alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                 THIRD AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                    RESOURCE BANCSHARES MORTGAGE GROUP, INC.
                            FORMULA STOCK OPTION PLAN

         THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO RESOURCE BANCSHARES MORTGAGE GROUP, INC.
FORMULA STOCK OPTION PLAN is made as of the 27th day of July, 2000 by RESOURCE
BANCSHARES MORTGAGE GROUP, INC. (the "Corporation").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

         WHEREAS, the Corporation maintains the Resource Bancshares Mortgage
Group, Inc. Formula Stock Option Plan (the "Plan") for the benefit of its
directors who are not full-time employees or executive officers of the
Corporation ("Independent Directors"); and

         WHEREAS, in Section 5.2 of the Plan, the Corporation reserved the right
by action of a committee (the "Committee") composed of all members of its Board
of Directors except Independent Directors to amend the Plan; and

         WHEREAS, the Committee now desires to amend certain provisions of the
Plan;

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants
herein contained, the Corporation covenants and agrees that the Plan is amended
as follows, effective as of the date first above written:

         1. Effective July 27, 2000, Section 3.2 of the Plan is amended to
provide that the maximum number of shares that may be issued under the Plan
shall not exceed in the aggregate 284,850, as such number of shares may be
adjusted after the date of this Third Amendment pursuant to Section 4.2 of the
Plan.

         2. Effective July 27, 2000, Section 4.1 of the Plan is amended by
deleting the first sentence of the section and substituting in lieu thereof the
following:

                  "Effective July 27, 2000, no additional Options will be
         awarded under this Plan. The amendment to discontinue the award of
         additional Options under this Plan shall not affect any Option
         heretofore awarded pursuant to the provisions of the Plan."

         3. The Corporation reserves the right by action of the Committee to
amend further at any time any of the terms and provisions of the Plan as amended
hereby. Except as expressly or by necessary implication amended hereby, the Plan
shall continue in full force and effect.
Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 930 Filed 03/03/16 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Steven R. McKenzie,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04117-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Law Office Of Christopher K Johnston LLC

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 11/9/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

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

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

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

Printed Name

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) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9008 Filed 11/30/17 Page 1 of 1
#### LESLIE W. MERKER, JR. v. DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE AND HEALTH SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES.

May 8, 1984.

Petition for certification granted. (See 193 *N.J.Super.*68)
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 11, 2020

NO. 03

- 20

- 00413

- CV

M. A. R. G., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFO RE JUSTICES GOODWIN, TRIANA, AND SMITH AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART

--

OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the de novo order signed by the tr i a l court on August 13, 202 0 . Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in

the court’s de novo order

. Therefore, the Court reverses that portion of the trial court’s de novo

order concerning M. A.R.G.’s children; we affirm the trial court’s de novo order to the extent it

concerns M.A.R.G.’s chi ldren’s half

- sibling. We remand the case to the trial court for further

proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion

. The appell ee shall pay all costs relating to this

appeal, both in this Court and in the cour t below.
FLIGHT LOG EXPERIENCE

Have you signed up for NASA’s flight log? Fly your name on X-planes, print boarding passes, 

earn endorsement stamps, and build your own virtual flight log. 

Today’s event earns you an endorsement stamp. Enter this code into your log book for your 

special edition stamp!

Event: X-59 Rollout

ENDORSEMENT CODE: X59LM24 www.nasa.gov/flightlog

www.nasa.gov

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
#### CENTEX HOMES OF NEW JERSEY, INC. v. THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE TOWNSHIP OF EAST WINDSOR.

July 12, 1984.

Petition for certification granted.
I lSSOCUlE OEPUN ADMINISTFt41OR 

EXECUTIVE WFCER 

EXTERNAL 

1 

NASA 

CHIEF 

DEPUN ADMINISTRTOR I 

AFFNRS 

I I I 

LEGISLATIVE 

AFFAIRS PUBLK: 

AFFAIRS 

lNDUSTRV 

AFFAIRS AND TECH 

UlILIzAlKm 

-- 

ENGlNEER 

--------------'I 

I I 1 MA1 L ACAOEMIES 1 . SCIINCI 

* I"GI"Elrll*(i I . P"BLZ.Wr* 1 

AEROSPACE 

SAFETY IDVlSORY 

PlNEl I 

I 

NASAICOMPTROLLER GENERN 

CWNYL 

--_----- 

lWSPEClKXIS OPPURTUNIN AFFAIRS 

h INTERAGENCV PROORAMS AFFAIRS 

ASSOCIATE 

ADMINISTRATOR 

uu- I -- ASSOCIATE 

ADMlNlSTRATOR 

FOR 

CENTER OPERATIONS 

SPACE FLlGHT

I I 

PUNNING 

AND PROGRAM 

lNTEGRATKXI 

ENERGV 

PROGRAMS 

APPLICATKXIS 

J-, T 

UNIVERSITY 

AFFAIRS 

PROGRAM 

ASSURANCE 

I AERONAUTICS 

AND SPACE 

TECHNOLCGV 

TRACKING SPACE 

SCLENCE I 1 ACOUISITION ANDDATA 

Fl vi 

I I I 

GWDARD 

SPACE FLIGHT 

CENTER 

DRYDEN 

FLIGMT 

RESEARCH 

CENTER 

AMES 

RESEARCH 

CENTER 

PROOAAMS MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONAL 

MANAGEMENT 

TECHNOLffilES 

LABORATORIES 

1 I 

JET 

PROPULSION 

LABORATORY 

GEORGE C 

MIASHALL 

SPACE FLIGHT 

CENTER 

RESEARCH CENTER SPACECENTER CENTER SPACE CENTER CENTER 

63
Exhibit 10.33(i)

                                                                December 2, 1999



Mr. John J. Lee
18 Walnut Avenue
Larchmont,  NY  10538

                                    Re:      1999 MICP Award

Dear Mr. Lee:

     As you are aware,  the Executive  Compensation  Committee has awarded you a
special grant of nonqualified  stock options in lieu of a cash bonus award under
the Company's  Management  Incentive  Compensation  Plan for 1999. The Committee
recognizes  that its  decision to make your 1999 award in a form other than cash
could have the  unintended  effect of reducing  certain  payments or benefits to
which you may be entitled under the Employment Agreement dated February 26, 1996
(as amended),  the Executive  Severance Agreement dated February 3, 1999 and the
Supplemental  Executive  Retirement  Agreement  dated May 20, 1998 (as  amended)
between you and the Company (the  "Agreements").  As a result, the Committee has
determined that, notwithstanding anything in the Agreements to the contrary, the
calculation  of any  payments or benefits to you,  your  beneficiaries  or legal
representatives  under the  Agreements  shall be made as though  your 1999 bonus
award had been paid to you in cash in the amount of $350,000.

     The Company hereby declares this undertaking to be irrevocable and made for
the benefit of you, your beneficiaries and legal representatives.


                                            Hexcel Corporation




                                            By: ________________________________



Acknowledged


--------------------------
Executive


                                      167
<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       4,005,849
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  128,841
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,271,620
<PP&E>                                       3,391,429
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,633,048
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,250,545
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          874,596
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       292,874
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,877,712
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,250,545
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               921,068
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,504,845
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              45,196
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (538,581)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (538,581)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (538,581)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
#### BLANCA BARRETO v. AUDREY HARRIS, DIRECTOR, NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF PUBLIC WELFARE, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES.

July 2, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Nikki Welch","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nikki-d-welchnasa-gov\/","title":"Previous Issues of AeroSpace Frontiers","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Xeniiav2UJ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/glenn\/aerospacefrontiers-previous-issues\/\">Previous Issues of AeroSpace Frontiers<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/glenn\/aerospacefrontiers-previous-issues\/embed\/#?secret=Xeniiav2UJ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Previous Issues of AeroSpace Frontiers” — NASA\" data-secret=\"Xeniiav2UJ\" 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\/2015\/02\/grc-web-banner-aerial-view-2021.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":95}
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1914 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1914

  To prohibit the closure or realignment of inpatient services at the 
Aleda E. Lutz Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Saginaw, 
Michigan, as proposed under the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced 
                          Services initiative.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 21, 2003

Ms. Stabenow (for herself and Mr. Levin) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the closure or realignment of inpatient services at the 
Aleda E. Lutz Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Saginaw, 
Michigan, as proposed under the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced 
                          Services initiative.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON CLOSURE OR REALIGNMENT OF INPATIENT SERVICES 
              AT ALEDA E. LUTZ DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL 
              CENTER IN SAGINAW, MICHIGAN.

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall not carry out the closure 
or realignment of inpatient services at the Aleda E. Lutz Department of 
Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Saginaw, Michigan, as proposed under 
the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) initiative.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Richard Masters,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03611-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Curtis Law Group

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 10/11/2017, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: October 18, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

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

Printed Name

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) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8328 Filed 10/20/17 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8328 Filed 10/20/17 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6739

JASON NATHANIEL GILMER,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DR. SMITH, Head Physician of KMCC,

Defendant – Appellant,

and

MR. A. WHITED, R.N.C.B. of KMCC; L. FLEMING, Warden of KMCC,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior 

District Judge. (7:14-cv-00111-NKM-RSB)

Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: August 25, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Foil Russell, HALE, LYLE & RUSSELL, PC, Bristol, Tennessee, 

for Appellant. Jason Nathaniel Gilmer, Appellee Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dr. Happy Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying his motion for reconsideration in Jason Gilmer’s 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. This court may exercise 

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), 

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. 

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Smith seeks 

to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED
#### Matthew Ocasio, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Norma Ocasio, Appellant, v New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (Morrisania Neighborhood Family Care Center), Respondent.

[788 NYS2d 82]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. McKeon, J.), entered October 1, 2003, which denied plaintiffs motion for, inter alia, leave to serve and file a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for failing to file a timely notice of claim, failed to establish that defendant had notice of the facts constituting his claim within 90 days or *362reasonable time thereafter, and failed to show that defendant will not be substantially prejudiced in its ability to investigate this matter and defend the claim on the merits by the delay of 9V2 years in affording defendant the requisite notice *(see Alexander v City of New York,*2 AD3d 332 [2003]; *cf. Matter of Dubowy v City of New York,*305 AD2d 320 [2003]). Contrary to plaintiffs contention, actual notice to defendant is not established by its medical records, which provide no indication of a causal connection between plaintiff’s injuries and acts of negligence on defendant’s part *(cf. Ayala v City of New York,*189 AD2d 632, 633-634 [1993]). Neither infancy nor ignorance of the law alone would be sufficient to justify plaintiffs failure to file a timely notice of claim *(see Harris v City of New York,*297 AD2d 473 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 503 [2002]) and, in any event, neither excuse is tenable given plaintiffs commencement of an action against the New York City Housing Authority in 1995 arising out of the same circumstances as those alleged herein, namely his exposure to lead paint. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Williams, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
#### BEN JOHNSON HOMES, INC. v. WATKINS

No. 148A01

Case below: 142 N.C. App. 162

Motion by defendant to dismiss appeal by plaintiffs for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 16 August 2001. Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals allowed 16 August 2001. Justice Martin recused.
**Exhibit 32**

**Certification pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report of Santa FeEnergy Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely asthe trustee of the Trust, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to its knowledge:

(1)  the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
|                           |   |                                    |
|---------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|
|                      |   | Mike Ulrich,                       |
| Date: August 8, 2005 |   | *Vice President and Trust Officer* |

 

----