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



U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
 FORM 40-F
 Check One
 o
    
    Registration Statement Pursuant to Section 12 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 þ
    
    Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 For the fiscal year ended August 31, 2006
    
    Commission File Number: 001-14684
 Shaw Communications Inc.
 
  N/A
 
  Alberta, Canada
 
  4841
 
  N/A
 
  Suite 900, 630  3 rd Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 4L4
(403) 750-4500
 
  CT Corporation System, 111 Eighth Avenue, 13 th Floor, New York, NY 10011 (212) 894-8940
 
    Title of each class
    
    Name of each exchange on which registeredClass B Non-Voting
Participating Shares
    
    New York Stock Exchange
  None
 
   8.54% Series B Capital Securities
8.25% Senior Notes due 2010
7.25% Senior Notes due 2011
7.20% Senior Notes due 2011
6.10% Senior Notes due 2012
7.5% Senior Notes due 2013

6.15% Senior Notes due 2016




---



##### 



þ     Annual information form
    
    þ     Audited annual financial statements
  Class A Participating Shares -
    
    11,291,932 issued and outstandingClass B Non-Voting Participating Shares -
    
    203,649,904 issued and outstanding
 Exchange Act).
 o þ
  þ o
 
 DISCLOSURE CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
  
 MANAGEMENTS ANNUAL REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROLS
  
 AUDITOR ATTESTATION
  
 CHANGES IN INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING




---



##### 



IDENTIFICATION OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE
  
 AUDIT COMMITTEE FINANCIAL EXPERT
  
 PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES
 Sarbanes-Oxley Act
 Type of Service
    
    Fiscal 2006
    
    
    Fiscal 2005Audit Fees
    
    $
    2,213,961
    
    
    $
    2,056,213Audit-related Fees
    
    
    195,457
    
    
    
    186,150Tax Fees
    
    
    436,736
    
    
    
    232,859All Other Fees
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Total
    
    $
    2,846,154
    
    
    $
    2,475,222




---



##### 



CODE OF ETHICS
 www.shaw.ca
 
 OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS
  
 TABULAR DISCLOSURE OF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS
 
 
 UNDERTAKING AND CONSENT TO SERVICE OF PROCESS
   
 SIGNATURES
  SHAW COMMUNICATIONS INC.By:
    /s/ Steve WilsonSteve Wilson,Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer




---



##### 



EXHIBITS
  Exhibit Number
    
    Document1.
    
    Annual Report for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2006.2.
    
    Annual Information Form for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2006.3.
    
    Consent of Ernst & Young LLP.4.
    
    Certifications of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section
302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 dated November 29, 2006.5.
    
    Certifications of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 dated November 29, 2006.
#### KAMMERER et al. *v.*KROEGER, SUPERINTENDENT OF BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS OF OHIO, et al.*

No. 522.

Motion to dismiss distributed November 28, 1936.—

Decided December 21, 1936.

*303
      *Mr. John W. Bricker,*Attorney General of Ohio, filed a brief in support of the motion to dismiss.

*Messrs. Gilbert Bettman*and *W. S. McConnaughey*were on the brief for appellants in opposition to the motion to dismiss.

Together with No. 523, *Wuist et al.*v. *Kroeger et al.;*No. 524, *Fischer et al.*v. *Kroeger et al.;*No. 525, *Cotterill et al.*v. *Kroeger et al.;*No. 526, *Kelsey et al.*v. *Kroeger et al.;*No. 527, *Kimmel et al.*v. *Kroeger et al.;*and No. 528, *Reichert et al.*v. *Kroeger et al.*Appeals from the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Per Curiam.

These seven appeals present the same question. Under §§ 687 to 687-23, 115 Ohio Laws 3, § 1, *et seg.,*effective February 27, 1933, the Superintendent of Building and Loan Associations of the State of Ohio took possession of the assets of the above-mentioned associations, respectively, for the purpose of liquidation. The Superintendent sought authority to borrow money from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to pay off claims alleged to be prior to the shareholders’ claims against such associations and to pledge the assets as security. Appellant shareholders, on behalf of all the shareholders of the respective associations, through their counsel, successfully opposed the Superintendent’s applications. Thereupon appellants filed applications for the allowance of their counsel fees and expenses out of the assets of the associations. The Common Pleas Court of Montgomery County, on motion of the Superintendent, struck these applications from the files upon the ground that under the Ohio statutes the court did not have jurisdiction to consider or allow such fees. Motions for new trial and rehearing were overruled. The Court of Appeals of Montgomery County sustained the ruling of the Court of Common Pleas. Appellants then appealed as of right to the Supreme Court of Ohio and that court dismissed the appeals on the ground that “no debatable constitutional question” was involved. 131 O. S. 330; 2 N. E. (2d) 823.

We find no basis for the contention that in denying appellants’ claim to be paid their counsel fees and ex*304penses out of the assets in the hands of the liquidator, upon the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to make such an allowance, any right of the appellants under the Federal Constitution has been infringed. The question is one of state practice and remedy. The motions to dismiss the appeals are granted and the appeals are dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. *Iowa Central Ry. Co.*v. *Iowa,*160 U. S. 389, 393; *Standard Oil Co.*v. *Missouri,*224 U. S. 270, 280, 281; *McDonald*v. *Oregon Navigation Co.,*233 U. S. 665, 669, 670; *Gasquet*v. *Lapeyre,*242 U. S. 367, 369, 370; *Enterprise Irrigation District*v. *Canal Co.,*243 U. S. 157, 166.

*Dismissed.*

Mr. Justice Stone took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
#### Jose De Jesus SOSA-ELIZONDO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-72168.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*621Submitted May 25, 2010.*

Filed June 10, 2010.

Aggie Rachel Hoffman, Law Office of Aggie R. Hoffman, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Christopher McGreal, OIL, Aviva Poczter, Senior Litigation Counsel, James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Craig Alan Newell, Jr., Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jose De Jesus Sosa-Elizondo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations due to ineffective assistance of counsel, *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

We agree with the BIA’s conclusion that Sosa-Elizondo failed to establish that his former counsel’s representation resulted in prejudice, and therefore his ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails. *See Iturri-barria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir.2003) (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel’s conduct may have affected the outcome of the proceedings). We reject Sosa-Elizondo’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider properly the evidence or apply the correct legal standard. It follows that the BIA did not violate due process. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).

Sosa-Elizondo submitted a Motion to Augment the Record with the curriculum vitae (“CV”) of Dr. Reuban Vaisman-Tza-chor, whose psychological report is in the record. Our review is limited to the administrative record. The parties disagree whether the CV was originally part of the record. Even assuming that the CV was part of the record, we hold that its inclusion would not affect the outcome of Sosa-Elizondo’s case. We therefore deny the motion.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
No. 390.

#### Hall *v.*Universal Oil Products Co. et al.

October 14, 1935.

*Messrs. Donald W. Johnson, Charles V. Garnett,*and *Minitree Jones Fulton*for petitioner.

*Messrs. Alexander F. Richmann*and *R. R. Brewster*for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA AF 11-0244

IN RE THE RULES FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF MONTANA 

# FILED DEC 17 2015 Eci
. smith CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF MONTANA ORDER

By Order entered June 24, 2015, this Court directed the State Bar of Montana, working in conjunction with the Commission on Character and Fitness and the Board of Bar Examiners,to implementnew rules orpropose amendmentsto existing rules to accommodate the Court's approval ofadmission to the Montana Bar on motion. On November 12,2015, the three entities submitted a joint packet of proposed amendments to the Rules for Admission to the Bar ofMontana,Rules ofProcedure ofthe Commission on Character and Fitness, and Board of Bar Examiners' Rules. The Court reviewed the proposals and discussed them at a public meeting held December 15, 2015, at which time additional amendments were approved. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the proposed rule changes as approved by the Court are ADOPTED. The Rules for Admission to the Bar ofMontana,Rules of Procedure of the Commission on Character and Fitness, and Bard of Bar Examiners' Rules are amended to read as shown in the attachment to this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the process approved by this Court in December 2014 for allowing voluntary reporting ofpro bono activities by applicants for the Montana Bar Examination also shall extend to applicants for admission by transfer ofUBE score and to applicants for admission by motion. December 17 2015

Case Number: AF 11-0244A copy ofthis Order and the attached rules shall beposted on the Court's website. In

addition,the Clerk ofthis Court is directed to provide copies ofthe same to the Executive Director of the State Bar of Montana with the request that the Order and attachment be posted on the State Bar's website and notice published in the next issue ofthe Montana Lawyer magazine;to the Chair ofthe Commission on Character and Fitness;to the Chair of the Board ofBar Examiners;and to the Dean ofthe Alexander Blewett III School ofLaw at the University ofMontana. Dated this 1/day ofDecember,2015.
ChiefJustice

2
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  August 11, 2008
    /s/ Robert L. Kirkman, M.D.Robert L. Kirkman, M.D.,Chief Executive Officer and President
(Principal Executive Officer) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  August 11, 2008
    /s/ Edward A. TaylorEdward A. Taylor,Chief Financial Officer and Vice President
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald R. HARVEY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-31021

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 20, 2006.

*433Jennifer McDaniel Kleinpeter, U.S. Attorney’s Office Middle District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Law Offices of Thomas C. Damico, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ronald R. Harvey appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He argues that he was sentenced in violation of his plea agreement and that the district court erred in upwardly departing.

For the first time on appeal, Harvey argues that the terms of his plea agreement were violated by (1) the district court’s upward departure from the advisory guideline range; (2) the Government’s failure to move for a third acceptance-of-responsibility credit; and (3) the district court’s failure to offer him the opportunity to withdraw his plea. Affording his argument plain error review, *United States v.*
      *434
      *Munoz,*408 F.3d 222, 226 (5th Cir.2005), we hold that the conduct of the district court and the Government was entirely consistent with the parties’ reasonable understanding of the agreement. *See United States v. Wilder,*15 F.3d 1292, 1295 (5th Cir.1994). Consequently, his breach argument fails.

Harvey additionally argues for the first time on appeal that the district court’s upward departure was erroneous. Affording this argument plain error review, *United States v. Jones,*444 F.3d 430, 436 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 2958, 165 L.Ed.2d 970 (2006), we hold that Harvey has shown no error, plain or otherwise. To the extent that Harvey seeks to challenge the district court’s refusal to award him a two-level § 3E1.1 adjustment, that issue is inadequately briefed and is therefore waived. *United States v. Thames,*214 F.3d 608, 611 n. 3 (5th Cir.2000).

AFFIRMED.

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 4.1  



	
	 	 	 	

	CERTIFICATE	 	 	 	SHARES
	
	 	


 	 	

	COMMON STOCK	 	 	 	COMMON STOCK
	

 	
 	

 	
 	
SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS
	

 	
 	

 	
 	
CUSIP 892717 10 9




INCORPORATION
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 


THIS CERTIFIES THAT  


IS THE OWNER OF  


FULLY PAID AND NONASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, $0.01 PAR VALUE PER SHARE, OF 


Traffic.com, Inc.  


transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof or by duly authorized attorney, upon [illegible]. This certificate is
not valid unless countersigned and registered by the transfer agent and registrar. 


        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers. 


DATED:




	[SIGNATURE]	 	[SEAL]	 	[SIGNATURE]
	Chief Financial Officer, Assistant Secretary	 	 	 	President, Secretary





COUNTERSIGNED



        STOCK
TRANS, INC. 


44
WEST LANCASTER AVE. ARDMORE, PA 19003 



TRANSFER
AGENT

    AND REGISTRAR 





        BY 



        Authorized
Signature 








Traffic.com, Inc.  


        The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in
full according to applicable laws or regulations: 



	

TEN COM	
 	

-	
 	

as tenants in common	
 	

UNIF GIFT MIN ACT-	
 	

	
 	

Custodian	
 	

	

 
	TEN ENT	 	-	 	as tenants by the entireties	 	 	 	(Cust)	 	 	 	(Minor)	 
	JT TEN	 	-	 	as joint tenants with right of	 	 	 	under Uniform Gifts to Minors	 
	 	 	 	 	survivorship and not as tenants	 	 	 	Act	 	
	 
	 	 	 	 	in common	 	 	 	 	 	(State)	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	UNIF TRF MIN ACT-	 	
	 	Custodian (until age	 	
	)
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	(Cust)	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	 	under Uniform Transfers	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	(Minor)	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	to Minors Act	 	
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	(State)
	  	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 




Additional
abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 



	For Value received,	 	
	 	hereby sell, assign and transfer unto





	

PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE	
 	

 
	
	 	 
	    
	 	 





	

	PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE
	


	


	

	
 	

Shares
	

of the Common Stock represented by the within Certificate, and do(es) hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint	
 	

 
	

	
 	

Attorney
	

to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.	
 	

 





	

Dated	
 	

	
 	

 	
 	

 
	 	 	 	 	X	 	  

	 	 	 	 	X	 	  

	 	 	 	 	NOTICE:	 	THE SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME(S) AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.





Signature(s) Guaranteed:  



	By	 	
	 	 
	THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM),
PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOANDARK KASSAB, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

and 

MR. D’S LIQUOR AND DELI, INC., a 

California corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-55621 

D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00399-DMS-NLS 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 15, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. 

Joandark Kassab appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

JUN 24 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-55621 

in her action seeking judicial review of the United States Department of 

Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service’s (“FNS”) final decision imposing a civil 

penalty following Kassab’s sale of a store that had previously been disqualified 

from participating in the federal food stamp program. We review de novo the 

district court’s legal conclusions and for clear error its factual findings. Wong v. 

United States, 859 F.2d 129, 131 (9th Cir. 1988). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Kassab failed 

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she was allowed to sell her

store without penalty after it was permanently disqualified for trafficking in 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”) benefits. See 7 U.S.C. 

§ 2021(e)(1) (a person who sells or otherwise transfers ownership of a store that 

has been disqualified from participating in the SNAP program “shall be subjected 

to a civil penalty in an amount established by the Secretary”); 7 C.F.R. § 278.6(g)

(method by which FNS determines amount of civil penalties for transfer of 

ownership); see also Kim v. United States, 121 F.3d 1269, 1273 (9th Cir. 1997) 

(holding that under the Food Stamp Act “even innocent owners” may be 

disqualified permanently for trafficking violations).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kassab’s motion for 

reconsideration because Kassab failed to establish any basis for such relief. See 

Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 
3 19-55621 

(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

Kassab is not entitled to reversal of the district court’s summary judgment 

based on her claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Nicholson v. Rushen, 

767 F.2d 1426, 1427 (9th Cir. 1985) (“Generally, a plaintiff in a civil case has no 

right to effective assistance of counsel.”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 116 

Expressing support for the designation of February 8, 2010, as ‘‘Boy Scouts 

of America Day’’, in celebration of the Nation’s largest youth scouting 

organization’s 100th anniversary. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2009 

Mr. HALL of Texas (for himself and Mr. SKELTON) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of February 8, 2010, 

as ‘‘Boy Scouts of America Day’’, in celebration of the 

Nation’s largest youth scouting organization’s 100th anniversary. 

Whereas Boy Scouts of America was incorporated by Chicago 

publisher, William Boyce, on February 8, 1910, after 

learning of the Scouting movement during a visit to London; 

Whereas, on June 21, 1901, a group of 34 national representatives met, developed organization plans, and 

opened a temporary national headquarters in New York; 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 116 IH 

Whereas the purpose of Boy Scouts of America is to teach 

America’s youth patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and 

kindred values; 

Whereas by 1912, Scouts were enrolled in every State; 

Whereas in 1916, Congress granted Boy Scouts of America 

a Federal charter; 

Whereas each council will commit each Boy Scout to perform 

12 hours of community service yearly, totaling 

30,000,000 community service hours each year; 

Whereas membership since 1910 totals more than 

111,000,000 scouts and is found in 185 countries around 

the world; 

Whereas the organization will present the 2 millionth Eagle 

Scout award in 2009; 

Whereas more than 1,000,000 adult volunteer leaders selflessly serve young people in their communities through 

organizations chartered by the Boy Scouts of America; 

Whereas these men and women often neither receive nor seek 

the thanks of the public; 

Whereas February 8, 2010, would be an appropriate day to 

designate as ‘‘Boy Scouts of America Day’’ in celebration 

of the Boy Scouts of America’s 100th anniversary; and 

Whereas Boy Scouts of America endeavors to develop American citizens who are physically, mentally, and emotionally fit, have a high degree of self-reliance as evidenced 

in such qualities as initiative, courage, and resourcefulness, have personal values based on religious concepts, 

have the desire and skills to help others, understand the 

principles of the American social, economic, and governmental systems, take pride in their American heritage 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 116 IH 

and understand our Nation’s role in the world, have a 

keen respect for the basic rights of all people, and are 

prepared to participate in and give leadership to American society: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

2 the designation of ‘‘Boy Scouts of America Day’’ in cele3 bration of its 100th anniversary. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS