alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 135 (Wednesday, July 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18849]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

    In accordance with Department policy, 28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.7, notice 
is hereby given that on the 23rd day of March, 1998, a proposed Consent 
Decree in United States, v. Rudi R. Vafadari, et al., Civil Action CV 
96-1434 PHX EHC was lodged with the United States District Court for 
the District of Arizona. The Complaint was filed in this case for 
recovery of response costs and civil penalties from Rudi R. Vafadari 
and others, pursuant to Sections 104, 106 and 107 of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as 
amended (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9604, 9606 and 9607, related to the DCE 
Circuits site, in Phoenix, Arizona.
    Pursuant to the consent decree, the defendants will pay $328,500 in 
response costs, and a civil penalty of $10,000 for failure to provide 
timely and complete responses to information request letters.
    For thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this notice, 
the Department of Justice will receive written comments relating to the 
Consent Decree from persons who are not parties to the action. Comments 
should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 
20530 and should refer to United States v. Rudi R. Vafadari et al., D. 
J. Ref. No. 90-11-2-413C.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Region IX office 
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, California 94105, or at the U.S. Attorney's Office, 230 
First Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona.
    Copies of the Consent Decree also may be examined at the Consent 
Decree Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 2005, 
telephone number (202) 634-0892. A copy of the Consent Decree may be 
obtained in person or by mail from the Consent Decree Library. In 
requesting a copy, please tender a check in the amount of $6.75 (25 
cents per page reproduction charge) payable to ``Consent Decree 
Library.''
Joel Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section.
[FR Doc. 98-18849 Filed 7-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 138 (Monday, July 20, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38860-38861]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19244]


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

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for 
Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

ACTION: Request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The NCUA plans to submit the following extension of a 
currently approved information collection to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This information 
collection is published to obtain comments from the public.

DATES: Comments will be accepted until September 18, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to 
NCUA Clearance Officer or OMB Reviewer listed below:
    Clearance Officer: Mr. James L. Baylen (703) 518-6411, National 
Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 
22314-3428, Fax No. 703-518-6433, E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0d676f6c746168634d636e786c236a627b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="721810130b1e171c321c1107135c151d04">[email protected]</span></a>.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the information collection 
requests, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by 
calling the NCUA Clearance Officer, James L. Baylen, (703) 518-6411.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposal for the following collection of 
information:
    OMB Number: 3133-0011.
    Form Number: NCUA 9600.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Application for Insurance of Accounts State-Chartered Credit 
Unions.

[[Page 38861]]

    Description: Section 201 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 
1781) requires state-chartered credit unions desiring federal insurance 
to submit an application. The requirement also applies to federal 
credit unions converting to state charters and desiring federal 
insurance.
    Respondents: State chartered credit unions and federal credit 
unions converting to state charter that desire federal insurance of 
member accounts.
    Estimated No. of Respondents/Recordkeepers: 61.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Response: 4.5 hours.
    Frequency of Response: As required.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 268.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: N/A.

    By the National Credit Union Administration Board on July 13, 
1998.
Becky Baker,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 98-19244 Filed 7-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 10-10726.

#### David L. Green, Petitioner v. Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy.

565 U.S. 811, 132 S. Ct. 86,

181 L. Ed. 2d 16,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6750.

October 3, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until October 24, 2011, within which to pay the docket*17ing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
No. 10-9078.

#### Selwyn Davis, Petitioner v. Texas.

565 U.S. 828, 132 S. Ct. 122,

181 L. Ed. 2d 45,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5270.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.

Same case below, 313 S.W.3d 317.
No. 10-7839.

#### Joseph A. Stock, Petitioner v. Dave Rednour, Warden.

562 U.S. 1189, 131 S. Ct. 1022,

178 L. Ed. 2d 846,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 768.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 621 F.3d 644.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              18
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,436
<ALLOWANCES>                                       494
<INVENTORY>                                        517
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,444
<PP&E>                                          94,310
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,640
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 131,309
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,953
<BONDS>                                             12
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,082
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   131,309
<SALES>                                         15,070
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,182
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,180
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (19)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,761
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,740)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,740)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,740)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (28.7)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (28.7)


</TABLE>
**DoD 4000.25-2-M**

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

**AP3.55. APPENDIX 3.55**

**LOGISTICS REASSIGNMENT STORAGE INFORMATION REPLY**

## 

**AP3.59-**

AP3.55-1

APPENDIX 3.55
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1173 

KA 10-01261 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, SCONIERS, GORSKI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

ADAMA COULIBALY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (BARBARA J. DAVIES OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (J. MICHAEL MARION OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael F.

Pietruszka, J.), rendered April 9, 2010. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted arson in the second

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737).

Entered: November 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019

Change 13

AP3.30-1 APPENDIX 3.30

AP3.30. APPENDIX 3.30

FOLLOW-UP FOR DELINQUENT MATERIEL RECEIPT 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

FIELD LEGEND

RECORD

POSITION(S) ENTRY AND INSTRUCTIONS

Document Identifier

Code

1-3 Enter DIC DRF.

Routing Identifier 

Code(From)

4-6 Enter RIC of activity preparing the 

transaction.1

Media and Status 7 Duplicate form the Materiel Release 

Confirmation (MRC) (DIC AR_) or DIC ASH 

Shipment Status.2

Stock or Part Number 8-22 Duplicate form the MRC or DIC ASH 

Shipment Status.2

Unit of Issue 23-24 Duplicate form the MRC or DIC ASH 

Shipment Status.2

Quantity 25-29 Enter quantity of the shipment which has not 

been acknowledged or reported as not 

received.3

Document Number 30-43 Duplicate from the MRC or DIC ASH 

Shipment Status.2

Suffix 44 Duplicate from the MRC or DIC ASH 

Shipment Status.2

Supplementary 

Address

45-50 Duplicate from the MRC or DIC ASH 

Shipment Status.2

Signal 51 Duplicate the original or modified requisition 

entry. 2

Blank 52-53 Leave blank.

Distribution Code 54-56 Duplicate the requisition entry.

Day of Year (Date 

Shipped)

57-59 Duplicate form the MRC or DIC ASH 

Shipment Status.4

1 For Intra-Component followup requirements, enter code prescribed by the Component. 

2 See DLMS Volume 2, Appendix 8 for transaction format. 

3 See Appendix AP3 - Formats Introduction, paragraph AP3.3.1

4 See footnote 2 on page AP3.30-1.
DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019

Change 13

AP3.30-2 APPENDIX 3.30

FIELD LEGEND

RECORD

POSITION(S) ENTRY AND INSTRUCTIONS

Shipment Unit 

Number

60-76 5 Duplicate from the MRC or DIC ASH 

Shipment Status. 4

Mode of Shipment 77 Duplicate from the MRC or DIC ASH 

Shipment Status.4

Day of Year 

(Transaction)

78-80 Enter ordinal day of the calendar year this 

transaction is prepared.

5 Based on November 1993 implementation of MILSTRIP AMCL 138; otherwise priority is entered in 

record positions 60-61.
No. 10-1204.

#### AT&T, Inc., Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 815, 132 S. Ct. 93,

181 L. Ed. 2d 22,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6995.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 629 F.3d 505.
NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T

OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 09- 3397 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . AL BE RT O L UI S BO T A, A ppel l ant

O n A pp eal F rom the U nit ed S t at es

D istri ct C o u rt Forthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . A ct i on N o. 1- 09- cr - 00041- 001) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H on. Sy l vi a H . R ambo Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay28, 2010 B E F O R E : M c K E E , C hef Judge , REN DELL a n d S T A P L E T O N , C i r cui tJudges ( O pi ni on Fi l ed : J une 3, 2010)2 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udge: A lb e rto B o ta a p p e a ls h is c o n v ictio n , fo llo w in g a g u iltyp lea , o f c o n sp ira c yto di s tr i but e and pos s es s w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e pow dercoca i ne, cr ack c ocai ne, and m arij u an a. H is at torn eyh as m o v ed to w ith d raw h is r ep rese n tat ion u n d er A nders v. C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S. 738, 87 S. C t . 1396, 18 L . E d. 2d 493 ( 1967) . W e w i l l gr antthe m o tio n to w ith d ra w a n d w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. T hi s C our t ’ s rul es pr ovi de that“[w ] her e, upon r evi ew of the di s tr i ctcourtr ecor d, tr i al couns el i s per s uaded thatthe appe al pr es ent s no i s s ue of e ven ar guabl e mer i t , couns el m ayfi l e a mot i on t o w i thdr aw and s uppor t i ng br i ef pur s uantt o A nd ers . ” 3 d Ci r . L AR 1 0 9 . 2 (a). If w e c o n cu r w ith tr ial co u n sel’s asse ssm en t, w e “ w il l gran t [th e] A nd ers m ot i on, and di s pos e of the appe al w i thoutappoi nt i ng new couns el . ” I d. A ccor di ngl y , our “i nqui ryw hen couns el s ubm i t s an A nd ers br i ef i s thus tw ofol d . . . : ( 1) w hethercouns el adequa t el yful fi l l ed the rul e’ s r equi r ement s ; and ( 2) w hetheran i ndepende ntr evi ew of the r ecor d pr es ent s anynonfr i vol ous i s s ues . ” U n itedS ta tes v . Y

o u la , 241 F. 3d 296, 300 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). O ur r eview of the recor d h as conv i nced us t hat tri al cou nsel ’s A nd ers b rie f is adequa t e and thatther e ar e no nonfr i vol ous gr ounds on w hi ch t o chal l enge the j udgm ent3

o f c o n v ict ion . A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l gran t cou n sel’s m o ti o n to w ith d raw an d w il l aff irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. In a d d iti o n , w e c e rtify th a t th e iss u e s p re se n ted in th is appea l l ack l egal m er i tand thus thatcouns el i s notr equi r ed t o fi l e a pe t i t i on forw r i tof ce rt iorari w ith the S u p rem e C o u rt . 3 d C ir . L A R 1 0 9 . 2 (b).
No. 10-10464.

#### Jacinto Cedeno, Petitioner v. James Conway, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility.

565 U.S. 837, 132 S. Ct. 144,

181 L. Ed. 2d 62,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6351.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7701

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DERRICK A. CURRY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CR-90-454-WMN, CA-98-934-WMN) Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 31, 1999 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Andrea Celestine Long, BOONE, BEALE, COSBY & LONG, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. John Vincent Geise, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s judgment or order is marked as “filed” on September 10, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on September 15, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the judgment or order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray , 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Derrick A. Curry seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Curry, Nos. CR-90-454-WMN; CA-98-934-WMN (D. Md. Sept. 15, 1998). * 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Balance Sheet as of December 31, 1999 and the Statement Of Income
for the year ended December 31, 1999, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       9,537,435
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,543,375<F1>
<PP&E>                                      39,000,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              36,289,894
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,253,481
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,914,452
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,339,029
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,253,481
<SALES>                                     13,600,859<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,745,549<F3>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,844,484<F4>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,901,065
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         10,901,065
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                10,901,065
<EPS-BASIC>                                    3,303<F5>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    3,303<F5>
<FN>
<F1>Includes prepaid rent
<F2>Rental income
<F3>Includes dividend income
<F4>Leasehold rent, supervisory fees, legal fees and amortization of
    leasehold
<F5>Earnings per $10,000 participation unit, based on 3,300 participation units
    outstanding during the year.

                            -50-


</TABLE>
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  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.
 LODGIAN, INC.By:
    /s/ Edward J. RohlingEDWARD J. ROHLINGChief Executive Officer By:
    /s/ James A. MacLennanJAMES A. MACLENNANExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer   51
6. On December 31, 2007, Executive shall execute and deliver to the Company the release in the formattached as Exhibit A.7. Except as set forth herein, the agreements of June 23, 2004, including the IndemnificationAgreement, shall remain in full force and effect and unamended.       /s/ David Sutherland-Yoest  Waste Services, Inc.            /s/ Charles A. Wilcox  Charles A. Wilcox    
 

 
     **RELEASE**For the good and valuable consideration as set out in the separation agreement between **WASTESERVICES, INC.**and Charles A. Wilcox, dated August 23, 2007, the receipt and sufficiency of all ofwhich is hereby acknowledged, Charles A. Wilcox (hereinafter referred to as the “Releasor”), **DOESHEREBY RELEASE AND FOREVER DISCHARGE**, and by these presents does for himself, his marital communityand their respective heirs, successors and/or assigns, release and forever discharge **WASTESERVICES, INC.**and its affiliates, divisions, subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, assigns,agents, servants, employees, officers and directors, (hereinafter referred to collectively as the“Released Entities”) of and from any and all rights, claims, obligations, demands, actions, causesof action of every kind, damages, penalties, fees, costs, expenses and liability of any naturewhatsoever which the Releasor has, had or may have had against the Released Entities or any or allof them in connection with any cause or matter whatsoever, whether known or unknown to the Releasoror any of the Released Entities at the time of execution of this Release and existing from thebeginning of time to the date of this Release and including, without limitation, all mattersrelated to the employment of the Releasor by Waste Services, Inc. and/or the termination of his/heremployment. By signing this Release, Releasor agrees to **FULLY WAIVE AND RELEASE ALL CLAIMS**,including without limitation, attorneys’ fees, all claims arising out of or relating to his/heremployment or termination from employment with Waste Services, Inc.This RELEASE may be used to completely bar any action or suit before any court, arbitral oradministrative body with respect to any claim under federal, state, local or other law relating tothis RELEASE or the employment and/or termination of employment of the Releasor with WasteServices, Inc. or any of the Released Entities.Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this release shall prevent the Releasor fromenforcing the provisions of the Separation Agreement dated August 23, 2007, by and between WasteServices, Inc. and the Releasor (including without limitation the Indemnification Agreementreferred to therein).**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**the Releasor has hereunto set his hand and seal this 10th day ofSeptember, 2007.       **SIGNED, SEALED & DELIVERED**  )   In the presents of  )      )      )      )       /s/ Charles A. Wilcox                     Witness  )      )    Address  )
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A0379. SOX v. THE STATE.

This appeal was docketed in this Court on October 8, 2014. Appellant’s brief

was due to be filed within 20 days of docketing. Court of Appeals Rule 23. On

December 3, 2014, Appellant was ordered to file a brief in this case within ten (10)

days or subject the appeal to dismissal.

 

As of the date of this order, Appellant has failed to file a brief, and no motion

for extension for good cause has been filed.

Consequently,Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss this appeal is hereby GRANTED.

Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

12/19/2014

December 19, 2014