoon’s argument is foreclosed by our decisions in United States v. Thompson , 421 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2005), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 1463 (2006), and United States v. Cheek , 415 F.3d 349, 352-53 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 640 (2005). We therefore affirm Witherspoon’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.8.1 
Third Point Reinsurance Ltd. 


Schedule of Signatories to the Director Service Agreement
 
	
	
	 

	Name

	 

	Steven E. Fass

	 

	Rafe de la Gueronniere

	 

	Gretchen A. Hayes



	 

	Mary R. Hennessy

	 

	Neil McConachie

	 

	Mark Parkin
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adrienne Norma LOGAN, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11356 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Adrienne Norma Logan, Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Adrienne Norma Logan has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Logan has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 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.

*

 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.
#### Gwendolyn Y. Randazzo, Appellant, v Gerber Life Insurance Company, Respondent.

[769 NYS2d 753]—

In an action to recover damages for a violation of General Business Law § 349, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J), entered October 15, 2002, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CFLR 3211 (a) (1) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Fursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), dismissal of the complaint is warranted where the documentary evidence resolves all factual issues as a matter of law and definitively disposes of the asserted claims *(see Bank v Lake,*284 AD2d 355 [2001]; *Roth v Goldman,*254 AD2d 405 [1998]; *Gephardt v Morgan Guar. Trust*
      *486Co. *of N.Y.,*191 AD2d 229 [1993]). In the instant case, the plaintiff alleges that the subject insurance policy did not properly disclose that there would be a period of days, weeks, or months during which no coverage existed. However, the policy clearly states when coverage is to begin and when premiums are due. Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.P., Luciano, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.
#### Edward MARCANO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6828

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 17, 2017

Decided: October 20, 2017

Edward Marcano, Appellant Pro Se.

Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Edward Marcano seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2264 (2012) petition without prejudice for failure to pay the filing fee or to move for leave to proceed in forma pauper-is. In his notice of appeal, Marcano provided evidence that he did submit the requisite filing fee. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 64(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 645-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Marcano seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2016); *Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remand the case to the district court with instructions to give Marcano an opportunity to reinstate his case. 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.

*DISMISSED AND REMANDED*
Linda KILMER, Appellant, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 3D17-506

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed November 29, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Andrea Faith LOPEZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4910

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.