alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 10.5(d)**

**AMENDMENT TO THE**

**FINLAY ENTERPRISES, INC.**

**1997 LONG TERM INCENTIVE PLAN**

WHEREAS, Finlay Enterprises, Inc. (the “Corporation”) maintains the Finlay Enterprises, Inc. 1997 Long Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”); and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9.5 of the Plan, the Corporation, through action of its Board of Directors, may amend the Plan at any time; and

WHEREAS, the Corporation desires to amend the Plan to extend the term of the Plan indefinitely subject to stockholder approval.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective February 27, 2007, by adding the following new paragraph to the end of Section 9.15:

Notwithstanding any other provision herein, subject to the authority of the Board to terminate the Plan at any time under Section 9.5 hereto, the Plan shall not terminate on March 5, 2007 and shall instead be extended indefinitely, subject to approval at the next annual meeting of the Corporation’s stockholders at which a quorum is present, by the affirmative votes of a majority of the Corporation’s voting securities, present in person or represented by proxy and entitled to vote at the meeting, in accordance with applicable provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law. In the event the Corporation’s stockholders fail to approve this Amendment or a successor plan, then any Awards granted under the Plan after March 4, 2007 shall be forfeited and cancelled.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed this 27th day of February, 2007.

 

|   |   | **FINLAY          ENTERPRISES, INC.** |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                  |
|        |   | By                                | /s/ Arthur E. Reiner |
|   |   |                                  | Arthur          E. ReinerChairman and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

----
Order filed, May 14, 2015.

 In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas 

____________

NO. 01-15-00082-CV

VICKY TROUNG, Appellant

V.

HUONG NGUYEN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 80th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case 2012-62792

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due February 23, 2015. See Tex. R. App. P. 

35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The 

record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed 

timely, we issue the following order.

We order the official (or substitute) court reporter, to file the record in this appeal, 

if any, within 30 days of the date of this order.

/s/ Jane Bland

 Acting individually
18440 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 11, 1995 / Notices

570, 1994 Revision, on page 34139 to

reflect this addition:

Acadia Insurance Company. BUSINESS

ADDRESS: P.O. Box 9010,

Westbrook, ME 04098–5010.

PHONE: (207) 772–4300.

UNDERWRITING LIMITATION b/:

$1,413,000. SURETY LICENSES c/:

ME, NH, VT. INCORPORATED IN:

Maine.

Certificates of Authority expire on

June 30 each year, unless revoked prior

to that date. The Certificates are subject

to subsequent annual renewal as long as

the companies remain qualified (31 CFR

Part 223). A list of qualified companies

is published annually as of July 1 in

Treasury Department Circular 570, with

details as to underwriting limitations,

areas in which licensed to transact

surety business and other information.

Copies of the Circular may be

obtained from the Surety Bond Branch,

Funds Management Division, Financial

Management Service, Department of the

Treasury, Washington, DC 20227,

telephone (202) 874–6765.

Dated: April 4, 1995.

Charles F. Schwan III,

Director, Funds Management Division,

Financial Management Service.

[FR Doc. 95–8840 Filed 4–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–35–M

[Dept. Circ. 570, 1994 Rev., Supp. No. 19]

Surety Companies Acceptable on

Federal Bonds; American Safety

Casualty Insurance Company

A Certificate of Authority as an

acceptable surety on Federal Bonds is

hereby issued to the following company

under Sections 9304 to 9308, Title 31,

of the United States Code. Federal bondapproving officers should annotate their

reference copies of the Treasury Circular

570, 1994 Revision, on page 34144 to

reflect this addition:

American Safety Casualty Insurance

Company. BUSINESS ADDRESS:

1900 The Exchange, Suite 450,

Atlanta, Ga 30339. PHONE: (404)

916–1908. UNDERWRITING

LIMITATION b/: $584,000.

SURETY LICENSES c/: AL, AK, CA,

CO, DE, DC, FL, GA, IN, IA, KS,

MN, MS, NE, NV, NM, ND, OH, OK,

PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA,

WI. INCORPORATED IN: Delaware.

Certificates of Authority expire on

June 30 each year, unless revoked prior

to that date. The certificates are subject

to subsequent annual renewal as long as

the companies remain qualified (31 CFR

Part 223). A list of qualified companies

is published annually as of July 1 in

Treasury Department Circular 570, with

details as to underwriting limitations,

areas in which licensed to transact

surety business and other information.

Copies of the Circular may be

obtained from the Surety Bond Branch,

Funds Management Division, Financial

Management Service, Department of the

Treasury, Washington, DC 20227,

telephone (202) 874–6850.

Dated: April 4, 1995.

Charles F. Schwan III,

Director, Funds Management Division,

Financial Management Service.

[FR Doc. 95–8841 Filed 4–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–35–M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-6114

Peabody Energy Corporation:

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 did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-30965

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GEORGE EDWIN SINGLETON, also known as Jack Singleton,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-323-H

- - - - - - - - - -

June 24, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

George Singleton appeals the district court’s denial of his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his

sentence. Singleton argues that the factual basis was

insufficient to support his guilty plea for use of a weapon

during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The factual

basis indicates that Singleton conspired with others to commit a

car-jacking, participated in the car-jacking, and rode in the

vehicle with his co-conspirators and a weapon. Singleton’s co-
No. 97-30965

-2-

conspirator used the weapon to commit the car-jacking. 

Accordingly, Singleton’s § 924(c) conviction can be sustained

under a Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946) theory of

liability. See United States v. Fike, 82 F.3d 1315, 1328 (5th

Cir. 1996). Singleton’s conviction can also be sustained under

an aiding and abetting theory. See United States v. Burton, 126

F.3d 666, 670 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the district court

did not err in denying the § 2255 motion.

AFFIRMED.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-24-00220-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 348th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 348-D35847-23

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

PRO-HEALTH PODIATRY P.A., Appellant

V.

TARRANT COUNTY, CITY OF ARLINGTON, CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE,

ARLINGTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, TARRANT COUNTY 

COLLEGE DISTRICT, AND TARRANT COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, 

Appellees
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Pro-Health Podiatry P.A.’s notice of appeal was filed by its president 

and registered agent, Dr. Yvette E. Forbes-Baker. On June 21, 2024, we sent a letter 

to Pro-Health Podiatry P.A. informing it that further action was necessary:

A business entity generally may not appear in court through its directors 

or officers who are not attorneys, and a notice of appeal filed by such a 

director or officer is not effective. See Globe Leasing, Inc. v. Engine Supply 

& Mach. Serv[]., 437 S.W.2d 43, 45 (Tex. [] App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

1969, no writ); see also Kunstoplast of Am., Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., 937 

S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996). Legal entities, such as a corporation,[1]

generally may appear in court only through a licensed attorney. See 

Sherman v. Boston, 486 S.W.3d 88, 95 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 

2016, pet. denied); [Dell] Dev. Corp. v. Best Indus. Unif[.] Supply Co., 743 

S.W.2d 302, 303 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, writ denied) 

(“Corporations may appear and be represented only by a licensed 

attorney.”); see Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. § 302.001 (applying statutes 

governing for-profit corporations to professional associations as well).

Our records do not reflect that Dr. Yvette E. Forbes-Baker is an 

attorney. Accordingly, unless a licensed attorney files a notice of 

appearance for [A]ppellant Pro-Health Podiatry[] P.A. with this court on 

or before Monday, July 22, 2024, this appeal may be dismissed. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c).

No licensed attorney has appeared for Pro-Health Podiatry P.A. Because ProHealth Podiatry P.A. has failed to obtain counsel as directed by our June 21, 2024 

letter, we dismiss its appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c), 43.2(f), 44.3.

Per Curiam

Delivered: August 22, 2024

1

Except as provided by Title 7 of the Texas Business Organizations Code, “a 

professional association [such as Pro-Health Podiatry P.A.] has the same powers, 

privileges, duties, restrictions, and liabilities as a for-profit corporation.” E. Tex. Kidney 

Specialists, P.A. v. Vij, No. 12-24-00024-CV, 2024 WL 3084454, at *7 (Tex. App.—Tyler 

June 21, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.) (quoting Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. § 2.108).
ex10-3.htm


Exhibit 10.3


 



 


ELEVENTH AMENDMENT OF


AMENDED AND RESTATED PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT







This Eleventh Amendment of the Amended and Restated Participation Agreement (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of this 14th day of December, 2009, by and between and Union Bank and Trust Company, a Nebraska banking corporation and trust company, solely in its capacity as trustee of various grantor trusts known as Short Term Federal Investment Trusts or other grantor trusts (“Union Bank”) and National Education Loan Network, Inc., a Nevada corporation (“Nelnet”).







WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into that certain Amended and Restated Participation Agreement dated as of June 1, 2001, as amended (the “Agreement”), and the parties hereto wish to amend the Agreement under the terms set forth herein.







NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:







1.           Definitions.  Unless otherwise expressly stated herein, capitalized terms in this Amendment shall have the same meanings given to them in the Agreement.







2.           Applicability to Certain Securities.  All provisions relating to Eligible Loans in the Agreement shall also apply to participations of asset backed securities backed by Eligible Loans, except that (i) distributions with respect to participations of such securities shall be made to Union Bank in the amount of principal reductions and income at the rate equal to fifty basis points (0.50%) above the average of the bond equivalent rates of the quotes of 3 month commercial paper (financial) in effect for each of the days in such quarter as reported by the Federal Reserve in Publication H-15 (or its successor) for the relevant 3-month period, multiplied by the average aggregate outstanding principal balance of such asset backed securities, and (ii) representations and warranties made with respect to Eligible Loans shall apply to the Eligible Loans securing the asset backed securities, rather than to the securities themselves.







3.           Effect of Amendment.  This Amendment shall be effective as of the date first set forth above. Unless expressly modified or amended by this Amendment, all terms and provision contained in the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect without modification.


 





	 
Union Bank and Trust Company     

	 	 	National Education Loan Network, Inc.	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
By: /s/ Tom Sullivan

	 	 	
By: /s/ Jeffrey R. Noordhoek

	 
	
Title: Vice President

	 	 	
Title: President

	 







_
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellant,

v.

CRYSTAL TANEA COATS

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 116

[ February 9, 2023 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St

. Lucie County ; Robert L. Pegg , Judge; L.T. Case No. 562018CF003020

.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pablo Tapia

, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appell ant

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ross Frank Berlin , Assistant

Pu blic Defender, West Palm Beach, for appell ee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

K LINGENSMITH

, C.J., W ARNER and C IKLIN

, JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1 D 2 0 2 3

- 2188

_____________________________
K ENDRICK R ISCHARD J OHNSON , Appellant,

v.

D EPARTMENT OF C HILDREN AND F AMILIES , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. Donna M. Keim , Judge

.

July 10, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
D ISMISSED

. See Banks v. State , 916 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)

.
R OBERTS , R OWE , and L ONG , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Kendrick Rischard Johnson
, pro se, Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAR 2 2005

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

GREAT PLAINS COCA-COLA

BOTTLING COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellee,

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

MARIA SCOTZIN; KENDRA

WHITNEY; LORI CRAWFORD;

ROBYN GILLILAND; MARISSA

SOCKWELL; BRIDGETT GREENE;

Intervenors,

STEVA BOWERS,

Applicant in Intervention - 

Appellant.

No. 04-6001

(D.C. No. 03-CV-1347-F)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
-2-

Before LUCERO , McKAY , and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.

Steva Bowers appeals the district court’s order denying her motion to

intervene in a Title VII action against Great Plains Coca-Cola Bottling Company. 

The district court denied Ms. Bowers’ motion because it determined that her

claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Ms. Bowers argues

that the district court erred because the Oklahoma Savings Statute is applicable to

claims brought under Title VII. Alternatively, Ms. Bowers asserts that the district

court erred by not equitably tolling her claims. We review de novo the district

court’s legal determination that the Oklahoma Savings Statute is not applicable to

Title VII claims. See City of Wichita v. United States Gypsum Co. , 72 F.3d 1491,

1495 (10th Cir. 1996). We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s

decision that Ms. Bowers’ claims should not be equitably tolled. Garrett v.

Fleming , 362 F.3d 692, 695 (10th Cir. 2004). 

Having reviewed the briefs, the record and the applicable law, we conclude

that the district court correctly decided this case. We therefore AFFIRM the
-3-

judgment for substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in its

Order filed November 14, 2003.

Entered for the Court

Stephen H. Anderson

Circuit Judge
#### Levie S. JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 70310.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 3, 1996.

Appellant, pro se.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Kurt U. Schaefer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Levie S. Jackson, appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment is not clearly erroneous. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15937-15938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7573]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


Meeting of the Substance Abuse Prevention Conference Review 
Committee

    Pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463, notice is hereby given of the meeting 
of the Substance Abuse Prevention Conference Review Committee, in April 
1995.
    The meeting of the Committee will include discussion of 
announcements and reports of administrative, legislative, and program 
developments. The Committee will also be performing review of 
applications for Federal assistance; therefore, a portion of this 
meeting will be closed to the public as determined by the 
Administrator, SAMHSA, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and 5 
U.S.C. app. 2 10(d).
    A summary of the meeting and roster of committee members may be 
obtained from: Ms. D. Herman, Committee Management Liaison, Office of 
[[Page 15938]] Extramural Activities Review, SAMHSA, Rockwall II 
Building, Suite 630, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: 
(301) 443-4783.
    Substantive program information may be obtained from the contact 
whose name, room number, and telephone number is listed below.

Committee Name: Substance Abuse Prevention Conference Review 
Committee
Meeting Date(s): April 10-13, 1995
Place: Residence Inn--Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20814
Open: April 10, 1995, 8:30 a.m.-9:30 a.m.
Closed: April 10, 1995, 9:30 a.m. to April 13, 1995, at adjournment
Contact: Ferdinand W. Hui, Ph.D.; Rockwall II Building, Suite 630, 
Telephone: (301) 443-9912.

    Dated: March 22, 1995.
Jeri Lipov,
Committee Management Officer, Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
Services Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-7573 Filed 3-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
#### Ralph FELTROP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William JOHNSON, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

No. 63468.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Sept. 14, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 10, 1993.

Ralph Feltrop, acting pro se.

Phillip Tatlow, St. Louis, for defendants-respondents.

Before CRANE, P.J., and KAROHL and CRAHAN, JJ.

*361ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. *Murphy v. Carron,*536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An extended opinion would not have precedential value. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.-16(b).
DENY and Opinion Filed May 11, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-21-00990-CV

IN RE CHG SENIOR LIVING OF FORNEY, LLC D/B/A THREE FORKS 

SENIOR LIVING OF FORNEY, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-20607

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Osborne

In this original proceeding, relator challenges the trial court’s denial of its 

motion to dismiss the claims for breach of contract, premises liability, and ordinary 

negligence pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a.

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court clearly 

abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re 

Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). 

Based on our review of the petition, response, and the record before us, we 

conclude that relator has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(a). 
–2–

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

210990f.p05

/Leslie Osborne/ 

LESLIE OSBORNE

JUSTICE
2010 Short-Term Incentive Plan of Carlyle Taylor



 Exhibit 10.5 

Short-Term Incentive Plan of Carlyle Taylor 

2010 STI Goals 
  

			
	Name: Carlyle Taylor	  	Job Title: President – Radiant Computer Products
		
	Effective Dates of Plan: 1/1/10 – 12/31/10	  	Business Unit: Radiant Computer Products 
		
	STI Potential: 85% of Base Salary	  	Manager: John Heyman

 Goals: 

 

											
	 Goal Description
	  	 Weight
	  	 Payout
Timing
	    	 Budget

(show qtrly if applicable)
	    	 Target

(show qtrly if applicable)
	    	Comments
	 Company Operating Income –

80% paid at Budget
	  	80%	  	Annual	    	 Q1 = N/A
 Q2 =
N/A
 Q3 = N/A
 Q4 = N/A

Annual = [xxxxxx]*
	    	 Q1 = N/A
 Q2 =
N/A
 Q3 = N/A
 Q4 = N/A

Annual = [xxxxxx]*
	    	
						
	 Hardware + Field Services +

Installations GP – 20% paid at Budget. This portion of bonus is only paid out if the Operating Income budget is achieved.
	  	20%	  	Annual	    	 Q1 = N/A
 Q2 =
N/A
 Q3 = N/A
 Q4 = N/A

Annual = [xxxxxx]*
	    	 Q1 = N/A
 Q2 =
N/A
 Q3 = N/A
 Q4 = N/A

Annual = [xxxxxx]*
	    	

  
 *
Filed under an application for confidential treatment.