alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT  23.4

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 for the
Dividend Reinvestment and Share Purchase Plan of American Industrial Properties
REIT of our reports (i) dated February 12, 1998 with respect to the Financial
Statements of  USAA Real Estate Income Investments I Limited Partnership as of
December 31, 1997 and 1996 and for the three years in the period ended December
31, 1997; (ii) dated July 25, 1997 with respect to the Financial Statements of
USAA Real Estate Income Investments II Limited Partnership as of June 30, 1997
and 1996 and for the three years in the period ended June 30, 1997; (iii) dated
February 9, 1998 with respect to the Financial Statements of USAA Income
Properties III Limited Partnership as of December 31, 1997 and 1996 and for the
three years in the period ended December 31, 1997; and (iv) dated February 9,
1998 with respect to the Financial Statements of USAA Income Properties IV
Limited Partnership as of December 31, 1997 and 1996 and for the three years in
the period ended December 31, 1997, which reports appear in Amendment No. 1
filed March 23, 1998 to Form 8-K of American Industrial Properties REIT dated
January 20, 1998.




                                         /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
                                         KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

San Antonio, Texas
March 20, 1998
DENY; and Opinion Filed November 9, 2015 . 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 15 - 01340 - CV No. 05 - 15 - 01341 - CV No. 05 - 15 - 01342 - CV No. 05 - 15 - 01343 - CV No. 05 - 15 - 01344 - CV IN RE ELVIN OMAR VAS QUEZ , Relator Original Proceeding from the 204th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F - 1035051 - Q , F - 1035052 - Q, F - 1035053 - Q, F - 1035054 - Q, F - 1035055 - Q 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Franci s, Myers, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Schenck Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the Court order the trial court to rule on his “Motion to Strike Void Court Orders and Supplemental Orders,” which he states he filed on June 27, 2015 . Relator’s petition does not comply with the rules of appellate procedure. The petition is not accompanied by an appendix or record. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(k)(1)(a) (appendix must contain certified or sworn copy of order complained of, or any other– 2

– document showing the matter complained of), 52.7(a) (relator must file with petition certified or sworn copy of eve ry document material to relator’ s claim for relief). 1 To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must s how that the trial court violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). We noted in our opinion denying relator’s most recen t petition for writ of mandamus it is the responsibility of the parties to assemble the record in support of a petition for writ of mandamus. See In re Vasquez , No. 05

- 15

- 00592

- CV, 2015 WL 2375504, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas May 18, 2015, orig. proceeding). Because relator has not provided a mandamus record, he has not shown he is entitled to relief. We deny the petition.

151340F.P05

1 Relator has included with his petition for writ of mandamus a letter addressed to Felicia Pitre, the Dallas County District Clerk, but filed in this court, requesting that she forward us certified copies of the “Motion to Strike Void Orders,” his letters requesting a r uling on the motion, a copy of the 2011 order of which he complains in the motion , a copy of the judgment, a nd a copy of the docket sheet, but relator has not filed any of the requested documents with this Court in support of his petition. /David J. Schenck/ DAVID J. SCHENCK JUSTICE
**Exhibit 32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18 U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION 906
      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**







In
      connection with the Annual Report of Macquarie Infrastructure Company LLC (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Peter Stokes, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
      knowledge and belief:




(1) the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(b) 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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/ Peter
                StokesPeter
                StokesChief
                Executive OfficerFebruary
                28, 2008




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FE BRUARY 6 , 2014

NO. 03

- 11

- 00498

- CR

Ronnie Lee Natho Sr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 424TH DISTRICT COURT OF LLANO COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GO ODWIN, FIELD

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the tr i a l court on April 2 8 , 2011

.

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no

reversible error in the court’s judgment . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment

.

The appellant shall pay all c osts relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 224 (Thursday, November 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 69189]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27508]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service


Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds: Electric Insurance 
Company

AGENCY: Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the 
Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is Supplement No. 4 to the Treasury Department Circular 
570, 2014 Revision, published July 1, 2014, at 79 FR 37398.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6850.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable 
surety on Federal bonds is hereby issued under 31 U.S.C. 9305 to the 
following company:

    ELECTRIC INSURANCE COMPANY (NAIC# 21261). BUSINESS ADDRESS: 75 
Sam Fonzo Drive, Beverly, MA 01915-1000. PHONE: (978) 921-2080. 
UNDERWRITING LIMITATION b/: $52,256,000. SURETY LICENSES c/: AL, AK, 
AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, HI, ID,IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, 
ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE., NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, 
OK, OR, PA, PR, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY. 
INCORPORATED IN: Massachusetts.

    Federal bond-approving officers should annotate their reference 
copies of the Treasury Circular 570 (``Circular''), 2014 Revision, to 
reflect this addition.
    Certificates of Authority expire on June 30th each year, unless 
revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent 
annual renewal as long as the companies remain qualified (see 31 CFR 
part 223). A list of qualified companies is published annually as of 
July 1st in the Circular, which outlines details as to the underwriting 
limitations, areas in which companies are licensed to transact surety 
business, and other information.
    The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at 
http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570.
    Questions concerning this Notice may be directed to the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Financial 
Accounting and Services Branch, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West 
Highway, Room 6D22, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

    Dated: November 14, 2014.
Kevin McIntyre,
Manager, Financial Accounting and Services Branch.
[FR Doc. 2014-27508 Filed 11-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7141

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FAHED T. TAWALBEH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District 

Judge. (7:97-cr-00024-JPJ-7; 7:14-cv-80755-JPJ-RSB; 7:14-cv00297-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fahed T. Tawalbeh, Appellant Pro Se. Rick A. Mountcastle, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Fahed T. Tawalbeh seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2012) motion as a 

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it on 

that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Tawalbeh has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
## FLORIDA SUPREME COURT

NOTICE OF CORRECTION

DATE: September 2 5

, 2024

CASE OF: In Re: Amendments to Rules Regulating The Florida

Bar

- Rules 6

- 3.5 and 6

- 3.6

DOCKET NO.: SC202 4

- 0 237

OPINION FILED: August 22

, 20 24

ATTENTION: ALL PUBLISHERS

THE FOLLOWING CORRECTION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE

ABOVE OPINION:

On p. 8 , line 27

, underlined “F” was changed to underlined “E”.

SIGNED: OPINION CLERK
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

WAYNE FARMS LLC ) Civil Action No.: 20-5191

 )

Plaintiff, ) Judge Feinerman

v. )

 ) Magistrate Judge Valdez

JOHN DOE, A/KA GRACIE, )

HENDERSON, A/K/A FRANK L )

ANNESE and LINKEDIN )

CORPORATION )

 )

Defendants

SECOND DECLARATION OF DAVID C BREZINA 

IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

My name is David C. Brezina and:

(1) Exhibit 26 is a true and correct copy of two reports of process servers unable to locate 

Frank Annese at either of the addresses shown on bank records for accounts bearing that name.

(2) On or about October 14, 2020 I received documents from Wells Fargo regarding the 

account ending in 6603 identifying Frank L Annese, d/b/a Frankness Construction, 8150 Lakecrest Drive, 

Apt. 715, Greenbelt, MD, 20770-3344. I checked the Secretary of State of Maryland business database

and there was no such business listed. The only Frank Annese for whom I found a telephone listing was a 

real estate agent. Because construction is complementary with real estate, I called the real estate agent 

who knew nothing about the construction company or Wayne Farms. I concluded it was likely that this 

was a case of identity theft.

(3) Exhibit 27 was prepared by me November 6, 2020 after I received documents from BB 

and T Bank (d/b/a Truist Financial, d/b/a Truist Corporation) regarding the account ending in 6395

identifying Gracie Henderson, 2209 Tree Corners Pkwy, Norcross, GA 30092. I researched the name on 

the Internet and various free directory listings indicated people with that name. The database with the 

most complete information was https://www.mylife.com/ which listed that address as a former address for 

a person 68 years of age. A print to pdf from that website is included in Exhibit 27 in the format created 

at that time by the browser – print program combination. There being no other connection to Wayne 

Case: 1:20-cv-05191 Document #: 36-1 Filed: 12/16/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:433
2

Farms, other than the somewhat proximate location, and the 68 year old having moved to New Orleans, I 

concluded it was likely that this was a case of identity theft.

The undersigned, pursuant to Rule 11, and also being hereby warned that willful false statements and 

the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001, declares that the 

statements made of his/her own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief 

are believed to be true.

Respectfully submitted,

Date: December 16, 2020 

David C. Brezina (ID3121581)

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Wayne Farms LLC

Ladas & Parry LLP

David C. Brezina

Boris Umansky

224 S Michigan Ave, #1600

Chicago, IL 60604

(312) 427-1300

dbrezina@ladas.net

Case: 1:20-cv-05191 Document #: 36-1 Filed: 12/16/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:434
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131683 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

MICHAEL LYONS,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131683 

 COA: 269276 

WCAC: 05-000106 

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 9, 2006 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t1023 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4042

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for 

expenses paid in connection with the donation of an organ. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 25, 2004

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 

deduction for expenses paid in connection with the donation of an organ.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DEDUCTION FOR QUALIFIED ORGAN DONA4 TION EXPENSES. 

5 (a) DEDUCTION FOR QUALIFIED ORGAN DONATION

6 EXPENSES.—Part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of 

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by insert8 ing after section 213 the following new section: 
2

•HR 4042 IH 

1 ‘‘SEC. 214. QUALIFIED ORGAN DONATION EXPENSES. 

2 ‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION.—In the case of an 

3 individual, there shall be allowed as a deduction qualified 

4 organ donation expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer 

5 during the taxable year. 

6 ‘‘(b) LIMITATION ON AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION.—The 

7 amount allowable as a deduction under subsection (a) to 

8 any individual shall not exceed $15,000 for each medical 

9 procedure described in subsection (c). 

10 ‘‘(c) QUALIFIED ORGAN DONATION EXPENSES.—For 

11 purposes of this section, the term ‘qualified organ dona12 tion expenses’ means the amounts, not compensated for 

13 by insurance or otherwise, paid in connection with a med14 ical procedure in which the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s 

15 spouse, or a dependent (as defined in section 152), while 

16 living, donates one or more of all or part of a liver, lung, 

17 pancreas, kidney, intestine, or bone marrow to another 

18 human being for human organ transplantation. Such ex19 penses shall include—

20 ‘‘(1) medical care (as defined in section 213), 

21 and 

22 ‘‘(2) any lost wages (as defined in section 

23 3401). 

24 ‘‘(d) COORDINATION WITH OTHER DEDUCTIONS.—

25 Any amount allowed as a deduction under subsection (a) 

26 shall not be taken into account in determining the amount 
3

•HR 4042 IH 

1 allowed to the taxpayer as a deduction under any other 

2 provision of this chapter.’’. 

3 (b) DEDUCTION ALLOWED WHETHER OR NOT INDI4 VIDUAL ITEMIZES OTHER DEDUCTIONS.—Section 62(a) 

5 of part I of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is 

6 amended by inserting after paragraph (19) the following 

7 new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(20) QUALIFIED ORGAN DONATION EX9 PENSES.—The deduction allowed by section 214.’’. 

10 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

11 for part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code 

12 is amended by inserting after the item related to section 

13 213 the following new item:

‘‘Sec. 214. Qualified organ donation expenses.’’.

14 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

15 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

16 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity

Established by Executive Order 13718, Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity

Meeting Agenda

July 14, 2016

University of Houston

Hilton University of Houston

Conrad Room – 2nd Floor

4450 University Drive, Houston, TX

*Please note: Speakers/times are subject to change without notice.

Thursday, July 14, 2016

9:00 A.M. – 9:15 A.M. Welcome and Overview 

Dr. Paula Myrick Short, Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, University of Houston 

System; Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, University of Houston

Marty Edwards, Director, Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICSCERT), a division of the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) 

in the Department of Homeland Security

9:15 A.M. – 11:00 A.M. Panel 1: Current and Future Effect of Critical Infrastructure on the Digital Economy 

Robert “Bob” Kolasky, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Infrastructure Protection, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security

Steve Mustard, Cybersecurity Committee Chair, Automation Federation

Dr. Subhash Paluru, Senior VP & Sierra Nevada Regional Manager, Western Area Power 

Administration

Mark Webster, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, FBI-Houston Division 

11:00 A.M. – 11:15 A.M. Break 

11:15 A.M. – 1:00 P.M. Panel 2: Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity Challenges Affecting the Digital Economy 

Scott Aaronson, Executive Director, Security and Business Continuity, Edison Electric 

Institute (EEI); Member of the Secretariat, Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council (ESCC)

Chris Boyer, Assistant Vice President, Global Public Policy, AT&T Services Inc.

Dr. Wm. Arthur “Art” Conklin, Director, University of Houston, Center for Information 

Security Research and Education

Scott Robichaux, Cyber Security CoE Manager, ExxonMobil GSC Information Management

1:00 P.M. – 2:00 P.M. Lunch 

2:00 P.M. – 3:45 P.M. Panel 3: Cybersecurity Challenges and Opportunities in State and Local Governments 

Edward Block, CISO, State of Texas, Texas Department of Information Resources

Major General Reynold N. Hoover, Director of Intelligence for the Chief of the National 

Guard Bureau; Director of Command, Control, Communications, and Computers and Chief 

Information Officer, National Guard Bureau

David LaPlante, CISSP, CISO, Houston IT Services, City of Houston

3:45 P.M. – 4:00 P.M. Public Comment 

4:00 P.M. – 5:00 P.M. Commission Discussion 

5:00 P.M Meeting Adjourned
#### Oscar STILLEY, Appellant, v. Betty DICKEY, in her official capacity as Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court (for the “official” capacity claims against former Chief Justice W.H. “Dub” Arnold); Robert Brown, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as a Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court; Tom Glaze, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as a Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court; W.H. Arnold, in his individual capacity; originally sued as W.H. “Dub” Arnold; Donald L. Corbin, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as a Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court; Annabelle Clinton Imber, in her individual capacity and in her official capacity as a Justice of the Ar*493kansas Supreme Court; Jim Hannah, in his individual capacity and in his official capacity as a Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court, Appellees.

No. 04-2172.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 6, 2005.

Decided Jan. 11, 2005.

Oscar Amos Stilley, Fort Smith, AR, pro se.

Patricia VanAusdall Bell, Attorney General’s Office, Little Rock, AR, James W. Jeans, Sr., Leawood, KS, for DefendantsAppellees.

Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Oscar Stilley appeals the district court’s1 dismissal under *Younger v. Harris,*401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), of his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1988 complaint against defendant justices of the Arkansas Supreme Court. He also appeals the denial of his motion for reconsideration. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that abstention was appropriate, and in denying the motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
7.09 DIA. ——

5.83

63

‘a0

tur

COMMON VACUUM
PORT

50 OHM CARTRIDGE HEATER

(6) 1/4—20 TAP DRILL X .50 DP.
& TAP X .375 DP. HOLES EQ. SP.
ON A 6.375 DIA. B.C. FOR

CUSTOMER USE

0.75
[19.05mm]

(2) LIFTING EYE BOLTS
WITH 1/4—20 THREADS

INSTRUMENTATION SKIRT

7
cd 9.0 [228.6mm] 0.D.

6.0 0.D. X .125 W (AL)
[152.4mm]

4.0 0.D. (AL) 32.91
[101.6mm] [835.86mm]

2.52 DIA. COLD FINGER W/(6)
M5 TAPPED HOLES EQ. SP.
ON A 2.126 DIA. B.C. WITH
SENSOR INSTALLED

!

11.50 [292.1mm] 0.D. |

HIGH TEMP. STAGE 3.000

WITH (2) 10-32 TAPPED
OLES (HELICOIL) SP ON |
‘50 DIA .8.C AS SHOWN

2.75
[69.85mm]

10.25
[260.35mm]

iM)
59mm]
6.00
[152.40mm]
| |
| bo [25.4mm]

BOTTOM FLANGE

ZAR HOLES FOR
0 ON A 9.05 [230mm]
SQUARE [325.3mm BCD]