alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 22 (Thursday, February 2, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6590-6591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X95-10202]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to OMB for 
Review.

January 26, 1995.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law 96-511. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-0073.
    Form Number: IRS Form 1310.
    Type of Review: Revision.

[[Page 6591]]

    Title: Statement of Person Claiming Refund Due a Deceased Taxpayer.
    Description: Form 1310 is used by a claimant to secure payment of a 
refund on behalf of a deceased taxpayer. The information enables IRS to 
send the refund to the correct person.
    Respondents: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Number of Respondents/Recordkeepers: 7,500.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent/Recordkeeper:
    Recordkeeping--7 min.
    Learning about the law or the form--3 min.
    Preparing the form--16 min.
    Copying, assembling, and sending the form to the IRS--17 min.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion
    Estimated Total Reporting/Recordkeeping Burden: 5,325 hours

    OMB Number: 1545-0148.
    Form Number: IRS Form 2758.
    Type of Review: Revision.
    Title: Application for Extension of Time to File Certain Excise, 
Income, Information, and Other Returns.
    Description: Internal Revenue Code (IRC) 6081 permits the Secretary 
of the Treasury to grant a reasonable extension of time for filing any 
return, declaration, statement, or other document. This form is used by 
U.S. partnerships, fiduciaries, and certain organizations, to request 
an extension of time to file their returns. The information is used to 
determine whether the extension should be granted.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, non-for-profit 
institutions.
    Estimated Number of Respondents/Recordkeepers: 300,000
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent/Recordkeeper:
    Recordkeeping--3 hr., 35 min.
    Learning about the law or the form--6 min.
    Preparing and sending the form to the IRS--10 min.
David MOSES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5008

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 25, 2017

David Moses, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Chelsea S. Alper, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and MORRIS and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6950

GREGORY LEON HAMMER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CA-01-374-7)

Submitted: October 24, 2002 Decided: November 6, 2002

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Leon Hammer, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Leon Hammer seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

We have reviewed the record and conclude on the reasoning of the

district court that Hammer has not made a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right. See Hammer v. Angelone, No.

CA-01-374-7 (W.D. Va. Apr. 26, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c) (2000). 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
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 LaBranche & Co Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harvey S. Traison, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and to the best of my knowledge, that:



|Date: March 15, 2004 |  |     |                                                                                                                 
|-------------------- |  | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | By: | /s/HARVEY S. TRAISONName: Harvey S. Traison
Title: Senior Vice President and
            Chief Financial Officer

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to LaBranche & Co Inc. and will be retained by
LaBranche & Co Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7386

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

STEVEN A. SILVERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting

by designation. (CR-87-144-Y)

Submitted: December 26, 1996 Decided: January 28, 1997

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven A. Silvers, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his

motion for return of property. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. To the

extent Appellant's claim is construed as seeking relief pursuant to

Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e), we affirm on the merits on the reasoning of

the district court. United States v. Silvers, No. CR-87-144-Y (D.

Md. July 31, 1996). To the extent Appellant's claim is construed as

an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, we affirm the district

court's dismissal of the action, on the modified reasoning that the

district court lacks jurisdiction to review the claim. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2106 (1994). Because this appeal presents no complex or substantial issues of law, we deny Appellant's motion for appointment of

counsel. 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
Rene S. RAMOS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-552

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed June 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX-4.5



 Exhibit 4.5 

 
 



 
 September 12, 2007 
 PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL 
 Millar Western Forest Products Ltd. 

16640 – 111th Avenue 

Edmonton, Alberta 
 Canada 

 

			
	 Attention:
	  	Mr. Kevin Edgson, Chief Financial Officer

 Dear Sirs: 

Reference is made to the facility letter (the “Facility Letter”) dated December 29, 2006 from HSBC Bank Canada (the “Bank”) to
Millar Western Forest Products Ltd. (the “Borrower”). Based on the information, representations, and documentation you have provided to the Bank, the Bank has agreed to modify the Loans as follows: 

 

	2.	Credit Facilities: 

  

	 	2.1	the Mastercard Facility will now be in the principal amount of Cdn.$100,000. 

 Each of the terms and conditions of the Facility Letter, as amended by this letter, shall remain in full force and effect and are hereby affirmed by the undersigned. Unless expressly provided herein, the
Loans shall be deemed to be modified, not refinanced, by this letter. 
 The Bank shall continue to have the right to review the Loans on a
periodic basis. 
 Kindly acknowledge receipt and acceptance of this letter by executing and returning to the Bank no later than
October 12, 2007, the enclosed copy of this letter. 
  

					
	Yours truly,	 	
		
	HSBC BANK CANADA	 	
			
	By:	 	/s/ Cory M. Bailey	 	/s/ Wayne Berg
		 	Cory M. Bailey	 	Wayne Berg
		 	Assistant Vice President	 	Vice President

 HSBC Bank Canada 
 Vancouver Main Branch, Suite 200 - 885 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6C 3GI 
 Tel:
(604) 685-1000    Fax: (604) 641-1808 







 AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED THIS 24 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2007. 

 

			
	THE BORROWER:
	
	MILLAR WESTERN FOREST PRODUCTS LTD.
		
	Per:	 	 /s/ Kevin Edgson

		 	Kevin Edgson
		 	 Vice President Finance
 and
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Innovation Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned in the
capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his
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: September 25, 2003

Robert Blagman
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2011-0385 Directorate Identifier: 2010-NM-256-AD 

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance) Action 

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement) 

Work-hours 

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up) 

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our) 

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts) 

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet 

 17.0 $1,445.0

0 $0 $1,445.00 46 $66,470.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $66,470 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): 

 Indicates related information in AD Manual, FAA-IR-M-8040.1C. DOUBLE CLICK to follow the link 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
L.R., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-263

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed July 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit10.1






AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO
AMENDED AND RESTATED MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT


This Amendment No. 1 (this "Amendment") effective September 22, 2011 ("Effective Date") to the Amended and Restated Master Services Agreement dated as of September 23, 2009 ("Agreement") hereby modifies and amends that certain Agreement between Pfizer, Inc. ("Pfizer") and PDI, Inc. with offices at Morris Corporate Center 1, 300 Interpace Parkway, Parsippany, NJ 07056 ("PDI").


1.     The parties intend to extend the length of the term of the Agreement for a period of three (3) years.  Accordingly, Section 8.1 of Agreement is hereby amended by deleting Section 8.1 in its entirety and replacing it with the following:


"8.1    Term.  The term of this Agreement shall commence as of the Effective Date and shall remain in effect through the fifth anniversary of the Effective Date unless earlier terminated in accordance with its terms.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that a Task Order has a term that exceeds the term of this Agreement, the parties agree that the term of this agreement shall be extended until such time as all Services under the applicable Task Order have been completed or the Task Order has been terminated in accordance with the terms of this Agreement"


2.     Section 12.7 shall be amended to replace PDI's corporate address and fax number with:


Morris Corporate Center 1
300 Interpace Parkway
Parsippany, NJ 07056
Fax No.: 862-207-7899


3.    Exhibit D to the "Addendum to Amended and Restated Master services agreement between Pfizer Inc. And PDI, Inc., Compliance With Corporate Integrity Agreement and Related Obligations" shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the attached Exhibit D.


4.     All other terms and conditions in Agreement that are not hereby amended shall remain in full force and effect.


5.     In the event of a conflict between the provisions contained in the body of this Agreement and any such Task Order or exhibit, the terms in the Task Order or exhibit shall control.


IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have each caused this Amendment to the Agreement to be executed by their respective, duly authorized representatives as of the Effective Date.




	
				
	PDI Inc.
	 
	Pfizer Inc.
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	By: /s/ Nancy Lurker
	 
	By: /s/ James Akers              
	 

	Name: Nancy Lurker
	 
	Name: James Akers              
	 

	Title: CEO
	 
	Title: Sr Director, Global Procurement & Operations
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 



























EXHIBIT D to COMPLIANCE ADDENDUM


CONTRACTOR COMPLIANCE LIAISON


Chief Compliance Officer
PDI, Inc.
300 Interpace Parkway
Parsippany, NJ 07056
973-795-7777
Paul TEAGUE v. STATE

CR-15-1104

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017 Reh. denied May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Science and technology requirements to explore caves in our Solar System      

      April 30, 2021    

We are in the incipient phase of exploring the subterranean realm of our Solar System. Planetary caves research offers interdisciplinary, cross-planetary body investigations spanning geology, climatology, astrobiology, robotics, and human use. Caves are of great importance in advancing our understanding of planetary processes and the search for life beyond Earth. 

Given these advances, a diverse and interdisciplinary community of planetary caves researchers has emerged. Their activities have been partially documented by a series of workshops and conferences over the last thirteen years (Titus & Boston, 2012; Wynne et al, 2016; Titus et al., 2020, submitted). These meetings brought together scientists and engineers from around the world to discuss both science needs (i.e., geology, habitability, and astrobiology), as well as engineering challenges (e.g., mobility, navigation, and communications) for cave research on other planetary bodies. 

It was determined at the last planetary caves conference that a goals and/or roadmap document, like those of the Assessment and Advisory Groups, was needed. This white paper is our initial conception of such an effort.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Timothy Neal Titus, Ph.D.

##### Research Space Scientist

Astrogeology Science Center

ttitus@usgs.gov

928-556-7201

#### Kaj Williams, Ph.D.

##### Research Physical Scientist

Astrogeology Science Center

kewilliams@usgs.gov

## Related Content

#### Timothy Neal Titus, Ph.D.

##### Research Space Scientist

Astrogeology Science Center

ttitus@usgs.gov

928-556-7201

#### Kaj Williams, Ph.D.

##### Research Physical Scientist

Astrogeology Science Center

kewilliams@usgs.gov

### Contact

####               Astrogeology Science Center          

2255 N. Gemini DriveFlagstaff, AZ86001United States

928-556-7000

928-556-7014

### Explore Search

                  - Analogs
                  - Research
                  - Missions
                  - Caves
                  - Planetary Science
                  - Caves

View All **
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 14, 2021

No. 04-21-00085-CV

EX PARTE J.C.F., JR.

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 20-07-0624-CVA

Honorable Walden Shelton, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellee’s brief was originally due May 28, 2021; however, the court granted an 

extension of time until June 14, 2021. Appellee has filed a motion requesting an additional 

thirty-day extension of time to file the brief. 

We grant the motion and order appellee's brief filed by July 14, 2021. Counsel is 

advised that no further extensions of time will be granted absent a motion, filed before the brief 

is due, that (1) demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) advises the 

court of the efforts counsel has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the court 

reasonable assurance that the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended 

deadline. The court does not generally consider a heavy work schedule to be an extraordinary 

circumstance.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of June, 2021.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
Marcus ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1877

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
ex10_19.htm


    
      
         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


    Exhibit
10.19

    


    Director Fee
Arrangements

    


    Fees for
the non-employee directors of Imperial Capital Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) for
2008 will continue to be $1,000 per Board or board committee meeting attended,
plus a monthly retainer of $2,250.  Individual directors may also
receive honorariums for additional work performed on behalf of the
Company.  The honorariums paid to directors for 2007 were as follows:
(i) an honorarium of $7,500 to Director Robert Reed for his active assistance
with legislative and audit committee matters during 2007; (ii) an honorarium of
$5,000 to Director Jeffrey Lipscomb for his Chairmanship of the Compensation
Committee and active assistance with compensation matters; and (iii) an
honorarium of $15,000 to Director Hirotaka Oribe for his extensive work with the
Executive Committee and large loan approval process.
Robert D. ASWELL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1318

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 15, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice. Petitioner is required to make an express and distinct demand for performance before mandamus will be considered. See Al-Hakim v. State, 783 So. 2d 293, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

BLACK, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
<PAGE>   1


EXHIBIT 21 SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<S>      <C>                           <C>

1.       Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Inc.

         Physical address:              1515 F.D. Roosevelt Avenue, Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
         Mailing address:               P.O. Box 360998, San Juan, P.R. 00936-0998
         State/jurisdiction
           of Incorporation:            Puerto Rico


2.       Celulares Telefonica, Inc.

         Physical address:              1515 F.D. Roosevelt Avenue, Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
         Mailing address:               P.O. Box 360998, San Juan, P.R. 00936-0998
         State/jurisdiction
           of Incorporation:            Puerto Rico
</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION




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


(18
U.S.C. 1350)




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned
officer of Document Capture Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and
belief, that:




(1) The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the "Form
10-Q") of the Company 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materials
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





Date:
      May 24, 2010/s/
      M. Carolyn EllisM.
      Carolyn EllisChief
      Financial Officer




This
certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.
Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any
filing under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.
m.tL Jtj 

### k**fL~.~:JA-Jr&oB~** -roe- J-/Jtk®! 12 #st\QS**a~~,;** R-l- 2..-**~·** i"o/oo

2o 

### may Zo;s C:akvrli(Z**ux-~s** 7/_**~-** 7

/ ((?..,./ 7' "c-., tLL·

, .**11~- ~~** **l"1u-·~s,84,33, UL~"** **~~~** I'**I()~** . ]'L



## ..J._

# ~ tL C/lJ\

# )?~ CofJ 

# bb
fh

# ~ rno/ffh\ 

# 6Ul I¥Jua.a

to1fU4

### (l,f~ 

### {M**Cow.-/~** nocJ WD7-ooh'fS-SC4); t.uo'7-.**111~9-5** (A-); 6JoFJ-'J 19'7o-5(.4) ;·**~** vJo'l-F? 1'1'1o--s C4'J)

1**~- ~** 

llePv. /U..UWrof 

### rrtj

### Cof~ 

## 'bruJc**;'~** doh_

### ~('·(' {%) 

# .J MtJ=htf_



## !}wt o{jft.R- J/vl601rMJ f(<R_ 1 

## k{yc!Ll ;**~b** 

## .J2**IJ.fo>~J** c.c_ 

# ''Pc&k

.Df-CL?>'lf 

# cr**~** 

## Of'J 

## .JtL-h.-cALJ 

## -b {'f'e_ J 

## .J /Ttr.v.rf

### ~ 0t_ (}

### ~f !)'- 

# .J



# J.LJ -64f; 

## 0-vtd)r:we 

## f\.R 

## .MCRMJ -tJ,.,o. L'ofj /y:u,lt_j

### ~ 

# ob**~­** 

# -4; :;f/VI-**h~** 

### cJ.AYJLc0

. .w:kf;}**~** fT'l,

### f~~_£ 

## MAt!jPNl



## -tl\-0**df~e:t** !lcl<-e_-

### ~/{_ 

## !J{/U_6tf) oP(

### !J&v~**~'-(__ ~e~**  

# 16U\h .ir1

### -lA~**~** 

## -

RECEIVED lN

COURT OF CRIMINAL**APP~AL.t.\** MAY 2n 20\5 

# 'hf i&yM)**~** 

# zs· :>.·-

,, 

### --fr**~** 

### k .Pro**k:,~** <tf/'18o8'2(,