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

 
"#
 

$%

#"

#
%





 
"#&



$
&$&
 &


 
"'
&( 


   "

#& 
)
$ &
 


%"
#
&
!& 



 

&&$
 &



$

"

&
&
*%+$
     



 ,-... & 
$% 



& "

/0120345267/89:912;<=>0<?4@9AB>C

#! &
!&	



!&
DD


E
	"F))

 &


!&"
&&
!&

 &$  
 &$
#"

G91=129H67/>:;4I:>J929JK1204LM4524@921CC=9>N<09I0>0C9B9I0AD&&

O

 
&"P)

!&
DD
E
	Q

RE
& 
 

"' 

!&





$ $


&"S

T4=U49:64IV79BK4212M/0421N9W42XY
	



		
	


	





	


		




	
		



	


		
	

	
 !
	


"!#	
$

	
	


%!

&'()*(+,-./-01,-./-+2)3.(40151-6789:

;


	
		

<!<=>#		




!<=>#	
			
	?
@A
=#
	


		




		




	

	



B

B 	


	
	
		





		

CDE	
	

	







B



	







	

B
	













	

	


	

	



	





	

	 !"





	


#$%&'()*+,-(+)(./(+01#%'234('*0%

&563 /(+04%'2)4('*0%*77(8)9(:4(,(8+);<%=

>
?



	

	

"?



@

"	







	


"

		

"
A






!!"
B
C
D"!

34('*0%2*E%)*+(F%')%*)2(F%%*);%'=
	

	

	
			
			

				
		


		
				

				

 !"# $%&'()*%+,-+,./-,012)3')4-51)6

7		


	
		

					
				
	8

9						

		
		

$%&'-1)/./-,01()25/5,)26

:		
	
;	<
=>?


	
@7
						<					AB?

	
	
			
	
C	
	


	



 !"# "  !$%"&!!&$'&"($) *!!$&+(!$%!$) ,
-./0
 1+!'2++34 "++'%++5)6$ $'%!$)7!+ ++%) 8
9
:;
 $+%!')6!! + + &$$(!)4!! '+ $+++'+!+)<(&%5 $)

=>
?	;@:
A.
/B
CDE
	
	
	
	

		
		
		

	

	
			
	
	
		

		



		
		
	
	
		


	
		
	
						
	

 !"#$%&'($")*+&)*,!-'./-01,/2&'3*-

4563783##'&#'"32-09:

;	

		
<


	=
>	
	
	

	


	>
	


?	
	




B @
	

		

	A

B C
				
	
	A

B =	
						A

B 
				A

B D


	A
	

	
				


		
		 			 
	

	




	!

	


		

		

	



	
	






"#$%&'()*+,-.'/(01*((%+%+,'2%3()45+6

7

	



	 7




		



	 


	
7


		

8#9(:;30%+-,4%3.1<45%3(-41&6

=	


	

	



 
	  

		
		




		

>	
		


		

?

@
A		
7

B	
	

		




C
 

7		
A	
D

		
	
E@



		 

F	
G@	

H 	7

I
	


		
G@CJ

K%+4L4100M%+4,+)6N



O			


 		

	

	
	




P

9.%4%%+M<,+'0):.30)+6


	



		


	 	
 





P

Q4<+,6	



		D





	
7		
			
 7	



	
 


	I

P

R(L+)'4<).16B	
S	

	
			



TUUVW
	A
	



	

				
!

P
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 65092]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30818]








Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Time and Date: Approximately 10:15 a.m., Thursday, December 21, 1995, 
following a recess at the conclusion of the open meeting.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, C Street 
entrance between 20th and 2lst Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:

    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal 
Reserve System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced 
meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Mr. Joseph R. Coyne, Assistant to 
the Board; (202) 452-3204. You may call (202) 452-3207, beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before this meeting, for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting.

    Dated: December 14, 1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95-30818 Filed 12-14-95; 3:09 pm]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR E N B ANC R ECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: Eduardo Vargas Balanzar v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00168

- CR

Trial court case number: 81706

- CR (Counts I, II, and III)

Trial court: 239th District Court of Brazoria County

Date motion filed: November 6, 2020

Party filing motion: Appellant

The en banc court has unanimously voted to deny appellant’s motion for en banc

reconsideration. It is ordered that the motion is denied

.

Judge’s signature:

___

/s/ Julie Co untiss

_________ Acting for the En Banc Court

* En banc court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes, Lloyd, Kelly, Goodman,

Landau, Hightower, Countiss, and Adams.

Date: December 22, 2020
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 68**  **38**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. MOHAMMAD ASHRAY MOHAMMAD

- OMAR , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for t he Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Claude M. Hilton , Senior District Judge. ( 1:07

- cr - 00425

- CMH

- 3 )

Submitted : August 26, 2010 Decided: September 7, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Af firmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Mohammad Ashray Mohammad

- Omar , Appellant Pro Se. Ste ven Donald Mellin , Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria , Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PE R CURIAM: Mohammad Ashray Mohammad

- Omar appeals the district
court ’ s order denying his request for production of transcripts
. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. United States v. Mohammad

- Omar , No. 1:07

- cr - 00425

- CMH

- 3 (E.D. Va. May 27, 2010). 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 p rocess.
AFFIRMED
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Space Command

USSPACECOM

                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission         
  -  Warfighting Units         
  -  Frequently Asked Questions         
  -  Strategic Vision         
  -  Emblem 
-  Leaders    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Command Senior Enlisted Leader         
  -  Chief of Staff 
-  Support    -  Inspector General         
  -  FOIA      -  Making a FOIA Request         
    -  Reading Room 
  -  Equal Opportunity Coordinator         
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate         
  -  Command Chaplain         
  -  Commandant         
  -  Resilience Program 
-  Newsroom    -  News      -  FY2025 Testimony 
  -  Photos and Videos         
  -  Speeches         
  -  Publications 
-  Contact		 
-  Partnerships and Outreach    -  Academic Engagement Enterprise      -  AEE Articles of Interest         
    -  AEE Members 
  -  Careers      -  Civilians         
    -  Internships 
  -  Industry Engagement Portal 
-  Newcomers    -  Newcomer Information         
  -  Checking In 

# PHOTOS ANDVIDEOS

Search

Search

                                - All Images 
                                - Other 
                                - Space Shuttle 

                                - Upload Date
                                - Photo Date
                                - Title

----

Download Image: Full Size (3.6 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 65639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30845]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Yakima Training Center Cultural and Natural Resources Committee 
(Technical Committee)

AGENCY: Headquarters, I Corps and Fort Lewis, Fort Lewis, WA.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (P.L. 92-463) announcement is made of the following 
committee meeting.

name of committee: Yakima Training Center Cultural and Natural 
Resources Committee--Technical Committee.

date of meeting: January 11, 1996.

place: Yakima Training Center, Building 266, Yakima, WA.

time: 1:30 p.m.

proposed agenda: After action review of Cascade Sage 95 and Cultural 
and Natural Resources Management Plan review. All proceedings are open.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen Hart, Chief, Civil Law, (206) 967-0793.
Gregory D. Showalter,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-30845 Filed 12-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
#### IRA C. MOSER v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and R. L. DAVIS.

(Filed 2 November, 1955.)

Railroads § 4—

In this action to recover for injuries sustained in an accident at a railroad grade crossing, the evidence tending to show that the collision occurred in broad daylight at a level crossing, and that plaintiff driver at the stop sign beside the road 45 feet from the tracks could see 300 feet down the tracks in the direction from which the train came, *is held*to disclose contributory negligence barring recovery as a matter of law.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Johnston, J., at*11 July Term, 1955, of FORSYTH.

Civil action to recover for personal injuries sustained in a tractor-trailer-train collision at a grade crossing.

At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, the defendants moved for judgment as of nonsuit. The motion was allowed, and from judgment based on such ruling, the plaintiff appeals.

*Deal, Hutchins & Minor and William S. Mitchell for -plaintiff, appellant.*

*W. T. Joyner and Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice for defendants, appellees.*

PER Curiam.

This case involves no new question or feature requiring extended discussion. The evidence, when tested by settled principles of law, explained and applied in numerous decisions of this Court, fails to make out a case for the jury. The collision occurred in broad daylight at a grade crossing just outside the corporate limits of the City of Greensboro. The weather was clear. The crossing was level. The plaintiff was driving a heavy tractor-trailer unit. He was thoroughly familiar with the crossing. There was a stop sign side of the road about 45 feet from the tracks. The plaintiff testified that at the stop sign he could see 300 feet down the tracks in the direction from which the train came. Conceding that the evidence offered made out a *prima facie*case of actionable negligence against the defendants, nevertheless it is manifest from the evidence that the plaintiff failed to exercise due care under the surrounding circumstances for his own safety, and that such failure to exercise care contributed to and was a proximate cause of his injury.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.
**Exhibit      32.1 **

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, **

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 **

**OF      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 **

|   | 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| March                  27, 2008                                                      |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| */s/                  Stuart Posner*                                                      |   |   |        |
| Mr.                Stuart PosnerChief                  Executive                  Officer |

----
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 5467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01783]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0129]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; General Licensing Provisions; 
Section 351(k) Biosimilar Applications

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``General Licensing Provisions; 
Section 351(k) Biosimilar Applications'' has been approved by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, 
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver 
Spring, MD 20993-0002, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#39696b786a4d585f5f795f5d581751514a175e564f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e5b5b7a4b691848383a5838184cb8d8d96cb828a93">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 8, 2015, the Agency submitted a 
proposed collection of information entitled ``General Licensing 
Provisions; Section 351(k) Biosimilar Applications'' to OMB for review 
and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or 
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of 
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 
OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB 
control number 0910-0719. The approval expires on December 31, 2018. A 
copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is 
available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: January 27, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-01783 Filed 2-1-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### ROBAH JAMES WHITMAN and Wife, NELLIE VIOLA WHITMAN, v. PILOT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

(Filed 3 January, 1940.)

Insurance § 34b—

Insured’s evidence tliat lie became disabled prior to tbe due date of a certain premium and failed to pay same or any subsequent premium, but that he failed to give notice of such disability until more than two years thereafter because he thought his disability temporary and not permanent, fails to disclose proof of disability during the life of the policy as required by the disability clause, or sufficient excuse for failure to give such notice, and insured’s action on the disability clause was properly nonsuited.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Johnston, Special Judge,*at May Term, 1939, of Forsyth.

Civil action for recovery of benefits under disability provision in policy of life insurance.

On 15 September, 1925, defendant issued a policy of insurance upon the life of plaintiff, Eobah James Whitman, for two thousand dollars, in which his wife, Nellie Yiola Whitman, was named as beneficiary. This *743policy contained a provision for payment of benefits for total and permanent disability as therein defined, and for waiver of premiums during such disability, “upon receipt and approval of proof satisfactory to the company, while this policy is in full force and effect . . .” Evidence for plaintiff tends to show that the premium due 15 September, 1936, was not paid, nor was any premium thereafter paid; that plaintiff filed with defendant proof of disability in January, 1939, and that while he was disabled prior to 15 September, 1936, he thought it temporary, and he did not then know, and did not discover until December, 1938, that his disability was total and permanent.

At the close of plaintiff’s evidence the court granted motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit. Plaintiff appeals therefrom to Supreme Court and assigns error.

*Fred M. Parrish for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Smith, Wharton & Hudgins, Manly, Hendren & Womble, and I. E. Carlyle for defendant, appellee.*

Per Curiam.

The evidence on this appeal fails to show that plaintiff filed proof of total and permanent disability while the policy of insurance was effective, and lacks sufficient excuse for such failure. The judgment as of nonsuit must be

Affirmed.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41323 Conference Calendar

MICHAEL L. LORENZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus T. SIMMONS, Warden, ET. AL., Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:97-CV-234

--------------------- June 17, 1998
Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Michael L. Lorenz, Texas prisoner #681053, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous, arguing that the district court improperly dismissed his claims concerning his disciplinary hearing. We have reviewed the record and Lorenz’s brief and AFFIRM for essentially the sameNo. 97-41323 - 2 - reasons adopted by the district court. Lorenz v. Simmons , No. 9:97cv234 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 1997). Lorenz’s appeal is without merit and therefore frivolous.
See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2 . We caution Lorenz that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Lorenz is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6227

QUINTON LEE COOK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MR. VAUGHN; W. PERKINS,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 96-6239

QUINTON LEE COOK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MR. THORNBURG; B. T. KORNEGAY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District

Judge; W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-7-5-BR, CA-96-6-5-F)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 25, 1996
2

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Quinton Lee Cook, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaints. We have reviewed

the records and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cook v. Vaughn, No. CA-96-7-5-BR; Cook v. Thornburg,

No. CA-96-6-5-F (Jan. 30, 1996; Jan. 31, 1996). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01

- 14

- 00524

- CV

David Grupa

v

.

Lillie D. Basset, Stanley E. Dickson, Carolyn Spiller, Clifford Dickson, and Janice Craddock

NO. 32491 IN THE 506TH DISTRICT COURT OF GRIMES C OUNTY

TYPE OF FE E CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

RPT RECORD

SUPP CLK RECORD

CLK RECORD

FILING

STATEWIDE EFILING $10.00 $10.00
$10.00 $10.00 $3,194.50

$20.00
$51.00 $175.00 $20.00 01/02/2015

12/04/2014

10/07/2014

09/03/2014

08/06/2014

07/16/20 14

06/30/2014

06/27/2014

06/27/2014 E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID APE

APE

ANT

ANT

ANT

APE

ANT

ANT

ANT



### The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are $3,500.50.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine
, Clerk o f the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do herebycertify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my
hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, this December 11 , 2015

.
EX-10.(f)





 Exhibit 10(f) 

AMENDMENT NO. 3 
 TO THE

 ONCOR SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN 

(Amended and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2015) 

Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC hereby adopts this Amendment No. 3 to the Oncor Supplemental Retirement Plan (Amended
and Restated Effective as of January 1, 2015) (the “Plan”) effective as of December 1, 2022 to provide for the acceleration of Participant Benefit amounts required to be included in gross income pursuant to Section 409A of
the Internal Revenue Code, as permitted by Treasury Regulation 1.409A-3(j)(4)(vii). Words and phrases used herein with initial capital letters that are defined in the Plan are used herein as so defined. 

1.    Article Four of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following Section 4.7: 

“4.7 Notwithstanding anything in this Article 4 to the contrary, if pursuant to Code
Section 409A, a Participant’s Benefit, or a portion thereof, must be included in the Participant’s gross income, the Company may accelerate the time or schedule of payment of the Participant’s Benefit or make a payment of the
Participant’s Benefit pursuant to Treasury Regulation 1.409A-3(j)(4)(vii). In no event, however, shall this accelerated payment exceed the amount required to be included in income pursuant to Code
Section 409A.” 
 2.    No Further Amendments. Except as expressly set forth
herein, the Plan shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 
 Executed this 22nd day
of November, 2022, to be effective as set forth herein. 
  

			
	THE EXECUTIVE TEAM OF THE COMPANY
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Deborah L. Dennis

		 	Deborah L. Dennis
		 	Senior Vice President, Chief Customer Officer and Chief HR Officer
Skip to main content

# Social Security

Search
Menu
Español
Sign in

## Components of Trust Fund Income and Cost

Office of the Chief Actuary 

Frequently Asked Questions

Trust fund databases

**Income** to the trust funds      - Employment taxes —taxes paid by employees,       their employers, and self-employed persons          Income from the taxation of benefitsInterest on investments (see 
information       on interest rates
)      
- Other income (reimbursements from the general fund of the      Treasury for various costs imposed on the program, gifts from      individual citizens, etc.)        **Cost** (i.e.outgo or expenditures) from the funds      - Benefit payments —may include payments for       vocational rehabilitation services to disabled beneficiaries        and reductions for unnegotiated checks        Annual transfers to the Railroad Retirement program for its       role in collecting Social Security taxes and paying Social       Security-equivalent benefits      Administrative expenses
**Surpluses, deficits, and asset reserves**       The difference between total income and total cost for a particular period of time is        the net increase in the trust fund for that period.  If this amount is positive,       we say the fund had a surplus; if negative, the fund ran a deficit.       The sum of all surpluses and deficits since the beginning of the        program equals the asset reserves of the trust funds.       
       Almost all trust fund asset reserves are invested in securites backed by       the full faith and credit of the Federal government.  Data on such        investments are updated monthly    
Footer menu