alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
        [LETTERHEAD OF AMERICAN ARTISTS FILM CORPORATION APPEARS HERE]

 
                                15 January 1997

VIA FACSIMILE
-------------
Mr. Al Sander
Liberty Transfer Company
191 New York Avenue
Huntington,  NY  11743
Tel: (516) 385-1616

     RE:  TERMINATION OF SERVICES FOR   AMERICAN ARTISTS FILM
          CORPORATION ("AAFC"), FORMERLY SETAB ALPHA, INC. ("SETAB")

Dear Al,

Per our conversations,  the Resolution of Appointment Agreement dated August 12,
1996, by and between Setab and Liberty Transfer Company ("Liberty"), appointing
Liberty as the transfer agent for Setab was terminated on November 4, 1996.

All obligations pertaining to the above-referenced agreement have been fulfilled
by AAFC and, Liberty will have fulfilled all of its obligations once all the
appropriate records, documents and stock certificates pertaining to AAFC held by
them are delivered to AAFC's new transfer agent at the below address:

     Mr. Roger Burnhammer
     Continental Stock Transfer and Trust Company
     2 Broadway
     New York, NY 10004
     Tel: (212) 509-4000

I appreciate all of your help and understanding in this matter.

Sincerely,

                         Very truly yours,

                         /s/ J. Eric Van Atta
                         -----------------------
                         J. Eric Van Atta
                         Vice President

\mjf
Enclosures
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1997
<CASH>                          438445
<SECURITIES>                    142533
<RECEIVABLES>                   7662445
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                10509795
<PP&E>                          563541
<DEPRECIATION>                  159400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  12617916
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           10493363
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        40000
<OTHER-SE>                      0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    12617916
<SALES>                         47993287
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                17993287
<CGS>                           45554241
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   46923198
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                62157
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              155347
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 891100
<INCOME-TAX>                    306200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             584900
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    584900
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0.14
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, John E. Gherty, certify that:

    1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Land O'Lakes, Inc.;

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

    3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

    4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

        a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
    disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
    ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
    consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
    entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
    prepared;

        b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
    and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
    effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
    the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

        c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
    control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f)
    and 15d-15(f)) that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
    quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
    affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

    5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors:

        a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
    operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
    likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
    summarize and report financial information; and

        b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
    employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
    over financial reporting.


Date:  August 14, 2003
                                        By: /s/ John E. Gherty
                                        -------------------------------------
                                        John E. Gherty
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ROYAL PALM CHIROPRACTIC & REHAB CENTER, P.A. a/a/o EMILY 

HANSEN,

Appellant,

v.

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-148

[July 14, 2021]

Appeal from the County Court for the Fifteen Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Edward A. Garrison, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 50-2017-SC009430-XXXX-MB and 50-2019-AP-000085-CAXX-MB.

Jonathan Phillips of Florida Litigators, PLLC, West Palm Beach, for 

appellant.

Michael A. Rosenberg, Peter D. Weinstein and Adrianna de la CruzMuñoz of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Plantation, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Based on our decision in Geico Indemnity Co. v. Muransky Chiropractic 

P.A., No. 4D21-457, 2021 WL 2584107 (Fla. 4th DCA June 24, 2021), we 

reverse the final judgment in favor of Geico and remand for the entry of a 

final judgment in favor of appellant in the amount of $1.22.

Reversed and remanded.

GROSS, MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leon Hutchinson, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam Altman, J.), rendered on September 15, 1983, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur&emdash;Sandler, J. P., Asch, Kassal and Ellerin, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 120 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 120

  To amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to make certain 
  graduate programs in clinical psychology eligible to participate in 
               various health professions loan programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 21, 1997

  Mr. Inouye introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
         referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to make certain 
  graduate programs in clinical psychology eligible to participate in 
               various health professions loan programs.

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

SECTION 1. PARTICIPATION IN VARIOUS HEALTH PROFESSIONS LOAN PROGRAMS.

    (a) Loan Agreements.--Section 721 of the Public Health Service Act 
(42 U.S.C. 292q) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, or any public or 
        nonprofit schools that offer graduate programs in clinical 
        psychology'' after ``veterinary medicine'';
            (2) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``or doctor of 
        veterinary medicine or an equivalent degree'' and inserting 
        ``doctor of veterinary medicine or an equivalent degree, or a 
        graduate degree in clinical psychology''; and
            (3) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``, or schools that 
        offer graduate programs in clinical psychology'' after 
        ``veterinary medicine''.
    (b) Loan Provisions.--Section 722 of the Public Health Service Act 
(42 U.S.C. 292r) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``or doctor of 
        veterinary medicine or an equivalent degree'' and inserting 
        ``doctor of veterinary medicine or an equivalent degree, or a 
        graduate degree in clinical psychology''; and
            (2) in subsection (k)--
                    (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by 
                striking ``or podiatry'' and inserting ``podiatry, or 
                clinical psychology''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or podiatric 
                medicine'' and inserting ``podiatric medicine, or 
                clinical psychology''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Wilson *et al. v.*Sykes.

April 13, 1915.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Cox. Decatur superior court. January 6, 1915.

*A. F. Thornton*and *W. V. Ouster,*for plaintiffs.

*T. S. Sames,*for defendant.

Beck, J.

Under the evidence submitted, there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in refusing the interlocutory injunction.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, C. J., absent.*
#### Tom FRANKLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; GMAC Mortgage, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-10089

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 13, 2011.

Tom Franklin, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Tom Franklin moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his civil action. The district court dis*753missed Franklin’s complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute after Franklin did not respond to a court order requiring him to provide financial information necessary to determine whether he was eligible to proceed IFP in the district court.

Franklin’s motion for leave to proceed IFP and accompanying financial affidavit fail to address the district court’s rationale for dismissing Franklin’s complaint. Although we liberally construe pro se filings, *see Haines v. Kerner,*404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), even pro se litigants must raise arguments in order to preserve them. *Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). By failing to discuss the district court’s rationale for dismissing his complaint, Franklin has abandoned the issue, and it is the same as if he had not appealed the judgment. *See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987). Furthermore, the record shows' that Franklin failed to follow a court order to provide financial information necessary to determine whether he was eligible to proceed IFP, and Franklin’s averment in this court that he receives no income contradicts his sworn statements in the district court that he receives Social Security benefits.

Because Franklin has failed to demonstrate that he will raise a nonfrivo-lous issue on appeal, his motion for leave to proceed IFP is denied. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 24(a); *Carson v. Polley,*689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir.1982). The appeal is without arguable merit, *see Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983), and it is dismissed as frivolous. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

MOTION FOR IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 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.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Robert Ladd, Interim Chief Executive Officer of MGT Capital Investments, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





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





By:
/s/ ROBERT LADDRobert LaddInterim Chief Executive OfficerApril 15, 2011




E-79
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Creekside Rural Investments, Inc. ; * From the 132nd District Court

Manor Ranches, LTD. ; and Jay Dickens, of Scurry County,

Trial Court No. 26824

Vs. No. 11

- 20

- 00 254

- C V * April 28, 2022

Dan Hicks and Pam Browning

, * Opinion by Williams , J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion,

the judgment of the tr ia l court is in all things affirmed. The costs incurred by

reason of this appeal are taxed against Creekside Rural Investments, Inc.; Manor

Ranches, LTD.; and Jay Dickens

.
Case: 1:02-cv-07384 Document #: 14 Filed: 07/02/03 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:25
Case: 1:02-cv-07384 Document #: 14 Filed: 07/02/03 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:26
Case: 1:02-cv-07384 Document #: 14 Filed: 07/02/03 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:27
Case: 1:02-cv-07384 Document #: 14 Filed: 07/02/03 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:28
Case: 1:02-cv-07384 Document #: 14 Filed: 07/02/03 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:29
METALOR Technologies
  C O N T R A C T 10/2008
  EQUIGOLD MINES CI SA COMPANY S.A.  a subsidiary of Lihir Gold Limited, EQUIGOLD,
  METALOR Technologies S.A. 8, METALOR
  1. THE SUBJECT OF THE CONTRACT
   2. QUALITY OF GOODS
  
  3. PRELIMINARY QUANTITY OF GOODS
  4. DELIVERY TERMS
   Page 1




---



##### 



5. PACKING
  6. INSURANCE
     7. SHIPPING ADVICE
    1.
    
    Number of boxes, containers and pallets2.
    
    Gross weight3.
    
    Net weight4.
    
    Detailed packing list5.
    
    Estimated fine metals contents
 Page 2




---



##### 



6.
    
    Name of supervisor in case supervisor is required7.
    
    Provisional invoice
   8. WEIGHING, MELTING AND SAMPLING
          Page 3




---



##### 



9. USE OF MATERIAL
  10. ASSAYS  SPLITTING LIMITS AND UMPIRE
      ALFRED H. KNIGHT INTERNATIONAL
Eccleston Grande
Prescot Road
St. Helens
GB  MERSEYSIDE WA 103 BQ
       Page 4




---



##### 



11. HANDLING AND TREATMENT COSTS
   - Basic Charge:
    
    USD     per shipment- Charge per kg:
    
    USD     per each kg shipped gross kg- Côte dIvoire export formalities & extra 
handling/packing:
    
    USD     per shipment
     12. RATE OF PRECIOUS METALS RECOVERY,
FINE METAL AVAILABILITY
  
  
  13. PRICE FIXATION
  Page 5




---



##### 



-
    
    Pricing made prior to Fine Metal Availability shall be subject to leasing rates for the
number of days early pricing is made prior to fine metal availability date.
 14. PAYMENT FOR SOLD METALS,
PAYMENT OF CHARGES AND
REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES
      -
    
    EQUIGOLDs invoice number and date-
    
    The number and the date of the present contract
    BANK NAME:
    
    To be provided by EQUIGOLD to METALOR from time to timeSWIFT:
    
    To be provided by EQUIGOLD to METALOR from time to timeFOR ACCOUNT OF:
    
    EQUIGOLD MINES CI SAACCOUNT NO.:
    
    To be provided by EQUIGOLD to METALOR from time to time
 Page 6




---



##### 



Account     (USD)
Account     (EURO)
UBS S.A. Zurich
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
 15. NOTIFICATION
   c/- Lihir Services Australia Pty Ltd
L9, 500 Queen Street
Brisbane Qld 4000
ATTN:     Treasury Manager
Phone: +617-3318-3300
Fax: +617-3318-9203
  METALOR TECHNOLOGIES SA
2, Avenue du Vignoble
CH - 2009 Neuchàtel
Switzerland
Phone: +41-33-720-6100
Fax: +41-32-720-6602
  16. TAXES AND DUTIES
  17. FORCE MAJEURE
  Page 7




---



##### 



18. GOVERNING LAW
  19. ARBITRATION
   Page 8




---



##### 



20. VALIDITY OF THE CONTRACT
    st
 Legal addresses of the Parties:EQUIGOLD MINES CI SA:
    
    
    
    METALOR:EQUIGOLD MINES CI SA 06
    
    
    
    METALOR Technologies S.A.BP 2212, Abidjan, 06, Abidjan, Côte
    
    
    
    Chemin des Perveuits 8,dIvoire
    
    
    
    CH-2074 Marin,Switzerland
 /s/ Morgan Hart
    
    
    
    /s/ Yuxing ShangMorgan Hart
    
    
    
    Yuxing Shang/s/ [ILLEGIBLE]
    
    
    
    /s/ Charles Davis[ILLEGIBLE]
    
    
    
    Charles DavisPlace and date:Abidjan, Côte dIvoire
    
    
    
    Marin, Switzerland28/08/2008
    
    
    
    , 2008
 Page 9
#### Morris *v.*Moore.

June 17, 1915.

Complaint. Before Judge Ellis. Fulton superior court. April 10, 1914.

Miss Willie A. Morris brought suit against G. R. Moore, a real-estate agent, on an alleged contract by the terms of which he agreed to pay her fifty per cent, of the commission that was paid to him on sale of real estate, where the plaintiff helped in making such sale. In the instant case it was alleged and proved that the plaintiff was instrumental in bringing about the sale of the property the commissions on which are in controversy. The defendant answered, and averred, among other things, that the plaintiff had not paid to the ordinary of Fulton county a license-tax as required of a real-*513estate agent in Fulton county, and therefore was not entitled, under the law, to commissions on real-estate sales effected by such agent, At the conclusion of the testimony for the plaintiff, which was in support of her petition, the court granted a nonsuit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to register with the ordinary of Fulton county as a real-estate agent and to pay the tax required of such agents. To this judgment the plaintiff excepted.

*512Hill, J.

This case is controlled by the decision in the case of *Toole*v. *Wiregrass Development Co.,*142 *Ga.*57 (82 S. E. 514).

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*513
      *Etheridge & Eihericlge,*for plaintiff.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilbert L. RIPLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-7731.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2009.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2009.

Wilbert L. Ripley, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Elizabeth Chase, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

*756Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Wilbert L. Ripley appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See United States v. Ripley,*No. 3:99-cr-00147-REP-1 (E.D.Va. filed Aug. 11, 2008; entered Aug. 14, 2008). 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.*
#### Petar Donchev BAKALOV, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-72365.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 20, 2011.

John E. Ricci, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Rebecca Ariel Hoffberg, Esquire, Trial, OIL, Ada Elsie Bosque, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief *197Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Petar Donchev Bakalov, a native and citizen of Bulgaria, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Singh v. Gonzales,*491 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir.2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Bakalov’s motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed five years after the final order, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Bakalov failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling, *see Singh,*491 F.3d at 1096-97.

To the extent that Bakalov challenges the BIA’s December 22, 2005, order, we lack jurisdiction to consider his contentions. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

We need not consider Bakalov’s remaining contentions in light of our disposition.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1292

Disapproving the cancellations transmitted by the President on October 6,

1997, regarding Public Law 105–45.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 9, 1997

Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Mr. BYRD, Mr. BURNS, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. AKAKA,

Mr. ALLARD, Mr. BOND, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BINGAMAN,

Mrs. BOXER, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. COVERDELL, Mr.

CRAIG, Mr. D’AMATO, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. FAIRCLOTH, Mr. FORD, Mr.

FRIST, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. HATCH, Mr. HELMS, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr.

INOUYE, Mr. KEMPTHORNE, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. LOTT, Mr. MACK, Mr.

MCCONNELL, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. REID, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. SANTORUM,

Mr. SARBANES, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. THOMPSON, and Mr. WARNER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Appropriations for seven days of session pursuant to section

1025 of Public Law 93–344

A BILL

Disapproving the cancellations transmitted by the President

on October 6, 1997, regarding Public Law 105–45.

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

3 That Congress disapproves of cancellations 97–4, 97–5,

4 97–6, 97–7, 97–8, 97–9, 97–10, 97–11, 97–12, 97–13,

5 97–14, 97–15, 97–16, 97–17, 97–18, 97–19, 97–20, 97–

6 21, 97–22, 97–23, 97–24, 97–25, 97–26, 97–27, 97–28,
2

S 1292 IS

1 97–29, 97–30, 97–32, 97–33, 97–34, 97–35, 97–36, 97–

2 37, 97–38, 97–39, and 97–40, as transmitted by the

3 President in a special message on October 6, 1997, re4 garding Public Law 105–45.

Æ