alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Julia L. Bradshaw","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/julia-l-bradshawnasa-gov\/","title":"University Teams Selected as Finalists to Envision New Aviation Responses to Natural Disasters\u00a0","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"6tphONH5YN\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/langley\/university-teams-selected-as-finalists-to-envision-new-aviation-responses-to-natural-disasters\/\">University Teams Selected as Finalists to Envision New Aviation Responses to Natural Disasters\u00a0<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/langley\/university-teams-selected-as-finalists-to-envision-new-aviation-responses-to-natural-disasters\/embed\/#?secret=6tphONH5YN\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“University Teams Selected as Finalists to Envision New Aviation Responses to Natural Disasters\u00a0” — NASA\" data-secret=\"6tphONH5YN\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/2024-blue-skies-constant-contact-email-banner-for-linkedin-1040-\u00d7-320-px.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":185}
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jeanette Hankins,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04278-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: November 27, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9098 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
      This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements of ATEC Group, Inc. as at and for the three
months ended September 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,066,732
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,413,817
<ALLOWANCES>                                       550,000
<INVENTORY>                                      1,103,534
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,784,807
<PP&E>                                           1,743,739
<DEPRECIATION>                                     968,417
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,111,998
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,685,582
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                        321,090
<COMMON>                                            73,270
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,032,056
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,111,998
<SALES>                                         20,188,643
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,188,643
<CGS>                                           16,370,936
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,370,936
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,357,976
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    (5,011)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      13
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    464,729
<INCOME-TAX>                                       194,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                270,129
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       270,129
<EPS-BASIC>                                          .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .04



</TABLE>
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: MICHAEL D. MERRYFIELD; 

SHARON A. MERRYFIELD,

 Debtors.

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

BRUCE A. YOUNG, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL D. MERRYFIELD; SHARON 

A. MERRYFIELD,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-6243

(D.C. No. 5:14-CV-00864-HE)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

This matter is before the court to address the matter of the appellant’s death. 

Because no one has entered an appearance as a substitute party for the deceased appellant 

or otherwise taken any steps to prosecute the appeal since June 2015, we now dismiss the 

appeal for lack of prosecution. 10th Cir. R. 42.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 21, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-6243 Document: 01019479165 Date Filed: 08/21/2015 Page: 1 
2

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 14-6243 Document: 01019479165 Date Filed: 08/21/2015 Page: 2
#### Philbrick *v.*Goodwin.

On a trial of the right of property in goods taken in execution, the claimant cannot recover unless he prove himself entitled to the immediate possession of the goods.

Saturday, *December*16.

ERROR to the *Dearborn*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

— This was a trial of the right of property claimed by *Goodwin.*An execution had issued in favour of *Philbrick*against the goods of one Jackson, and was levied *19on a wagon, &c., found in the latter’s possession. There was a trial of the right of property before a justice of the peace, and judgment rendered in favour of the claimant.

*J. Ryman*and *P. L.*Spooner, for the plaintiff.

*E.*Dumont, for the defendant.

On the trial in the Circuit Court on appeal, the claimant gave in evidence a mortgage in his favour on the goods in question, executed by *Jackson*before the execution on which they had been taken was issued. The mortgage stated that before its execution, the mortgagee had become the surety of *Jackson*for the payment of two promissory notes not then due; that if the mortgagor should pay the notes as they became due, and keep the mortgagee harmless, the deed should, be void; and that until the forfeiture of the mortgage, the mortgagor should have the use of the property, but should not dispose of it without the mortgagee’s consent. The mortgage, at the time of the trial, had not been forfeited, the •notes mentioned in it not being 'due, and the mortgagee having lost nothing by his suretyship. On this evidence, judgment was rendered for the claimant.

As the execution-defendant was in possession of the goods at the date of the mortgage, which was before the execution issued, and continued to possess them under the express terms of the mortgage until the time of the trial, the claimant had no right to recover. *Hamilton*v. Mitchell, 6 Blackf. 131.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is reversed with' costs. Cause remanded, &c.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7405

MARC PIERRE HALL,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN ANDREWS,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:18-hc-02058-D)

Submitted: May 16, 2019 Decided: May 20, 2019

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marc Pierre Hall, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marc Pierre Hall, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we 

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hall v. Andrews, No. 5:18-hc-02058-D 

(E.D.N.C. Nov. 5, 2018). We grant Hall’s motion for this court to adopt the exhibits 

attached to his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion and deny Hall’s motions for appointment of 

counsel and for an injunction pending appeal. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Howard Zuckerman,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04221-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: November 27, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9082 Filed 12/04/17 Page 1 of 1
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-50091

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

CESAR OCTAVIO MORALES-HINOJOSA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

EP-97-CR-569-1-DB

August 13, 1998

Before Duhé, Benavides, and Parker, Circuit Judges.

ROBERT M. PARKER, Circuit Judge*:

Court-appointed counsel for Cesar Octavio Morales-Hinojosa has

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967)

and a motion for leave to withdraw as counsel. Morales-Hinojosa

has filed a response. Upon independent review of the record, we

find that counsel’s Anders brief is inadequate. In order for an

Anders brief to be adequate, counsel must refer to anything in the
2

record that might arguably support the appeal. Id. at 744. Our

independent review reveals two potential errors which are

conspicuously absent from the Anders brief. We do not foreclose

the possibility that other errors exist. 

Accordingly, it is ordered that counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw as counsel is denied. It is further ordered that the

Anders brief be stricken. It is further ordered that counsel brief

the sufficiency of the district court’s explanation of the effects

of violating supervised release and explanation that the answers

Morales-Hinojosa would provide to the court’s questions could later

be used against him in a prosecution for perjury or false

statement.

MOTION DENIED. ANDERS BRIEF STRICKEN.
EXHIBIT 23
<PAGE>




                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 Related to the Bedford Bancshares,  Inc. 1994 Stock Option
Plan  of our  report  dated  October  23,  1998,  relating  to the  consolidated
financial  statements  of Bedford  Bancshares,  Inc.  appearing in the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 1998.



                                                      /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
                                                      BDO Seidman, LLP



Richmond, Virginia
December 18, 1998
Administrator

Deputy

Administrator

(Chief Operating Officer)

Chief Education 

Officer

Chief Safety and Mission

Assurance Officer

Inspector General

MISSION DIRECTORATES

ExplorationSystems

Science Space Operations

JohnsonKennedyMarshallStennis

AmesGoddardJet Propulsion Laboratory

MISSION SUPPORT OFFICES

Chief Financial

Officer

Chief Information

Officer

Chief Engineer

Institutions and Management

Independent

TechnicalAuthority

Human Capital ManagementInfrastructure and AdministratioDiversity and Equal OpportunitySecurity and Program ProtectionProcurementSmall and Disadvantaged

Business Utilization*

*In accordance with law, the Offices of Diversity and Equal Opportunity and Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization maintain repoAdministrator. ** Including a new emphasis on internal communications.
Administrator

Deputy

Administrator

(Chief Operating Officer)

Chief Education 

Officer

Chief Safety & Mission

Assurance Officer

Inspector General

MISSION DIRECTORATES

ExplorationSystems

Science

Space 

Operations

JohnsonKennedyMarshallStennis

AmesGoddardJet Propulsion Laboratory

MISSION SUPPORT OFFICES

Chief Financial

Officer

Chief Information

Officer

Chief Engineer

Institutions & Management

ProcurementSmall & Disadvantaged

Business Utilization*

Independent

TechnicalAuthority

Human Capital ManagementInfrastructure, Management, and 

Headquarters Operations

Diversity and Equal OpportunitySecurity and Program Protection

* In accordance with law, the EO and SDBU maintain reporting relationships to the Deputy and the Administrator.** Including a new emphasis on internal communications.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         248,158
<SECURITIES>                                       139
<RECEIVABLES>                                  184,145
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,126
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               475,159
<PP&E>                                         126,070
<DEPRECIATION>                                  84,369
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 660,523
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          147,662
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           976
<OTHER-SE>                                     505,523
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   660,523
<SALES>                                        819,198
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               819,198
<CGS>                                          628,278
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  783,271
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (51,838)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  72
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                104,681
<INCOME-TAX>                                    41,349
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    63,332
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .56


</TABLE>
2012 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

11-28-2012 

# I n R e: R ogel ; Gr a n t

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 12-3654

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2012 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" I n R e: R o g e l ; Gr a n t " (2012). 2012 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 111. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012/111

### BLD

- 035 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 2

- 3654

___________ IN RE: ROGEL GRANT , Petitioner

____________________________________ On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Related to D.C. Crim. No. 2:04

- cr - 00749

- 001 )

____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. November 8 , 2012 Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and GREENAWAY, JR. , Circu it Judges (Opinion filed : November 28, 2012 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM On or around September 17, 2012, federal prisoner Rogel Grant filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order from this Court directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to appoint him counsel and rule on two motions that were pending in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings. One of those motions sought to stay his § 2255 proceedings, and the other requested reconsiderat ion of the District Court’s April 2012 order denying him a new trial.

### 2 On September 25, 2012, the District Court entered an order denying the aforementioned motions

. That same day , the District C ourt entered a separate order denying Grant’s § 2255 motion and directing the District Court Clerk to close the case. Because Grant has received a ruling on his motions and his § 2255 action is now closed, we will deny his mandamus petition as moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp. , 77 F.3d 690, 698

- 99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If developments occur during the course of adjudication that . . . prevent a court from being able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”).
Exhibit E

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8391-5 Filed 10/25/17 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8391-5 Filed 10/25/17 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8391-5 Filed 10/25/17 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8391-5 Filed 10/25/17 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8391-5 Filed 10/25/17 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8391-5 Filed 10/25/17 Page 6 of 6
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S

O F T E X A S

NOS. WR-91, 857-01 & WR-91, 857-02

EX P ART E EVE RE TT CRAI G WI LL I AM S, Appl icant

ON AP P LI CAT I ONS F OR WRI TS O F HAB EA S CORP US

CAUSE NOS. 16F C1670-C( 1) & 17F C1694C(1)

I N THE 94 DI STRI CT COURT F ROM NUE CE S COUNT Y

T H

P er cur iam

.

O P I N I O N

A ppl i can t was co n v i ct ed o f f raud an d s en

t en ced t o t wen

t y y ears ’ i m pri s o n m en t

, an d t h ef t an d

s en t en ced t o f

i f t een y ears ’ i

m pri s o n m en t

. T h e T h i rt een t h Co urt o f A

ppeal s af f i rm ed h i s co n

v i ct i o n s

.

W illiams v. State

, No s

. 13-18- 00456 & 13- 1 8

- 0 0 4 5 4

- C R (T ex

. A pp. —Co rpus Ch

ri s t i -E di n b urg A pri l

2 9

, 2 0 2 0 ) ( no t des i gn at ed f o r pub l i cat i o n ). A

ppl i can t f i l ed t h es e appl i cat i o n s f

o r wri t s o f h ab e a s

co rpus i n t h e co un

t y o f co n v i ct i o n

, an d t h e di s t ri ct cl erk f o rwarded t h e m t o t hi s C o urt

. See T E X

.

C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

. art

. 11. 07.

A ppl i can t co n t en ds t h at appel l at e co un s el f a i l e d t o t i

m el y i n f o rm A ppl i can t t h at h i s

co n v i ct i o n s h ad b een af

f i rm ed an d adv i s e h i

m o f hi s ri gh

t t o f i l e pr o s e pet i

t i o n s f o r di s cret i o n ary

rev i ew. Ba s ed o n t h e reco rd, t h e t ri al co urt h as det erm i n ed t h at appel l at e co un s el ’ s perf o rm an ce was2

d e f i ci en t an d t h at A

ppl i can t wo ul d h av e t i

m el y f i l ed pet i t i o n s f o r di s cret i o n ary rev i ew b ut f o r

co un s el ’ s def

i ci en t perf o rm an ce.

Re l i ef i s gran

t ed. E x par te W ilson

, 956 S. W

. 2d 25 (T ex

. Cri m

. A pp. 1997); E

x par te Cr

ow

,

180 S. W

. 3d 135 (T ex

. Cri m

. A pp. 2005). A

ppl i can t m ay f i l e o ut -o f -t i m e pet i t i o n s f o r di s cret i o n ary

rev i ew o f t h e j udgm

en t s o f t h e T h i

rt een t h Co urt o f A

ppeal s i n caus e n um b ers 13-18- 00456-CR &

13-18- 00454-CR. Sh o ul d A ppl i can t deci de t o f

i l e a pet i t i o n f o r di s cret i o n ary rev i ew, h e m us t f i l e i t

wi t h t h i s Co urt wi

t h i n t h i rt y day s f ro m t h e dat e o f t h i s Co urt ’ s m an dat e.

Co pi es o f t h i s o pi

n i o n s h al l b e s en

t t o t h e T ex as Depa

rt m en t o f Cri m i n al J us t i ce–C o rr ect i o n al

In s t i t ut i o n s Di v i s i o n an d t h e Bo ard o f Pardo n s an d Paro l es

.

Del i v ered: Oct o b er 28, 2020

Do n o t pub l i s h