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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains  summary  financial data extracted from the consolidated
balance sheet and the consolidated  statements of operations and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001023745
<NAME>                        Voicenet, Inc.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,979,182
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          824
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,980,006
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,067,497
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              118,029
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            33,387
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,067,497
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      218,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    218,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       218,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0





</TABLE>
11

A.7. Distribution of Dollar Amount of Non-real-estate Farm Loans, by Effective Interest RatePercent

Effective interest rate (percent)

Zero 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 

All to to to to to to to to to to to to to to 

Quarter rates 4.9 5.9 6.9 7.9 8.9 9.9 10.9 11.9 12.9 13.9 14.9 15.9 16.9 17.9 1994: Q3... 100 4.00 4.00 20.00 21.00 23.00 24.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 .01 .01 * * * 1995: Q3... 100 * * 5.00 15.00 8.00 30.00 30.00 10.00 1.00 1.00 * * .01 * 1996: Q3... 100 * .01 15.00 18.00 25.00 22.00 15.00 4.00 1.00 .01 .01 .01 .01 * 1997: Q3... 100 * .01 5.00 3.00 33.00 33.00 17.00 8.00 2.00 .01 .01 .01 * * 1998: Q3... 100 * .01 8.00 10.00 30.00 29.00 16.00 6.00 .01 .01 * * .01 * 1999: Q3... 100 * 2.00 4.00 10.00 35.00 32.00 12.00 4.00 1.00 .01 .01 .01 * * 2000: Q3... 100 .01 .01 1.00 1.00 16.00 30.00 28.00 19.00 5.00 1.00 .01 .01 .01 .01 2001: Q3... 100 1.10 9.00 23.00 25.00 25.00 12.00 3.00 1.00 .26 .01 * * * * 2002: Q3... 100 26.33 27.25 18.41 15.57 8.76 2.82 .49 .29 .06 * * * * * 2003: Q3... 100 41.83 23.79 18.38 11.11 3.67 .77 .22 .04 .04 .02 .02 .02 * * 2004: Q3... 100 36.91 26.22 18.99 12.61 3.57 1.35 .27 .05 * .02 * * * * 2005: Q3... 100 8.94 14.99 34.66 24.51 14.68 1.94 .21 .05 .02 .01 .01 * * * 2002: Q1... 100 23.76 17.31 19.76 23.14 10.76 4.30 .80 .00 .00 * .00 .00 * .00  Q2... 100 23.24 22.45 17.77 22.77 10.15 2.75 .77 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  Q3... 100 26.33 27.25 18.41 15.57 8.76 2.82 .49 .29 .06 * * * * *  Q4... 100 38.69 23.76 14.20 12.97 7.73 2.02 .44 .04 .04 .04 .02 .02 * * 2003: Q1... 100 37.28 22.16 18.64 14.73 4.88 1.72 .47 .02 .02 * * * * *  Q2... 100 27.25 23.90 21.19 18.64 6.55 1.77 .51 .08 .08 * .03 * * *  Q3... 100 41.83 23.79 18.38 11.11 3.67 .77 .22 .04 .04 .02 .02 .02 * *  Q4... 100 46.26 21.96 16.40 10.95 3.03 1.10 .25 * .02 * .02 * * * 2004: Q1... 100 43.84 22.35 17.33 11.30 3.56 1.16 .27 .05 .05 * .07 .02 * *  Q2... 100 42.54 25.54 17.44 10.50 3.02 .61 .25 .02 .05 * .02 * * *  Q3... 100 36.91 26.22 18.99 12.61 3.57 1.35 .27 .05 * .02 * * * *  Q4... 100 31.55 30.94 19.15 11.56 4.82 1.21 .67 .04 .02 .04 * * * * 2005: Q1... 100 11.07 19.85 27.21 29.30 11.22 1.06 .17 .13 * * * * .00 .00  Q2... 100 6.46 19.30 39.57 24.01 8.33 1.98 .19 .13 .02 * * .00 * *  Q3... 100 8.94 14.99 34.66 24.51 14.68 1.94 .21 .05 .02 .01 .01 * * *  Note. Non-real-estate farm loans of $1,000 or more made by insured commercial banks. Effective (compounded) annual interest from the stated rate and other terms of the loans and weighted by loan size. Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. * Indicates value of zero. Source. Federal Reserve Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, conducted during the first full business week of the sequarter.
#### In the Matter of John Park, Appellant, v John A. Kapica et al., Respondents.

[808 NYS2d 758]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to annul the appointment of a hearing officer, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lange, J.), dated October 20, 2003, which, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner’s disability payments constituted a property right giving rise to the procedural due process protection of an evidentiary hearing before they could be terminated *(see Matter of City of Cohoes [Uniform Firefighters of Cohoes, Local 2562, IAFF, AFL-CIO],*94 NY2d 686, 689 [2000]). The procedures for terminating disability payments under General Municipal Law § 207-c must be read in conjunction with Civil Service Law § 75 *802
      *(see Matter of Hodella v Chief of Police of Town of Greenburgh,*73 AD2d 967, 968 [1980]). Civil Service Law § 75 (2) expressly authorizes the delegation of evidentiary hearings to *“a*deputy or other person designated.” The Town could therefore properly delegate the conduct of this hearing to a hearing officer under General Municipal Law § 207-c and Civil Service Law § 75 (2).

Contrary to the petitioner’s contentions, Westchester County Police Act (hereinafter WCPA) § 7 (L 1936, ch 104, as amd by L 1941, ch 812) which does not permit the delegation of hearing authority, is inapplicable as it pertains to matters of police discipline *(see Matter of Town of Greenburgh [Police Assn. of Town of Greenburgh],*94 AD2d 771 [1983]). The WCPA is a special legislative enactment that would only supersede the Civil Service Law on matters of discipline *(see Matter of Steinmann v Village of Spring Val.,*261 AD2d 548, 549 [1999]). Here, disciplinary charges were never preferred against the petitioner, as the parties’ dispute was instead limited to the petitioner’s disability status. Accordingly, the Town’s delegation of the disability hearing to a hearing officer, and its adoption of the hearing officer’s findings and recommendations requiring the petitioner to return to work, were appropriate *(see Matter of Curley v Dilworth,*96 AD2d 903 [1983]).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Crane, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FEBRUARY
28, 1997 COMPANY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ERGOBILT, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   2-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                       1,006,846
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,291,583
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,833,168
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               264,094
<PP&E>                                       2,667,084
<DEPRECIATION>                                 219,990
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,436,445
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,453,765
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           606
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,352,484
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,436,445
<SALES>                                      1,348,078
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,348,078
<CGS>                                          861,038
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  861,038
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (12,678)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (41,264)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,992)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (39,272)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (39,272)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Dawn Scovill 

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00226-JL

Stephanie Gray

O R D E R

The Preliminary Pretrial Conference was held in chambers on

August 25, 2008.

The Discovery Plan (document no. 12) is approved as

submitted, with the following changes in deadlines:

DISCOVERY

TRACK ASSIGNMENT: Expedited - 6 Month Track - February 2009

CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE/PROTECTION OF TRIAL PREPARATION

MATERIALS (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)):

Any discovery produced, electronic or otherwise,

containing privileged information or attorney work

product shall be immediately returned if the

documents appear on their face to have been

inadvertently produced or if there is notice of

the inadvertent production. All copies of said

inadvertently produced discovery shall be returned

or destroyed by the receiving party. In all

circumstances, Rule 26(b)(5)(B) shall apply.

COMPLETION OF DISCOVERY: December 21, 2008

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION: November 30, 2008

Case 1:08-cv-00226-JL Document 13 Filed 08/25/08 Page 1 of 3
2

DEPOSITIONS: December 21, 2008

DATES OF DISCLOSURE OF EXPERTS AND EXPERTS’ WRITTEN REPORTS

AND SUPPLEMENTATIONS:

Plaintiff’s Expert Disclosure: October 1, 2008

Defendant’s Expert Disclosure: December 1, 2008

Depositions of Plaintiff’s Experts: December 21, 2008

Depositions of Defendant’s Experts: December 21, 2008

Supplementations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) are due 15

days prior to the close of discovery.

CHALLENGES TO EXPERT TESTIMONY (both): December 30, 2008

OTHER ITEMS

JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES: November 1, 2008

THIRD PARTY ACTIONS: November 1, 2008

AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS: November 1, 2008

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS:

Motions for Summary Judgment: October 1, 2008

MEDIATION:

The parties will notify the court by December 1,

2008, regarding their plans for mediation. Any

party declining to participate shall show good cause

why mediation is not appropriate for this case.

TRIAL ESTIMATE:

2-3 days

TRIAL DATE:

February 3, 2009

Case 1:08-cv-00226-JL Document 13 Filed 08/25/08 Page 2 of 3
3

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: August 25, 2008

cc: David P. Cullenberg, Esq.

Wilfred J. Desmarais, Jr., Esq.

Case 1:08-cv-00226-JL Document 13 Filed 08/25/08 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 23
                                                                      ----------

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-87806 and 333-13269) of Converse Inc. of our
report dated February 18, 1998, appearing in Converse Inc.'s January 3, 1998
Annual Report on Form 10-K.  We also consent to the application of such report
to the Financial Statement Schedule for the three years ended January 3, 1998
when such schedule is read in conjunction with the financial statements referred
to in our report.  The audits referred to in such report also included this
Financial Statement Schedule.


/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP
PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP


Boston, Massachusetts

March 31, 1998
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-39-PB

Thomas Parodi

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the November 1, 2005

trial in the above case. The parties have negotiated a plea

agreement and a plea hearing has been scheduled for November 15,

2005. The government does not object to a continuance of the

trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason, the court will continue

the trial date from November 1, 2005 until December 6, 2005. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

October 20, 2005

cc: Richard Monteith, Esq.

Mark Irish, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00039-PB Document 22 Filed 10/20/05 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Terry T. Thomas

v. Civil No. 07-cv-385-PB

NH State Prison, Warden

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the filing fee. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge 

Date: December 6, 2007

cc: Terry T. Thomas, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00385-PB Document 3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 1 of 1

Thomas v. NH State Prison, Warden Doc. 3

Dockets.Justia.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

John Locapo

v. Civil No. 08-cv-00414-JL

Brian Colasia

 O R D E R

The plaintiff’s pro se motion for preliminary injunction

(document no. 14) is denied without prejudice as procedurally

improper. "A district court enjoys wide latitude in managing its

docket and can require represented parties to present motions

through counsel.” United States v. Tracy, 989 F.2d 1279, 1286

(1st Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1031 (1994). The court

will accept no further pro se filings by the plaintiff. 

Plaintiff's counsel is directed to make, under her signature and

all that entails under Rule 11, all future filings with the

court. The same ruling is made as to the motion for oral

argument (document #15), although the court notes that it holds

oral argument on all dispositive motions. 

SO ORDERED.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Dated: March 6, 2009

cc: Mary Notaris, Esq.

Joseph A. Foster, Esq.

Kenneth D. Murphy, Esq.

John Locapo

Case 1:08-cv-00414-JL Document 16 Filed 03/06/09 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Office of Personnel Management

          - 5 CFR Part 532 
          - RIN 3206-AL68 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 

# ACTION:

Final rule.

# SUMMARY:

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management is issuing a final rule to add St. Charles and St. John the Baptist Parishes, Louisiana, to the survey area of the New Orleans, LA, appropriated fund Federal Wage System wage area. The purpose of this change is to ensure the lead agency for the New Orleans wage area is able to obtain wage data that best represent the prevailing rates paid by businesses in the area. 

# DATES:

*Effective date:*                         This regulation is effective on September 18, 2008.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Madeline Gonzalez, (202) 606-2838; e-mail:                         *pay-performance-policy@opm.gov*; or Fax: (202) 606-4264.                     

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On July, 9 2008, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued an interim rule (73 FR 39213) to add St. Charles and St. John the Baptist Parishes, Louisiana, to the survey area of the New Orleans, LA, appropriated fund Federal Wage System (FWS) wage area. The interim rule had a 30-day public comment period, during which OPM received no comments. 

This change will be effective for the next full-scale wage survey in the wage area, which is scheduled to begin in November 2008. 

## Regulatory Flexibility Act 

I certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they will affect only Federal agencies and employees. 

# List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532

      - Administrative practice and procedure
      - Freedom of information
      - Government employees
      - Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
      - Wages

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 

Michael W. Hager, 

Acting Director.

Accordingly, under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 5343, the interim rule published on July 9, 2008, amending 5 CFR part 532 (73 FR 39213) is adopted as final with no changes.

[FR Doc. E8-21831 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325-39-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Elena Katz, et al.

v. Case No. 07-cv-383-PB

NH Department of Health and Human Services, et al.

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated December 6, 2007, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

January 9, 2008 /s/ Paul Barbadoro

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Elena Katz, Pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00383-PB Document 12 Filed 01/09/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-10-PB

Phuong Luong, et al.

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

March 6, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to complete discovery and engage in plea

negotiations or prepare a defense. The government and codefendant, Dung Nguyen, do not object to a continuance of the

trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from March 6, 2007 to June 5, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the 

Case 1:07-cr-00010-PB Document 17 Filed 02/23/07 Page 1 of 2
2

best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy

trial.

The court will hold a final pretrial conference on May 22,

2007 at 3:15 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

February 23, 2007

cc: Adam Bernstein, Esq.

Jennifer Cole Davis, AUSA

Stanley Norkunas, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00010-PB Document 17 Filed 02/23/07 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-60380

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BOBBY C. DOZIER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:10-CR-107-1

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Bobby C. Dozier pleaded guilty to possession of a computer hard drive

containing images of child pornography, and the district court sentenced him to

a below-guidelines 30-months in prison to be followed by five years of supervised

release. On direct appeal, Dozier asserts, for the first time, that his trial

attorney rendered ineffective assistance because he failed to comply with the

court-imposed deadlines for preparing his expert witness for trial and, thus,

failed to present a defense.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 9, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-60380 Document: 00511849587 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/09/2012
No. 11-60380

“[T]he general rule in this circuit is that a claim of ineffective assistance

of counsel cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been

raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record

on the merits of the allegations.” United States v. Gulley, 526 F.3d 809, 821 (5th

Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The alleged

ineffectiveness of Dozier’s counsel cannot be resolved from the evidence

contained in the record and, if warranted, would require consideration of matters

outside the record. See United States v. Navejar, 963 F.2d 732, 735 (5th Cir.

1992). 

Accordingly,we decline to address Dozier’s ineffective assistance of counsel

claims, but without prejudice to his right to raise them in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255

proceeding. See United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir. 1987). The

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

2

Case: 11-60380 Document: 00511849587 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/09/2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America,

Plaintiff

 

v. Case No. 08-cr-103-01-SM

Luis Escribano-Cora,

 Defendants

O R D E R

Defendant Cora’s motion to continue the trial is granted (document no.

19). Trial has been rescheduled for the month of February 2010. Defendant

Cora shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than January 29, 2010. 

On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be effective. 

 The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial,

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Case 1:08-cr-00103-SM Document 20 Filed 01/20/10 Page 1 of 2
2

Change of Plea Hearing: January 22, 2010 at 3:30 p.m. 

Final Pretrial Conference, if necessary, is scheduled for February 12,

2010 at 2:00 p.m. 

Jury selection, if necessary, will take place on February 17, 2010 at 

9:30 a.m. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

January 20, 2010

cc: Stanley Norkunas, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:08-cr-00103-SM Document 20 Filed 01/20/10 Page 2 of 2