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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 939 

Extending condolences to the families of Sergeant Mark Renninger, Officer 

Tina Griswold, Officer Ronald Owens, and Officer Greg Richards. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 1, 2009 

Mr. SMITH of Washington (for himself, Mr. DICKS, Mr. REICHERT, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Mr. BAIRD, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, and Mr. MCDERMOTT) submitted 

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Extending condolences to the families of Sergeant Mark 

Renninger, Officer Tina Griswold, Officer Ronald Owens, 

and Officer Greg Richards. 

Whereas, on the morning of November 29, 2009, 4 members 

of the Lakewood Police Department were slain by gunfire 

in a senseless act of violence while preparing for their 

shift in Lakewood, Washington; 

Whereas the 4 officers have been members of the Lakewood 

Police Department since its founding 5 years ago, were 

valuable members of the community, and were deeply respected for their service; 

Whereas Sergeant Mark Renninger who served 13 years in 

law enforcement, first with the Tukwila Police DepartVerDate Nov 24 2008 01:55 Dec 02, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\HR939.IH HR939

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 939 IH 

ment and most recently, served with the Lakewood Police 

Department, is survived by his wife and 3 children; 

Whereas Officer Tina Griswold who served 14 years in law 

enforcement, first with the Lacey Police Department and 

most recently, served with the Lakewood Police Department, is survived by her husband and 2 children; 

Whereas Officer Ronald Owens who served 12 years in law 

enforcement, first with the Washington State Patrol and 

most recently, served with the Lakewood Police Department, is survived by his daughter; 

Whereas Officer Greg Richards who served 8 years in law enforcement, first with the Kent Police Department and 

most recently, served with the Lakewood Police Department, is survived by his wife and 3 children; 

Whereas the senseless violence against and murder of law enforcement officers, who are sworn to serve, protect, and 

preserve the peace of the communities, is a particularly 

heinous crime; and 

Whereas in the face of this senseless tragedy, the people of 

the City of Lakewood, the surrounding communities, and 

the State of Washington have come together in support 

of the law enforcement community and the victims’ families: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) extends its condolences to the families of 

3 Sergeant Mark Renninger, Officer Tina Griswold, 

4 Officer Ronald Owens, and Officer Greg Richards; 

5 and 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 939 IH 

1 (2) stands with the people of Lakewood, Wash2 ington, the men and women of the Lakewood Police 

3 Department, and members of the law enforcement 

4 community as they celebrate the lives and mourn the 

5 loss of these four dedicated public servants and law 

6 enforcement heroes. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
H. Res. 917 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 24, 2010. 

Whereas established by Congress in 1991, the National Scenic Byways program is a collaborative effort to help recognize, preserve, and enhance selected roads throughout 

the United States; 

Whereas the United States Department of Transportation 

recognizes certain roads as All-American Roads or National Scenic Byways based on one or more archeological, 

cultural, historic, natural, recreational, and scenic qualities; 

Whereas, on October 16, 2009, the United States Department of Transportation announced 42 new designations 

to the America’s Byways collection, including five AllAmerican Roads and 37 National Scenic Byways, thus 

increasing the total number of designations to 151; 

Whereas the Florida Keys Scenic Highway was listed by the 

United States Department of Transportation as one of 

five All-American Roads for 2009; 

Whereas the Florida Keys Scenic Highway is the first AllAmerican Road in the State of Florida and only one of 

30 in the United States, joining an elite list which includes the Blue Ridge Parkway, Alaska’s Seward Highway, and Historic Route 66; 
2 

•HRES 917 EH 

Whereas the Florida Keys Scenic Highway follows the railroad trail blazed in the 1900s by Henry Flagler; 

Whereas the Florida Keys Scenic Highway comprises of an 

110-mile stretch of US 1 from Key Largo to Key West; 

Whereas the Florida Keys Scenic Highway incorporates 42 

bridges over the waters of the Atlantic Ocean, Florida 

Bay, and the Gulf of Mexico; 

Whereas the road’s corridor is a leading tourist destination, 

featuring world-renowned coral reefs, exotic fish species, 

and historic shipwrecks; and 

Whereas the end of the Florida Keys Scenic Highway, Mile 

Marker 0, is the southernmost city in the Continental 

United States: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) recognizes the Florida Keys Scenic Highway on 

the occasion of its designation as an All-American Road 

by the United States Department of Transportation; and 

(2) congratulates those residents of the Florida 

Keys who participated in the effort to support this designation. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
DISTRICT JUDGE'S MINUTES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – PHOENIX

U.S. District Judge: Diane J. Humetewa Date: October 24, 2023

USA v. Michael Lacey, et al Case Number: CR-18-00422-PHX-DJH

Assistant U.S. Attorneys: Kevin Rapp, Austin Berry, Margaret Perlmeter, Andrew Stone, Peter 

Kozinets

Attorneysfor Defendants: Paul J. Cambria Jr., Retained for Defendant Lacey, present; Bruce S. Feder, 

Retained (Knapp) and Eric W. Kessler, CJA for Defendant Spear, present; Gary S. Lincenberg and Gopi 

K. Panchapakesan, Retained for Defendant Brunst, present; David S. Eisenberg, CJA for Defendant 

Padilla, present; Joy M. Bertrand, CJA for Defendant Vaught, present.

Defendants: ☒ Present ☐ Not Present ☒ Released ☐ Custody ☐ Summons ☐ Writ

JURY TRIAL (Day 23):

9:07 a.m. Court reconvenes. Court rules on pending motion and joinders as set forth on the record. 

(Docs. 1879, 1886, 1887, 1888, 1889). Discussion held with counsel. Defendants shall inform the 

Government by tomorrow at 9:00 a.m., whether the issue of forfeiture will be tried to the jury or the 

Court. 10:34 a.m. Recess.

1:01 p.m. Court reconvenes. Discussion held with counsel. 1:14 p.m. Jury present. Defendants’ case:

Grant Snyder sworn and examined. 1:41 p.m. Cross-Examination.1:49 p.m. Jury exits courtroom. 1:55 

p.m. Recess. 

2:02 p.m. Court reconvenes. 2:07 p.m. Jury present. Witness examined further. 2:12 p.m. Redirect. 

2:28 p.m. Witness excused subject to recall. John Becker sworn and examined. Exhibits 6264 (page 2 

of Exhibit 1, marked and admitted as 6264), 5516, 5540, 5541, 5542, 5545, and 5546 are admitted. 

3:01 p.m. Jury exits courtroom. Defendants’ oral Motion for Mistrial argued. IT IS ORDERED

denying the oral Motion for Mistrial. 3:07 p.m. Recess.

3:25 p.m. Court reconvenes. Jury present. Witness examined further. 3:30 p.m. Grant Snyder recalled 

to the stand and examined further. 3:40 p.m. Witness excused. John Becker resumes the stand for crossexamination. 4:11 p.m. Redirect. 4:13 p.m. Witness excused. 4:14 p.m. Jury exits courtroom. 

Discussion held with counsel. 4:24 p.m. Court in recess until Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 9:00

a.m.

Court Reporter Hilda Lopez/Cathy Taylor

Deputy Clerk Liliana Figueroa

Start: 9:07 AM

Stop: 4:24 PM

Total: 4hrs 25min

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1905 Filed 10/24/23 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6457
SAVINO BRAXTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondent - Appellee, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-3719-JFM) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2Savino Braxton, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Annabelle Louise Lisic, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (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. Braxton v. Maryland , No. CA-97-3719-JFM (D. Md. Mar. 12, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Molly C. Dwyer

Clerk of Court 

Office of the Clerk

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

Post Office Box 193939

San Francisco, California 94119-3939

415-355-8000

January 04, 2022

No.: 22-10000

D.C. Nos.:

2:18-cr-00422-DJH-1, 2:18-cr-00422-DJH-2, 2:18-cr00422-SMB-3, 2:18-cr-00422-SMB-4, 2:18-cr-00422-

SMB-6, 2:18-cr-00422-SMB-7

Short Title: USA v. Michael Lacey, et al

Dear Appellants/Counsel

A copy of your notice of appeal/petition has been received in the Clerk's office of 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Court of 

Appeals docket number shown above has been assigned to this case. You must 

indicate this Court of Appeals docket number whenever you communicate with 

this court regarding this case. 

Motions filed along with the notice of appeal in the district court are not 

automatically transferred to this court for filing. Any motions seeking relief from 

this court must be separately filed in this court's docket. 

Please furnish this docket number immediately to the court reporter if you place an 

order, or have placed an order, for portions of the trial transcripts. The court 

reporter will need this docket number when communicating with this court.

Failure of the appellant to comply with the time schedule order may result in 

dismissal of the appeal. 

Please read the enclosed materials carefully.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1446 Filed 01/04/22 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 13.1
                                                                   ------------


                                 CERTIFICATION

          CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(B) AND SECTION 1350 OF
                CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

         In  connection  with  Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 20-
F/A  for  the  fiscal  year  ended  November  30,  2006 of  Vasogen  Inc.  (the
"Company"),  as filed with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date
hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Terrance H. Gregg,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that to the best of 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.


/s/ TERRANCE H. GREGG
------------------------------------------------
Terrance H. Gregg
President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer),
Vasogen Inc.

May 17, 2007
#### DIAMOND LUMBER, INC., Respondent, v. Dr. Schabin JONSSON and Marshall Reynolds, Appellants.

No. WD 41866.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 16, 1990.

Carl E. Laurent, Richard Walton Sullivan, Independence, for appellants.

James M. Tobin, Juliann W. Graves, Murphy & Tobin, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before BERREY, P.J., and TURNAGE and ULRICH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from judgment imposing a mechanics lien on real estate. Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
NO. 07-12-00008-CR THROUGH 07-12-00017-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

APRIL 5, 2012

ALEX RAY FOX, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

FROM THE 223RD DISTRICT COURT OF GRAY COUNTY;

NO. 8646 THROUGH 8655; HONORABLE PHIL N. VANDERPOOL, JUDGE

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

**ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND**

	Appellant Alex Ray Fox appeals his convictions for possession with intent to promote child pornography[footnoteRef:1] and the resulting concurrent sentences of ten years of imprisonment.  The reporter’s record was filed on February 2, 2012.  The clerk’s record was filed on April 3, 2012.  Included in the clerk’s record is the trial court’s certification of defendant’s right of appeal.  However, this certification is not signed by appellant or his attorney. As such, this certification****does not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), which requires that the certification****be signed by appellant and that a copy be provided him.  [1:   Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 43.26 (West 2011).  ] 

Accordingly, we abate the appeal, and remand the cause to the trial court to amend its certification of defendant’s right of appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(f). On remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means it finds necessary to obtain appellant's signature on an amended trial****court's certification****and to provide him a copy of the certification. The court further is directed to cause the amended certification and any orders signed by the court on remand to be collected into a supplemental clerk’s record, which shall be filed with the clerk of this Court by April 27, 2012.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.

2
#### Nathan JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Respondent-Respondent.

No. 63519.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 1, 1994.

Steven K. Brown, Rosenthal, Brown & Geigerman, St. Louis, for petitioner-appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., James A. Chenuait, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Mo. Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City, for respondent-respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Nathan Johnson, appeals from the order of the trial court upholding the suspension of his driver’s license for refusing to submit to a chemical test for intoxication.

The order of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no prece-dential value. The order is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### Patricia Lou STAFFORD, Respondent, v. Randall Keith STAFFORD, Appellant.

No. WD 47521.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 18, 1994.

James R. Bickel, Anita D. Conbo, Nevada, for appellant.

Wm. G. McCaffree, Nevada, for respondent.

Before TURNAGE, P.J., and HANNA and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Randall Stafford appeals portions of the decree of dissolution of marriage concerning division of marital property, the award of maintenance to Patricia, and the award to Patricia of $1,000 for attorney’s fees in the event Randall appeals the court’s order.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 

A 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 22-2 Filed 04/09/18 Page 1 of 2
Exhibit A - Wires to France

The following is a summary of international wire transfers made from Charles Schwab & Co. Account 4693, in the name

of James Anthony Larkin & Margaret Garr Larkin Designated Beneficiary Plan/TOD. Some wires were converted to Euros and some

appear to have been sent as US dollar transactions. 

Transfer Date Recipient Recipient Home City Amount in USD Amount in Euros*

03/10/2016 Assurances St. Dominique Paris $ 231.36 210.76 €

06/07/2016 Co Cabinet Nicolas Bred Banque Populaire Paris $ 65,991.67

06/15/2016 Rysbat Sarl 75017 Paris $ 99,915.20

06/15/2016 SBC Sait Guilaume 14 75009 Paris $ 660.27

07/21/2016 La Cornue SAS Zone Industirelle Les Bethunes Ouen L'Aumone Paris $ 31,294.82 28,175.00 €

07/28/2016 Ab Kasha Designs Paris $ 57,807.87 51,999.99 €

10/07/2016 Agent Sonore Paris $ 28,259.50 25,000.00 €

10/07/2016 Graff Diamonds SARL Puteaux $ 169,533.00 150,000.00 €

10/17/2016 SARL L A Alu Lannemezan PmE PMI Autres CPTES GB $ 31,413.42 28,813.47 €

11/01/2016 SARL Eddy et Fils St Ouen $ 40,576.31 36,840.00 €

11/23/2016 Rysbat Sarl Paris $ 66,490.11 60,500.00 €

11/28/2016 Agent Sonore Paris $ 32,320.80 30,000.00 €

12/20/2016 Rysbat Sarl Paris $ 53,983.54 50,000.50 €

12/19/2016 Volevatch SA Paris $ 931.10 865.80 €

12/26/2016 SARL Eddy et Fils St Ouen $ 11,281.25 10,560.00 €

12/26/2016 La Volute Alu LVA SARL Lannemezan PmE PMI Autres CPTES GB $ 28,569.47 26,742.93 €

12/30/2016 Volevatch SA Paris $ 904.68 865.80 €

01/16/2017 La Cornue SAS Zone Industirelle Les Bethunes Ouen L'Aumone Paris $ 43,542.17 41,578.82 €

Total Transfers to France $ 763,706.54 542,153.07 €

The following were wire transfers from the same account with Charles Schwab & Co. to a bank account in France that appears to be

 in the names of Mr. and Mrs. Larkin. 

09/26/2016 M. OU MME James A Larkin Banque Wormser FreresParadise Valley, AZ $ 25,000.00

09/27/2016 M. OU MME James A Larkin Banque Wormser FreresParadise Valley, AZ $ 25,000.00

12/27/2016 M. OU MME James A Larkin Banque Wormser FreresParadise Valley, AZ $ 266,872.50 250,000.00 €

$ 316,872.50 250,000.00 €

* Amount in Euros is as presented on the bank documents. These figures were not computed for this summary.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 22-2 Filed 04/09/18 Page 2 of 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GEORGE GODINHO,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 72855 Agency No. A098

- 141

- 535

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 6, 2020 * *

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges

. George Godinho, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal s’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010)

. We grant the peti tion for revie w and we remand

.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 12 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 14

- 72855

In denying Godinho’s motion to reopen as untimely and number barred, the

BIA found that Godinho failed to show a material change in country conditions in India as to his religion claim

. In his opening brief, Godinho does not challenge the denial of the motion to reopen on this basis

. See Lopez

- Vasquez v. Holder , 706
F.3d 1072, 1079

- 80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in an opening brief are waived).

Godinho also sought reopening to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture based on his political opinion. In denying the motion to reopen, t he BIA abuse d its discretion by failing to make a

determination as to Godinho’ s political opinion claim and by failing to consider his supporting evidence, including the country conditions evidence and Godinho’s two
declarations

. See Sagaydak v. Gonzales , 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (the agency is “not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner”) ; see also Salim v. Lynch , 831 F.3d 1133, 1137

- 3 9 (9th Cir. 2016) ( concluding the BIA abused its discretion by failing to consider evidence of changed country conditions in light of

the new claim asserted in the motion to reopen); Mejia v. Ashcroft , 298 F.3d 873,

879

- 80 (9th Cir. 2002) (the agency abused its discretion by failing to consider a claim asserted in the motion to reopen). Further, t he BIA abused its discretion in finding that Godinho did not adequately support his claim that a police inspector is still looking for him without addressing Godinho’s declarations

. See Najmabadi,3 14

- 72855

597 F.3d at 990 (the BIA “is required to accept as true the facts stated in [an applicant’s affidavit accompanying a motion to reopen] unless they are inherently

unbelievable” ). Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA for proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura , 537 U.S. 12, 16

- 18 (2002) (per curiam)

. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No.’s 333-106276, 333-116602,333-48726, 333-96623, 333-65964) pertaining to the SupportSoft, Inc. Amended and Restated 1998 Stock Option Plan, the SupportSoft, Inc. 2000 Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan and the SupportSoft, Inc. 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of our reportsdated March 15, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of SupportSoft, Inc., SupportSoft, Inc. management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of SupportSoft, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

Palo Alto, California 

March 15, 2005****
1 WO 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

1 O United States of America, No. CR-18-08048-001-PCT-DLR 

11 Plaint,iff, ORDER 

12 V. 

13 Valerie Shorty, 

14 Defendant. 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Defendant appeared in court with counsel. Pursuant to 18 U.S. C. § 3141 et. seq. a 

detention hearing was held. The defendant is ordered detained pending an intake 

\ 

assessment for placement at Crossroads in Phoenix, Arizona or- other facility as 

designated by Pretrial Services. Should defendant qualify for such placement, defendant 

shall be released upon conditions set by this Court, including pretrial residency at said 

facility, as conditions do exist .which would reasonably assure the safety of others and the 

appearance of the defendant. Should defendant not so qualify, the release conditions set 

by this Court shall be vacated and defendant shall be detained pending trial as there are 

no conditions or combination of conditions which would reasonably assure the safety of 

others or the appearance of the defendant. 

The Pretrial Services Officer is ordered to timely notify this Court of the 

defendant's intake assessment results, and if found acceptable, the date and time the 

II 
1 facility will provide transportation from the Sandra Day O'Connor Courthouse for the 

2 defendant. 

3 Dated this 16th day of March, 2018. 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

- 2 -