alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 9 

To make effective appointment of Deputy Senate Legal Counsel. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 3, 2023 

Mr. SCHUMER submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To make effective appointment of Deputy Senate Legal 

Counsel. 

1 Resolved, That the appointment of Patricia Mack 

2 Bryan of Virginia to be Deputy Senate Legal Counsel, 

3 made by the President pro tempore this day, is effective 

4 as of January 3, 2023, and the term of service of the ap5 pointee shall expire at the end of the One Hundred Nine6 teenth Congress. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
EX PARTE Rigoberto HERNANDEZ

1160735 (CR-15-1513)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
STATE of Louisiana v. Trevor EDDEN

NO. 2018-K-2063

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 15, 2019

Denied.
William E. RUSSELL, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1470

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed March 29, 2019

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, David M. Dixon, and Nancy Ryan, Assistant Public Defenders, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah A. Chance, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*881In this *Anders*1 appeal, William E. Russell, Jr., appeals the judgment and sentence entered after he pled, with the assistance of counsel, no contest to burglary of a dwelling. Although we affirm, one issue merits discussion. Russell did not expressly reserve the right to appeal the denial of a motion to suppress his post- *Miranda*2 statements, nor was there a finding by the court that the suppression issue was dispositive of the case. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(A) (providing that defendant may not appeal from no contest plea except where defendant "expressly reserve[s] the right to appeal a prior dispositive order of the lower tribunal"). As such, we affirm without prejudice for Russell to timely seek postconviction relief on the suppression issue.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, C.J., EDWARDS and SASSO, JJ., concur.

1

*See**Anders v. California* , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

2

*See**Miranda v. Arizona* , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCK DIVISION

RONALD R. McARTHUR, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

) Civil Action No.

Defendant. ) 5:04-CV-068-C

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING

THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, Ronald R. McArthur, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), is appealing a decision of the

Commissioner denying his application for supplemental security income benefits. The United States

Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation on August 25, 2005, and Plaintiff has filed

his objections to such Report and Recommendation. The Court has made a de novo review of the

records and finds that Plaintiff’s objections should be OVERRULED and that the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation should be ADOPTED as the findings of this Court. It is,

therefore,

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections are overruled, that the findings and conclusions of

the Magistrate Judge are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court, and that

the above-styled and numbered cause is dismissed with prejudice.

 

 Case 5:04-cv-00068-C Document 26 Filed 10/20/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 86
2

The Clerk will furnish a copy hereof to any party appearing pro se and to each attorney of

record by first class mail.

Dated October 20, 2005.

_________________________________

SAM R. CUMMINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

 Case 5:04-cv-00068-C Document 26 Filed 10/20/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 87
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

YANFENG GAO; JINGHUA WANG,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-71037

Agency Nos. A099-739-931

 A099-739-932

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 10, 2015** 

Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Yanfeng Gao and Jinghua Wang, natives and citizens of China, petition for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

FILED

MAR 18 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and review de novo claims of

due process violations. Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1268-69 (9th Cir. 2011). 

We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. 

Petitioners concede that they did not suffer past persecution, but fear future

persecution based on Gao’s joining a Shouter’s church while in the United States. 

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Gao failed to establish

a well-founded fear of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th

Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution too speculative). 

Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they necessarily

failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Prasad

v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir. 1995). 

We reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to adequately consider

their arguments on appeal. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)

(requiring error to demonstrate a due process claim). We lack jurisdiction to

consider petitioners’ assertions that the IJ exhibited bias and allowed an overlyaggressive cross-examination, because petitioners did not raise them to the BIA. 

See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction

to consider issues that have not been administratively exhausted). 

2 13-71037
Finally, petitioners do not raise any arguments regarding the denial of CAT

relief. See Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259-60. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

3 13-71037
Timothy Lee MARCUM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1721

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 26, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 26 

To prohibit a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. PFLUGER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting American 

5 Energy Production Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROTECTING AMERICAN ENERGY PRODUCTION. 

7 (a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con8 gress that States should maintain primacy for the regula9 tion of hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas produc10 tion on State and private lands. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 26 IH

1 (b) PROHIBITION ON DECLARATION OF A MORATO2 RIUM ON HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.—Notwithstanding 

3 any other provision of law, the President may not declare 

4 a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing unless 

5 such moratorium is authorized by an Act of Congress. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
# C_2018190EN.01002901.xml

| 4.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/29

---

Order of the General Court of 11 April 2018 — ABES v Commission

(Case T-813/16) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - State aid - Grants from the Portuguese authorities to an entity providing social services for the elderly - Preliminary examination procedure - Decision finding no State aid - Action challenging the merits of the contested measure - No substantial effect on the competitive position - Inadmissibility))

(2018/C 190/51)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ABES (São Pedro de Tomar, Portugal) (represented by: N. Mimoso Ruiz, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. França and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo and M. J. Castanheira Neves, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 5054 final of 9 August 2016 on State Aid SA.38920 (2014/NN), declaring, after the preliminary examination stage, that the grant awarded to Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Tomar does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Abes — companhia de assistência, bem-estar e serviços para seniores, Lda is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Abes — companhia de assistência, bem-estar e serviços para seniores, Lda is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

| 3. | The Portuguese Republic is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Portuguese Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.

1

---
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXPEDITE HEARINGS REGARDING CERTAIN FIRST DAY MATTERS (RE: 

DOCKET NOS. 11, 12, 13, 14) — Page 1

motion expedite hearing 4892-5316-0115 v.2.docx/4871-6878-7891, v. 1

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

IN RE: §

§

HIGH PLAINS RADIO NETWORK, 

LLC,

§

§

CASE NO. 24-70089-swe11V

§

DEBTOR. §

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXPEDITE HEARINGS 

REGARDING CERTAIN FIRST DAY MATTERS (RE: DOCKET NOS. 11, 

12, 13, 14)

On this day the Court considered the Motion to Expedite Hearings Regarding Certain

First Day Matters (Docket No. 14) (the “Motion to Expedite”) filed herein on April 2, 2024 by 

High Plains Radio Network, LLC, debtor and debtor in possession (the “Debtor”). Upon review 

of the Motion to Expedite, the Court is of the opinion that sufficient cause exists to set an 

expedited hearing regarding each of the following motions filed by the Debtor on April 1-2, 2024

(collectively, the “Subject Motions”).

Docket No. Motion

11 Motion to Use Cash Collateral

12 Motion to Pay Pre-Petition Wages

13 Motion to Maintain Bank Accounts

Case 24-70089-swe11 Doc 14-1 Filed 04/02/24 Entered 04/02/24 04:13:28 Desc

Proposed Order Page 1 of 2
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXPEDITE HEARINGS REGARDING CERTAIN FIRST DAY MATTERS (RE: 

DOCKET NOS. 11, 12, 13, 14) — Page 2

motion expedite hearing 4892-5316-0115 v.2.docx/4871-6878-7891, v. 1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the Court shall conduct an expedited hearing on 

the Subject Motions at the date and time entered on the docket for this case. The hearing shall

be conducted by WebEx. Movant shall be responsible for notice.

### END OF ORDER ###

Submitted by:

WEYCER, KAPLAN, PULASKI & ZUBER, P.C.

By: /s/ Jeff Carruth

JEFF CARRUTH (TX SBN: 24001846)

2608 Hibernia, Suite 105

Dallas, TX 75204-2514

Telephone: (713) 341-1158

Fax: (713) 961-5341

E-mail: jcarruth@wkpz.com

PROPOSED ATTORNEYS FOR 

HIGH PLAINS RADIO NETWORK, LLC,

DEBTOR AND DEBTOR IN POSSESSION

Case 24-70089-swe11 Doc 14-1 Filed 04/02/24 Entered 04/02/24 04:13:28 Desc

Proposed Order Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                          CEO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

            In connection with the Quarterly Report of Eyetech Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), I, David R. Guyer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350
of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

            (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d), as applicable, 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 result of operations of the
Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

/s/ David R. Guyer, M.D.
------------------------
David R. Guyer, M.D.
Chief Executive Officer
May 16, 2005
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Michael S. Thomsen, theChief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this annual report on Form10-KSB of Scheid Vineyards Inc.;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisannual report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this annual report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

 

4.     The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and we have:

 

a) designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosures andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluatedthe effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based upon such evaluation; and

 

c) disclosedin this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theRegistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

5.     The Registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof Registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing equivalentfunctions):

 

a) all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

----

 

b) any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| * * | */s/* *Michael  S. Thomsen* | * * |
|----------|----------------------------------|----------|
|     | Michael S. Thomsen               |
|     | Chief Financial Officer          |
|     | April 7, 2006                    |

 

----
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Black Raven Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the three months ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”), the undersigned,Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company,hereby certify that, to the best of their knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company for the period covered by this report.

 

 
| Date: May 21, 2010 | /s/ Tom Riley              |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                    | Tom Riley                       |
|                    | Chief Executive Officer         |
|                    | (Principal Executive  Officer)  |
|                    |                            |
|                    |                            |
|                    | /s/ Patrick A.  Quinn      |
|                    | Patrick A. Quinn                |
|                    | Acting Chief Financial  Officer |
|                    | (Principal Financial  Officer)  |

 

----
Exhibit
13.2


Certification
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
officer of EXFO, hereby certifies, that:





1.
            The
      annual report of Form 20-F for the year ended August 31, 2008 of EXFO
      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 this annual report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      EXFO.








Date:           November
26, 2008.











/s/Pierre
Plamondon


Pierre
Plamondon, CA


Vice-President
Finance


and Chief
Financial Officer


(Principal
Financial Officer)





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,
chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part
of the Report or as separate disclosure document.
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 Lakeside Mortgage Fund, LLC
(the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Placido H. Canta, Chief Financial Officer of Lakeside Financial
Group, Inc., the Manager of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.


Dated:   November 11, 2005                /s/
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Placido H. Canta,
                                          Chief Financial Officer of Manager
                                          Lakeside Financial Group, Inc.
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 232 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the limitation 

on the amount individuals can deduct for certain State and local taxes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2025 

Mr. LAWLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 

the limitation on the amount individuals can deduct for 

certain State and local taxes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘SALT Fairness and 

5 Marriage Penalty Elimination Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF LIMITATION ON DEDUCTION 

7 FOR CERTAIN STATE AND LOCAL TAXES OF 

8 INDIVIDUALS. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 164(b)(6)(B) of the Inter10 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘shall 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 232 IH

1 not exceed $10,000 ($5,000 in the case of a married indi2 vidual filing a separate return).’’ and inserting ‘‘shall not 

3 exceed— 

4 ‘‘(i) except as provided in clause (ii), 

5 $100,000, and 

6 ‘‘(ii) in the case of a joint return, 

7 $200,000.’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

10 December 31, 2024. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
# C_2020371EN.01003003.xml

| 3.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/30

---

Order of the General Court of 25 August 2020 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-76/20) (1)

(2020/C 371/36)

Language of the case: Czech

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.

---
Case 1:03-cv-00031-C Document 25 Filed 03/19/03 Page 1 of 17 PageID 81
Case 1:03-cv-00031-C Document 25 Filed 03/19/03 Page 2 of 17 PageID 82
Case 1:03-cv-00031-C Document 25 Filed 03/19/03 Page 3 of 17 PageID 83
Case 1:03-cv-00031-C Document 25 Filed 03/19/03 Page 4 of 17 PageID 84
Case 1:03-cv-00031-C Document 25 Filed 03/19/03 Page 5 of 17 PageID 85
Case 1:03-cv-00031-C Document 25 Filed 03/19/03 Page 6 of 17 PageID 86
Case 1:03-cv-00031-C Document 25 Filed 03/19/03 Page 7 of 17 PageID 87
Case 1:03-cv-00031-C Document 25 Filed 03/19/03 Page 8 of 17 PageID 88
Case 1:03-cv-00031-C Document 25 Filed 03/19/03 Page 9 of 17 PageID 89
Case 1:03-cv-00031-C Document 25 Filed 03/19/03 Page 10 of 17 PageID 90
Case 1:03-cv-00031-C Document 25 Filed 03/19/03 Page 11 of 17 PageID 91
Case 1:03-cv-00031-C Document 25 Filed 03/19/03 Page 12 of 17 PageID 92
Case 1:03-cv-00031-C Document 25 Filed 03/19/03 Page 13 of 17 PageID 93
Case 1:03-cv-00031-C Document 25 Filed 03/19/03 Page 14 of 17 PageID 94
Case 1:03-cv-00031-C Document 25 Filed 03/19/03 Page 15 of 17 PageID 95
Case 1:03-cv-00031-C Document 25 Filed 03/19/03 Page 16 of 17 PageID 96
Case 1:03-cv-00031-C Document 25 Filed 03/19/03 Page 17 of 17 PageID 97