alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12984-12985]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04850]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. Polo 
Development, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-2400-JRA, was 
lodged with the United States District Court for the Northern District 
of Ohio on March 1, 2022.
    This proposed Consent Decree concerns an amended complaint filed by 
the United States against Defendants Polo Development, Inc., AIM 
Georgia, LLC, Joseph Zdrilich, Donna Zdrilich, and Carbon Hills, LLC, 
pursuant to Section 309(b) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319(b), 
to obtain injunctive relief from and impose civil penalties against the 
Defendants for violating Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 
U.S.C. 1311(a), by discharging pollutants without a permit into waters 
of the United States. The proposed Consent Decree resolves these claims 
by requiring the Defendants to restore impacted areas, record a 
conservation easement, and pay a civil penalty.
    The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to 
this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of 
publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Patrick R. 
Jacobi, United States Department of Justice, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division, Environmental Defense Section, Denver Place 
Building, 999 18th Street, Suite 370--South Terrace, Denver, CO 80202, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dfafaabdbcb0b2b2bab1ab80babbacf1bab1adbb9faaacbbb0b5f1b8b0a9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="12626770717d7f7f777c664d7776613c777c6076526761767d783c757d64">[email protected]</span></a>, and refer to United States v. Polo 
Development, Inc., et al., DJ #'s 90-5-1-1-21099, 90-5-1-1-22034.
    Subject to public health protocols, the proposed Consent Decree may 
be

[[Page 12985]]

examined at the Clerk's Office, United States District Court for the 
Northern District of Ohio, 2 South Main Street, Akron, Ohio 44308. In 
addition, the proposed Consent Decree may be examined electronically at 
http://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees.

Cherie Rogers,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-04850 Filed 3-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Exhibit 27

Financial Data Schedule

 "This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from June
30, 1998 10QSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements."
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-START>               APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                 JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                       24,959
<SECURITIES>                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                175,706
<ALLOWANCES>                 0
<INVENTORY>                  14,192,569
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             200,665
<PP&E>                       46,437
<DEPRECIATION>               (1,016,660)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               13,423,011
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        4,984
<BONDS>                      16,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>        0     
<PREFERRED>                  1,212
<COMMON>                     47,276
<OTHER-SE>                   13,353,239
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 13,423,011
<SALES>                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             0
<CGS>                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                4,526
<OTHER-EXPENSES>             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>              (4,526)
<INCOME-TAX>                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>          (4,526)
<DISCONTINUED>               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>              0
<CHANGES>                    0
<NET-INCOME>                 (4,526)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                .000
<EPS-DILUTED>                .000
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1



                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                              HELEN OF TROY LIMITED
                   1998 STOCK OPTION AND RESTRICTED STOCK PLAN

         WHEREAS, the Board of Directors and the shareholders of Helen of Troy
Limited, a Bermuda corporation (the "Company"), have heretofore approved and
adopted the Helen of Troy Limited 1998 Stock Option and Restricted Stock Plan
(the "Plan");

         NOW THEREFORE, effective as of the Effective Date (as defined below),
the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

                  Section 5(a) of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the
                  words "3,000,000 shares" in Section 5(a) of the Plan and
                  substituting in lieu therefor the words "6,000,000 shares."

         This First Amendment to Helen of Troy Limited 1998 Stock Option and
Restricted Stock Plan is intended to be, and shall be deemed to be, effective as
of August 28, 2001, the date on which the shareholders of the Company approved
the hereinabove amendment to the Plan at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the
Shareholders (the "Effective Date").
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Steven WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10062

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 16, 2017 Honolulu, Hawaii

Filed June 29, 2017

Marc A. Wallenstein, DOJ—Office of the US Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Alexander Silvert, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDHI—Federal Public Defender’s Office (Honolulu), Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: FISHER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Michael Wright appeals the district court’s sentence following his guilty plea for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. The record does not support Wright’s argument that the district court plainly erred by holding him responsible for the conduct of another. Wright personally possessed with intent to distribute the package containing methamphetamine, and therefore the district court’s use of methamphetamine to set Wright’s guideline range merely held him responsible for his own conduct. *See*U.S.S.G. § lB1.3(a)(l) (defining scope of relevant conduct for which a defendant may be held responsible); *see also United States v. Salazar,*5 F.3d 445, 446 (9th Cir. 1993) (finding a defendant who helped to import drugs personally responsible for the type and quantity of drugs actually imported, even when he claimed that he had been misled as to drug type).

2. The district court correctly used methamphetamine (instead of marijuana) to calculate Wright’s sentencing guideline range, despite the fact that Wright thought the package contained marijuana. Unlike drug type and quantity, a defendant’s *knowledge*of drug type and quantity is not a fact that must be admitted or proved beyond a reasonable doubt. *United States v. Jefferson,*791 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir. 2015); *see also United States v. Soto-Zuniga,*837 F.3d 992, 1004-05 (9th Cir. 2016).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-19-0000502

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

REMAX PROPERTIES, authorized agent for RICHARD K. TAHARA

and MARJORIE T. TAHARA, owners of the subject property,

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT

PUNA DIVISION

(CIVIL NO. 3RC-18-1-1186)

ORDER DISMISSING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Chan and Hiraoka, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the document, filed March 12,

2020, by self-represented Defendant-Appellant Christopher Young

(Young), which the court construes as a motion for

reconsideration of the February 28, 2020 order dismissing appeal

(Motion), the papers in support, and the record, it appears that

(1) on February 28, 2020, the court dismissed the appeal for

failure to file the statement of jurisdiction and opening brief;

(2) in the instant Motion, Young seeks reconsideration of the

February 28, 2020 order; (3) a motion for reconsideration of the

February 28, 2020 order was due on or before March 9, 2020. See

Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 40(a); and (4) the

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-19-0000502

06-APR-2020

09:22 AM
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

instant Motion, filed March 12, 2020, is untimely as a motion for

reconsideration.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is

dismissed as untimely.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 6, 2020.

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

Chief Judge

/s/ Derrick H.M. Chan

Associate Judge

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Associate Judge

2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7467

BILLY G. ASEMANI, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

KATHLEEN S. GREEN, ECI Warden; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE 

STATE OF MARYLAND, 

 Respondents - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:08-cv-01591-RDB) 

Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 18, 2008 

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Billy G. Asemani, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Billy G. Asemani seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) 

petition for failing to exhaust state remedies. The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) 

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard 

by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any 

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is 

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by 

the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th 

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Asemani has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesus Jose GASCA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40189 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 26, 2017

*827Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Scott Andrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jesus Jose Gasea appeals the sentence of 42 months of imprisonment imposed following his guilty-plea conviction of illegal reentry into the United States following deportation. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b). According to Gasea, the district court erred in treating his 2004 conviction under Texas Penal Code § 30.02 as a crime of violence because, under *Mathis v. United States,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016), § 30.02 is indivisible and not categorically a crime of violence for purposes of U.S.S.G. § § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). We review the district court’s interpretation or application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. *United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez,*517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).

The Texas burglary statute, § 30.02(a) has three subsections, and we have held that an offense under § 30.02(a)(1) qualifies as generic burglary. *See United States v. Conde-Castaneda,*753 F.3d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 2014). Moreover, § 30.02(a) is divisible and therefore amenable to the modified categorical analysis. *Conde-Castaneda,*753 F.3d at 176. In *United States v. Uribe,*838 F.3d 667, 669-71 (6th Cir. 2016), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1359, 197 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017), we affirmed the continuing viability of *Conde-Castaneda*after *Mathis.*Gasca’s arguments are therefore unavailing. *See id.*The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7047 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7047

           To prohibit funding for the World Economic Forum.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 18, 2024

    Mr. Perry (for himself, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Ogles, Mr. 
 Rosendale, and Mrs. Harshbarger) introduced the following bill; which 
            was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To prohibit funding for the World Economic Forum.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Defund Davos Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FUNDING.

    No funds available to the Department of State, the United States 
Agency for International Development, or any other department or agency 
may be used to provide funding for the World Economic Forum.
                                 <all>
```
#### Cedric GREENE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-4109

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed September 21, 2017

(D.C. No. 2:16-CV-00755-BSJ) (D. Utah)

Cedric Greene, Pro Se

Before LUCERO, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Nancy L. Moritz, Circuit Judge

Cedric Greene brought suit against Logisticare Solutions, Inc., alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress. On July 18, 2016, the district court dismissed Greene’s complaint sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Greene then filed a notice of appeail on April 14, 2017. We abated Greene’s appeal and remanded the case to the district court with directions to treat the notice of appeal as a motion to reopen time to file an appeal. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The district court denied Greene’s motion to reopen as untimely. Accordingly, we dismissed Greene’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Greene then filed a second Rule 4(a)(6) motion to reopen, which the district court also denied. Greene now timely appeals that decision.

We generally review a district court’s denial of a Rule 4(a)(6) motion for abuse of discretion. *Ogden v. San Juan Cty.,*32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). But Greene makes no effort to explain whether—let alone how—the district court abused its discretion in denying his second Rule 4(a)(6) motion. Thus, we affirm. *See Nixon v. City and Cty. of Denver,*784 F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th Cir. 2015) (“[T]he first task of an appellant is to explain to us why the district court’s decision was wrong.”); *Johnson v. Johnson,*466 F.3d 1213, 1215 (10th Cir. 2006) (affirming ruling that went unchallenged on appeal).

*

 After examining Greene’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument wouldn’t materially assist in the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment isn’t binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But it may be cited for its persuasive value. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
#### In the Matter of a Charge Against TUITELE and SALAVEA F.

No. 5-1910

High Court of American Samoa Criminal Jurisdiction, Trial Division

May 10, 1910

M. F. PARKER, Captain, U.S.N., Ret’d., *President of the High Court;*B. R. PATRICK, Chaplain, U.S.N., *Member;*and J. L. DWYER, *Member*

DECISION

The charges against Tuitele and Salavea are clearly proven by the evidence before the Court. An unlawful falsification of the report of the Village Magistrate is admitted by both defendants.

The defense have endeavored to show justification of their conduct and have made countercharges against some of the complaining witnesses, but the fact remains that Tuitele County Chief of Lealataua County, instigated by Salavea, forwarded to the District Governor a falsified report of the election of Village Chief of Leone.

Had Tuitele desired to question the report of the Magis-. trate, he could have readily done so by suitable endorsement on the Magistrate’s report, but, instead, he listened to the evil advice of Salavea and thus brought himself before this Court to answer the grave charges made against him.

The Court finds both defendants guilty of the second charge, and sentences Tuitele to pay a fine of $75.00 and Salavea to pay a fine of $50.00.

*223The Court expresses its strong disapproval of the conduct of District Judge Leoso in the premises. Leoso wilfully failed in his duty as an official and prominent citizen of the Western District by absenting himself from the meeting, although he was well aware of the meeting and planned to be excused upon a specious plea of sickness. The Court is inclined to believe the testimony of .the witness who stated that Leoso deliberately shirked attendance at the village meeting with the intention of making trouble afterwards. Leoso is warned that such conduct will not be tolerated, and that his duplicity in this matter is made a matter of record herein.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Exhibit 27

Financial Data Schedule

 "This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
September 30, 1998 10QSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements."
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-START>               JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                 SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                       20,445
<SECURITIES>                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                177,207
<ALLOWANCES>                 0
<INVENTORY>                  14,192,569
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             197,652
<PP&E>                       46,437
<DEPRECIATION>               (1,016,660)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               13,419,998
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        4,551
<BONDS>                      16,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>        0     
<PREFERRED>                  1,212
<COMMON>                     47,419
<OTHER-SE>                   13,350,516
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 13,419,998
<SALES>                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             0
<CGS>                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                3,704
<OTHER-EXPENSES>             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>              (3,704)
<INCOME-TAX>                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>          (3,704)
<DISCONTINUED>               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>              0
<CHANGES>                    0
<NET-INCOME>                 (3,704)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                .000
<EPS-DILUTED>                .000
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ralph JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-15644 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(April 27, 2017)

Lindsay Feinberg, Michelle Lee Sehie-berk, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Macon, GA, Melvin E. Hyde, Jr., Michael J. Moore, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Columbus, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Before HULL, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

David L. Roberts, appointed counsel for Ralph Johnson in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues offlnerit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and Johnson’s conviction and sentence is AFFIRMED.
**Michael Idrogo,** **Public Servant,** **Stale of** **Texas. Plaintiff/Relator/Appellant,** **v. Sarah** **Giirrahan, el** **alia (in** **official and** **individual capacities)!** **and others** **yet to be** **named, Defendana/Respondents,** **STATE OF** **TEXAS**

### 4lh**COURT OF** **APPEALS COUTYOFBEXAR** 

### Disi.**Court Case** **No. 2010-CI-12389** **Jury Trial** **Demand; demand for** **immediate suspension** **of county** **personnel pending** **trial MOTION TO** **PROCEED IN** **FORMA PAUPER** **IS In** **the interest** **of justice.** **Michael Idrogn.** **Public Servant** **candidate, State** **of Texas,** **Movani AppeNani/Plaintilf/Relator** **filed this** **Motion To** **Proceed In** **Forma Pauperis.** **Michael Idrogo** **is unable** **to afford** **costs of** **the Appeal.** 

### PREGO**ORATTO'NEM (PRAYER)** **Plaintiff/Rel tor/Appellant,** **in !he** **interest of** **justice and** **as a matter** **of law,** **prays lor** **granting of judgment** **in Plaintiff/Relator/Appcllant's** **favor and** **thai Plflintiff/Rclaior/Appellani** **have such** **other and** **further relief** **to which** **Pla in** **tiff/Relat or/Appellant** **may show** **justly entitled.** 

### Declared**to the** **best of** **my belief,** **pursuant I"/14'"** **Amend .Bill** **of Rights.** **U.S. Const.,** **TX Const.,** **laws enforcing.** **without prejudice** **U.C.C. Filed** **on this** **date by** **mailbox. Michael** **Idrogo. Plaintiff/Relator.** **deputized Federal** **Court 1>)K!),** **Public Servant,** **State of** **Texas (candidate** **for Federal** **office): Navy** **commander veteran** **of foreign** **wars 317** **West Rosewood** **Avenue San** **Antonio, Texas** **78212 copy:** **Attorney General** **of the** **United States,** **Federal authorities.** **State authorities** **AFFIRMATION STATE** **OF TEXAS** **COUNTY OF** **BEXAR I.** **petitioner. Michael** **(drogo, do** **declared and** **affirm the** **above is** **correct lo** **the best** **of my** **observation, recollection,** **belief.**

### Declared**to the** **best of** **my belief,** **pursuant P'/M'^Amend..** **Bill of** **Rights. U.S.Const.,** **TX Const..** **lews enforcing,** **without prejudice** **U.C ,.,** **'i Daic** **Michael Idrogo,** **Plaintiff/Re] ator.** **Public Servant.** **State of Texas,** **(candidate for** **Federal office)** **to ~.** **■■ £71** 

### ^1**0)**

# %~lr**7^ -1** 

# \S>**JO (.0** 

# 3£**jj**