alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     UT
<LEGEND>
          THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM
     THE BALANCE  SHEET,  INCOME  STATEMENT AND CASH FLOW  STATEMENT OF ILLINOVA
     CORPORATION  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO THE BALANCE
     SHEET, INCOME STATEMENT AND CASH FLOW STATEMENT OF ILLINOVA CORPORATION.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000914755
<NAME>                        ILLINOVA CORPORATION
<SUBSIDIARY>
   <NUMBER>                   0
   <NAME>                     0
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000,000
<CURRENCY>                                     Default

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   Per-Book
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      4475
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    247
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         1017
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       737
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6476
<COMMON>                                       970
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            0
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 970
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          199
<PREFERRED>                                    57
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           2265
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             50
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 98
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  444
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    70
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               62
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 2261
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  6476
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      2431
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           (1186)
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     5059
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     3873
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        (1442)
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             26
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 (1416)
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       163
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1579)
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  0
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       89
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      117
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         268
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (22.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (22.04)



</TABLE>
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4329

To designate the Federal building located at 300 East 8th Street in Austin,

Texas, as the ‘‘J.J. ‘Jake’ Pickle Federal Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 30, 1996

Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To designate the Federal building located at 300 East 8th

Street in Austin, Texas, as the ‘‘J.J. ‘Jake’ Pickle Federal Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal building located at 300 East 8th Street

5 in Austin, Texas, shall be known and designated as the

6 ‘‘J.J. ‘Jake’ Pickle Federal Building’’.

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal
2

•HR 4329 IH

1 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

2 a reference to the ‘‘J.J. ‘Jake’ Pickle Federal Building’’.

Æ
## United States Court of App eals F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 10 35

__ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *
* Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e * East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i. Edwar d R oa ch , *
* [UNPUBLISHED] Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t. *

__ __ __ __ __ _ Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 6, 2 01 2 Fi le d: May 30, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re MELLOY, ARNOLD, and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

__ __ __ __ __ _ PER CURI AM.
Edwar d Ro ach pl ead ed gu il ty to be in g a f e l o n i n po ss es si on of a fir earm in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g ). Ro ach no w arg ue s on ly th at hi s co nv ic ti on an d

res ul ti ng in carc erat io n vi ol at e hi s Seco nd Am en dm en t rig ht to ke ep an d be ar arm s. "To th e ex te nt [Ro ach ] br in gs a faci al ch al le ng e to § 9 2 2( g) , hi s arg um en ts are fo recl os ed by ou r ci rcu it pr eced en t." Uni te d St at es v. Aiel lo , 45 2 F. App 'x 69 9, 70 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ); se e al so Dis tri ct of Co lu m bi a v. Hell er, 55 4 U.S. 57 0, 62 6– 27 (2 00 8) ("[ N] ot hi ng in ou r op in io n sh ou ld be ta ke n to cas t do ub t on lo ng st an di ng pr oh ib it io ns
on th e po ss es si on of fir earm s by fel on s an d th e men ta ll y il l, or la ws fo rb id di ng th ecarr y in g of fir earm s in se ns it iv e pl aces su ch as sc ho ol s an d go ve rn m en t bu il di ng s, or

la ws i m po si ng co nd it io ns an d q ua li fic at io ns on th e co m m erci al sal e o f arm s." ).

W e aff irm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t. See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Cat he rin e D. Perr y , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1 fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.
-2

-
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALBERTO SOLORIO; et al.,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v. CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 17

- 16625
D.C. No. 1:16

- cv - 01319

- LJO

- BAM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O ’ Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 20, 2018 San Francisco, California Before: M. SMITH, NGUYEN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. J.S., by and through her parents Alberto and Alicia Solorio , appeal s the
district court’s affirmance of an Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) decision finding that, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. , Clovis Unified School District ’s 2016 individualized education program (IEP) was a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least

-

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

- 3. 

# FILED

JAN 15 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

restrictive environment (LRE)

. We affirm.
1. T he district court did not err in giving due weight to the ALJ’s decision,
which was careful, thoroug h, well

- reasoned, sensitive to the complexity of the relevant legal issues, and thus entitled substantial weight

. See Ojai Unified Sch.
Dist. v. Jackson , 4 F.3d 1467, 1476 (9th Cir. 1993)

. With respect to the persuasiveness of Patricia McVay’s testimony, th e ALJ was in the best position to determine the credibility of the relevant witnesses, s ee Amanda J. ex rel. Annette J. v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. , 267 F.3d 877, 889 (9th Cir. 2001) , and he offered sound
reasons for findin g McVay ’s testimony to be unpersuasive

. 2. There is sufficient evidence to support the determination that Clovis’s proposed IEP constitutes a FAPE in the LRE

. In b alancing t he relevant Rachel H. 1
factors , t he ALJ found that the factors concerning education al and non

- academic
benefits weighed in favor of a conclusion that the proposed IEP was a FAPE in the LRE, and that those factors outweighed the disruptiveness and cost factors. T he district court agreed

. Those findings were permissible under our case law, s ee ,
e.g. , Baquerizo v. Garden Grove Unified Sch

. Dist. , 8 26 F.3d 1179, 118 8 (9th Cir. 2016) , and we will not disturb them, see Van Duyn ex rel. Van Duyn v. Baker Sch

. Dist. , 502 F.3d 811, 817 (9th Cir. 2007)

. AFFIRMED.

1 Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist., Bd. of Educ. v. Rachel H. ex rel. Holland , 14 F.3d 1398, 1403 (9th Cir. 1994)

.
#### STATE ex rel. BOLIN v. WEBSTER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD et al.

No. 4969.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Feb. 5, 1935.

E. L. Richardson and Robt. F. Kennon, both of Minden, for appellants.

Langston & Thomas, of Minden, and Craig, Bolin, Magee & Baucum, of Shreveport, for appellee.

MILLS, Judge.

This case being regularly assigned and called for argument, and neither party appearing or filing briefs, the appeal will be considered abandoned and is accordingly dismissed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN – SOUTHERN DIVISION 

THE ESTATE OF MARIA PEROVICH, 

VICTOR GOJCAJ, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v Case No. 2:09-cv-12192-PJD-VMM 

 Hon. Patrick J. Duggan 

STERLING HEIGHTS POLICE OFFICER 

ANTOINETTE FETT, STERLING HEIGHTS 

SERGEANT DAVID CATTANEO, STERLING 

HEIGHTS POLICE OFFICER AARON BURGESS 

AND CLINTON TOWNSHIP POLICE DETECTIVE 

LEO MELISE, 

 Defendants. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________/ 

LAW OFFICES OF PATRICK J. MCQUEENEY 

Patrick J. McQueeney (P45797) 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

33830 Harper Avenue 

Clinton Township, MI 48035 

(586) 774-6363 

Fax: (586) 415-1210 

O’REILLY RANCILIO P.C. 

Jeffrey A. Bahorski (P41731) 

Marc D. Kaszubski (P60333) 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Sterling Heights Police Officer Antoinette Fett, 

Sterling Heights Sergeant David Cattaneo and 

Sterling Heights Police 

Officer Aaron Burgess 

12900 Hall Road, Suite 350 

Sterling Heights, MI 48313 

(586) 726-1000 

Fax: (586) 726-1560 

_____________________________________________________________________________________/ 

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

WITH PREJUDICE AND 

WITHOUT COSTS TO ANY PARTY 
 NOW COME the above-named parties, by and through their respective counsel, and 

hereby stipulate and agree to the dismissal of the above-captioned matter with prejudice and 

without costs to either party. 

/s/ Patrick J. McQueeny 

Patrick J. McQueeney 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

Patrickjmcqueeney@yahoo.com

(P45797) 

/s/ Marc D. Kaszubski

Marc D. Kaszubski 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Sterling Heights Police Officer Antoinette Fett, 

Sterling Heights Sergeant David Cattaneo and 

Sterling Heights Police 

Officer Aaron Burgess 

mkaszubski@orlaw.com

 (P60333) 

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

 The Court having read the attached Stipulation of the parties; and, the Court being fully 

advised in the premises herein, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned matter be dismissed with prejudice 

and without costs to either party pursuant to the foregoing Stipulation. 

 This Order resolves all pending claims and closes the case. 

 s/Patrick J. Duggan 

 Patrick J. Duggan 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: November 12, 2010November 12, 2010 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on 

November 12, 2010November 12, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Marilyn Orem 

 Case Manager 

J:\STERLING\Gojcaj v Wemple and Cattaneo\Pleadings\Dismissal Order.doc
EXHIBIT 31.3

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Tamrha V. Mangelsen, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Union Security Life Insurance Company of New York;

2. Based on my
knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our
supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: August 4, 2008



/s/    Tamrha V. MangelsenTamrha V. MangelsenTreasurer and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2009
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: April 29, 2011
    /s/ Ricardo Figueiredo BomenyRicardo Figueiredo BomenyChief Executive Officer and Acting Chief  Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TALLEN MARCE’ FLEMING, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES FEDERAL BUREAU OF

INVESTIGATION DETROIT MI FIELD OFFICE

and HENRY FORD COMMUNITY COLLEGE,

Defendants.

____________________________________/

Case No. 09-13449

HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

Before the Court is Plaintiff Tallen Marce’ Fleming, Jr.’s “Brief in Support for

Motion on Notice of Appeal,” (doc. 25), and Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis,

(doc. 26). Previously, this Court denied without prejudice Fleming’s application to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because Fleming had not included an affidavit

stating the issues he intended to present on appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(1)(C);

(doc. 24). In his new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Fleming appears to

have believed that his first application was rejected for a failure to comply with Federal

Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1)(A), which sets forth how applicants must show

their inability to pay the costs of appeal. Thus, he submitted documents that purport to

confirm his inability to pay. His application does not, however, state the issues he

intends to present on appeal; thus, it again fails to comply with Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1)(C).
2

But, Fleming’s “Brief in Support for Motion on Notice of Appeal does present

arguments concerning why this Court’s dismissal of Fleming’s complaint, (see doc. 20),

should be reversed. As such, this brief appears to set forth the issues Fleming intends

to present on appeal. Accordingly, the Court will consider this filing as a part of

Fleming’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Nevertheless, Fleming’s

application still fails because the Court cannot discern from the brief any coherent

argument or issue for appeal. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), “An appeal may not be

taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good

faith.” As Fleming has not set forth a basis for his appeal, the Court cannot find that the

appeal is taken in good faith. Accordingly, the Court CERTIFIES that Fleming’s appeal

is not taken in good faith and DENIES his Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on

Appeal, (doc. 26).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Marianne O. Battani 

MARIANNE O. BATTANI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: March 1, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon Plaintiff and counsel of record on this

date by ordinary mail and/or electronic filing.

 s/Bernadette M. Thebolt

 Case Manager
Exhibit 32.1

 

CERTIFICATIONS 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2007 of Everest Reinsurance Holdings, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware (the “Company”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as enacted by section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Date:  July 31, 2008

 

/S/ JOSEPH V. TARANTO

Joseph V. Taranto

Chairman and Chief

Executive Officer

 

/S/ CRAIG EISENACHER

Craig Eisenacher

Executive Vice President

and Chief Financial Officer

 

 

 

|   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|
Case 2:09-cv-12367-ADT-PJK Document 10 Filed 11/18/2009 Page 1 of 13Case 2:09-cv-12367-ADT-PJK Document 10 Filed 11/18/2009 Page 2 of 13Case 2:09-cv-12367-ADT-PJK Document 10 Filed 11/18/2009 Page 3 of 13Case 2:09-cv-12367-ADT-PJK Document 10 Filed 11/18/2009 Page 4 of 13Case 2:09-cv-12367-ADT-PJK Document 10 Filed 11/18/2009 Page 5 of 13Case 2:09-cv-12367-ADT-PJK Document 10 Filed 11/18/2009 Page 6 of 13Case 2:09-cv-12367-ADT-PJK Document 10 Filed 11/18/2009 Page 7 of 13Case 2:09-cv-12367-ADT-PJK Document 10 Filed 11/18/2009 Page 8 of 13Case 2:09-cv-12367-ADT-PJK Document 10 Filed 11/18/2009 Page 9 of 13Case 2:09-cv-12367-ADT-PJK Document 10 Filed 11/18/2009 Page 10 of 13Case 2:09-cv-12367-ADT-PJK Document 10 Filed 11/18/2009 Page 11 of 13Case 2:09-cv-12367-ADT-PJK Document 10 Filed 11/18/2009 Page 12 of 13Case 2:09-cv-12367-ADT-PJK Document 10 Filed 11/18/2009 Page 13 of 13
Exhibit 10.3

    

    

    

    

     

    February 5, 2020

     

    Better Choice Company, Inc. Board of Directors

    164 East Douglas Road

    Oldsmar, FL 34677

     

    
      
        	

              	Re:	
                Transition from Chief Executive Officer of Better Choice Company, Inc. to Executive Vice President, Corporate Development, of Better Choice Company, Inc.

              


      

    

     

    Dear Board of Directors:

     

    Please let this letter serve as my notice that I am stepping down as Chief Executive Officer of Better Choice Company, Inc., effective today, in order
      to transition into my new role as Executive Vice President, Corporate Development, of Better Choice Company, Inc, also effective today. I also will remain in my current role as a Director on the Board.

     

    In transitioning to my new role, I reserve all rights granted to me in my “Employment Agreement”, dated May 6, 2019, including, but not limited to,
      all of the terms in §6 of said “Employment Agreement”.

     

    I am confident that this arrangement will be best for the future of the company, as the incoming CEO, Werner von Pein, has a long track record of
      success in our industry, and my new role within the company will play to my strengths.

     

    	 	
            Sincerely Yours,

          
	 	 
	 	
            Damian Dalla-Longa

          
	 	
            Executive Vice President, Corporate Development

          
	 	
            Better Choice Company, Inc.
Exhibit 99.1

                              [Company Letterhead]

                                 March 20, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Judiciary Plaza

Washington, DC  20549

         Re:      CONFIRMATION OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN REPRESENTATIONS

      This letter confirms that Arch Wireless, Inc. has received from Arthur
Andersen LLP, the independent public accountant engaged by the company to
examine the company's financial statements that are included in the Form 10-K to
which this letter is filed as an exhibit, a representation letter addressed to
the company and stating that:

      o  the audit conducted by Andersen was subject to Andersen's quality
         control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide
         reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance
         with professional standards; and

      o  there was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on
         audits, availability of national office consultation and availability
         of personnel at foreign affiliates of Andersen to conduct the relevant
         portions of the audit.

                                Very truly yours,

                                ARCH WIRELESS, INC.


                                By: /S/ J. ROY POTTLE
                                   -----------------------
                                   Name: J. Roy Pottle
                                   Title:  Executive Vice President and
                                           Chief Financial Officer
TRAVIS CflwnY, TEXAS

'fcRUCt EMIM Item ^iJKSffl88L«. d^A.Cai£^^k^3VdR

1KB STKTf 6F TEXAS / y

APPELLANT" JftSE'ftfs M0T16H/ F0R Lib AVE ID Fllf #n^

WITH fiRl£P Ifl .SilfPDKT \

^

N(W> (Lanv^ 'ftrute. E^Km "3o<S*.p\\ V\imS<f$ Wftvefliw^ £ty\*ii atJi t^a4i AD *Hu& 4^

4r gtfW'.otv fl£ ^wt W*\k%tiet\tv 5^*r\ ^fecr putuan* to 1&.R, Ajjty, fV*c, ^

X

EH ^tveWarvsiAe^W »\Jai AfJVieA on^W \&^Aa^tTkWaan| ^G^tV^*^i^LS

Tk^vteA %& twV.k^cn Ur\\;\ \tae ib^Auj a^- T*Wuary a*isr» MAR l2 2015

TL.

i\ftpe\Wv\ \i<\krAawl WAtftlYike. ^>* ^Vv(*i\\*S COtoL£t>\ \»V \e\i\rioivs? ^Gf ifi?2r ^Alrl)

A^idWc Am$\«l \to U\dWWWit\o ^V tao^AW&vs Nta&ws^M txWbta*

ax\^» VWievJeX k^\\a»Jc ^C&uA*v& U«&«c oui\aWAav\te ©£ Ca^Co^W\Vs

U\W*\b Ldw^ K^AW\ ti to ^W>b\A\(\\WeWai\& ^>WW4 ^iWv^Urt

SV^A^\£Ve0^vS\VeSW^N^, ni

TV\^b \s ^ ^e\W\ Vvtlt Xto^e^ WOlk «X\tt\b\o<\ ^Vivwe^oVvW Wis MiV^rv

^T^vStriflotvasr^^NlleU vk^AWnVWm\>Vj \tQpe& ^eCoaAfe-^ilJflSScSS Vlha

\.