alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Annual Report of GenVec, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul H. Fischer, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

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

(2)  The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the dates and
periods covered by the Report.

This
certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief Executive Officer of the Company with the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, and may not be disclosed, distributed or used by any person or for any reason other than as specifically required by law.

A
signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been provided to GenVec, Inc. and will be retained by GenVec, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

|March 28, 2003 |  |                                                                        
|-------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|               |  | /s/Paul H. FischerPaul H. Fischer
President and Chief Executive Officer

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       3,178,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               36,843,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   419,000
<INVENTORY>                                 59,439,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           100,097,000
<PP&E>                                     118,049,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              58,021,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             412,028,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       61,159,000
<BONDS>                                    293,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     10,000
<COMMON>                                        11,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (34,348,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               412,028,000
<SALES>                                    199,784,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           199,784,000
<CGS>                                      136,277,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              136,277,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,023,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                94,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          31,940,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,418,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,418,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              1,913,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   505,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Anthony BOYKIN, aka Double O, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7026.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
II-00587

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Kai Takayama <keebler808@hotmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 1:56 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Kai Takayama

45-106 Wm. Henry Rd.

Kaneohe, HI 96744
Dino JIMENEZ-MORALES, petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General.

No. 16-662.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Dario L. CANNON, petitioner, v. Gerald JANDA, Warden.

No. 16-7018.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Michael Lavando HARRISON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-7047.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
#### Jack THOMAS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. William Page TRUE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 06-6637.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 8, 2006.

Decided: Dec. 20, 2006.

Jack Thomas, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jack Thomas, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that rea*276sonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and .conclude that Thomas has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*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.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-41198

Summary Calendar

 

THE ALABAMA COUSHATTA TRIBE OF TEXAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY; R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY; BROWN

& WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION; B.A.T. INDUSTRIES PLC; PHILIP

MORRIS INCORPORATED; LIGGETT GROUP INC.; LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY

INC.; UNITED STATES TOBACCO COMPANY; HILL & KNOWLTON INC.; THE

COUNCIL FOR TOBACCO RESEARCH USA INC.; Successor to the Tobacco

Institute Research Committee; THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

 USDC No. 1:00-CV-596

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

July 15, 2002

Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Alabama Coushatta Tribe of Texas (“the Tribe”) appeals the

dismissal of its complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6). It argues that its sovereign status and the
2

fact that the injuries were alleged to have been suffered by the

Tribe itself, apart from its members, refute the district court’s

determination that the Tribe could not establish the requisite

proximate cause because it had suffered no direct injury. 

We review the district court’s ruling de novo. Shipp v.

McMahon, 234 F.3d 907, 911 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S.

1052 (2001). After fully reviewing the parties’ briefs, the

applicable law, and the record, we find that the Tribe’s sovereign

status and their “direct injury” argument do not make this case

distinguishable from our decision in Texas Carpenters Health

Benefit Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., 199 F.3d 788 (5th Cir. 2000).

See Service Employees International Union Health and Welfare Fund

v. Philip Morris Inc., 249 F.3d 1068, 1073 (D.C. Cir.), cert.

denied, 122 S. Ct. 463 (2001)(foreign government’s status as a

sovereign does not eliminate or adequately substitute for proximate

cause requirement); Laborers Local 17 Health and Benefit Fund v.

Philip Morris, Inc., 191 F.3d 229, 239 (2nd Cir. 1999), cert.

denied, 120 S. Ct. 799 (2000)(labor union funds’ contention that

they suffered direct injury because of “infrastructure harm” did

not change fact that the alleged injury was entirely derivative of

the harm suffered by the plan participants as a result of using

tobacco products). Therefore, we AFFIRM for essentially the same

reasons stated by the district court in its August 30, 2001 order.

AFFIRMED. 
3
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, James H. Tate, as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of Thermadyne Holdings Corporation (the "Company") certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:

         (1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending March 31,
2003 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Thermadyne Holdings Corporation and will be retained by
Thermadyne Holdings Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

Dated:  May 15, 2003

                                            /s/   James H. Tate
                                            ---------------------------------
                                            James H. Tate
                                            Senior Vice President and
                                            Chief Financial Officer of the
                                            Company
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1381 CA 13-00644**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ.

IRA HALFOND, ARTHUR T. LYNCH, SANDRA KNOBLOCK, PAUL J. BULINSKI, JOHN J. GRECO AND DONNA M. LAWRENCE, ADJACENT UPLAND LAND OWNERS, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WHITE LAKE SHORES ASSOCIATION, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

GORMAN, WASZKIEWICZ, GORMAN & SCHMITT, UTICA (WILLIAM P. SCHMITT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LAW OFFICES OF IRA HALFOND, P.C., CRARYVILLE (IRA HALFOND OF COUNSEL), PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT PRO SE, AND FOR ARTHUR T. LYNCH, SANDRA KNOBLOCK, PAUL J. BULINSKI, JOHN J. GRECO AND DONNA M. LAWRENCE, ADJACENT UPLAND LAND OWNERS, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Bernadette T. Clark, J.), entered November 29, 2012. The judgment awarded attorney fees and expenses to plaintiffs.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously vacated on the law without costs.

Same Memorandum as in Halfond v White Lake Shores Assoc., Inc. ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [Feb. 14, 2014]).

Entered: February 14, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00250-CR

GEORGE KRISTOPHER NEVILLE,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 19th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-1624-C1

ABATEMENT ORDER

The appellant’s brief is overdue in this appeal. 

We did not rule on Appellant’s Fifth Motion to Extend Time to File Brief on the 

Merits. Each previous motion was for very brief periods of time and well justified. We 

have waited to rule on the fifth motion until after the date to which an extension was 

requested; which was May 28, 2019. We are now a month beyond the date to which the 

extension was requested; thus, if the motion had been granted, the brief would, 
Neville v. State Page 2

nevertheless, be late. Having received no brief, we must abate the appeal. 

Accordingly, we abate this appeal to the trial court to conduct any necessary 

hearings within 21 days of the date of this Order pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 38.8(b)(2) and (3). TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2), (3).

The supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records required by Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 38.8(b)(2) and (3), if any, are ordered to be filed within 28 days of 

the date of this Order. See id.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Appeal abated

Order issued and filed July 1, 2019

[RWR]
Stephen NIVENS, petitioner v. MARYLAND.

No. 16-6000.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Philip J. Myers, certify that:

1.I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of American Church
Mortgage Company (the “Report”); and



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.



Date: May 8, 2020

By: /s/ Philip
J. Myers

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
II-01063

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

jerry manganello <jayjjerry@q.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:36 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

jerry manganello

1041 6442 rd

montrose, CO 81403
Ahmad MOURAD, et al., petitioners, v. MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY LP.

No. 16-441.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
II-O0013

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attach:

Bill Boyk <bill.boyk@veriana.com>

Thursday, September 23, 2010 2:01 PM

OTCDefinitions <OTCDefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Zach Pellman <zach.pellman@veriana.com>

Definitions of Swaps

Trend Exchange Comment Letter on Swap Definitions.pdf

Dear Mr. Stawick;

Attached is a comment letter from The Trend Exchange on the definitions of swaps. We appreciate the CFTC’s

request for public comments at this early stage in the rule making process and offer our assistance throughout

the process.

Regards,

Bill

William Boyk I COO & CRO, The Trend Exchange, Inc.

a subsidiary of Veriana Networks, LLC I 6720 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 250 I Scottsdale, AZ 85253 I 765.668.1821

I Fax 765.668.1899

www.veriana.com

This email and any attachments thereto are property of Veriana Networks, LLC, its divisions, or its subsidiaries and may contain private, confidential,

and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email, or any attachments thereto, by

others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any

copies of this email and any attachments thereto.

Veriana Networks, LLC, 6720 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 250, Scottsdale, AZ 85253, www.veriana.com
----

----

I Aktid, mille avaldamine on kohustuslik

----

KOMISJONI MÄÄRUS (EÜ) nr 1936/2004,

9. november 2004,

millega kehtestatakse kindlad impordiväärtused, et määrata kindlaks teatava puu- ja köögivilja hind piiril

EUROOPA ÜHENDUSTE KOMISJON,

võttes arvesse Euroopa Ühenduse asutamislepingut,

võttes arvesse komisjoni 21. detsembri 1994. aasta määrust (EÜ) nr 3223/94 puu- ja köögivilja impordikorra üksikasjalike eeskirjade kohta, (1) eriti selle artikli 4 lõiget 1,

ning arvestades järgmist:

ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA MÄÄRUSE:

Artikkel 1

Määruse (EÜ) nr 3223/94 artiklis 4 osutatud kindlad impordiväärtused kehtestatakse vastavalt käesoleva määruse lisale.

Artikkel 2

Käesolev määrus jõustub 10. novembril 2004.

Käesolev määrus on tervikuna siduv ja vahetult kohaldatav kõikides liikmesriikides.

Brüssel, 9. november 2004

Komisjoni nimel

põllumajanduse peadirektor

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

----

(1)EÜT L 337, 24.12.1994, lk 66. Määrust on viimati muudetud määrusega (EÜ) nr 1947/2002 (EÜT L 299, 1.11.2002, lk 17).

----

LISA

Komisjoni 9. novembri 2004. aasta määrusele, millega kehtestatakse kindlad impordiväärtused, et määrata kindlaks teatava puu- ja köögivilja hind piiril

----

(1)  Riikide nomenklatuur on sätestatud komisjoni määruses (EÜ) nr 2081/2003 (ELT L 313, 28.11.2003, lk 11). Kood 999 tähistab “muud päritolu”.

----

----

KOMISJONI MÄÄRUS (EÜ) nr 1937/2004,

9. november 2004,

millega muudetakse nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 44/2001 kohtualluvuse ja kohtuotsuste tunnustamise ja täitmise kohta tsiviil- ja kaubandusasjades I, II, III ja IV lisa

EUROOPA ÜHENDUSTE KOMISJON,

võttes arvesse Euroopa Ühenduse asutamislepingut,

võttes arvesse 22. detsembri 2000. aasta nõukogu määrust (EÜ) nr 44/2001 kohtualluvuse ja kohtuotsuste tunnustamise ja täitmise kohta tsiviil- ja kaubandusasjades, (1) eriti selle artiklit 74,

ning arvestades järgmist:

ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA MÄÄRUSE:

Artikkel 1

Määrust (EÜ) nr 44/2001 muudetakse järgmiselt.

Artikkel 2

Käesolev määrus jõustub seitsmendal päeval pärast selle avaldamist Euroopa Liidu Teatajas.

Käesolev määrus on tervikuna siduv ja vahetult kohaldatav kõikides liikmesriikides.

Brüssel, 9. november 2004

Komisjoni nimel

komisjoni liige

António VITORINO

----

(1)EÜT L 12, 16.1.2001, lk 1. Määrust on viimati muudetud 2003. aasta ühinemisaktiga.

----
David MOLESKI, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-5840.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
John L. JIMERSON, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 15-9354.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          62,448
<SECURITIES>                                    90,137
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,228
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,040
<INVENTORY>                                     47,278
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               277,087
<PP&E>                                          80,818
<DEPRECIATION>                                  40,910
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 456,510
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,149
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       190,201
<OTHER-SE>                                      75,403
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   456,510
<SALES>                                        135,806
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               135,806
<CGS>                                          113,636
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  113,636
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                71,504
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   400
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,382
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (26,958)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (11,956)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,513)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,513)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)
        

</TABLE>