alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Phil Davis","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/pwdavis1\/","title":"NASA Announces Semifinalists of Power to Explore Challenge","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"M09t9VmljV\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/technology\/rps\/nasa-announces-semifinalists-of-power-to-explore-challenge\/\">NASA Announces Semifinalists of Power to Explore Challenge<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/technology\/rps\/nasa-announces-semifinalists-of-power-to-explore-challenge\/embed\/#?secret=M09t9VmljV\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Announces Semifinalists of Power to Explore Challenge” — NASA\" data-secret=\"M09t9VmljV\" 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\/power-to-explore-wordcloud-2000x1125-80-c.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":338}
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 

Carlos C. Hernandez, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bank of America, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-16-00023-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 Upon review of the Stipulation to Dismiss Defendant Equifax Information 

Services, LLC (Doc. 43), and good cause appearing, 

 IT IS ORDERED granting the Stipulation (Doc. 43). The above-entitled matter is 

hereby dismissed with prejudice as to Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC, 

only, the parties to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Equifax Information Services, LLC being the 

last remaining defendant in this matter, and claims against all other having been 

dismissed with prejudice, the Clerk of the Court shall close the matter. 

 Dated this 20th day of October, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge 

Case 2:16-cv-00023-JJT Document 45 Filed 10/20/16 Page 1 of 1
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 20 37

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Abdul Kari m

Hass an ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt
v. St at e o f Io wa; M at t Sc hu lt z, Secr et ary of Sta te ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof I owa- Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Nov em

be r 7, 2 01 2 Fi le d: Nov em

be r 21 , 20 12 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re MUR PHY, ARNOLD, an d S MITH, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM. Abdul Has san ap pe a l s t h e d is tri ct co ur t’s di sm is sa l of hi s 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 1 co m pl ai nt un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pro cedur e 12 (b )(6 ). Afte r care fu l rev ie w, se e The Hon or ab le Ro na ld E. Lon gs ta ff, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 So ut he rn Dis tri ctof I owa .Bu tl er v. Ban k of Am ., 69 0 F.3 d 95 9, 96 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ), we affi rm fo r th e reas on s

st at ed by th e di st ric t co ur t, se e 8t h Ci r. R. 47 B, an d de ny H a s s a n’s m ot io n fo r publ ic at io n o f th is op in io n.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2
-
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION 

BETTY ADAMS, SHAKENA ADAMS, 

KENNETH ANDERSON, QUAYUANNA 

BILLS, JENNIFER BORKOWSKI, 

BARBARA BREWER, SYLVIA 

DEMETROULAKOS, PATRICK DUKES, 

CHARLES EVANS, and ALEX MATURANI,

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an 

Illinois corporation, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 1:20-cv-03411 

Honorable Charles P. Kocoras 

Magistrate Judge Heather K. McShain 

JOINT NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT 

 Plaintiffs Betty Adams, Shakena Adams, Kenneth Anderson, Quayuanna Bills, Jennifer 

Borkowski, Barbara Brewer, Sylvia Demetroulakos, Patrick Dukes, Charles Evans, and Alex 

Maturani and Defendant Santander Consumer USA, Inc., by and through their respective 

attorneys, hereby provide notice to the Court that the parties have reached a settlement in 

principle that will fully resolve this matter. Once finalized, the parties will file a stipulation of 

dismissal. 

Respectfully submitted, 

BETTY ADAMS, SHAKENA ADAMS, 

KENNETH ANDERSON, QUAYUANNA 

BILLS, JENNIFER BORKOWSKI, BARBARA 

BREWER, SYLVIA DEMETROULAKOS, 

PATRICK DUKES, CHARLES EVANS, and

ALEX MATURANI, 

Dated: September 15, 2020 By: /s/ Schuyler Ufkes 

Benjamin H. Richman 

Case: 1:20-cv-03411 Document #: 16 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:83
2

brichman@edelson.com 

Schuyler R. Ufkes 

sufkes@edelson.com 

EDELSON PC

350 North LaSalle, 14th Floor 

Chicago, Illinois 60654 

Tel: (312) 589-6370 

Fax: (312) 589-6378 

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

 SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., 

Dated: September 15, 2020 By: /s/ Jamie D. Wells (with authorization) 

Jamie D. Wells 

McGuireWoods LLP 

Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Tel: (415) 844-1972 

Fax: (415) 844-1915 

jwells@mcguirewoods.com 

Admitted Pro Hac Vice (ECF 10) 

Amy Starinieri Gilbert 

McGuireWoods LLP 

77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4100 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

Tel: (312) 849-8100 

agilbert@mcguirewoods.com 

Counsel for Defendant 

Santander Consumer USA Inc.

Case: 1:20-cv-03411 Document #: 16 Filed: 09/15/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:84
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 66448]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26533]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration


South Mountain Freeway Project FEIS Comment Consideration

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice of omission to advise the 
public that 10 comments submitted by email during the comment period 
for the South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) Interstate 10 (Papago 
Freeway) to Interstate 10 (Maricopa Freeway) Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation were inadvertently omitted from 
the South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202) Interstate 10 (Papago Freeway) to 
Interstate 10 (Maricopa Freeway) Final Environmental Impact Statement 
and Section 4(f) Evaluation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Hansen, Federal Highway 
Administration, 4000 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500, Phoenix, AZ 
85012; (602) 382-8964.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 26, 2014, at 79 FR 57929, FHWA 
published a notice of availability for its Final Environmental Impact 
Statement (FEIS) and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the South Mountain 
Freeway (Loop 202) Interstate 10 (Papago Freeway) to Interstate 10 
(Maricopa Freeway) project. On October 21, 2014, the Arizona Department 
of Transportation (ADOT) was contacted by a stakeholder organization 
and told that the comments they submitted on the Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement were not included in the FEIS. The ADOT examined this 
concern and found that the comments, submitted through email, had been 
received, but were never brought to the attention of the project team. 
The ADOT conducted a thorough search of the entire email system and 
found that 10 email comments had been inadvertently omitted from the 
FEIS. The omitted comments consist of the email from the stakeholder 
organization and 9 emails from other interested parties.
    Based on this, FHWA, in conjunction with ADOT, has published this 
omission notice in the Federal Register and will prepare an Errata to 
the FEIS including responses to the 10 omitted comments, will publish a 
notice of availability for the Errata to the FEIS in the Federal 
Register, and will provide a 30-day review period for the Errata to the 
FEIS.
    All interested parties who received project communications, 
including notice of the FEIS availability, will receive the notice of 
omission and notice of availability of the Errata to the FEIS. The 
Errata to the FEIS will also be available on the project Web site with 
the FEIS at www.azdot.gov/southmountainfreeway.

    Issued on: October 31, 2014.
Karla S. Petty,
Arizona Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, 
Phoenix, AZ.
[FR Doc. 2014-26533 Filed 11-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
EXHIBIT 31

CERTIFICATION TO BE
PROVIDED WITH FORM 10-K

Re:	Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. Trust 2004-HE2 (the "Trust"), Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-HE2, issued pursuant to the Pooling
and Servicing Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2004 (the "Pooling and
Servicing Agreement"), among Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., as depositor
(the "Depositor"), Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation, as servicer,
("Chase"), Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, as servicer ("Countrywide"),
HomEq Servicing Corporation, as servicer ("HomEq"), Aames Capital Corporation,
as a responsible party ("Aames"), Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., as a
responsible party ("Accredited"), NC Capital Corporation, as a responsible
party ("NC Capital") and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee
(the "Trustee")

 I, [identify the certifying individual], certify that:

            (1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K (the "Annual
Report"), and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution reports
(collectively with this Annual Report, the "Reports") filed in respect of
periods included in the year covered by this Annual Report, of the Trust;

            (2) Based on my knowledge, the information in the Reports, taken
as a whole, 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 as of
the last day of the period covered by this Annual Report;

            (3) Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing
information required to be provided to the Trustee by each Servicer under
the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, for inclusion in the Reports is
included in the Reports;

            (4) Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement
included in this Annual Report and required to be delivered to the Trustee in
accordance with the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, and except as
disclosed in the Reports, each Servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the
Pooling and Servicing Agreement; and

            (5) The Reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to
the applicable Servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based
upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting
 a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement, that is included in the Reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  the Trustee, Chase,
Countrywide, and HomEq.

Date:	________________________________

[Signature]
[Title]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________

)

ROLANDO OTERO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 14-2004 (BAH)

)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

_________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 

14]. In its March 27, 2015 Order [ECF No. 16], the Court advised the plaintiff of his obligations 

under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of this Court to respond to the 

motion, and specifically warned plaintiff that, if he did not respond to the motion by April 30, 

2015, the Court would treat the motion as conceded. The Court extended the plaintiff’s

opposition deadline on several occasions, most recently to March 1, 2016. To date, the plaintiff 

neither has filed an opposition to the motion nor has requested more time to file his opposition. 

Furthermore, the plaintiff has not advised the Court of a change of address, and the most recent 

item sent to the plaintiff by the Clerk of Court has been returned as undeliverable. 

The Court will deny the defendants’ motion and dismiss this civil action without 

prejudice. An Order is issued separately.

DATE: 4 April 2016 /s/ Beryl A. Howell

BERYL A. HOWELL

United States District Judge
#### Wm. Beckwith *v.*Joel Lambert.

New Trial — Discretion of the Court — Conflicting Evidence.

The evidence was somewhat conflicting, and although the verdict for this reason might not have been disturbed by this court, still the judge presiding at the trial is in a better condition to determine the motion for a new trial than this court.

Appeals and Errors — Insufficient Amount — Cost Exceeds the Amount of Error.

The only error is in the adjudged balance of $29.00.

Held: That as the accumulated cost on each side must necessarily exceed the amount in controversy this court will not reverse.

APPEAL PROM HENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

March 22, 1872.

*M. Yeaman, for appellant.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Lindsay:

The court below did not abuse 'its discretion in awarding to appellant a new trial. The evidence was somewhat conflicting and although -the verdict for this reason might not have been disturbed by this court, still the judge presiding at the trial, having the witnesses before him and watching the progress of the case, is in a better condition to determine the motion for a new trial than this court, and we are of the opinion that the new trial was properly granted. Most of the evidence introduced applies to matters connected with the contract between the parties, about which there is no controversy. The commissioner upon the testimony before him could not have reported adverse to the appellee, and the only error, if any, is in the adjudged balance of twenty-nine dollars.

This court, for this error (the existence of which there is some doubt) will not reverse the judgment as the accumulated costs on each side must necessarily' exceed the amount in controversy.

The judgment is affirmed.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

LOUISVILLE DIVISION

DR. DAVID H. BRAUNSTEIN, Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-915-DJH

DELTA DENTAL PLANS ASSOCIATION 

et al., Defendants.

* * * * *

ORDER

The parties have filed a stipulation and proposed order regarding Defendants’ time to 

respond to Plaintiff’s complaint. (Docket No. 5) The stipulation states that there is currently a 

motion pending before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate 

this and other related civil actions for pretrial proceedings. (Id., PageID # 99) Accordingly, and 

the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, it is hereby

ORDERED as follows:

(1) If the JPML orders that the pretrial proceedings in this action be coordinated or 

consolidated with any other action in a single district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, Defendants 

shall, as permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, answer, move, or otherwise plead in 

response to the operative complaint within sixty (60) days after the plaintiffs in the coordinated 

or consolidated actions serve a consolidated amended complaint, unless otherwise ordered by the 

MDL transferee court. If Defendants move in response to the operative complaint, Plaintiff will 

have the same time to oppose as provided to Defendants to move.

(2) If the JPML does not order that the pretrial proceedings in this action be coordinated 

or consolidated with any other action in a single district then Defendants shall answer, move, or 

otherwise plead in response to the operative complaint within thirty (30) days after service of the 

Case: 1:20-cv-02200 Document #: 6 Filed: 01/23/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:106
2

JPML ruling unless otherwise ordered. If Defendants respond to the operative complaint by filing 

a motion under Rule 12, Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days to file a response in opposition, after 

which Defendants shall have twenty-one (21) days to file a reply.

(3) This action is STAYED for all purposes pending a decision by the JPML and shall 

not proceed except as outlined above.

January 22, 2020

United States District Court

David J. Hale, Judge

Case: 1:20-cv-02200 Document #: 6 Filed: 01/23/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:107
## F IFTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D23- 2920 LT Case No. 2022

- DP

- 000014

_____________________________ W.T., F ATHER OF W.H.T., IV, A C HILD , Appella nt,
v. D EPARTMENT O F C HILDRE N AND F AMILIES , Appellee
.

_____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County. Angela Cox, J udge. Summer N. Boyd, of La w Office of Summer Boyd, Jacksonville, for Appellant. Sarah J. Rum ph, of Children’s Legal Services, Tallaha ssee, for Appellee. Sara Elizabeth Goldfarb, Statewide Direct of Appeals, and Amanda Victoria Glass, Senior Attorney, of Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, for Guardian ad Litem. J anuary 31, 202 4
P ER C URIAM .2 A FF IRMED . E DWARDS , C.J., M AKAR , and L AMBERT , J J., concur.

________ _____________________ Not fin al until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________
#### Richmond L. Steers *v.*Wm. Yorke.

Adverse Possession — Statutory Bar of Action — Mistake in Boundary.

One, who had actual possession of the land in controversy, openly using and claiming it as his own for the requisite time to make the statute of limitation a bar, as in ordinary cases of continuous, adverse possession, the fact that he placed his enclosure beyond the true line, by mistake, could not affect his right, to rely on the statutory bar.

APPEAL PROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.

September 22, 1871.

*Fisks, for appellant.*

*Carlisle, for appellee.*

Opinion op the Oourt by

Judge Hardin:

We perceive no ground of objection to tbe first instruction given to tbe jury at tbe instance of the plaintiff, but regard tbe second instruction so given as misleading and erroneous in virtually depriving tbe defendant' of tbe benefit of an adverse possession of tbe ground in controversy, if while so bolding it be labored under a mistake as to tbe true boundary of tbe lot. If be bad actual possession of tbe ground, openly using and claiming it as bis own, for tbe requisite time to make tbe statute of limitation a bar as in ordinary cases of continuous, adverse possession, tbe fact that be placed bis enclosure beyond the true line, by mistake, could not affect bis right to rely upon tbe statutory bar. And for tbe same reason tbe qualification given by tbe court to tbe second instruction asked for tbe defendant, was also erroneous.

Wherefore, for tbe reasons indicated, the judgment is reversed and tbe cause remanded for a new trial and further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2
                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, YU-EN CHIU, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of Kid
Castle Educational Corporation (the "Registrant"), certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the
period ended June 30, 2004 of the Registrant (the "Report"):

(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 Registrant.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                                   /s/ Yu-En Chiu
                                       -------------------------------------
                                       Name: Yu-En Chiu
                                       Date: August 16, 2004

Exhibit 32.2                          -1-
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, R. Steven Hamner, certify that:



|1) | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Medical Properties Trust, Inc.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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 other financial information included in this report is fairly presented in all material respects as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  |  |                                                     
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: September 21, 2012 |  |  |  | /s/ R. Steven Hamner                                
|                         |  |  |  | R. Steven Hamner                                    
|                         |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer