alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Carpenter & Bros. *v.*James Stevenson, &c.

Contracts — Damages for Violation of Contract — Triable by the Court.

APPEAL EROM HARRISON CIRCUIT COURT.

March 10, 1870.

*Ward, for appellant.*

*Trimble, for appellee.*

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Hardin:

As both the appellant and Stevenson claimed damages for violation of the contract, which might have been more appropriately determined by the finding of a jury, and as Stevenson did some extra work, for which he should have been compensated, and there is a contrariety of evidence as to what proportion of the contract price of $3,100 should have been allowed for work done strictly in accordance with the agreement, it is difficult to determine what was the true balance due to Stevenson. The circuit court, on a review of all the facts, came to the conclusion that appellants should be charged said sum of $3,100 and credited by payments amounting to $1,602.25, leaving a balance of $1,497.75, and for the reasons we have indicated, and without the aid of the verdict of a jury or report of a commissioner, we can not say, with judicial certainty, that this is usury, and must therefore affirm it.

As to the claim of Miller, it seems to be just that it should be paid out of the balance found owing to Stevenson, and if, as insisted, the judgment against the bank for its payment in satisfaction of so much of Stevenson’s claim, as allowed, is irregular and unauthorized; yet, as the bank does not appeal from the judgment, the error, if it exists, can not be available as a ground of reversal on this appeal of Carpenter & Brothers.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed..
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund
L.P. II (the registrant);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    /s/ Walter DavisWalter DavisCeres Managed Futures LLC
President and Director 80
**EXHIBIT 99.7**

 

**CERTIFICATION OFPRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying annual report on Form 40-Fof NOVA Chemicals Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the “Report”),I, Larry A. MacDonald, Chief Financial Officer of NOVA Chemicals Corporation,hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          suchReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          the information contained in such Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofNOVA Chemicals Corporation.

 

 
| March 1,  2006 | */s/ Larry A. MacDonald* |
|---------------------|--------------------------|
|                | Larry A.  MacDonald      |
|                | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          95,390
<SECURITIES>                                    56,767
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,675
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (137)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               115,229
<PP&E>                                          18,339
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 178,026
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,019
<BONDS>                                        155,974
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,481
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   178,026
<SALES>                                          1,924
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,924
<CGS>                                            2,512
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,284
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (221)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5,139)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (5,139)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5,139)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.37)
        

</TABLE>
Case 3:16-cv-08008-GMS Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-08008-GMS Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-08008-GMS Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-08008-GMS Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-08008-GMS Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 5 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-08008-GMS Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 6 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-08008-GMS Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 7 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-08008-GMS Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 8 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-08008-GMS Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 9 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-08008-GMS Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 10 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-08008-GMS Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 11 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-08008-GMS Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 12 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-08008-GMS Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 13 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-08008-GMS Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 14 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-08008-GMS Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 15 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-08008-GMS Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 16 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-08008-GMS Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 17 of 18
Case 3:16-cv-08008-GMS Document 16 Filed 02/25/16 Page 18 of 18
H. R. 785

One Hundred Fifth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven

An Act

To designate the J. Phil Campbell, Senior, Natural Resource Conservation Center.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF J. PHIL CAMPBELL, SENIOR, NATURAL

RESOURCE CONSERVATION CENTER.

The Southern Piedmont Conservation Research Center located

at 1420 Experimental Station Road in Watkinsville, Georgia, shall

be known and designated as the ‘‘J. Phil Campbell, Senior, Natural

Resource Conservation Center’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

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

or other record of the United States to the building referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘J. Phil

Campbell, Senior, Natural Resource Conservation Center’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.5

                               TREX COMPANY, INC.

                        DESCRIPTION OF ANNUAL BONUS PLAN

        Trex Company, Inc. (the "Company") maintains an annual discretionary
incentive bonus plan for the benefit of its executive officers, other officers,
managers and certain other key employees of the Company. Potential bonuses are
specified as a percentage of the employees' annual base salary or salary range
midpoint, depending on grade level. Such percentage levels are approved by the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors annually. Bonuses are paid in
the form of cash awards and stock options (valued based upon the Black-Scholes
valuation model). At the beginning of each fiscal year, the Compensation
Committee sets the financial objectives that the Company must achieve for
individuals to qualify for bonus payments.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Deiss","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-s-deissnasa-gov\/","title":"Human Exploration Spacecraft Testbed for Integration and Advancement (HESTIA)","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"7aSKImya61\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/hestia\/\">Human Exploration Spacecraft Testbed for Integration and Advancement (HESTIA)<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/hestia\/embed\/#?secret=7aSKImya61\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Human Exploration Spacecraft Testbed for Integration and Advancement (HESTIA)” — NASA\" data-secret=\"7aSKImya61\" 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\/2017\/05\/jsc2010e086839.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":800}
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

WILLIAM AMOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN REID & ASSOCIATES, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 20-cv-01444

Hon. John Z. Lee

Mag. J. Jeffrey I. Cummings 

JOINT STATUS REPORT

Plaintiff, William Amor, and Defendants, John Reid & Associates, Michael Masokas, and 

the Estate of Arthur Newey, jointly submit the following status report, pursuant to this Court’s 

order on April 9, 2021. See Dkt. 49. 

(A) Progress of the Litigation 

Since they were last in front of the Court on April 9, 2021, Defendants have entered an 

answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. See Dkt. 50. The parties have also conferred on 

both the need to appoint a special representative for the Estate of Arthur Newey, as well as a 

proposed discovery schedule for the outstanding case. 

(B) Outstanding Special Representative for Newey Estate 

Defendants believe that the daughter of Arthur Newey, Katelyn Newey, will be both 

willing and adequate to serve as the special representative. Once Katelyn Newey confirms her 

ability to do so, the parties will file a joint motion seeking leave to name her special representative.

Case: 1:20-cv-01444 Document #: 51 Filed: 05/10/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:340
2

(C) Agreed Proposed Discovery Schedule

Parties believe that the following discovery is necessary in this case: written discovery, 

limited oral discovery, and expert discovery. As such, parties propose the following discovery 

schedule for the Court’s consideration: 

• Initial Disclosures: June 7, 2021

• Fact Discovery Deadline: October 24, 2021

• Plaintiff’s 26(a)(2) Disclosures Due: November 31, 2021

• Defendants’ Deadline to Depose Plaintiff’s Experts: January 7, 2022

• Defendant’s 26(a)(2) Disclosures Due: February 11, 2022

• Plaintiff’s Deadline to Depose Defendants’ Experts: March 25, 2022

• Deadline for Rebuttal Experts: April 8, 2022

• Deadline to Depose Rebuttal Experts: April 22, 2022

• Deadline for Motions for Summary Judgement: June 10, 2022. 

Dated: May 10, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Mariah Garcia

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Jon Loevy 

Gayle Horn 

Mariah Garcia 

Loevy & Loevy 

311 N. Aberdeen St., 3rd Floor 

Chicago, Illinois 60607 

(312) 243-5900 

mariah@loevy.com

/s/ Jonathan Goken

Attorney for Defendants

Jonathan W. Goken (Bar ID: 6278837)

F. Michael Pasqualino (Bar ID: 6311292)

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP

550 W. Adams St. Suite 300

Chicago, Illinois 60661

(312) 345-1718

Jonathan.Goken@lewisbrisbois.com

F.Pasqualino@lewisbrisbois.com

Case: 1:20-cv-01444 Document #: 51 Filed: 05/10/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:341
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0403

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM HOMER MCCLELLAN,

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 6, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 27 2022

12/27/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0403
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

Before 

TOZZI, CAMPANELLA, and CELTNIEKS 

Appellate Military Judges 

UNITED STATES, Appellee 

v. 

Specialist BILLY J. WHISMAN, JR. 

United States Army, Appellant 

ARMY 20121096 

Headquarters, Fort Hood 

Kirsten Brunson, Military Judge 

Colonel Stewart W. Risch, Staff Judge Advocate 

For Appellant: Colonel Kevin Boyle, JA; Lieutenant Colonel Peter Kageleiry, Jr., 

JA; Major Vincent T. Shuler, JA; Captain Patrick J. Scudieri, JA (on brief). 

For Appellee: Colonel John P. Carrell, JA; Lieutenant Colonel James L. Varley, JA; 

Major Matthew T. Grady, JA; Captain Sean P. Fitzgibbon, JA (on brief). 

12 August 2014 

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION 

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

Per curiam: 

 Upon review of the entire record pursuant to Article 66(c), UCMJ, including 

the matters personally submitted by appellant pursuant to United States v. Grostefon, 

12 M.J. 431 (C.M.A. 1982), we note that the convening authority took action 417 

days after the sentence was adjudged. Although we find no due process violation in 

the post-trial processing of appellant’s case, we must still review the appropriateness 

of the sentence in light of the unjustified dilatory post-trial processing. UCMJ art. 

66(c); United States v. Tardif, 57 M.J. 219, 224 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (“[Pursuant to 

Article 66(c), UCMJ, service courts are] required to determine what findings and 

sentence ‘should be approved,’ based on all the facts and circumstances reflected in 

the record, including the unexplained and unreasonable post-trial delay.”). See 

generally United States v. Toohey, 63 M.J. 353, 362-63 (C.A.A.F. 2006); United 

States v. Ney, 68 M.J. 613, 617 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2010); United States v. 

Collazo, 53 M.J. 721, 727 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2000). The government has not 

explained the reasons for the post-trial delay, either with a memorandum from the 
WHISMAN, JR.—ARMY 20121096 

2

staff judge advocate or an affidavit attached to the government’s brief. Given this 

unexplained and unreasonable delay, we grant 30 days of sentence credit as a 

remedy. 

 The findings of guilty as approved by the convening authority are 

AFFIRMED. We affirm only so much of the sentence as extends to a bad-conduct 

discharge, confinement for 120 days, and reduction to the grade of E-1. All rights, 

privileges, and property, of which appellant has been deprived by virtue of this 

decision setting aside the findings and sentence are ordered restored. See UCMJ 

arts. 58a(b), 58b(c), and 75(a). 

FOR THE COURT: 

 MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

Clerk of Court 

MALCOLM H. SQUIRES, JR. 

Clerk of Court 

FOR THE COURT:
exv10w20a



 


Exhibit 10.20A



Amendment to Convertible Loan Agreement



March 18, 2003


Mr. Robert C. Pearson

Senior Vice President

Renaissance Capital Group, Inc.

8080 North Central Expressway, Suite 210-LB59

Dallas, Texas 75206


Letter of Understanding


Dear Mr. Pearson:


     As discussed, Renaissance Capital Group, Inc. and Laserscope agree to
modify the Convertible Loan Agreement dated February 11, 2000 as follows.
Laserscope will delay by six months the start of principal repayments to
Renaissance Capital Group, Inc. Principal repayments will start on August 11,
2003 instead of February 11, 2003. The amount of the monthly principal
payments as well as all other terms of the agreement are not changed.


     The Renaissance Funds also agree to convert Debentures with a face amount
of $100,000 per Fund on March 31, 2002. Stock certificates from the conversion
should be issued in the names of the respective Renaissance funds which are
converting the debentures and should be delivered to the Custodian for the
Funds.


     If this meets with your understanding, please sign below and return to my
attention at Laserscope.



	 	 	 
	 	 	Regards,
	 
	 	 	
/s/ Eric M. Reuter



Eric M. Reuter

President and Chief Executive Officer



Agreed and accepted by:



	 	 
	/s/ Robert C. Pearson



Robert C. Pearson - Senior Vice President

Renaissance Capital Group Inc.
#### Linda BLAKEMORE, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent.

No. 04-3443.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 17, 2005.

ON MOTION

*ORDER*

Linda Blakemore moves without opposition to voluntarily dismiss her petition for review of the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in *Blakemore v. Navy,*No. DC-0752-02-0643-1-1, 96 M.S.P.R. 569, 2004 WL 1771016 (July 30, 2004). The Department of the Navy moves without opposition for a 28-day extension of time, until March 15, 2005, to file its brief in 04-3444.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

> (1) Blakemore’s unopposed motion to dismiss 04-3443 is granted.

> (2) Each side shall bear its own costs in 04-3443.

> (3) The revised official caption for 04-3444 is reflected above.

> (4) Navy’s motion for an extension of time is granted.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James E. Burke, Jr.,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-04567-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Zonies Law 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 12/11/2017, 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: December 20, 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 9441 Filed 12/22/17 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 9441 Filed 12/22/17 Page 2 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Eric Meadows, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Second Chance Group Homes LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-02454-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is the Defendants’ Unopposed Motion for in camera Review of 

Settlement Agreement (Doc. 22). Upon review and good cause appearing; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting Defendants’ Unopposed Motion (Doc. 22). 

The parties may file their Confidential Settlement Agreement under seal. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will review the Confidential 

Settlement Agreement in camera. 

 Dated this 8th day of July, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-02454-JJT Document 23 Filed 07/08/16 Page 1 of 1