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

B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures Year
                  Q1
                  Q2
                  Q3
                  Q4
                  Total1987
          22
          19
          12
          16
          691988
          11
          6
          12
          7
          361989
          5
          7
          5
          5
          221990
          3
          5
          6
          3
          171991
          2
          2
          3
          1
          81992
          1
          1
          1
          4
          71993
          1
          2
          2
          0
          51994
          0
          0
          0
          0
          01995
          0
          0
          0
          0
          01996
          0
          2
          0
          0
          21997
          0
          0
          0
          1
          11998
          0
          0
          1
          0
          11999
          0
          1
          0
          0
          12000
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02001
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02002
          1
          0
          0
          1
          22003
          0
          1
          0
          0
          12004
          0
          1
          0
          0
          12005
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02006
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02007
          0
          0
          0
          0
          02008
          1
          n.a.
          n.a.
          n.a.
          n.a. Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure.
Industrial banks and mutual savings banks also are
excluded.  Agricultural banks are defined in the
introduction to section B.
   n.a. Not available.


Statistical releases

---

Home Economic research and data  Accessibility Contact Us  Last update: July 09, 2008
B.1. Farm Debt Outstanding at Commercial Banks

Loan volume Percent change from Percent change from

(billions of dollars) previous quarter previous year

Real Non-real- Real Non-real- Real Non-realTotal estate estate Total estate estate Total estate estate

Quarter loans loans loans loans loans loans loans loans loans

1996: Q4... 65.5 25.0 40.5 -1.6 .3 -2.8 2.8 4.6 1.8

1997: Q1... 63.8 25.4 38.4 -2.6 1.4 -5.1 3.4 5.5 2.0

 Q2... 69.0 26.2 42.8 8.2 3.3 11.5 5.1 6.2 4.4

 Q3... 71.1 27.0 44.2 3.0 2.9 3.1 6.8 8.1 6.0

 Q4... 71.3 27.1 44.2 .3 .7 .0 8.9 8.5 9.1

1998: Q1... 70.1 27.6 42.4 -1.7 1.8 -3.9 9.8 9.0 10.4

 Q2... 75.0 28.5 46.5 7.1 3.2 9.6 8.6 8.8 8.5

 Q3... 76.3 28.9 47.4 1.7 1.3 1.9 7.2 7.2 7.3

 Q4... 74.7 29.3 45.5 -2.0 1.3 -4.0 4.8 7.8 3.0

1999: Q1... 72.7 29.7 42.9 -2.8 1.7 -5.6 3.7 7.6 1.1

 Q2... 75.8 30.8 45.1 4.4 3.5 5.0 1.1 8.0 -3.1

 Q3... 76.8 31.4 45.5 1.3 1.9 .9 .7 8.6 -4.1

 Q4... 76.0 31.8 44.2 -1.0 1.5 -2.8 1.7 8.8 -2.8

2000: Q1... 71.5 31.4 40.1 -5.9 -1.4 -9.2 -1.6 5.5 -6.5

 Q2... 79.7 33.7 45.9 11.4 7.5 14.4 5.0 9.6 1.9

 Q3... 80.1 33.9 46.2 .6 .5 .6 4.3 8.1 1.6

 Q4... 80.9 34.0 46.9 1.0 .3 1.5 6.4 6.8 6.1

2001: Q1... 79.4 34.3 45.1 -1.9 .8 -3.9 11.0 9.2 12.4

 Q2... 82.9 35.1 47.7 4.4 2.5 5.8 4.0 4.2 3.9

 Q3... 82.5 35.4 47.1 -.4 .8 -1.3 3.0 4.5 2.0

 Q4... 82.2 35.6 46.7 -.3 .4 -.9 1.6 4.6 -.5

2002: Q1... 80.1 36.0 44.1 -2.6 1.2 -5.5 .9 4.9 -2.2

 Q2... 83.7 37.0 46.7 4.4 2.7 5.9 1.0 5.1 -2.1

 Q3... 84.4 37.7 46.7 .9 2.1 -.1 2.3 6.5 -.9

 Q4... 83.9 38.0 45.9 -.6 .6 -1.6 2.0 6.8 -1.7

2003: Q1... 82.0 38.7 43.3 -2.3 1.9 -5.7 2.4 7.5 -1.9

 Q2... 84.5 39.6 44.9 3.1 2.5 3.7 1.1 7.3 -3.9

 Q3... 85.5 40.2 45.4 1.2 1.4 1.0 1.4 6.5 -2.8

 Q4... 86.1 40.6 45.5 .6 1.1 .2 2.7 7.0 -.9

2004: Q1... 84.3 41.4 42.9 -2.1 1.9 -5.7 2.8 7.0 -.9

 Q2... 88.9 42.9 46.0 5.4 3.6 7.2 5.2 8.3 2.4

 Q3... 91.5 43.9 47.6 2.9 2.3 3.5 6.9 9.2 4.9

 Q4... 92.3 44.5 47.7 .8 1.5 .2 7.1 9.6 4.9

2005: Q1... 89.3 45.0 44.3 -3.2 1.1 -7.2 5.9 8.7 3.3

 Q2... 93.5 46.2 47.3 4.7 2.7 6.6 5.1 7.7 2.7

 Q3... 96.7 47.1 49.5 3.4 2.0 4.8 5.7 7.4 4.0

 Q4... 97.5 47.6 49.9 .9 1.0 .8 5.7 6.9 4.6

2006: Q1... 96.2 48.4 47.7 -1.4 1.8 -4.4 7.7 7.6 7.7

 Q2... 101.0 49.8 51.2 5.1 2.9 7.2 8.1 7.8 8.3

 Q3... 104.2 51.1 53.0 3.1 2.5 3.6 7.8 8.4 7.1

 Q4... 105.4 52.2 53.2 1.2 2.1 .3 8.1 9.7 6.5

2007: Q1... 105.0 53.4 51.6 -.4 2.3 -3.0 9.2 10.2 8.1

 Q2... 109.3 54.8 54.5 4.1 2.7 5.6 8.2 9.9 6.5

 Q3... 110.8 56.0 54.9 1.4 2.2 .6 6.4 9.5 3.4

 Q4... 112.3 56.8 55.5 1.3 1.5 1.2 6.6 8.9 4.3

2008: Q1... 110.4 57.9 52.5 -1.7 1.9 -5.3 5.2 8.5 1.8

 Q2... 117.4 60.4 57.0 6.3 4.4 8.5 7.4 10.3 4.5

 Q3... 119.9 61.6 58.3 2.1 1.9 2.4 8.2 10.0 6.3

 Q4... 121.6 63.0 58.6 1.4 2.3 .4 8.3 10.9 5.6

2009: Q1... 118.8 63.9 54.9 -2.3 1.3 -6.2 7.6 10.3 4.6

 Note. Data are as of end of quarter.

21
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.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

          - [Docket 24-2008] 

A request has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by Hawker Beechcraft Corporation (HBC) to amend the company's application requesting special-purpose subzone status for the company's aircraft manufacturing facilities located in Wichita and Salina, Kansas. 

                    HBC is now requesting to correct the HTSUS number for the finished product as described in the original                     **Federal Register**                     notice (Docket 24-2008, 73 FR 21903-21904, 4/23/08) to accurately reflect the category of aircraft that are produced at the company's facilities. The correct HTSUS number should be 8802.30 (airplanes and other aircraft of an unladen weight exceeding 2,000 kg but not exceeding 15,000 kg). There is no change to the duty rate (duty-free) and the finished products will be manufactured using the same imported parts and components (duty-free to 15 percent) as described in the original                     **Federal Register**                     notice.                 

Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address listed below. The closing period for their receipt is October 27, 2008. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period (to November 10, 2008). 

                    A copy of the application amendment will be available at each of the following addresses: U.S. Department of Commerce Export Assistance Center, 150 North Main Street, Suite 200, Wichita, Kansas; and, Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. For further information contact Christopher Kemp at                     *christopher_kemp@ita.doc.gov*                     or (202) 482-0862.                 

Dated: September 19, 2008. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-22716 Filed 9-25-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Exhibit 32.2

                CERTIFICATION 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 Meditech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company") Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended May 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Steven
I. Kern, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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, as amended, and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents in all
          material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
          the Company.





By:  /s/  STEVEN I. KERN
   -------------------------------
          STEVEN I. KERN
          President and Chief Financial Officer


September 15, 2003
18

A.13. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Small and Mid-sized Farm Lenders, by Risk Rating, APercent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not rateVolume of loans (thousands of dollars) 285,178 34,558 108,156 53,439 27,938 n.a. 13,98Number of loans 8,353 1,174 1,990 1,859 741 n.a. 56Weighted average maturity (months)1 47.37 10.58 82.43 11.50 40.72 n.a. 105.1

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 16.16 n.a. 105.04 12.63 2.33 1.00 2.0

Weighted average risk rating3 4.00 n.a. n.a. n.a. 24.47 5.20 28.3

Weighted average interest rate4 8.51 8.62 8.02 8.75 9.42 n.a. 8.5

 Standard error5 .22 .29 .31 .23 .47 .27 .0

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 8.52 9.26 9.84 9.40 9.40 8.44 9.3 25th percentile 8.13 7.14 8.28 9.34 7.76 7.76 9.2 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 9.36 n.a. n.a. 8.25 9.19 9.28 9.1 Other livestock 9.65 n.a. n.a. 8.95 9.03 8.59 8.6 Other current operating expenses7 9.77 n.a. 9.37 9.24 8.29 9.03 8.1

 Farm machinery and equipment 8.68 n.a. 9.41 8.16 7.92 6.87 8.1 Farm real estate 8.01 n.a. 7.91 9.65 7.44 7.23 7.1 Other8 10.91 n.a. n.a. 8.45 43.49 23.47 69.1

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 75.52 n.a. .68 19.11 61.53 37.38 83.8 Under commitment 63.32 n.a. 21.50 12.04 6.45 32.46 2.4 Callable 70.91 n.a. n.a. 9.08 2.41 .23 .8 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 5.20 n.a. n.a. 5.46 6.45 25.08 1.2 Other livestock .51 n.a. 10.63 9.42 41.85 31.91 43.7 Other current operating expenses7 73.91 n.a. 26.25 42.10 21.15 3.64 10.1

 Farm machinery and equipment 1.61 n.a. 9.18 35.74 7.06 5.35 4.2 Farm real estate 17.94 n.a. 53.94 .12 17.04 1.56 38.2 Other8 .83 n.a. n.a. 7.16 22.10 7.90 29.2

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 30.71 n.a. 53.94 9.41 61.01 89.34 48.0 Other 68.91 n.a. 43.63 87.12 n.a. n.a. n.a Note. Most small and mid-sized farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had less than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
#### Diane F. Leibel, Plaintiff, v Flynn Hill Elevator Company, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. County of Suffolk, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. (And Another Action.)

[809 NYS2d 519]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated September 23, 2004, as, upon reargument, granted the motion of the defendant third-party plaintiff for leave to amend its third-party complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the contentions of the third-party defendant, County of Suffolk, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting, upon reargument, that branch of the motion of the defendant third-party plaintiff (hereinafter the respondent) which was for leave to amend its third-party complaint *(see*CPLR 3025 [b]; *Nunez v Mousouras,*21 AD3d 355 [2005]; *Hilltop Nyack Corp. v TRMI Holdings,*275 AD2d 440 [2000]). The County failed to demonstrate that it would be prejudiced by the respondent’s delay, and the proposed amendment was neither palpably insufficient nor totally devoid of merit *(see*CPLR 3025 [b]; *Nunez v Mousouras, supra; Hilltop Nyack Corp. v TRMI Holdings, supra; cf. Comsewogue Union Free School Dist. v Allied-Trent Roofing Sys., Inc.,*15 AD3d 523, 525 [2005]).

An indemnification provision in a contract in connection with the construction, repair, or maintenance of a building and appurtenances and appliances thereof that seeks to indemnify a party for its own negligence is void as against public policy and unenforceable *(see*General Obligations Law § 5-322.1; *see also*
      *769
      *Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.,*89 NY2d 786, 795 [1997]; *Leibel v Flynn Hill El. Co.,*16 AD3d 464, 465 [2005]; *Carriere v Whiting Turner Contr.,*299 AD2d 509, 511 [2002]). However, insurance procurement provisions are valid and enforceable and are not proscribed by General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 *(see Kinney v Lisk Co.,*76 NY2d 215, 218-219 [1990]; *Cappellino v Atco Mech.,*273 AD2d 265 [2000]; *Reynolds v County of Westchester,*270 AD2d 473, 474 [2000]). The County’s contention to the contrary is without merit.

The County’s remaining contentions are without merit. Goldstein, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Lunn, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 23, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22373]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


In the Matter of Quality Resorts of America, Inc., Quentra 
Networks, Inc., and Quokka Sports, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

September 19, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Quality Resorts of America, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic 
reports since the period ended June 30, 1997.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Quentra Networks, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports 
since the period ended September 30, 2000.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Quokka Sports, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports since 
the period ended December 31, 2000.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the 
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT 
on September 19, 2008, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on October 2, 2008.

    By the Commission.
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22373 Filed 9-19-08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
NO. 07-03-0114-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL C JULY 11, 2003

______________________________ DAVID LLOYD CECIL,

Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 108 TH DISTRIC T COURT O F POTT ER COUNTY; NO. 45515-E; HON. ABE LOPEZ, PRESIDING

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and REAV IS, JJ. Appellant

David Ll oyd Cecil appeals his conviction of aggrav ated sexual assault. His court-appointed counsel has moved to withdraw after filing abrief pursuant to Anders v. Californi

a, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2 d 493 (1967), and representing she has searched the record and found no a rguable g rounds for reversal. The motion and brief indicate that appellant w as informed of his r ights to revie w the appell ate record and file his own brief. So too di d we inform appel lantthat any pro se response or br ief he cared to file had to be filed by

June 30, 2003. To date, appellant has filed no pro se response or bri ef.2

In compliance w ith the princ iples enunciated in Anders, a ppellate counsel discussed one potential areafor appeal which concerned the denial of ap pellant’s motion to suppress his statement because i t was inv oluntary. The statemen t was tak en at a mental healt h facility (the Pavi lion) after appel lant had told hi s wife and hi s daughter that he had been h aving inap propriate sex ual contact w ith his gr anddaughter and had also acted in a manner whi ch c ause d hi s w ife to fear he was suicidal. Howev er, counsel ex plained that there is nothing in the record to indicate t hat he was threatened or pr omised anythi ng by l a w enforcement officers i n return for hi s confession or that his statement was any

thing other than voluntar

y. There w

as also a deter mination that he was competent to stand trial. So too have we conducted an independe nt review of the record to determine whether there exi sted rever

sible erro r and found none. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 ( Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (re quiring us to conduct an independent rev iew). A hearing was held outside the pres ence of the jury to determine that the child victim could tes tify via clo sed circui t televis ion, and there w as evidence that the procedur e was necessary to protect the welfare of the child, the child w ould be traumatiz ed by facing her grandfather

in the courtr

oom as opposed to the courtroom gener ally, and the emotion al distress s uffered by the chil d would be mor e than mere nervousness. See Dufrenev . State, 853 S.W.2d 86, 90 (Tex. App.--H ouston [14 th Dist.] 1993, pet. ref’d). The re were also no objections to the jury charge, and we have found no egregious harm . Further, the punishment

assessed was withi n that prescr ibed by law , and the law permi ts the cumulation of appellant’s senten ce in this cause w ith that for another offense arising out of the same criminal episode. T EX . P EN . C ODE A NN . §3.03(b)(2)( A) (Vernon 2003).3

Acco rdin gly, counsel’s moti on to withdr aw is g ranted, and the j udgment of the tri al court is affirmed.
Brian Quinn Justice Do not publish

.
#### Paula Wilkins, Appellant, v Alexander Burgess, Respondent.

[807 NYS2d 574]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Carey, J.H.O.) dated March 9, 2005, which denied her cross motion to extend the time to serve the summons and complaint pursuant to CPLR 306-b.

*795Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs cross motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint *(see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer,*97 NY2d 95 [2001]). The plaintiff failed to establish that good cause existed to extend the time for service. The Supreme Court determined after a hearing that service upon the defendant had not been established. Thus, there is no merit to the plaintiffs claim that she exercised reasonable diligence in serving the defendant and in relying upon the process server’s affidavit. The description contained in the affidavit of the person served bore little or no resemblance to the defendant, with whom the plaintiff once lived.

The plaintiff also failed to establish her entitlement to an extension in the interest of justice. She demonstrated an extreme lack of diligence in timely commencing the action and prosecuting it thereafter *(see Slate v Schiavone Constr. Co.,*4 NY3d 816 [2005]). Moreover, other relevant factors, such as the plaintiffs failure to establish that she had a meritorious claim, and the prejudice to the defendant if an extension were to be granted, demonstrate that the plaintiff is not entitled to an extension in the interest of justice *(see Kazimierski v New York Univ.,*18 AD3d 820 [2005]). H. Miller, J.P., Crane, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1922 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1922

 To ban the importation of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, 
 and to extend the ban on transferring such devices to those that were 
                manufactured before the ban became law.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2001

    Ms. DeGette (for herself, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Blagojevich, Mr. 
Blumenauer, Ms. Brown of Florida, Ms. Carson of Indiana, Mrs. Jones of 
Ohio, Ms. Norton, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. 
Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Wynn, 
 Mr. Coyne, Mr. Frank, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. McGovern, Mr. George Miller 
 of California, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Mrs. Tauscher, and Mr. Moran 
 of Virginia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To ban the importation of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, 
 and to extend the ban on transferring such devices to those that were 
                manufactured before the ban became law.

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

SECTION 1. BAN ON IMPORTING LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

    Section 922(w) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(1) Except as provided 
        in paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``(1)(A) Except as provided in 
        subparagraph (B)'';
            (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(2) Paragraph (1)'' and 
        inserting ``(B) Subparagraph (A)'';
            (3) by inserting before paragraph (3) the following:
    ``(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to import a large 
capacity ammunition feeding device.''; and
            (4) in paragraph (4)--
                    (A) by striking ``(1)'' each place it appears and 
                inserting ``(1)(A)''; and
                    (B) by striking ``(2)'' and inserting ``(1)(B)''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF BAN ON TRANSFERRING LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION 
              FEEDING DEVICES TO THOSE THAT WERE MANUFACTURED BEFORE 
              THE BAN BECAME LAW.

    (a) Elimination of Exemption for Transfer of Devices Lawfully 
Possessed Before Enactment of the Ban.--Section 922(w)(1)(B) of title 
18, United States Code, as so redesignated by section 1 of this Act, is 
amended by striking ``or transfer''.
    (b) Expanded Definition.--Section 921(a)(31)(A) of such title is 
amended by striking ``manufactured after the date of enactment of the 
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994''.
                                 <all>
```