alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020068EN.01005401.xml

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/54

---

Action brought on 2 January 2020 – M. I. Industries v EUIPO – Natural Instinct (INSTINCT)

(Case T-1/20)

(2020/C 68/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: M. I. Industries, Inc. (Lincoln, Nebraska, United States) (represented by: M. Montañá Mora and S. Sebe Marin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Natural Instinct Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark INSTINCT – European Union trade mark No 5 208 418

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2019 in Case R 178/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and – if applicable – the Cancellation Applicant to jointly and severally pay all the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and – if applicable – the Cancellation Applicant to jointly and severally pay all the costs of these proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 58(1)(a) and 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to the assessment of the proof of use. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 58(1)(a) and 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to the assessment of the proof of use.

---
Donald PONSETI, Individually and as Administrator and Succession Representative of the Succession of Marvin Ponseti and Theodore Ponseti, et al. v. TOURO INFIRMARY, Ghi Insurance Company, Nurse Jane Doe, Doctor John Doe, and XYZ Insurance Company

NO. 2019-00012

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 25, 2019

Denied.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 27, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
129759 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 129759 COA: 265075 Oakland CC: 95-142973-FH MOHAMED A. MUSLEH, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e September 30, 2005 order of the Court of Appeal s is considered, and it is DE NIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).

p1219 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 27, 2005

Clerk
BTXN 208 (rev. 07/09)

IN RE: Seidel v. Hudson

Clean Energy Enterprises,

LLC et al

[29] Motion for preliminary injunction Trustee's Emergency

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Expedited Discovery,

and Preliminary Injunction, and Brief In Support Thereof filed by

Plaintiff Scott Seidel

 Case #

23−03090−mvl

DEBTOR

TYPE OF HEARING

Scott Seidel VS

PLAINTIFF / MOVANT DEFENDANT /

RESPONDENT

Davor Rukavina

ATTORNEY ATTORNEY

EXHIBITS

DECLARATION OF DAVOR RUKAVINA

ADMITTED WITH ATTACHED EXHIBITS A−H

(FILED UNDER SEAL AT DKT [49])

Hawaii Jeng 5/14/2024 Michelle V. Larson

REPORTED BY HEARING

DATE JUDGE PRESIDING

Case 23-03090-mvl Doc 52 Filed 05/14/24 Entered 05/23/24 10:42:49 Desc Court

Admitted Exhibits Page 1 of 1
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  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Parks! America, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 28, 2009 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    Dated: August 12, 2009   /s/ Tristan R. Pico Tristan R. Pico Chief Executive Officer Parks! America, Inc.  Dated: August 12, 2009   /s/ Jon Laria Jon Laria Chief Financial Officer Parks! America, Inc.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Parks! America, Inc. and will be retained by Parks! America, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
P-GL-C~ EMP-09-O11

NWALSS

NWALSS

ight you

e three

thirty

thirty five northw

of Pra.

repr


Federal Aviation
Administration

INFORMATION: Partial Trans
ile ion NWAI8S
Minnea MN, Gotob

Mi

mneapolis Bir Route |
m2: period fre

o

2008,

Agenci.

~Hrdoet, Hono

Thomas

Manager

ne
company

O11

G142:56

send a magsage to ah

car ah
C y five now

wh ah



O9-O11

it's ah if
three two
one eighty

pe one hwo

irit

you like me to if i get am

a
fas
~
w

ah right here if you would pleas
vent y hwo

SLLS329
O114
G114:06 NWAL&S minneapolis northwest ty edghe

and we've over flown
eau clal and would
arrival from

alias;i4 AWALES ah coger ah we
minneapolis
Like to me

wer

Oll4a:24 R13 ¥ ah
fo RErO
O114:36 NWALSS okay copy a ri
helding at

RIS a thwest lghe as of one

algo

cleaved t r > i : ax vectors

and the ean claire

NWALSS okay cop zeta to p

Koup the eau aire

eh a. northwest one eighty
OLS
0118208 NWALSS3 ight cember um wants you up
gq ¥ f
ah three nk

we'll cone



ghty eight no stay right here one
tt seventy two Eor
chor here in

point t
Ll have you over that arri

okay do you

and um on

can stay right

have to verify that

his frequency and

© is secure

ebrac

*inever heard a c

bo a he

ading of

morbhwest one eighty @

fuel

ah we're re good orn fuel we just
as in could

okay well um we got you

at a eau claire itll see

ig and what ah they have

thanks mach

two one 2

aed

descend and maintain flight
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 Quarterly Report of China Sun Group High-Tech Co. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ming Fen Liu, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.








Date:  April 14, 2010
By:
/s/ Ming Fen LiuMing Fen LiuChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
# C_2021062EN.01001702.xml

| 22.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 62/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 62/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 4 December 2020 — MK v Lufthansa CityLine GmbH

(Case C-660/20)

(2021/C 62/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: MK

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Lufthansa CityLine GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Does a national statutory provision treat part-time workers in a less favourable manner than comparable full-time workers within the meaning of Clause 4.1 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Directive 97/81/EC (1) if it permits additional remuneration for part-time and full-time workers to be uniformly contingent on the same number of working hours having been exceeded, and therefore allows account to be taken of the overall remuneration, and not of the component of the remuneration that comprises the additional remuneration? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does a national statutory provision treat part-time workers in a less favourable manner than comparable full-time workers within the meaning of Clause 4.1 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Directive 97/81/EC (1) if it permits additional remuneration for part-time and full-time workers to be uniformly contingent on the same number of working hours having been exceeded, and therefore allows account to be taken of the overall remuneration, and not of the component of the remuneration that comprises the additional remuneration?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
  Is a national statutory provision which allows an entitlement to additional remuneration to be made conditional on the same number of working hours being exceeded uniformly in the case of both part-time and full-time workers compatible with Clause 4.1 and the principle of pro rata temporis in Clause 4.2 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Directive 97/81/EC if the purpose of the additional remuneration is to compensate for a particular workload? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

Is a national statutory provision which allows an entitlement to additional remuneration to be made conditional on the same number of working hours being exceeded uniformly in the case of both part-time and full-time workers compatible with Clause 4.1 and the principle of pro rata temporis in Clause 4.2 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Directive 97/81/EC if the purpose of the additional remuneration is to compensate for a particular workload?

---

(1)  Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9).

---
Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 1 of 28 PageID 177
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 2 of 28 PageID 178
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 3 of 28 PageID 179
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 4 of 28 PageID 180
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 5 of 28 PageID 181
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 6 of 28 PageID 182
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 7 of 28 PageID 183
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 8 of 28 PageID 184
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 9 of 28 PageID 185
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 10 of 28 PageID 186
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 11 of 28 PageID 187
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 12 of 28 PageID 188
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 13 of 28 PageID 189
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 14 of 28 PageID 190
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 15 of 28 PageID 191
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 16 of 28 PageID 192
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 17 of 28 PageID 193
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 18 of 28 PageID 194
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 19 of 28 PageID 195
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 20 of 28 PageID 196
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 21 of 28 PageID 197
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 22 of 28 PageID 198
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 23 of 28 PageID 199
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 24 of 28 PageID 200
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 25 of 28 PageID 201
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 26 of 28 PageID 202
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 27 of 28 PageID 203
 

 Case 5:03-cv-00165-C Document 26 Filed 09/29/03 Page 28 of 28 PageID 204
Edward Walter MEEKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3537

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 6, 2019

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Matthew J. Salvia, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and SILBERMAN and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
# C_2021263EN.01001901.xml

| 5.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2021 — Steinel v EUIPO (GluePro)

(Case T-256/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark GluePro - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)

(2021/C 263/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Steinel GmbH (Herzebrock-Clarholz, Germany) (represented by: M. Breuer and K. Freudenstein, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2020 (Case R 2516/2019-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign GluePro as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Steinel GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Steinel GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.

---
Charly COLES, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-3529

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 31, 2019]

Charly Coles, Florida City, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Warner, Ciklin and Levine, JJ., concur.
#### Mathew McBride and Rose McBride, His Wife; Gary-Baltimore Realty Corporation, a Corporation Organized and Existing Under the Laws of the State of Florida, *Appellants,*v. Alex Shields and Ida M. Knight, Joined by Her Husband, McIlwaine Knight, and Joseph Jackson, *Appellees.*

Division B.

Decision Filed January 9, 1928.

*B. B. Gautier,*for Appellants;

*S. J. Barco,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the order herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said order; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said order of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 16

- 15311 Non

- Argument Calendar

______________ __________ D.C. Docket No. 1:16

- cv
- 01406

- RWS

DEANGELO COOK , Petitioner

- Appell ant ,

versus WARDEN, MACON SP , Respondent

- Appellee

.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ (April 28, 2017) Before HULL , WILSON and JORDAN , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-15311 Date Filed: 04/28/2017 Page: 1 of 22 In 2009, De Ange lo Cook, a Georgia prisoner, filed a federal habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. That petition was dismissed with prejudice as untimely, and Mr. Cook did not appeal.
In 2016, Mr. Cook filed a second habeas corpus petition. The district court dismissed this petition for lack of subject

- matter jurisdiction because Mr. Cook had not obtained circuit authorization to file a second or successive petition. Mr. Cook now appeals.

We affirm. Because Mr. Cook did not obtain circuit authorizatio n to file a second or successive habeas petition, the district court did not have jurisdiction.
See 28 U

. S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), (b) (4); Tompkins v. Secretary , 557 F.3d 1257, 1259 (11 th Cir. 2009) .

AFFIRMED. Case: 16-15311 Date Filed: 04/28/2017 Page: 2 of 2
|   | (a) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended March 31, 2011 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/ FRANK V. RIOLO                                 |     |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|---------------|
|   | Frank V. Riolo                                     |          |
|   | Chief Executive Officer of                         |          |
|   | American Casino & Entertainment Properties LLC |          |

----
Case 3:03-cv-00399-B Document 159 Filed 10/17/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 3559
Case 3:03-cv-00399-B Document 159 Filed 10/17/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 3560
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 809 

Supporting the designation of September 13, 2024, as ‘‘National Sepsis 

Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 11, 2024 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. VAN HOLLEN) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions 

RESOLUTION 

Supporting the designation of September 13, 2024, as 

‘‘National Sepsis Day’’. 

Whereas sepsis is a medical condition caused by a severe immune response to infection or traumatic injury; 

Whereas the overwhelming flood of inflammatory signals released into the blood to fight infection can impair blood 

flow, injuring the body’s organs; 

Whereas sepsis is a serious infection and a leading cause of 

death and disability in the United States; 

Whereas severe sepsis can result in septic shock, exposing the 

patient to potentially fatal multiple organ failure; 

Whereas 1,700,000 people in the United States are infected 

by sepsis annually; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 809 IS 

Whereas sepsis kills 350,000 people in the United States 

each year; 

Whereas sepsis is one of the most expensive conditions to 

treat in hospitals in the United States, with high spending compounded by frequent hospital readmissions, including 1 in 5 patient readmissions within 30 days of discharge and 1 in 3 patient readmissions within 180 days 

of discharge; 

Whereas, according to the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, 80 percent of sepsis cases begin outside the 

hospital; 

Whereas most sepsis fatalities are preventable, and early recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of sepsis can prevent 

loss of life; 

Whereas the sepsis protocols for hospitals in New York State, 

called ‘‘Rory’s Regulations’’ for Rory Staunton who died 

from preventable, treatable sepsis at 12 years of age, 

have been proven to save lives through rapid identification and treatment of sepsis; 

Whereas providers and public health experts should study 

and learn from Rory’s Regulations to find ways to end 

preventable deaths from sepsis; and 

Whereas September 13, 2024, would be an appropriate date 

to designate as ‘‘National Sepsis Day’’ to coincide with 

the international designation of September 13 as ‘‘World 

Sepsis Day’’, to raise awareness of the condition, to encourage the education of patients, families, health care 

professionals, and government agencies on the seriousness of sepsis and the importance of early detection as 

the key to survival, and to focus attention and energy toVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:35 Sep 12, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR809.IS SR809

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 809 IS 

wards the ultimate goal of ending sepsis: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate supports the designation 

2 of September 13, 2024, as ‘‘National Sepsis Day’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS—page 1 

IN THE UNITES STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

In re: 

GOODMAN NETWORKS, INC., 

 Debtor. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 22-31641-mvl7 

(Chapter 7) 

SCOTT M. SEIDEL, TRUSTEE, et al., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

18920 NW 11TH, LLC, et al., 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Adv. No. 23-03072-mvl 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS 

 CAME ON FOR HEARING on the 24th day of April, 2024, the Defendants Steven 

Zakharyayev’s and Evelina Pinkhasova’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Amended 

Complaint [docket no. 28] (the “Motion”), filed by defendants Steven Zakharyayev and Evelina 

Pinkhasova. Having considered the Motion, the response thereto, and the arguments of counsel, 

and for the reasons read into the record at said hearing, it is hereby:

United States Bankruptcy Judge

______________________________________________________________________

Signed April 25, 2024

The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described.

Case 23-03072-mvl Doc 37 Filed 04/26/24 Entered 04/26/24 13:26:51 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS—page 1 

 ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. 

# # # END OF ORDER # # # 

4871-8683-7689v.1 013229.00016 

Case 23-03072-mvl Doc 37 Filed 04/26/24 Entered 04/26/24 13:26:51 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2