alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 3:17-cv-00359-WHA PROPOSED ORDER 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Basil P. Fthenakis, Esq. (88399) 

CRITERION LAW 

2225 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 200 

Palo Alto, California 94303 

Tel. (650) 352-8400 

Fax. (650) 352-8408 

bpf@criterionlaw.com 

David S. Godkin (admitted pro hac vice) 

James E. Kruzer (admitted pro hac vice)

BIRNBAUM & GODKIN, LLP 

280 Summer Street 

Boston, MA 02210 

Tel: (617) 307-6100 

Fax: (617) 307-6101 

godkin@birnbaumgodkin.com 

kruzer@birnbaumgodkin.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

SIX4THREE, LLC, a Delaware 

limited liability company 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SIX4THREE, LLC, a Delaware limited 

liability company, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation, 

and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00359-WHA

[PROPOSED] ORDER REMANDING 

CASE TO STATE COURT 

 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 16 Filed 01/30/17 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 3:17-cv-00359-WHA PROPOSED ORDER 

 

1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff Six4Three, LLC’s motion to 

remand. Having reviewed the papers filed in support of and in opposition to this motion, heard 

oral argument, and being fully advised, the Court finds that the above-captioned case should be 

remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo because there is no basis for 

federal court jurisdiction in this matter. Therefore, the motion to remand is GRANTED. This 

Court further finds that Plaintiffs Six4Three, LLC is entitled to its expenses, including its 

attorneys’ fees, which it incurred in filing the motion to remand. Counsel for Plaintiff 

Six4Three, LLC will submit support for its expenses to the Court within fourteen days of this 

Order. 

 

DATED: _____, 2017 

By: 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 16 Filed 01/30/17 Page 2 of 2
1/23/18 /s/ Glenn Katon

1/23/18 /s/ Thomas H. Prouty

January 24, 2018
PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION & ORDER October 2012

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

 

Plaintiff(s), 

 v. 

 

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No: _______________

APPLICATION FOR 

ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY 

PRO HAC VICE

(CIVIL LOCAL RULE 11-3) 

I, , an active member in good standing of the bar of 

 , hereby respectfully apply for admission to practice pro hac vice in the 

Northern District of California representing: in the 

above-entitled action. My local co-counsel in this case is __________________________________, an 

attorney who is a member of the bar of this Court in good standing and who maintains an office 

within the State of California. 

MY ADDRESS OF RECORD: LOCAL CO-COUNSEL’S ADDRESS OF RECORD: 

MY TELEPHONE # OF RECORD: LOCAL CO-COUNSEL’S TELEPHONE # OF RECORD: 

 

MY EMAIL ADDRESS OF RECORD: LOCAL CO-COUNSEL’S EMAIL ADDRESS OF RECORD: 

 

I am an active member in good standing of a United States Court or of the highest court of 

another State or the District of Columbia, as indicated above; my bar number is: . 

A true and correct copy of a certificate of good standing or equivalent official document from said 

bar is attached to this application. 

I agree to familiarize myself with, and abide by, the Local Rules of this Court, especially the 

Standards of Professional Conduct for attorneys and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Local Rules. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Dated: 03/23/17

APPLICANT

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 

 FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application of is granted, 

subject to the terms and conditions of Civil L.R. 11-3. All papers filed by the attorney must indicate 

appearance pro hac vice. Service of papers upon, and communication with, local co-counsel 

designated in the application will constitute notice to the party. 

Dated:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Reset Form

Sergio Marquez 4:17-cv-00555

Bank of America, National Association

Andrew James Fulwider

Andrew James Fulwider

Andrew James Fulwider

Virginia

Bank of America, National Association

Michael D. Mandel

800 East Canal Street

Richmond, Virginia 23219

1800 Century Park East

Los Angeles, CA 90067

(804) 775-7496 (310) 315-8200

afulwider@mcguirewoods.com mmandel@mcguirewoods.com

83905

3/28/2017

Case 4:17-cv-00555-CW Document 13 Filed 03/28/17 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:17-cv-00555-CW Document 13 Filed 03/28/17 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 109]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-32277]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5131-7]


Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice; Notification 
of National Interagency Public Meeting on Environmental Justice

    Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (February 
11, 1994) requires Federal agencies to integrate environmental justice 
into their agency's mission by identifying and addressing, as 
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse effects of Federal 
actions on human health or the environment in minority and low-income 
communities. Pursuant to the Order, an Environmental Justice Working 
Group was created.
    On January 20, 1995, the Working Group will sponsor a public 
meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, at which the public can share concerns and 
make recommendations on how the Federal agencies can effectively 
promote environmental justice in their areas of responsibility.
    The public meeting is designed to encourage discussion among 
different parties having an interest in the issue. To accomplish that 
goal, the Working Group is inviting the participation of private 
individuals and representatives of grassroots and community-based 
organizations; environmental organizations; academic institutions; 
businesses; industries; and Federal, Tribal, State, and Local 
governments.
    The morning session will include discussions with representatives 
of Federal agencies on environmental justice goals and draft agency 
strategies. The afternoon program will feature several sessions at 
which participants will discuss particular issues relating to 
environmental justice. Representatives of Federal agencies will be 
available throughout the day to discuss draft strategies.
    In an effort to expand participation, the Black College Satellite 
Network will broadcast an evening session from Atlanta to locations 
throughout the country. The session will be broadcasted from 7 p.m. to 
9 p.m. eastern standard time and will provide the public an opportunity 
to comment on the draft environmental justice strategies of 
participating Federal agencies.
    The public meeting will be held at Clark Atlanta University, 223 
James P. Brawley Drive, SW., Atlanta, Georgia. To register for the 
Atlanta meeting or receive information on the satellite downlink sites, 
please call 1-800-413-9849.
    If you have any questions or need additional information regarding 
the public meeting, please call Bob Knox or Danny Gogal at EPA's Office 
of Environmental Justice, toll free at 1-800-962-6215 or locally (202) 
260-6357.
Jonathan Z. Cannon,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Administration and Resources 
Management.
[FR Doc. 94-32277 Filed 12-30-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
Shola MCCARTHY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3232

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 24, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION

Case No. l/- C2- 000 2) YG 2

STIPULATED ORDER EXCLUDING °°
TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

MAY 24 2017

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

Agecut | UieeanS

Defendant. bs
CALIF ORNIA

. 37 if 24 / iD OAKLAND
For the reason stated by ie parties on the record on , the Court excludes time under the Speedy
Trial Act from -3} 4 (id to_ D3! he and finds that the ends of justice served by the
continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(7)(A). The Court makes this finding and bases this continuance on the following factors:

Failure to grant a continuance would be likely to result in a miscarriage of justice.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)().

The case is so unusual or so complex, due to [circle applicable reasons] the number of
defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of fact

or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or the trial
itself within the time limits established by this section. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii).

Failure to grant a continuance would deny the defendant reasonable time to obtain counsel,
taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

Failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant continuity of counsel, given
counsel's other scheduled case commitments, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

Failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time
necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

For the reasons stated on the record, it is further ordered that time is excluded under 18 U.S.C. §
3161(b) and waived with the consent of the defendant under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

5.1(c) and (d).

For the reasons stated on the record, it is further ordered that time is excluded under 18 U.S.C. §
3161(h)(1)(E)(F) for delay resulting from removal/transport of the defendant to another district.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

: \ aT
DATED: sad [io Li MA bj 0

/Kandis\A. Westmore

f United States Magistrate Judge
STIPULATED: es7 2X eee
Attorney for Defendant Assistant United States Attorney

Cuqeres Wapsn Weel Qveto? Pa
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00191

- CV

I N THE M ATTER OF A.T. §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 323rd District

Court

of Tarrant County (323

- 110595

- 19)

August 29, 2019

Per Curiam

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s order . It is ordered that the order of the trial court is

affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
# m8512.docx

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 16.8.2017 C(2017) 5774 final To the notifying parties: Subject : Case M. 8512 – A.P. MOLLER MAERSK / DANSKE BANK / GATETU Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 1 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area 2 Dear Sir or Madam, 1. On 19 July 2017 , the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which A.P. Moller — Mærsk A/S (‘APMM’, Denmark) and Danske Bank A/S (‘DB’, Denmark) acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation, joint control over a newly created joint venture in Denmark (‘ Gatetu ’) . 3 2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: - DB is a financial services company based in Denmark and listed on the Copenhagen Stock Exchange. The company is active globally in retail and wholesale banking, pension schemes, insurance, mortgage finance, asset management, brokerage, real estate and leasing services. - APMM is an international group with activities in container shipping and terminal services, operation of tankers, harbour towage, logistics and energy (exploitation of oil and gas), active globally. - Gatetu is a fin-tech start-up which will offer software for online B2B platforms to facilitate payments and other financial services at a global level. 3. After examination of the notification, the European Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and of paragraph 5 ( a ) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 . 4 4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1 )( b) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement . For the Commission (Signed)
Johannes LAITENBERGER Director - General
(1)
OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ( the ' Merger Regulation ' ). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( ' TFEU ' ) has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of ' Community ' by ' Union ' and ' common market ' by ' internal market ' . The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.
(2) OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3 ( the ' EEA Agreement ' ).
(3) Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 247 , 29.07.2017 , p. 3 .
(4)
OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5 .
Case 5:17-mj-70034-MAG Document 4 Filed 01/11/17 Page 1 of 1
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SHEETMETAL WORKERS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

    v.

FREEDOM SHEET METAL INC., etc.,

Defendant.                                                                    /

No. C 05-01980 WHA

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’SEX PARTE REQUEST TOCONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENTCONFERENCE

Plaintiff’s ex parte request to continue the case management conference is hereby

DENIED.  

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  August 5, 2005.                                                               WILLIAM ALSUPUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01980-WHA   Document 5   Filed 08/05/05   Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1 

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00865 RS 

36267008v1 0996478 

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 

633 West 5th Street, 47th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2043 

213-680-2800 

ADAM B. RUCKER (SBN 309516) arucker@hinshawlaw.com 

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 

633 West 5th Street, 47th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2043 

Telephone: 213-680-2800 

Facsimile: 213-614-7399 

Attorneys for Defendant 

STELLAR RECOVERY, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO / OAKLAND DIVISION 

LILIANA MARTINEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

STELLAR RECOVERY, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00865 RS

(Honorable Richard Seeborg) 

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT 

Complaint Filed: February 22, 2017 

Notice is hereby given that the parties have settled this matter. The parties 

anticipate completing settlement documents and filing a dismissal with the Court 

within the next thirty (30) days. The parties request that the Court retain jurisdiction 

of this case during said thirty (30) day period. 

 

DATED: March 28, 2017

By:

HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP

/s/ Adam B. Rucker

 ADAM B. RUCKER 

Attorneys for Defendant 

STELLAR RECOVERY, INC. 

Case 3:17-cv-00865-RS Document 15 Filed 03/28/17 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information   extracted  from  the
registrant's  financial  statements  as of and for the six  month  period  ended
September  27,  1997,  and is qualifed  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such
financial statements:
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                         1,159,994
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    2,813,055
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,170,959
<PP&E>                                         3,929,029
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,589,394
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,675,633
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,387,205
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    500,000
<COMMON>                                       548,892
<OTHER-SE>                                     (720,248)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,675,633
<SALES>                                        7,932,863
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,932,863
<CGS>                                          4,901,010
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,901,010
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3,433,422
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             119,142
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (555,269)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (555,269)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (555,269)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.01)
        


</TABLE>
Marvin TOWNSEND v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

CR-17-0027

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


          I, Terrance M. McCarthy,  President  and  Chief  Executive  Officer of
First  Banks,  Inc.  (the  "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

          (1)  The  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-Q  of the  Company  for  the
               quarterly  period ended  September 30, 2007 (the "Report")  fully
               complies with the  requirements of Sections 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:  November 14, 2007

                                   By: /s/ Terrance M. McCarthy
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                           Terrance M. McCarthy
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40154

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RICARDO RODRIGUEZ-CORDERO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:16-CR-772-1

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ricardo RodriguezCordero has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rodriguez-Cordero has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 24, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40154 Document: 00514207650 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2017
No. 17-40154

2

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-40154 Document: 00514207650 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2017
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

Ivan Lemelle, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of **

Louisiana, sitting by designation.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JOSE CHAVEZ-TORRES,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-10416

D.C. No. 4:11-cr-00039-CKJ

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Ivan Lemelle, District Judge, Presiding **

Submitted May 15, 2012*** 

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Jose Chavez-Torres appeals from the 80-month sentence imposed following

his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry after deportation, in violation of 

FILED

MAY 18 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-10416

8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

 Chavez-Torres contends that the district court unreasonably denied his

motion to continue the sentencing hearing for 60 days. The district court did not

abuse its discretion by denying Chavez-Torres’s motion for a continuance. See

United States v. Mejia, 69 F.3d 309, 314 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Chavez-Torres also contends that the district court erred by not granting an

additional one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. This contention

lacks merit. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) cmt. n.6; United States v. Johnson, 581 F.3d

994, 1003-1004 (9th Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED.
Amendment No. 5 to ARCA 2004 Stock Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.6 
 AMENDMENT NO. 5 
 TO THE ARCA DISCOVERY, INC. 
 2004 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
 The ARCA Discovery, Inc.
2004 Stock Incentive Plan (as amended, the “Plan”) is hereby amended as set forth below: 
 1. The first sentence of Section 4 is hereby
deleted and replaced with the following sentence: 
 Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 15 hereof, the number of shares
of Stock available for issuance under the Plan shall be 6,356,550. 
 The remaining sentences of Section 4 shall not be amended. 
 2. Capitalized terms as used in this Amendment No. 5 (this “Amendment”) and not otherwise defined in this Amendment, shall have the meanings
assigned to them in the Plan. The Plan shall otherwise be unchanged by this Amendment. 
 * * * * * 







 This Amendment was duly adopted by the board of directors of ARCA Discovery, Inc. by resolution of the Board of Directors
of the of the Corporation adopted at a meeting held on February 1, 2008, and approved by the written consent of the stockholders of ARCA Discovery, Inc. on February 27, 2008, in accordance with Section 16.2 of the Plan. 
  

			
	ARCA DISCOVERY, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Christopher D. Ozeroff

		 	Christopher D. Ozeroff, Secretary


  

 - 2 -