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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4970 

To provide an exclusion from gross income for compensation for expenses 

and losses resulting from certain wildfires. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2023 

Mr. LAMALFA (for himself, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Ms. PORTER, Mr. 

PANETTA, Ms. BROWNLEY, Mr. KILEY, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, and Mr. 

NEWHOUSE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To provide an exclusion from gross income for compensation 

for expenses and losses resulting from certain wildfires. 

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 ‘‘Protect Innocent Vic5 tims Of Taxation After Fire Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4970 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR COMPENSA2 TION FOR LOSSES OR DAMAGES RESULTING 

3 FROM CERTAIN WILDFIRES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of the Internal Rev5 enue Code of 1986, gross income shall not include any 

6 amount received by an individual as a qualified wildfire 

7 relief payment. 

8 (b) QUALIFIED WILDFIRE RELIEF PAYMENT.—For 

9 purposes of this section— 

10 (1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘qualified wildfire 

11 relief payment’’ means any amount paid to or for 

12 the benefit of an individual as compensation for ex13 penses or losses incurred as a result of a qualified 

14 wildfire disaster, but only to the extent any expense 

15 or loss compensated by such payment is not other16 wise compensated by insurance or otherwise. 

17 (2) QUALIFIED WILDFIRE DISASTER.—The 

18 term ‘‘qualified wildfire disaster’’ means any feder19 ally declared disaster (as defined in section 

20 165(i)(5)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) 

21 declared, after December 31, 2014, as a result any 

22 forest or range fire. 

23 (c) DENIAL OF DOUBLE BENEFIT.—Notwith24 standing any other provision of the Internal Revenue Code 

25 of 1986, no deduction or credit shall be allowed (to the 

26 person for whose benefit a qualified wildfire relief payment 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4970 IH

1 is made) for, or by reason of, any expenditure to the extent 

2 of the amount excluded under this section with respect to 

3 such expenditure. 

4 (d) LIMITATION ON APPLICATION.—This section 

5 shall only apply to qualified wildfire relief payments re6 ceived by the individual during taxable years beginning 

7 after December 31, 2019, and before January 1, 2026. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4482

ECM Industries LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_04.15.19.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Opinion filed March 14, 2014

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-14-00059-CR

___________

LINDSEY WAYNE TRUEBLOOD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 42nd District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 25033A

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Lindsey Wayne Trueblood, Appellant, filed a pro se notice of appeal in this 

case. After the clerk of this court notified Appellant that the trial court’s 

certification reflected that Appellant had no right of appeal, see TEX. R.

APP. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d), Appellant filed a pro se motion to dismiss the appeal. In 

the motion, Appellant states, “I do not wish to prosecute an appeal of this case. I 

am requesting that this appeal be dismissed.” The motion is signed by Appellant. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2. 
2

The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

March 14, 2014

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
**Exhibit 21**

 

The following entities aresubsidiaries of the Company as of June 30, 2003:

 

Gretna, Sealy, Traverse CityFinance Company, Inc.

Gretna, Sealy, Traverse CityOutlet Centers, L.L.C.

Holland Outlet Center, LLC

Holland Outlet Center FinanceCompany, Inc.

Horizon Group Properties, L.P.

Horizon Huntley LLC

Horizon Huntley Finance LLC

Huntley Development LimitedPartnership

Huntley Meadows ResidentialVenture

Lakeshore Marketplace, LLC

Lakeshore Marketplace FinanceCompany, Inc.

Laughlin Finance Company, Inc.

Laughlin Holdings LLC

Laughlin Outlet Center LLC

Medford Finance Company, Inc.

Medford Holdings LLC

Medford Outlet Center LLC

Third HGI, Inc.

Third HGI, L.L.C.

Third Horizon Group LimitedPartnership

Third Horizon Roseville LLC

Tulare Finance Company, Inc.

Tulare Outlet Center, L.P.

Warrenton Finance Company, Inc.

Warrenton Holdings LLC

Warrenton Outlet Center LLC

 

1

----
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2940

Price Pump Company:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
Exhibit 32.4
 
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.
 /s/ Howard M. SipznerHoward M. SipznerExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Date: May 8, 2009 
 *
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Brandywine Realty Trust and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1619

EQI, Ltd: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_04.15.19.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15931-15932]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7531]



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


FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Ocean Freight Forwarder License; Revocations

    Notice is hereby given that the following ocean freight forwarder 
licenses have been revoked by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant 
to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the 
regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of ocean 
freight forwarders, 46 CFR 510.

License Number: 3599
Name: Fari International, Inc.
Address: 8550 N.W. 66th Street, Miami, FL 33166 [[Page 15932]] 
Date Revoked: February 20, 1995
Reason: Failed to furnish a valid surety bond.

License Number: 2261
Name: Chicago Cargo Corporation
Address: 9420 W. Foster Ave., Ste. L-1, Chicago, IL 60656
Date Revoked: February 22, 1995
Reason: Failed to furnish a valid surety bond.

License Number: 3818
Name: Jamar Shipping, Inc.
Address: 16511 Hedgecroft, Ste. 208, Houston, TX 77060
Date Revoked: February 24, 1995
Reason: Failed to furnish a valid surety bond.

License Number: 1305
Name: W.A. Phelps & Co., Inc.
Address: One World Trade Center, #2109, New York, NY 10048
Date Revoked: February 25, 1995
Reason: Failed to furnish a valid surety bond.

License Number: 3438
Name: Virgilio A. Camota dba Jenken Freight Services
Address: World Trade Center, Ste. 219, San Francisco, CA 94111
Date Revoked: March 3, 1995
Reason: Failed to furnish a valid surety bond.

Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Director, Bureau of Tariffs, Certification and Licensing.
[FR Doc. 95-7531 Filed 3-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7114

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NORMAN LANCE GARNER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CR-97-485, CA-98-1579-7-20) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 21, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Alfred M. Boggs, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellant. Harold Watson Gowdy, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Norman Lance Garner seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Garner , Nos. CR-97-485; CA98-1579-7-20 (D.S.C. June 29, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4420

CW Bearing USA, Inc:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### Steven A. JONES and Alan W. Jones, Appellants, v. MANCHESTER AUTO PARTS, INC., Respondent.

No. 68376.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Jan. 23, 1996.

Alan W. Jones, Ballwin, pro se.

Dan J. Kazanas, Corey M. Lavinsky, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before KAROHL, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment for defendant entered after a trial *de novo*of a small claims court judgment for plaintiffs. We affirm. No error of law appears. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
ALD-238

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2068

___________

IN RE: LOUIS WATLEY,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the 

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 2-10-cv-05086)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

July 14, 2011

Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 1, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Louis Watley seeks a writ of mandamus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651, directing 

the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to rule on his habeas 

corpus petition. Subsequent to the filing of this mandamus petition, however, the District 

Court dismissed Watley’s habeas petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state 

remedies.1 Accordingly, to the extent Watley seeks to have this Court order the District 

 

1 Watley’s appeal of that decision is pending before this Court. See CA No. 11-2808.
2

Court to rule on the habeas petition, his mandamus petition will be denied as moot. See

Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If 

developments occur during the course of adjudication that . . . prevent a court from being 

able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”). And to the 

extent Watley requests that we “declare” as “arbitrary, capricious, and [an] abuse of 

power” the District Court’s seven-month delay in adjudicating the habeas petition, that 

request is denied; mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal. See In re Chambers Dev. 

Co., 148 F.3d 214, 226 (3d Cir. 1998).
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION 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 Bright Horizons Family Solutions,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Elizabeth J. Boland, 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) 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.

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


                                          /s/ Elizabeth J. Boland
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          Elizabeth J. Boland
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                          May 10, 2005
### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T A pr i l 19, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 14231 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 2 0 0 7 7 - CV - A SG K E I T H L . T H O M P S O N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s M I A M I - D A D E C O U N T Y , a pol i t i c a l s ubdi vi s i on o f S ta te o f F lo r id a , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s ,

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

_________________________ ( A p r i l 19, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B L A C K an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es.2

P E R C U R I A M: K e i th T hom ps on ( “ T hom ps on” ) appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f

a vorof de f e nda ntM i a m i - D a de C ounty i n T hom ps on’ s 42 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n a lle g in g d e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e in v io la tio n o f

th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. In D ec em ber of 199 9, T ho m pson al l eges thathe w as the vi ct i m of i nm at eo n - in m a te v io le n c e w h ile h e w a s a n in c a r c e r a te d in th e M ia m i- D a d e C o u n ty D e te n tio n C e n te r . H e b r o u g h t s u it a g a in s t, in te ra lia , M i am i -D ad e C o u n ty, c l a i m i ng tha tthe C ounty vi ol a t e d hi s E i ghth A m e ndm e ntr i ght s t o be f r e e f r om c rue l a nd unus ua l puni s hm e nt . O n c r os s - m ot i ons f ors um m a ry j udgm e nt , the d istrict co u rt g ra n ted M iam i-D ad e C o u n ty’s m o ti o n an d d en ied T h o m p so n ’s m ot i on. W e r e v ie w a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s g r a n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t de no vo , vi e w i ng th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e p a r ty o p p o s in g th e m o tio n . W i l s on v. B / EA er ospa ce , Inc. , 376 F . 3d 1079, 1085 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . S um m a ry j udgm e nt i s appr opr i a t e w he n “ the r e i s no ge nui ne i s s ue w a s t o a ny m a t e r i a l f a c ta nd . . . the m ov i ng party i s e nt i t l ed t o j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw . ” F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 (c ). W e ha ve c a r e f

ul l y r e vi e w e d the r e c or d, the br i e f s of the pa r t i e s , a nd the or de rof the di s tr i c tc our ton s um m a ry j udgm e nt . C ons trui ng the e vi de nc e i n the3

l i ghtm os tf

a vor abl e t o T hom ps on, i ti s c l e a rtha the ha s f a i l e d t o pr e s e nta ny genu i ne i ss ues of m at er i al fa ct . T he al l egat i on s r ai se d and the evi dence pres ent ed doe s nots t a t e a vi ol a t i on of the E i ghth A m e ndm e nton the pa r tof M i a m i - D a de c ounty , a nd the c ounty w a s e nt i t l e d t o j udgm e nta s a m a tt e rof l a w . T he r e f

or e , the w el l -reaso n ed o p i n i o n o f th e d i stri ctco u rti s AF F I R ME D.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Randy SAILORS, Appellant.

No. WD 41585.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 13, 1989.

Jefferson G. Broady, Rock Port, for appellant.

Donald E. Reynolds, Pros. Atty., Rock Port, for respondent.

Before TURNAGE, P.J., and CLARK and FENNER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Appeal from conviction for driving while intoxicated under § 577.010, RSMo 1986. Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
EXHIBIT 10.4

 

ENDORSEMENT TO 10% SENIOR SECURED CONVERTIBLE NOTE

 

Precision Optics Corporation, Inc.
 New York, New York
 July 6, 2011

 

The 10% Senior Secured Convertible Note dated June 25, 2008 and amended December 11, 2008, June 25, 2010, July 26, 2010, September 15, 2010, October 15, 2010, November 15, 2010, November 30, 2010, December 1, 2010, December 3, 2010 and December 17, 2010, January 10, 2011, January 24, 2011, February 7, 2011,  February 25, 2011,  March 11, 2011, March 31, 2011, April 15, 2011, April 29, 2011, May 13, 2011, June 3, 2011, and June 28  (the “Note”) of Precision Optics Corporation, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”), payable to the order of Arnold Schumsky (the “Holder”) in an aggregate principal amount of $50,000 and to which this Endorsement is affixed is hereby amended in the following respects:

 

1.                                       The term “Stated Maturity Date” is hereby restated to be “July 20, 2011.”

 

2.                                       Except as expressly amended by this Endorsement, the Note remains in full force and effect and the Company hereby reconfirms its obligations thereunder.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Endorsement to be duly executed, and the Holder has caused this Endorsement to be duly accepted, by their respective duly authorized representatives as of the day and year first above written.

 

 

	
 
    	
 
    	
PRECISION   OPTICS CORPORATION, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
By
    	
/s/   Joseph N. Forkey
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:   Joseph N. Forkey
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:   Chief Executive Officer
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Accepted:
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/   Arnold Schumsky
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Arnold   Schumsky