alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). A K / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. M A N U E L F L O R E Z , A K A M an u el F l o res, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 08- 30376 D. C . No . 1 : 9 9 - c r - 0 0 0 4 8 - J DS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont a na J a c k D . S ha ns tr om , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 16, 2010 ** B e f o r e : S C H R O E D E R , P R E G E R S O N , a n dR A W L I N S O N , C ir c u it J u d g e s . M a nue l F l or e z appe a l s f r om the 180- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f ol l ow i ng a j ury - tr i a l c onvi c t i on f

orc ons pi r a c yt o di s tr i but e m e tha m phe t a m i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 846. T he i ns t a ntappe a l f ol l ow s as uc c e s s f

ul 28 U . S . C . § 2255 m ot i on 

# FI LED MA R 26 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSA K / Res ea r ch 08- 30376 2 a l l ow i ng F l or e z t o f

i l e a n appe a l outof

t i m e . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e v a c a te th e s e n te n c e a n dr e m a n dto th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. F l or e z c ont e nds tha tthe r e i s ar e a s onabl e pr obabi l i tytha the w oul d ha ve r e c e i ve d adi f

f e r e nts e nt e nc e , ha d the di s tr i c tc ourtknow n tha tthe S e nt e nc i ng G ui del i nes w er e a dv i sory . T he go vernm entconcedes, and w e a gree , thata l i m i t ed re m and i s app ropri at e. A cc ordi ng l y, w e r em and t o the di stri ctcourtfor f urther proceedi ng s i n l i gh tof U ni te d State s v . A m e l i ne , 40 9 F . 3d 10 73 , 10 79 (9th C i r. 20 05 ) ( en banc). F lo r e z ’s r e q u e s t f

o rs u p p le m e n ta l b r ie f

in g is d e n ie d . V AC AT E D a n d RE MAND E D.
Robert PONTE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6346.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 7, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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
Goldspan Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2011 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), we, David Hedderly-Smith, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James
McLaughlin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated
financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods
presented.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|By:    | /s/ David Hedderly-Smith                
|------ | ----------------------------------------
|Name:  | David Hedderly-Smith                    
|Title: | Principal Executive Officer and Director
|Date:  | July 9, 2012                            
|       |                                         
|By:    | /s/ James McLaughlin                    
|Name:  | James McLaughlin                        
|Title: | Principal Financial Officer and Director
|Date:  | July 9, 2012                            



This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nicholas Dehaarte, Appellant.

[883 NYS2d 723]

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered February 7, 2008, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (three counts), assault in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in denying a *Batson*challenge *(see Batson v Kentucky,*476 US 79 [1986]) because the prosecutor’s explanation for striking three black potential jurors was pretextual. However, the defendant’s challenge was properly denied because he failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating, under the third prong of the *Batson*analysis, that the facially race-neutral explanation given by the prosecutor was a pretext for racial discrimination *(see People v Payne,*88 NY2d 172 [1996]).

Furthermore, the defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Hawkins,*11 NY3d 484 [2008]; *People v Eley,*31 AD3d 662 [2006]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s identity as one of the perpetrators beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to *594view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor *(see People v Mateo,*2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], *cert denied*542 US 946 [2004]; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Fisher, J.P., Miller, Angiolillo and Hall, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.2



                        INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of
Howell Corporation on Form S-8 of our report dated February 28, 1997, appearing
in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Howell Corporation for the year ended
December 31, 1996.






DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Houston, Texas

June 9, 1997
NO. 07-01-0415-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL E

	SEPTEMBER 3, 2002

	______________________________

	BLANCA LIZETH QUACH, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 176TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY;

	NO. 851942; HONORABLE MARY BACON, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ, and BOYD, SJ.1

	On May 16, 2001, appellant Blanca Lizeth Quach was adjudged guilty of murder and, on May 17, 2001, sentenced to 60 years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant gave a timely notice of appeal and, under equalization of docket proceedings, the appeal was transferred to this court for disposition.

	Appellant’s attorney has now filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders brief.  See Anders v. California, 398 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).  In that brief, she certifies that after careful examination of the record, she has concluded that appellant’s appeal is without merit.  Along with her brief, she has attached a copy of a letter sent to appellant notifying her of counsel’s intent to withdraw and appellant’s right to proceed pro se.  This court also informed appellant by letter dated April 24, 2002, that if she wished to file a response, she had until May 22, 2002, to do so.  To date, neither a response nor a motion for extension of time to file a response has been received.

	In considering requests of this type, we must first satisfy ourselves that the attorney has provided the client with a diligent and thorough search of the record for any arguable claim that might support her client’s appeal.  After doing so, we must then determine if counsel has correctly concluded the appeal is frivolous.  See McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978).

	In discussing whether any possible viable grounds for appeal exist, counsel gave a resume of the pertinent evidence and noted that she found no viable grounds for appeal.  We also have made an independent examination of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support the appeal.  Staffer v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).  We have found no such grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is without merit and is, therefore, frivolous.  Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974).

	Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.  

							John T. Boyd

							Senior Justice

Do not publish.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM S3
INCORPORATED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1997, AND
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOR THE THREE AND SIX MONTHS ENDED
JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          67,416
<SECURITIES>                                    55,851
<RECEIVABLES>                                  107,326
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,329
<INVENTORY>                                     46,615
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               308,292
<PP&E>                                          73,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,722
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 508,281
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           91,874
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       173,700
<OTHER-SE>                                     115,915
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   508,281
<SALES>                                        247,058
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               247,058
<CGS>                                          151,352
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  151,352
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                66,103
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   600
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 271
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,332
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,146
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,186
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,186
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.36
        

</TABLE>
H. Res. 1480 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 14, 2010. 

Whereas the University of Southern California (USC) Trojan 

men’s tennis team has achieved many accomplishments 

during the 2010 season; 

Whereas USC finished the 2010 season with an overall record 

of 25–3; 

Whereas, the No. 5 seed in the tournament, USC won the 

2010 NCAA Championship with a 4–2 victory over the 

No. 2 seed Tennessee; 

Whereas the USC men’s tennis team has now won its 18th 

NCAA men’s tennis team championship, making the Trojans the all-time leader in such team victories; 

Whereas USC’s previous NCAA men’s tennis team championship came in 2009; 

Whereas USC won the 2009 NCAA Championship with a 4– 

1 victory over Ohio State; 

Whereas, as a whole, USC has won its 113th national championship as a university, and its 90th men’s national 

championship; 

Whereas the 2010 NCAA Championship is the second for 

USC head coach Peter Smith; 
2 

•HRES 1480 EH 

Whereas USC Daniel Nguyen was named the NCAA Tournament’s Most Outstanding Player; 

Whereas other All-Team Tournament Team honors went to 

Robert Farah at No. 1 singles, Steve Johnson at No. 2 

singles, Daniel Nguyen at No. 4 singles, and Peter 

Lucassen at No. 6 singles, as well as Robert Farah and 

Steve Johnson at No. 1 doubles and Daniel Nguyen and 

JT Sundling at No. 2 doubles; and 

Whereas under the leadership of USC’s 10th president, Steven B. Sample, USC has established itself as a worldclass research university, known for its leadership in the 

fields of communication, media, public diplomacy, the 

sciences, and the arts: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) commends the University of Southern California 

(USC) Trojan men’s tennis team and USC President 

Steven B. Sample for USC’s victory in the 2010 NCAA 

Men’s Tennis Championship; 

(2) applauds Coach Peter Smith for his winning his 

second NCAA Championship as USC’s head coach; and 

(3) recognizes the achievements of the players, 

coaches, students, alumni, and staff who were instrumental in helping the University of Southern California 

win the 2010 NCAA Men’s Tennis Championship. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Received CFTC 

Records Section ct-1 Page 1 of 1 

secretary df9/ot (}) 

From: Bradt, Zachary K. [zac.bradt@ou.edu] 

Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 12:30 PM 

To: secretary 

Subject: Exemption from Registration for Certain Firms with Regulation 30.10 Relief 

Comments on RIN 3038-AC26 

To whom it may concern: COMMENT 

I am writing to comment on the proposed rule to exempt from registration certain firms with 

Regulation 30.10 relief. I believe this exemption would be beneficial to both US customers and firms 

outside the US. 

Although the non-US firms do not have to register, the requirement that these firms meet 

Regulation 30.10 relief is a good safeguard to ensure US customers receive protection and can expect 

certain standards to be maintained. Another safeguard to be implemented that I believe would be 

effective is the requirement that the foreign firms be affiliated with arid FCM and the acknowledgement 

by the FCM. 

The consumer can be further protected by not permitting the solicitation of new US customers. 

The commission seeks comments on whether the proposed limited purpose registration exemption 

should be extended to otherwise qualified foreign persons. I do not believe the exemption should be 

extended at this time. The Commission has provided a means of US customers to eliminate the 

transaction costs associated with the use of multiple order entry processes. To extend the exemption at 

this to other foreign persons could potentially decrease the safeguards in place. Permitting foreign 

persons to advise US customers on foreign and US markets at this time is not advantageous at this time. 

0 

., 1'•-..l 

n F3 

C~? 

a 

""'1 -r"( ?'J rn -: O".:t :·) P"l 

ii""l :·""1~ UJ -..o .. ~ ... ·1- ~""""!~ 

1,:-) (·;~ ;.':J 51 Cl rq 

-i q? > 

:::0 .t:: 

, w -~ 

2/19/2008
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15315]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[DA 01-1289]


Low Power Television Auction No. 81--Mutually Exclusive 
Proposals--60-Day Settlement Window Ending July 24, 2001

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This document identified those proposals filed during the 
limited low power television/television translator/Class A television 
auction filing window that are mutually exclusive and announces a 60-
day settlement window ending July 24, 2001.

DATES: Settlements must be submitted by July 24, 2001.

ADDRESSES: To submit a settlement, parties must send the requisite 
paperwork identified in the Public Notice to: Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Room TW-
A325, Washington, DC 20054. In addition, it is requested that a 
courtesy copy of all such filings be delivered to Shaun Maher, Video 
Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 2-A820, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaun Maher, Video Services Division, 
Mass Media Bureau at (202) 418-1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of a Public Notice 
released May 25, 2001. It does not include the attachment. The complete 
text of the Public Notice, including attachment, is available for 
public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. 
It may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 
International Transcription Services, Inc. (ITS, Inc.) 1231 20th 
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20035, (202) 857-3800. It is also available 
on the Commission's web site at http://www.fcc.gov.
    In this Public Notice, the Mass Media Bureau identifies those 
proposals filed during the limited low power television, television 
translator, and Class A television auction filing window that are 
mutually exclusive. Parties have until July 24, 2001, to file a 
settlement if they desire to avoid going to auction.

Federal Communications Commission.

Robert H. Ratcliffe,
Deputy Chief, Mass Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 01-15315 Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
 

<CIK>     0000744822


<NAME>      Fidelity Investment Trust


<SERIES>

        <NUMBER>        211


        <NAME>      Fidelity Japan Small Companies Fund


<MULTIPLIER>    1,000


       

<S>

<C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>

year


<FISCAL-YEAR-END>

oct-31-1997


<PERIOD-END>

oct-31-1997


<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>

94,091


<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>

82,931


<RECEIVABLES>

1,868


<ASSETS-OTHER>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>

0


<TOTAL-ASSETS>

84,799


<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>

153


<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>

0


<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>

372


<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>

525


<SENIOR-EQUITY>

0


<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>

134,250


<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>

13,015


<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>

11,577


<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>

0


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>

492


<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>

(38,323)


<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>

0


<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>

(11,161)


<NET-ASSETS>

84,274


<DIVIDEND-INCOME>

591


<INTEREST-INCOME>

329


<OTHER-INCOME>

(89)


<EXPENSES-NET>

1,263


<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>

(432)


<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>

(38,200)


<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>

7,161


<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>

(31,471)


<EQUALIZATION>

0


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>

53


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>

360


<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>

0


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>

16,941


<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>

15,551


<SHARES-REINVESTED>

49


<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>

(21,390)


<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>

(105)


<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>

470


<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>

0


<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>

0


<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>

703


<INTEREST-EXPENSE>

3


<GROSS-EXPENSE>

1,268


<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>

94,101


<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>

9.130


<PER-SHARE-NII>

(.030)


<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>

(2.630)


<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>

 .010


<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>

 .030


<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>

0


<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>

6.470


<EXPENSE-RATIO>

135


<AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING>

0


<AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE>

0



        



</TABLE>
Andrew Brian WATTS, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 16-5899.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 14, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
..: i 

-.i’ 

. 

‘_ * 

: 

y- i 

: 

OFFICE OF THE ArrOT GENERAL OF TEXAS 

: AiISTIN 
Hen.B.~.wmltemm,pmgm 2 

'8eo.L vhe aotult~l!~rintaIuleuktuaaouQt~ 

Smhoo% Y$omHm of the mwmral mountiem &.tblm W8tb, 

g b 

L 

ea to t the l p p wvu o f t2y a ta lkperintendent te 

lfo liutzumtlan,armhmrm~ulthur~medto 

mmle mot up thm 8omt roalmlmal mymtmm or trmnm- 

~tloPporml8~?~~Q~meoftraorporting 

?3mth gMam and hi&l l mhool pupflm - thmir, dlstriotm 

anb wlela thmiYk'bimtPlotm. am 0 

OS abaft aad the wotrant - pqab 

of urMmportotion Paad, on the totu trmwpottation earned 

. vfm. the Uomntr not to .uwed the totaX ‘approred oort 

~.%a. I; Qouaty Boud8 of 9rumtm.m mrm hereby 

eiit&wrisedto~~loy8w dritarm forolmfemrmn&thm 

'~:oi‘.nobwMTwrrjk~wtotthoUow~ 

;~Botrqhmampoawtuahl8mmMtmahmmmla\mlommmumhbw 

C.&i~wlm Co.mmplmd;, WMdmdi'wthmr; thmt.onl~ 

papui’orr pmrmmnm direotl~oaBnootodrlthfu'rulIixa 

mymtmamhmllk-lwimportmdoammhomllnlmmmwilm113 

the.pro@emm bi ttrrirpoot* pltplln t0.w fron the. 

oahool Md alq bum ,dtZTW' Tiol8tfIlg ta'roMg~fltg ptoriuoilm mhaliorfmuhlm oontrmmtulambmllbm 

:%mmdlat~l~.aimmllugm6by thm&nm~ M o? Ttwteem. 

BoTaTat, malbibjeottothmpsoTlmtoamhmPmln* bum drbmrm 

wao:umnthm~anibumommadu*mo upl~MykglTwl 

a oQnttut iorapt to exaeed tTa (2) .yurm oondltiphed 

.thatrudE~~Yerm qpmmtommkm hprowmmntm on 

'tha~bumrr; 80 u to &ro adqqwte1r lammrm mafmr trmamp o tta tr o1 6t tJl he l mholmmt1om, mad thm rmtltm of mwh bum 

am notohmaged fat the 8rnOarld~ym~ of the oontrmot.' 

Xneopf@h No. 04031 we tuled that andor 'the 

00mltJ u&t myatea or tlwl~atioa, thm cwnqy Board of 

&ho01 Wutwmmlght employabua 6rlnrwhovam related 

rtthFathep&ibfted&grooto8 me&or oftha lodalboad, 

Utho~the l Uuyof mwhdt%~ett*r paidfmmloaal fun& 

wiarmia 00atut ram not bm in rf*irtioa 0t htimlm8 532, 

433.a 435 of the Nnml Oode. Under thmmm l ta ty thoverer ee 

th8.i00u Board or +rumteom a0tia not xoguly mmpbr a t4m8 

dtljer related witMa the prahibited degree to one ot Its 

mmdwm. 

;. !. : 

k :- 
. , 

510 

bum. .. 

1omUmaWtenuibe ?tp@m o~th*8lmttSoti.The ocmmon amho01 

trtutu~.ub smmponm@lm raw 'the prober l x&ndltvnm o? thm 

100U ?madm of the* dlmttlot md l thm~ mhUl l ppote all 

olnimm mgmlnmt l ~hoo~.?mndm of tW.r dlmt*lot.8 Art1010 n4p, 

R.4.8., ,l!StS. Rot0nl~~ouldaoawam0ho0ltrumtninthe 

pmrfmzmmnom a? him 0msiu dutlombm mmUm4iupmatopum rrpo~ 

rmfriragainmtblm amdimtHmt SnWimhhm 18 lntmremtti; 

&ad thw plamo hlmmel? in lam~tlblo PomZtiQIu, but in e 

'to oblQ8tb 'thm lomU ?hwlm o? the dirtriot to pm7 u deflut 

et any pottson or thb oo=P-u tlon Of l bum driver therefrom, 

thmlooUWmsd.WoUdinm??motbeoCme m.gutftotke oontrmmt 

vith muoh drivtir. ftim our opialonth4taoclurn ash001 

trust00 amy not Be -1 

"p 

u o mOhoo1 bum driver where thm 

100U ?a&8 oil-128 dimtrotmro tok umedtOgayill0rm 

put of him oompenmatlon 88 mamh driver. 8me l uthwltlem 

Oltod in @inlonm I- 0-10X4, O-863 and O-878, ooplem of 

*oh brb enm~ommd hmsdtbb. 

The first l mntmnmo o? JoUr ?irmt qummtion 18 

thorb~~e bm~ered in the ~affltaotito mad the meoond l entenme 

of maid question 18 mamYeWd ln tha Mmtlre. 

.._