alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit
        32.2**
 
 
 **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 Annual Report of Luna Technologies International,
        Inc.
        (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as
        filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
        “Report”), I, Kimberly Landry, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
        certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
        of
        the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:
 
 
 (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.
 
 
 Date: 
        April 25, 2006
 /s/
        Kimberly Landry
 Kimberly
        Landry
 Chief
        Financial Officer
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0830 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-CE-026-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: G. Keith Noles Date

Branch Manager Date
PART II -
OTHER INFORMATION





Exhibit
32.2 Section 906 CFO Certification




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the filing of this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter
Ended July 5, 2008 (the "Report") by Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc., the undersigned
hereby certifies that:





1.
            The
      Report containing the financial statements fully complies with the
      requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended, and





2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Pomeroy IT
      Solutions, Inc.








August
8, 2008


/s/CraigJ.PropstCraig J. PropstVice
      President, Treasurer and Interim Chief Financial
  Officer






A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Antonio L. JAMES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3567

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 17, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The petition for belated appeal is dismissed as untimely. See Fla. R. App. P.

WALLACE, CRENSHAW, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.3



AMENDMENT TO THE
AMENDED AND RESTATED 
CATCHMARK TIMBER TRUST, INC. 
2005 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 


This Amendment (“Amendment”) to the Amended and Restated CatchMark Timber Trust, Inc. 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), has been adopted by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of CatchMark Timber Trust, Inc. (the “Company”), to be effective as of January 19, 2018.


1.    The Plan is hereby amended by deleting subsection Section 5.2(c) in its entirety and replacing it with the following: 


“(c) Shares withheld from an Award to satisfy tax withholding requirements will again be available for issuance pursuant to Awards granted under the Plan, but Shares delivered by a Participant (by either actual delivery or attestation) to satisfy tax withholding requirements shall not be added back to the number of Shares available for issuance under the Plan; provided, however, that with respect to Restricted Stock Awards or any other Award pursuant to which Shares are actually issued to the Participant on the Grant Date, only the Shares withheld from an Award to satisfy minimum tax withholding requirements will again be available for issuance pursuant to Awards granted under the Plan.”


2.    The Plan is hereby amended by deleting Section 17.3 in its entirety and replacing it with the following:


“17.3.    WITHHOLDING.  The Company or any Affiliate shall have the authority and the right to deduct or withhold, or require a Participant to remit to the Company or such Affiliate, an amount sufficient to satisfy federal, state, and local taxes (including the Participant’s FICA obligation) required by law to be withheld with respect to any exercise, lapse of restriction or other taxable event arising as a result of the Plan. The obligations of the Company under the Plan will be conditioned on such payment or arrangements and the Company or such Affiliate will, to the extent permitted by law, have the right to deduct any such taxes from any payment of any kind otherwise due to the Participant. Unless otherwise determined by the Committee at the time the Award is granted or thereafter, any such withholding requirement may be satisfied, in whole or in part, by withholding from the Award Shares having a Fair Market Value on the date of withholding equal to the amount required to be withheld in accordance with applicable tax requirements (up to the maximum individual statutory rate in the applicable jurisdiction as may be permitted under then-current accounting principles to qualify for equity classification), in accordance with such procedures as the Committee establishes.”


3.    Except as expressly amended hereby, the terms of the Plan shall be and remain unchanged and the Plan as amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized representative on the day and year first above written.


CATCHMARK TIMBER TRUST, INC. 


By:    Brian M. Davis                
Authorized Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Omar LOBO-LOPEZ, a/k/a Joker, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6491

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 25, 2017

Decided: September 8, 2017

Oscar Omar Lobo-Lopez, Appellant Pro Se, Patricia T. Giles, Morris Rudolph Parker, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Oscar Omar Lobo-Lopez seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. On appeal, Lobo-Lopez reargues the merits of his motion but does not address the timeliness of his appeal. Finding his appeal untimely filed, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

In civil cases in which the United States is a party, parties are accorded 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). The time limits of *188Rule 4(a) are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978); *see also Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007) (“Today we make clear that the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”). Rule 4(a)(6)(B) permits reopening of the appeal period if the litigant moves for such relief within 180 days after the entry of the judgment or 14 days after the party receives notice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(d), whichever is earlier. Thus, a Rule 4(a)(6) motion may not be granted if it is filed more than 180 days from the entry date of the order the movant is seeking to appeal.

Lobo-Lopez asserts that he was not aware of the § 2255 proceeding (filed by counsel) until after his motion had already been denied. In this case, the district court’s final order was entered on the docket on July 27, 2016.* The 180th day from the entry of the district court’s order was January 23, 2017. Lobo-Lopez’s notice of appeal, filed when he was incarcerated, was filed at the earliest on March 31, 2017. *See Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).

Because Lobo-Lopez did not timely file his notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal. 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*

*

The district court also subsequently filed an amended memorandum. However, even if the time is calculated from the later date, Lobo-Lopez’s appeal was still untimely.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          41,876
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           9,881
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                   681
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     40,525
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        227,596
<ALLOWANCE>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 363,048
<DEPOSITS>                                     285,115
<SHORT-TERM>                                    11,385
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             12,832
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          3
<COMMON>                                            20
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,294
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 363,048
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  9,500
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  642
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   581
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                10,723
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,673
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,254
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,469
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      545
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,742
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (36)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,670
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,670
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .78
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0<F1>
<LOANS-NON>                                      8,780
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   940
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      109
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,376<F1>
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,376<F1>
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>
THIS INFORMATION IS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE FORM 10-Q.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of NaviSite, Inc.
(the "Company") for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Arthur P. Becker, Chief Executive Officer and President of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(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.



Date: November 2, 2004                           By: /s/ Arthur P. Becker
                                                     --------------------
                                                     Arthur P. Becker
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                     President
#### HELEN HYJACK, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. JOSEPH M. NOLAN, ETC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Argued November 9, 1977

Decided December 1, 1977.

Before Judges Lynch, Bischoff and Kole.

*Mr. Jay Scott MacNeill*argued the cause for appellant *(Messrs. Nolan, Dynes, Bell & Moore,*attorneys; *Messrs. Mac-Neill and William F. McEnroe*on the brief).

*Mr. James E. Flynn*argued the cause for respondents.

*174Pee Curiam.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Kentz in his opinion reported at 144 *N. J. Super.*545 (Law Div. 1976).
Howard SOHN, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. U.S. BANK, N.A., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2035

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 17, 2017

Upon consideration, appellant's motion to relinquish jurisdiction is hereby denied.

ORDERED that appellee's motion to dismiss appeal for lack of jurisdiction is granted, and this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is hereby dismissed without prejudice to timely filing a notice of appeal after an appealable final order has been entered by the trial court.

SUAREZ, LAGOA and SCALES, JJ., concur.
II 

Calendar No. 570 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6188 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 4, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

NOVEMBER 20, 2024 

Reported by Mr. PETERS, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 420 Highway 17 North in Surfside Beach, 

South Carolina, as the ‘‘Nancy Yount Childs Post Office 

Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NANCY YOUNT CHILDS POST OFFICE BUILD4 ING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 420 Highway 17 North in 

7 Surfside Beach, South Carolina, shall be known and desVerDate Sep 11 2014 07:06 Nov 21, 2024 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6188.RS H6188

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6188 RS

1 ignated as the ‘‘Nancy Yount Childs Post Office Build2 ing’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Nancy Yount Childs 

7 Post Office Building’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Calendar No. 570 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6188 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostYount Childs Post Office Building’’. Surfside Beach, South Carolina, as the ‘‘Nancy al Service located at 420 Highway 17 North in 

NOVEMBER 20, 2024 

Reported without amendment 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-17-0000248

23-MAY-2018

08:09 AM
Sean ASHMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3925

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Kelly Lynn MOSIER, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Ileana Bory DIAZ, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1802

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Manuel RODRIGUEZ-SANCHEZ, also known as Felepe Martinez, also known as Victor Ferrar, also known as Victor Ferrar-Cid, also known as Felipe Martinez, also known as Manuel Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41367 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for flain-tiff-Appellee

Manuel Rodriguez-Sanchez, Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Manuel Rodriguez-Sanchez 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). Rodriguez-Sanchez 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.
Charles RAMIREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-331

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 11, 2018

Charles Ramirez, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SALTER, EMAS and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See* § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2010) (providing in part that "no youthful offender shall be committed to the custody of the department [of corrections] for a substantive violation for a period longer than the maximum sentence for the offense for which he or she was found guilty, with credit for time served while incarcerated, or for a technical or nonsubstantive violation for a period longer than 6 years or for a period longer than the maximum sentence for the offense for which he or she was found guilty, whichever is less"); *Flores v. State*, 46 So.3d 102, 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (holding that the six-year prison sentence "cap" under section 958.14 applies only to sentences resulting from a technical violation of youthful offender supervision, not to a substantive violation (i.e., the commission of a new criminal act), and that this is true even if the new criminal charge is nolle prossed) (citing *State v. Meeks*, 789 So.2d 982 (Fla. 2001) ).
# Diario Oficial C 182A/14 d

| | ISSN 1977-0928 |
| --- | --- |
| Diario Oficial
  de la Unión Europea | C 182A |
| | |
| Edición en lengua española | Comunicaciones e informaciones | 57° año14 de junio de 2014 |

ISSN 1977-0928

Diario Oficial

de la Unión Europea

C 182A

Edición en lengua española

Comunicaciones e informaciones

57° año14 de junio de 2014

---

| Número de información | Sumario | Página |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Anuncios |
| | PROCEDIMIENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS |
| | Oficina Europea de Selección de Personal (EPSO) |
| 2014/C 182A/01 | Anuncio de anulación | 1 |

Número de información

Sumario

Página

V   Anuncios

PROCEDIMIENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS

Oficina Europea de Selección de Personal (EPSO)

2014/C 182A/01

Anuncio de anulación

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 182A/02 | Historial de los Diarios Oficiales, Serie C A, Concursos | 2 |

2014/C 182A/02

Historial de los Diarios Oficiales, Serie C A, Concursos

2

| ES | |
| --- | --- |

ES

---

V Anuncios

PROCEDIMIENTOS ADMINISTRATIVOS

Oficina Europea de Selección de Personal (EPSO)

| 14.6.2014 | ES | Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea | CA 182/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2014

ES

Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea

CA 182/1

---

ANUNCIO DE ANULACIÓN

2014/C 182 A/01

Las oposiciones generales:

| — | EPSO/AST/127/13 — Correctores de pruebas (AST 3) de lengua griega (EL)

  y |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/127/13 — Correctores de pruebas (AST 3) de lengua griega (EL)

y

| — | EPSO/AST/128/13 — Correctores de pruebas (AST 3) de lengua portuguesa (PT), |
| --- | --- |

—

EPSO/AST/128/13 — Correctores de pruebas (AST 3) de lengua portuguesa (PT),

cuyos anuncios se publicaron en el Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea
   (1), quedan anuladas.

---

(1)  DO C 131 A de 8.5.2013, p. 1.

---

14.6.2014

| 14.6.2014 | ES | Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea | CA 182/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

ES

Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea

CA 182/2

---

HISTORIAL DE LOS DIARIOS OFICIALES, SERIE C A, CONCURSOS

2014/C 182 A/02

A continuación figura la lista de los Diarios Oficiales, serie C A, publicados en el año en curso.

Salvo indicación contraria, los Diarios Oficiales se publican en todas las versiones lingüísticas.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |
| 176 | |
| 178 | |
| 180 | |
| 182 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

163

164

176

178

180

182

---