alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James MOORE, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 54951.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 18, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 17, 1989.

Application to Transfer Denied Aug. 1, 1989.

*705Beverly A. Beimdiek, Janis Caroline Good, St. Louis, for movant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., William J. Swift, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

CRANDALL, Presiding Judge.

Movant, James Moore, appeals from the denial of Rule 27.261 relief following an evidentiary hearing. Movant previously had pleaded guilty to first degree burglary, forcible sodomy, and two counts of forcible rape. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment totalling 45 years. We affirm.

Movant argues, in his sole point on appeal, that the motion court erred in denying him post-conviction relief because his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to depose the victim and in failing to investigate the State’s fingerprint evidence.

The record of the evidentiary hearing refutes movant’s allegations. Movant’s trial counsel testified at the evidentiary hearing that movant had always expressed a desire to plead guilty and was apparently only concerned about the length of imprisonment under the plea agreement. Trial counsel testified that she did not depose the victim because movant never gave any indication that he wanted to go to trial.

Assessing the credibility of the witnesses was for the motion court. *Caraker v. State,*712 S.W.2d 23, 24 (Mo.App.1986). The motion court, as the trier of fact, permissibly chose to believe the testimony of movant’s trial counsel. Furthermore, mov-ant failed to meet his burden of showing any prejudice resulting from his trial counsel’s actions. *See Richardson v. State,*719 S.W.2d 912, 915-916 (Mo.App.1986).

Additionally, movant’s trial counsel testified at the evidentiary hearing that she investigated the fingerprint evidence. Although movant contended that the fingerprints found in the victim’s home were not his own, movant admitted at the guilty plea hearing that he committed the crimes charged. Therefore, movant failed to prove any prejudice. *See Id.*The judgment of the motion court is not clearly erroneous. Movant’s point is denied.

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed.

CRIST and DOWD, JJ., concur.

1

. Rule 27.26 was repealed, effective January 1, 1988, by order of the Supreme Court of Missouri. Rule 24.035 is the new rule effective January 1, 1988. This appeal is governed by Rule 27.26 because the sentence was pronounced prior to January 1, 1988, and movant’s Rule 27.26 motion was then pending.
Exhibit 10.30
TriPath Imaging, Inc. 2005 Bonus Plan
On January 26, 2005, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of TriPathImaging, Inc. (the “Company”) approved the terms of a bonus plan for fiscal year 2005(the “2005 Bonus Plan”). All employees (other than employees who are covered by a salescompensation or commission-based plan) are eligible to participate in the 2005 BonusPlan, including all of the Company’s executive officers.
Under the 2005 Bonus Plan, the payment of bonus compensation, if any, will be based on theachievement of objective corporate goals. The objective corporate performance goals for eachparticipant will be based on the Company’s 2005 revenues, as well as quarterly and annualearnings per share. Bonuses will be payable in cash, options or a combination thereof.
Under the 2005 Bonus Plan, the potential payout of bonus compensation may range from 0%to a maximum of 100% of the bonus target. The bonus target for participants in the 2005Bonus Plan will be based on a percentage of base salary dependent on the level ofresponsibility within the Company. The bonus target for each of the Company’s executiveofficers is set forth below.   **Executive Officer** **Bonus Target (% of Base Salary)**Paul R. Sohmer, M.D. 60%President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer     Stephen P. Hall 40%Senior Vice President, ChiefFinancial Officer     Ray W. Swanson, Jr. 50%Senior Vice President ofCommercial Operations     Johnny D. Powers, Ph.D. 50%Senior Vice President andGeneral Manager of TriPathOncology
EX-10.50.1





Exhibit
10.50.1





AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT





     THIS AMENDMENT to Employment Agreement, made and entered into as of January 1, 2001, by and
among The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, a Missouri corporation (“Railway”), Kansas City
Southern Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“KCSI”) and Scott E. Arvidson, an individual
(“Executive”).



     WHEREAS, Railway, KCSI and Executive have heretofore entered into an Employment
Agreement, as amended and restated as of January 1, 1999 (the “Agreement”); and



     WHEREAS, the Agreement makes reference in several places to Kansas City Southern Lines, Inc.
or to KCSL (either of which being referred herein as “KCSL”) which prior to January 1, 2001, was
the wholly-owned subsidiary of KCSI and the sole shareholder of Railway; and



     WHEREAS, KCSL was administratively merged into KCSI as of December 31, 2000, and thereby
ceased existence as a separate entity.



     NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and among Railway, KCSI and Executive as follows:



     1. Effective as of January 1, 2001, each and every reference to “Kansas City Southern
Lines, Inc.” or to “KCSL” or “KCSL’s” which appear in the Whereas clause and in paragraphs 3,
4(c)(ii),
7(b), 7(d)(ii) and (iii) and 7(e) of the Agreement is deleted, and, where necessary, the
conjunctive phrases
contained in each such clause or paragraph are appropriately modified consistent with the
deletion of each
such reference.



     2. Effective
as of January 1, 2001, the final sentence of paragraph 7(d) of the Agreement is deleted.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the 1st
day of January, 2001.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	THE KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

 	 
	 	By	 /s/ Michael R. Haverty
 	 
	 	 	Michael R. Haverty, President & CEO 	 
	 	 	 
	 
	 	

KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES, INC.

 	 
	 	By	
 /s/ Michael R. Haverty
 	 
	 	 	Michael R. Haverty, President & CEO 	 
	 	 	 
	 
	 	EXECUTIVE

 	 
	 	
/s/ Scott E. Arvidson
 	 
	 	    Scott E. Arvidson
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 21, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 25487]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12669]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. TM96-4-25-001]

Mississippi River Transmission Corporation; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

May 15, 1996.
    Take notice that on April 22, 1996, Mississippi River Transmission 
Corporation (MRT) submitted for filing revised worksheets reflecting 
the calculation of Miscellaneous Revenues in accordance with Section 18 
of the General Terms and Conditions of MRT's FERC Gas Tariff, Third 
Revised Volume No. 1 and in compliance with the April 11, 1996 ``Order 
Denying Request for Waiver'' issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission in this proceeding.
    MRT states that, as explained in its filing, the worksheets reflect 
the calculation of Miscellaneous Revenues applicable to the period 
November 1, 1993 through October 31, 1995 for the cashout costs related 
to onsystem imbalances, and the period November 1, 1993 through March 
31, 1995 for the cashout costs related to offsystem imbalances.
    MRT states that copies of the compliance filing have been mailed to 
all parties on the official service list.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before May 22, 1996. All protests filed with the Commission will be 
considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but 
will not serve to make the protestants parties to the proceedings. 
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available 
for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-12669 Filed 5-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

UNIVERSAL CITY FLORIDA HOLDING CO. I

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the quarterly report of Universal City Florida Holding Co. I (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 30, 2008 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, John R. Sprouls certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 8, 2008



By:

/s/ JOHN R. SPROULSJohn R. SproulsPrincipal Executive Officer




32
Exhibit
32.1







Certification
of the Chief Executive Officer and the Principal Financial Officer Pursuant
to


Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Code of 2002





Each of
the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63
of title 18 of the United States Code, in his capacity as an officer of I.C.
Isaacs & Company, Inc. (“Isaacs”), that, to his knowledge, the Amendment No.
1 on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Isaacs.




Dated:
August 1, 2008






/s/Robert
S. Stec


RobertS. Stec


Chief
Executive Officer








/s/Timothy
J. Tumminello


TimothyJ. Tumminello


Interim
Principal Financial Officer,


Controller
and Vice President
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 112 (Monday, June 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 29447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14575]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board \1\
[STB Finance Docket No. 32965]


Missouri Pacific Railroad Company--Trackage Rights Exemption--
Union Pacific Railroad Company

    Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) has agreed to grant local and 
overhead trackage rights to Missouri Pacific Railroad Company (MP) over 
approximately 2.225 miles of the McPherson Branch from milepost 515.775 
to milepost 518.0 near McPherson in McPherson County, KS. The trackage 
rights were to become effective on or after May 29, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-88, 109 
Stat. 803, which was enacted on December 29, 1995, and took effect 
on January 1, 1996, abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission and 
transferred certain functions to the Surface Transportation Board 
(Board). This notice relates to functions that are subject to Board 
jurisdiction pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 11323-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). If the notice 
contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab 
initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may 
be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not stay 
the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 32965, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Branch, 1201 Constitution 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20423 and served on: Joseph D. Anthofer, 
General Attorney, 1416 Dodge Street, #830, Omaha, NE 68179.
    As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the 
trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in Norfolk 
and Western Ry. Co.--Trackage Rights--BN, 354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as 
modified in Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.--Lease and Operate, 360 I.C.C. 
653 (1980).

    Decided: May 31, 1996.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-14575 Filed 6-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
<PAGE>

NUMBER                          INCORPORATED UNDER                     SHARES
*________*                THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE          *________*
                               ON JANUARY 16, 1997


                           ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
                                  COMMON STOCK


                                     [SEAL]

THIS CERTIFIES THAT _______________ IS THE REGISTERED HOLDER OF _____________
(______) SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK OF ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS INC. TRANSFERABLE
ONLY ON THE BOOKS OF THE CORPORATION BY THE HOLDER HEREOF, IN PERSON OR BY DULY
AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY, UPON SURRENDER OF THIS CERTIFICATE PROPERLY ENDORSED OR
ASSIGNED.

A STATEMENT OF THE RIGHTS, PREFERENCES, PRIVILEGES AND RESTRICTIONS GRANTED TO
OR IMPOSED UPON THE RESPECTIVE CLASSES OR SERIES OF SHARES OF STOCK OF THE
CORPORATION AND UPON HOLDERS THEREOF AS ESTABLISHED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF
INCORPORATION, AND THE NUMBER OF SHARES CONSTITUTING EACH SERIES AND THE
DESIGNATIONS THEREOF, MAY BE OBTAINED BY ANY STOCKHOLDER UPON REQUEST AND
WITHOUT CHARGE AT THE PRINCIPAL OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE CORPORATION HAS CAUSED THIS CERTIFICATE TO BE SIGNED
BY ITS DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS THIS ________ DAY OF ________ 20__.

________________                                             _________________
THOMAS H. AASEN                                              MARK R. BRANN
SECRETARY                                                    PRESIDENT

[SEAL]                                SHARES
                                       EACH

<PAGE>

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, _______________HEREBY SELL, ASSIGN AND TRANSFER UNTO ______
______________________________________________________________________________
____________________, SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK OF THE WITHIN NAMED
CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE WITHIN CERTIFICATE AND DO HEREBY IRREVOCABLY
CONSTITUTE AND APPOINT___________________________________________ ATTORNEY TO
TRANSFER THE SAID SHARES OF SAID COMMON STOCK ON THE BOOKS OF THE SAID
CORPORATION, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE BY-LAWS THEREOF, WITH FULL
POWERS OF SUBSTITUTION IN THE PREMISES.

                        DATED________________________________________A.D.
                             ____________________________________________

IN PRESENCE OF:
______________________________________________________

NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST STRICTLY CORRESPOND WITH THE
NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR AND
WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.
*

 After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that

oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the

record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted July 19, 2006*

Decided July 21, 2006

Before

 Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

 Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

 Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 05-4111

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DANA WARMUZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division

No. 04-CR-938-1

Amy J. St. Eve,

Judge.

O R D E R

Dana Warmuz pleaded guilty to embezzlement, see 18 U.S.C. § 656, and was

sentenced under the advisory sentencing guidelines to 24 months in prison. Now

she argues that her sentence violates ex post facto principles of due process because

the district court would have been required to impose a lower sentence under the

mandatory guidelines regime that was in place when she committed her crime.

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
No. 05-4111 Page 2

As Warmuz acknowledges, we have already decided that no due process

violation arises from retroactively applying the advisory regime created by United

States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). See United States v. Paulus, 419 F.3d 693,

698-99 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Jamison, 416 F.3d 538, 539 (7th Cir. 2005). 

Nonetheless, Warmuz asks us to change the rule. In a number of recent cases,

however, we have already rejected the arguments she offers for overruling our

precedent. E.g., United States v. Sliman, 449 F.3d 797, 801 (7th Cir. 2006); United

States v. Farris, 448 F.3d 965, 968-69 (7th Cir. 2006).

Indeed, we are especially confident of our views when we consider that every

other circuit agrees with us. See United States v. Lata, 415 F.3d 107, 110-12 (1st

Cir. 2005); United States v. Fairclough, 439 F.3d 76, 78-79 (2d Cir. 2006) (per

curiam), cert. denied, 2006 WL 1527191 (U.S. June 19, 2006); United States v.

Pennavaria, 445 F.3d 720, 723-24 (3d Cir. 2006); United States v. Davenport, 445

F.3d 366, 369-70 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Austin, 432 F.3d 598, 599-600 (5th

Cir. 2005) (per curiam); United States v. Richardson, 437 F.3d 550, 555 (6th Cir.

2006); United States v. Wade, 435 F.3d 829, 832 (8th Cir. 2006) (per curiam); United

States v. Dupas, 419 F.3d 916, 919-21 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1484

(2006); United States v. Rines, 419 F.3d 1104, 1106-07 (10th Cir. 2005), cert. denied,

126 S. Ct. 1089 (2006); United States v. Duncan, 400 F.3d 1297, 1306-08 (11th Cir.

2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 432 (2005); United States v. Alston-Graves, 435 F.3d

331, 343 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Case 2:17-cr-01408-JJT Document 1 Filed 09/18/17 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01408-JJT Document 1 Filed 09/18/17 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01408-JJT Document 1 Filed 09/18/17 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:17-cr-01408-JJT Document 1 Filed 09/18/17 Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT 13

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 89-13 Filed 10/09/18 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 89-13 Filed 10/09/18 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 89-13 Filed 10/09/18 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 89-13 Filed 10/09/18 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 89-13 Filed 10/09/18 Page 5 of 5
[Cite as State v. Cox , 2012-Ohio-3280.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 24788

vs. : T.C. CASE NO. 10CR1193 JAMES COX : (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant :

. . . . . . . . . O P I N I O N

Rendered on the 20 th day of July, 2012.

. . . . . . . . . Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Pros. Attorney; Michel e D. Phipps, Asst. Pros. Attorney, Atty. Reg. No. 0069829, P.O. Box 972, Dayton, OH 45422 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee Lori R. Cicero, Atty. Reg. No. 0079508, 500 Ea st Fifth Street, Dayton, OH 45402 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

. . . . . . . . . GRADY, P.J.: {¶ 1} Defendant James Cox appeals from a final or der revoking his judi cial release. {¶ 2} In July 2010, Defendant was convicted of arson, R.C. 2909.03(A)(1), a felony of the fourth degree, and possession of criminal tools, R.C. 2923.24(A), a felony of the fifth degree. He was sentenced to one year in prison. Defendant filed a motion for judicialrelease, which the trial cour t granted in January 2011. {¶ 3} Several months later, De fendant was arrested for violation of a protection order. Defendant’s probation o fficer filed a notice of revoca tion of Defendant’s judicial release. Following a hearing, the trial court found Defendant in violati on of the terms of his judicial release and ordered him to serv e the remainder of his prison sentence. {¶ 4} Defendant appeals raising the follo wing assignment of error:

“THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR AND ABUSED ITS

DISCRETION IN REVOKING THE PROBATION OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.” {¶ 5} When Defendant’s judi cial release was revoked in July 2011, he had approximately seventy-fi ve days remaining on his sentence. We take judicial notice that Defendant’s name does not appear on the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction website and that he appear s to have served the rema inder of his sentence. State v. Silvers, Clark No. 2005CA 18, 2006-Ohio-3129, ¶ 7. {¶ 6} We have previously held that when a defendant has comp leted his sentence, “we cannot provide him any meaningful relief as to his prison term.” State v. Jennings, 2d Dist. Montgomery 24599, 2012-Ohio-1229, ¶ 7. Therefore, we concluded in Jennings that the defendant’s assignments of error that related to the trial court’s finding that he had violated the terms of his community control were moot and held no arguable merit. Id. The same principle applies here, wh ere Defendant was found to have violated the terms of his judicial release. {¶ 7} Accordingly, Defendant’s sole assignment of error is overruled as moot. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.3

FROELICH, J., And HALL, J., concur.

Copies mailed to: Michele D. Phipps, Esq. Lori R. Cicero, Esq. Hon. Frances E. McGee
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 E0 05 7 . EJ I MAH NW ACHUKW U v . LAUREN FERGUSON.

In t h i s d o m es t i c rel at i o n s cas e, Eji m ah Nwach u kwu fi l ed o n J u n e 1 7

, 2 0 1 9 an

em erg en cy m o t i o n seek i n g an ex t en s io n o f ti m e t o fi le an ap p li cat i o n fo r a

d i s cret i o n ary ap p e a l ; N w ach u k wu rep res en ts t h at an o rd er d en y i n g h i s m o t i o n fo r

n ew t ri al was en tered o n M ay 2 0 , 2 0 1 9

.
Sai d m o t i o n i s h ereb y GRANTED; Nwach u k wu s h al l h av e un t i l Ju l y 1 9

, 2 0 1 9

t o fi l e h is d i s cret i on ary

ap p l i cat i o n i n acco rd an ce wi t h OCGA § 5 -6 -3 5

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. June 18, 2019

06/18/2019