alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CONSENT OF AUTHOR





To:

BC Securities Commission

Alberta Securities Commission

Manitoba Securities Commission

Ontario Securities Commission

Newfoundland Securities Commission



I, Curtis Freeman, do hereby consent to the filing, with the regulatory authorities referred to above, of the technical report dated February 10, 2004 and titled EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT FOR THE RAINBOW HILL PROJECT, VALDEZ CREEK MINING DISTRICT, ALASKA and to the written disclosure of the Technical Report and of extracts from or a summary of the Technical Report in the written disclosure in the AIF of Freegold Ventures Limited to be filed.



I also certify that I have read the written disclosure being filed and I do not have any reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information derived from the Technical Report or that the written disclosure in the AIF of Freegold Ventures Limited contains any misrepresentation of the information contained in the Technical Report.
# C_2011193EN.01000101.xml

| 2.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6252 — Total/SunPower)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 193/01

On 28 June 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6252. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6252. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# C_2011198EN.01000202.xml

| 6.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6163 — AXA/Permira/Opodo/GO Voyages/eDreams)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 198/04

On 30 May 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6163. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6163. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5395 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.5395

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
    116 Main Street in Dansville, New York, as the ``Staff Sergeant 
            Alexandria Gleason-Morrow Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT ALEXANDRIA GLEASON-MORROW POST OFFICE 
BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 116 Main Street in Dansville, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Staff Sergeant Alexandria Gleason-Morrow Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Staff 
Sergeant Alexandria Gleason-Morrow Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
SCWC-13-0000155 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. JIMMY ROBINSON, JR., Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-13-0000155; CR. NO. 11-1-1014) ORDER AFFIRMING JUDGMENT ON APPEAL ( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d , C . J . , N a k a y a m a , M c K e n n a , P o l l a c k , a n d W i l s o n , J J . )

Petitioner Jimmy Robinson, Jr. (Robinson) seeks review of the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ November 26, 2014 Judgment on Appeal, entered pursuant to its October 31, 2014 Summary Disposition Order, which affirmed the Circuit Court of the First Circuit’s November 28, 2012 Notice of Entry and Judgment. The Circuit Court adjudged Robinson guilty of Robbery in the First Degree, in violation of Hawai # i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 708-840. We accepted Robinson’s application for writ of certiorari and now affirm the ICA’s Judgment on Appeal. Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-13-0000155 25-AUG-2015 07:42 AMOn certiorari, Robinson contends that the ICA gravely

erred in holding that substantial evidence supporting the verdict was adduced at trial because he did not have the intent to commit Robbery in the First Degree. This court has held that “‘[s]ubstantial evidence’ as to every essential element of the crime charged is credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable a man of reasonable caution to reach a conclusion.” State v. Naeole, 62 Haw. 563, 565, 617 P.2d 820, 823 (1980). The evidence adduced at trial in this case, including witness testimony and video evidence, was sufficient to enable a person of reasonable caution to conclude that Robinson had the requisite intent to commit Robbery in the First Degree. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the ICA’s Judgment on Appeal is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, August 25, 2015. Jason Z. Say for petitioner Stephen K. Tsushima for respondent /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5183 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to apply the rules related 

to the treatment of certain qualified film and television and live theatrical 

productions to Puerto Rico. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 2018 

Miss GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́N of Puerto Rico (for herself, Mr. SOTO, and Mr. KING

of New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to apply 

the rules related to the treatment of certain qualified 

film and television and live theatrical productions to 

Puerto Rico. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Puerto Rico Film, Tel5 evision, and Theatre Production Act of 2018’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5183 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF RULES FOR CERTAIN QUALIFIED 

2 FILM AND TELEVISION AND LIVE THEAT3 RICAL PRODUCTIONS TO PUERTO RICO. 

4 (a) INCLUSION OF PUERTO RICO.—Section 

5 181(d)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

6 amended by inserting ‘‘(including Puerto Rico)’’ after 

7 ‘‘United States’’. 

8 (b) EXTENSION FOR PUERTO RICO.—Section 181(g) 

9 of such Code is amended to read as follows: 

10 ‘‘(g) TERMINATION.— 

11 ‘‘(1) UNITED STATES OTHER THAN PUERTO

12 RICO.—In the case of any production commencing 

13 after December 31, 2017, subsection (d)(3)(A) shall 

14 be applied by substituting ‘Puerto Rico’ for ‘United 

15 States (including Puerto Rico)’. 

16 ‘‘(2) FINAL TERMINATION.—This section shall 

17 not apply to productions commencing after Decem18 ber 31, 2021.’’. 

19 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

20 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by 

21 subsection (a) shall apply to productions com22 mencing after December 31, 2016. 

23 (2) EXTENSION FOR PUERTO RICO.—The 

24 amendment made by subsection (b) shall apply to 

25 productions commencing after December 31, 2017. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL DARRELL ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-24-MP-GRJ

DETECTIVE MICHAEL POWERS,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOTICE

This case is before the Court on Doc. 19, Plaintiff’’s motion for summary

judgment, and Doc. 20, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 

The Court will decide the motions on the basis of the motions, the parties’

responses, and any evidentiary materials filed by the parties. The parties’ responses to

the motions and any supporting evidentiary materials (counter-affidavits, depositions,

exhibits, etc.) must be filed with the Clerk within 30 days from the date of the motions. 

The Court will take the motions under advisement either after the parties file their

responses, or after the expiration of 30 days, whichever occurs first, and will thereafter

issue a report recommending disposition of the motions. 

The parties are advised that if the Court grants a party’s motion for summary

judgment, such would be a final decision of the Court in favor of that party. As a result

of such final decision, there would be no trial or other proceedings in this case, and the

parties would likely be precluded from later litigating this matter or any related matters. 

Therefore, the parties are further advised: (1) failing to respond to the summary

Case 1:11-cv-00024-MP-GRJ Document 21 Filed 11/29/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

judgment motion will indicate that the motion is not opposed; (2) all material facts

asserted in the motion will be considered admitted unless controverted by proper

evidentiary materials (counter-affidavits, depositions, exhibits, etc.); and (3) a party may

not rely solely on the allegations of the issue pleadings (e.g., complaint, answer, etc.) in

opposing the summary judgment motion. See Griffith v. Wainwright, 772 F.2d 822,825

(11th Cir. 1985).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Defendant shall file his response to Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, Doc.

19, on or before December 23, 2011. 

2. Plaintiff shall file his response to Defendant’s summary judgment motion,

Doc. 20, on or before December 28, 2011.

DONE AND ORDERED this 29 day of November 2011. 

th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 1:11-cv-24-MP-GRJ

Case 1:11-cv-00024-MP-GRJ Document 21 Filed 11/29/11 Page 2 of 2
# C_2010208EN.01000401.xml

| 31.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 208/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 208/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

30 July 2010

2010/C 208/04

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3028 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 112,62 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4510 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83490 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4333 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,3541 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9405 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,777 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 285,62 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7088 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0085 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2508 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9703 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4466 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3454 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,1180 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8013 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7733 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 543,03 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,5616 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,8265 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2361 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 647,09 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1442 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,343 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,4173 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,048 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,2924 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,5740 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 60,4500 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3028

JPY

Japanese yen

112,62

DKK

Danish krone

7,4510

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83490

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4333

CHF

Swiss franc

1,3541

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9405

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,777

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

285,62

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7088

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0085

RON

Romanian leu

4,2508

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9703

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4466

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3454

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,1180

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8013

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7733

KRW

South Korean won

1 543,03

ZAR

South African rand

9,5616

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,8265

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2361

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 647,09

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1442

PHP

Philippine peso

59,343

RUB

Russian rouble

39,4173

THB

Thai baht

42,048

BRL

Brazilian real

2,2924

MXN

Mexican peso

16,5740

INR

Indian rupee

60,4500

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
# C_2009257EN.01001501.xml

| 27.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/15

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

26 October 2009

2009/C 257/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,5019 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 138,09 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4434 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,91940 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,2000 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5131 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,3255 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,895 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 267,45 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7092 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1745 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2880 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,2199 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6253 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5872 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,6399 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9935 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0928 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 767,38 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,2760 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,2547 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2200 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 258,99 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0757 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 70,575 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 43,3850 |
| THB | Thai baht | 50,141 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5620 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 19,5758 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,0340 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,5019

JPY

Japanese yen

138,09

DKK

Danish krone

7,4434

GBP

Pound sterling

0,91940

SEK

Swedish krona

10,2000

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5131

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,3255

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,895

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

267,45

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7092

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1745

RON

Romanian leu

4,2880

TRY

Turkish lira

2,2199

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6253

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5872

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,6399

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9935

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0928

KRW

South Korean won

1 767,38

ZAR

South African rand

11,2760

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,2547

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2200

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 258,99

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0757

PHP

Philippine peso

70,575

RUB

Russian rouble

43,3850

THB

Thai baht

50,141

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5620

MXN

Mexican peso

19,5758

INR

Indian rupee

70,0340

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
1

The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3172

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

John Edward Mull, also known as John *

Eddie Mull, also known as Eddie Mull, * [UNPUBLISHED]

also known as John Edward Maul, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 28, 2006

Filed: August 7, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

With a certificate of appealability (COA) issued by the district court,1

 John

Edward Mull challenges the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We affirm.

We conclude that Mull’s sentence is unaffected by United States v. R.L.C., 503

U.S. 291 (1992). The case that could affect his sentence is United States v. Booker,
-2-

543 U.S. 220 (2005), but it does not apply retroactively to Mull, whose conviction

became final before Booker was decided. See Never Misses A Shot v. United States,

413 F.3d 781, 783-84 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). We further conclude that a

citation error in the district court’s order denying Mull’s section 2255 motion, which

the court corrected when the error was brought to its attention, is not an independent

basis for relief. These are the only issues that are within the scope of the COA. See

United States v. Robinson, 301 F.3d 923, 927 (8th Cir. 2002) (issues beyond scope of

COA are not properly before this court).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny the motion

to expand the record and the application to enlarge the COA.

______________________________
# C_2010002EN.01000401.xml

| 6.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/4

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer (1) in Case COMP/39.416 — Ship classification

1

The draft Decision presented to the Commission under Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) relates to certain rules and practices of the International Association of Classification Societies and the International Association of Classification Societies Limited (hereinafter jointly referred to as ‘IACS’). The following arrangements raise concerns as to their compatibility with Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA: (i) the criteria and procedures ruling membership of IACS and the suspension or withdrawal of membership, and the way that these criteria and procedures are applied; and (ii) the elaboration and accessibility to non-IACS classification societies of IACS’s resolutions and technical background information relating to these resolutions.

2

The Commission opened proceedings with a view to taking a decision under Chapter III and adopted a preliminary assessment as referred to in Article 9(1) on 12 May 2009. IACS replied to the preliminary assessment and submitted commitments on 28 May 2009. On 10 June 2009, the Commission published a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union pursuant to Article 27(4) summarising the case as well as the commitments and inviting interested third parties to give their observations within one month. Overall, the comments received in response to this invitation confirmed that the commitments were adequate and necessary to address the concerns identified in the preliminary assessment.

Official Journal of the European Union

The Commission has now come to the conclusion that, in view of the commitments proposed by IACS, and without prejudice to Article 9(2), the proceedings should be brought to an end.

On 25 August 2009, IACS submitted a declaration that it has been provided with sufficient information by the Commission to propose the commitments in order to meet the competition concerns of the Commission as set out in the preliminary assessment.

In the light of the above, I consider that the right to be heard has been respected in this case.

Brussels, 29 September 2009.

Michael ALBERS

---

(1)  Pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21).

1

(2)  In the following, all Articles and chapters referred to are those of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

2

---
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

JEAN M MEADOWS, 

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00045-MP-GRJ

CITY OF INGLIS,

TIMOTHY LETSON,

BRANDON ROBERTS, 

Defendants.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of

Time to Respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 75). 

Defendant’s motion concerns issues of vicarious liability of the City which turns in part

on the facts and circumstances of the case. The plaintiff is awaiting responses to her

interrogatories from the City, which include inquiries into policies, supervision, and

training. The plaintiff needs the opportunity to review the City’s written responses in

order to properly respond to the motion for summary judgment. The defendants have

no objection to extending the deadline to respond to ten (10) days after service of

interrogatory responses by the City of Inglis.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to

defendant’s motion for summary judgment, doc. 75, is GRANTED.

Case 1:11-cv-00045-MP-GRJ Document 76 Filed 03/07/12 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

2. Plaintiff shall respond to defendant’s motion of partial summary judgment

no later than ten (10) days after service of interrogatory responses by the

City of Inglis.

DONE AND ORDERED this 7th day of March, 2012. 

áBZtÜç eA ]ÉÇxá 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 1:11-cv-00045-MP-GRJ

Case 1:11-cv-00045-MP-GRJ Document 76 Filed 03/07/12 Page 2 of 2