alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5
       
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                         MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               375,168
<SECURITIES>                                         3,106,645
<RECEIVABLES>                                        000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         000
<INVENTORY>                                          000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     000
<PP&E>                                               000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       32,158,308<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                000
<BONDS>                                              000
<COMMON>                                             000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                000
<PREFERRED>                                          000
<OTHER-SE>                                           31,785,204
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         32,158,308<F2>
<SALES>                                              000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     254,185<F3>
<CGS>                                                000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     555,031<F4>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      000
<CHANGES>                                            000
<NET-INCOME>                                         (3,626,340)<F5>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (70.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        000
<FN>
<F1>Included  in total assets are  Investments in Local Limited  Partnerships of
$28,387,876,   Restricted   cash  of  $252,555  and  Other  assets  of  $36,064.
<F2>Included in total  liabilities and equity are Accounts payable to affiliates
of $309,172 and Accounts payable and accrued expenses of $63,932.
<F3>Total revenue includes Investment of $202,202 and Other of $51,983.
<F4>Included in Other Expenses are Asset  Management  fees of $286,044,  General
and  Administrative  of  $227,685,  and  Amortization  of $41,302.  
<F5>Net loss reflects Equity in losses of Local Limited Partnerships of 
$3,325,494.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
2004 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-13-2004

USA v. Fetzner

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 03-3692

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Fetzner" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 396.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/396
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-3692

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

DONALD N. FETZNER,

 Appellant

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(Dist. Court No. 02-cr-00006E)

District Judge: Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin

 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

June 24, 2004

Before: NYGAARD, MCKEE and CHERTOFF, Circuit Judges.

 

ORDER

 

The opinion and judgment of the court, filed on August 11, 2004, is hereby

VACATED pending a further order by this court.

For the Court,

 /s/ Michael Chertoff

United States Circuit Judge

DATED: August 13, 2004
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
    <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width" />
    <meta name="robots" content="noindex">
    <title>Technology Advancement & Transfer - NIDDK</title>
    
<meta name="VIcurrentDateTime" content="638490751636318141" />
<meta name="VirtualFolder" content="/" />
<script type="text/javascript" src="/layouts/system/VisitorIdentification.js"></script>

</head>
<body>
    <div></div>
</body>
</html>
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  News & Events 
-  NIDCD Calendar of Events 

# Beyond the Lab, Understanding Communication Disorders: Speaker Series

Designed for administrative and support staff as well as scientists, the NIDCD's *Beyond the Lab, Understanding Communication Disorders* speaker series gives NIH staff and the public the opportunity to learn about the NIDCD’s research and about scientific advances in communication disorders—conditions that directly affect about one in six Americans during their lifetime. The goal of the series is to present the science of the NIDCD's mission areas in ways that everyone can understand. The series is open to the larger NIH community and to the public. All lectures are webcast live and available for later viewing on the NIH videocast site.

## Upcoming Events

Zebrafish Can Help Us “See” How Hearing Works
Katie Kindt, Ph.D.,  Senior Investigator, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders

View all upcoming NIDCD events

## Previous Events

Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids: How We Got Here, and Where We’re Going
Kelly King, Au.D., Ph.D., Audiologist and Program Officer, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders

Progress Toward Hair Cell Regeneration and the Restoration of Hearing
Matthew W. Kelley, Ph.D., Chief, Section on Developmental Neuroscience, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders

NIDCD Mouse Auditory Testing Core Facility's Role in Identifying Hearing Loss
Tracy Fitzgerald, Ph.D., CCC-A, Staff Scientist in the NIDCD Mouse Auditory Testing Core Facility, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders

View all previous events for the Beyond the Lab, Understanding Communication Disorders: Speaker Series
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 819 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2005 

Referred to the Committee on Resources 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to reallocate costs 

of the Pactola Dam and Reservoir, South Dakota, to 

reflect increased demands for municipal, industrial, and 

fish and wildlife purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pactola Reservoir Re5 allocation Authorization Act of 2005’’. 
2 

S 819 RFH 

1 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

2 Congress finds that— 

3 (1) it is appropriate to reallocate the costs of 

4 the Pactola Dam and Reservoir, South Dakota, to 

5 reflect increased demands for municipal, industrial, 

6 and fish and wildlife purposes; and 

7 (2) section 302 of the Department of Energy 

8 Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7152) prohibits such a 

9 reallocation of costs without congressional approval. 

10 SEC. 3. REALLOCATION OF COSTS OF PACTOLA DAM AND 

11 RESERVOIR, SOUTH DAKOTA. 

12 The Secretary of the Interior may, as provided in the 

13 contract of August 2001 entered into between Rapid City, 

14 South Dakota, and the Rapid Valley Conservancy District, 

15 reallocate, in a manner consistent with Federal reclama16 tion law (the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388, chapter 

17 1093), and Acts supplemental to and amendatory of that 

18 Act (43 U.S.C. 371 et seq.)), the construction costs of 

19 Pactola Dam and Reservoir, Rapid Valley Unit, Pick20 Sloan Missouri Basin Program, South Dakota, from 
3 

S 819 RFH 

1 irrigation purposes to municipal, industrial, and fish and 

2 wildlife purposes. 

Passed the Senate November 16, 2005. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 23, 2023

No. 04-23-00029-CR

IN RE Javier Ahedo ARIAS,

Original Mandamus Proceeding

ORDER

Relators moved to consolidate this original proceeding with Cause Nos. 04-23-00028-

CR, 04-23-00029-CR, 04-23-00030-CR, 04-23-00031-CR, 04-23-00032-CR, 04-23-00033-CR, 

04-23-00034-CR, 04-23-00035-CR, 04-23-00036-CR, 04-23-00037-CR, 04-23-00038-CR, 04-

23-00039-CR, 04-23-00040-CR, 04-23-00041-CR, 04-23-00042-CR, 04-23-00043-CR, 04-23-

00044-CR, 04-23-00045-CR, 04-23-00046-CR, 04-23-00047-CR, and 04-23-00051-CR. Real 

party in interest is not opposed to the motions. Having considered the motions, we GRANT 

relators’ motions to consolidate. 

We ORDER Cause Nos. 04-23-00028-CR, 04-23-00029-CR, 04-23-00030-CR, 04-23-

00031-CR, 04-23-00032-CR, 04-23-00033-CR, 04-23-00034-CR, 04-23-00035-CR, 04-23-

00036-CR, 04-23-00037-CR, 04-23-00038-CR, 04-23-00039-CR, 04-23-00040-CR, 04-23-

00041-CR, 04-23-00042-CR, 04-23-00043-CR, 04-23-00044-CR, 04-23-00045-CR, 04-23-

00046-CR, 04-23-00047-CR, and 04-23-00051-CR, consolidated for purposes of briefing and 

argument, if any. The parties must file any motions and briefs as if the proceedings were one; 

however, all cause numbers must be included on the documents.

The court will dispose of the original proceedings with separate orders and opinions 

except to the extent the original proceedings involve the same defendant.

It is so ORDERED on January 23, 2023.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-50961

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES EDWARD PRICE,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(98-CR-54)

- - - - - - - - - -

May 7, 1999

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant James Edward Price appeals from his

conviction of carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drugtrafficking offense. Price contends that the evidence was

insufficient to prove a nexus between his carrying of firearms and

his drug-trafficking offense; that the district court erred by

failing to instruct the jury properly regarding the “in relation

to” element of his offense; and that the district court should have

required the jury to deliberate anew after it returned a verdict

form that was altered.
2

The evidence presented at Price’s trial was sufficient for the

jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the handgun in the

center console of Price’s pickup had some purpose or effect with

respect to his drug-trafficking offense. United States v.

Schmalzried, 152 F.3d 354, 357 (5th Cir. 1998). The handgun was

located close to Price in the pickup. Investigator Powell’s

testimony indicated that drug traffickers commonly used firearms to

protect themselves and that the handgun taken from the pickup was

of a type commonly used by drug traffickers.

The instructions given by the jury regarding the “in relation

to” element of the offense, to which Price did not object at trial,

do not rise to the level of plain error. The instruction

essentially restates the elements of the offense as set forth in 18

U.S.C. § 924(c). Given the instruction that the carrying of the

firearm must be “in relation to” the drug offense, it is unlikely

that the jury would have convicted Price had it believed his

testimony regarding his purposes for possessing the firearms.

Price therefore has failed to demonstrate that the court’s failure

to use the pattern instructions caused the likelihood of a grave

miscarriage of justice. United States v. Jones, 673 F.2d 115, 119

(5th Cir. 1982).

Finally, the modified verdict form was correct, as was the

district court’s instruction regarding the form. United States v.

Garcia, 135 F.3d 951, 956 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 2386

(1998). The district court’s additional instruction was not an

abuse of discretion, Roberts v. Williams-McWilliams Co., 648 F.2d
3

255, 265 (5th Cir. 1981), and no further deliberation was required

simply because the verdict form was modified.

AFFIRMED.
#### HYUNDAI ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES CO., LTD. and Hyundai Electronics America, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, and Micron Technology, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2006-1480.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

June 29, 2006.

ORDER

The parties having so agreed, it is

ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R.App. P. 42(b).
The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western 1 District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-3324

___________ Janice Rukavina, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Missouri Department of Social * Western District of Missouri. Services, Division of Child Support * Enforcement; Kathleen Shannon, * [UNPUBLISHED] Supervisor 1; David Damico, * Program Director, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: February 5, 1999 Filed: February 16, 1999

___________ Before FAGG, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Janice Rukavina appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment 1 in favor of her former employer and the manager of her office. Having reviewed the-2-

record de novo and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment with regard to Ms
. Rukavi na’s disability discrimination claim because she failed to offer sufficien t evidence t o create a factual dispute whether she was a “qualified” individual--i.e. , whethersh e could perform the essential duties of her position with or withou t reasonable accommodation. See Hennenfent v. Mid Dakota Clini c, P.C. , No. 98-1992, 1998 WL 9 01709 (8th Cir. Dec. 29, 1998). As to Ms. Rukavina’s other claims, w e affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 834.

#### Dow *v.*Ickes, Secretary of the Interior, et al.

February 16, 1942.

*Mr. William G. Symmers*for petitioner. *Solicitor General Fahy, Assistant Attorney General Littell,*and *Mr. Archibald Cox*for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied.
Exhibit 10.4
 HEARUSA, INC.
AMENDED AND RESTATED
2007 INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN  RECITALS
      ARTICLE 1
 PURPOSE OF THE PLAN
 Purpose.
 ARTICLE 2
 DEFINITIONS




---



##### 



Award
 Board
 Cause
 Change of Control
   1
  2




---



##### 



2
   Closing Price
 Code
 Committee
  3




---



##### 



Company
 Director
 Disability
 Exchange Act
 Grant Limitation
 Holder
 Incentive Stock Option
 Issue
 Non Employee Director
 Nonqualified Stock Option
 Option
 Optionee
 Outside Director
 Participant
 Permitted Assignee
  4




---



##### 



Plan
 Restricted Shares
 Restricted Stock Agreement
 Restricted Stock Award
 Restricted Stock Unit
 Restricted Stock Unit Agreement
 Share
 Share Limitation
 Stock Appreciation Right
 Stock Option Agreement
 Tax Election
 ARTICLE 3
 SHARES SUBJECT TO AWARDS
 Number of Shares.
    5




---



##### 



Shares Subject to Terminated Awards.
 Character of Shares.
 Limitations on Grants to Individual Participant.
 ARTICLE 4
 ELIGIBILITY AND ADMINISTRATION
 Awards to Employees and Directors.
   6




---



##### 



Administration.
    ARTICLE 5
 OPTIONS
 Grant of Options.
   7




---



##### 



Option Price.
 Other Provisions.
 ARTICLE 6
 STOCK APPRECIATION RIGHTS
 Grant and Exercise.
 Terms and Conditions.
   8




---



##### 



ARTICLE 7
 RESTRICTED STOCK AWARDS
 Restricted Stock Awards.
  9




---



##### 



Terms of Restricted Shares.
   10




---



##### 



ARTICLE 8
 RESTRICTED STOCK UNITS
 Award of Restricted Stock Units.
 Termination of Employment.
 Restricted Stock Units.
  11




---



##### 



ARTICLE 9
 GENERALLY APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
 Option Period.
 Fair Market Value.
 Exercise of Options.
  12




---



##### 



Transferability.
 Termination of Employment.
  13




---



##### 



Death.
 Disability.
 Amendment and Modification of the Plan.
 Adjustments.
  14




---



##### 



Performance Based Compensation.
 ARTICLE 10
 MISCELLANEOUS
 Tax Withholding.
  15




---



##### 



Right of Discharge Reserved.
 Nature of Payments.
 Severability.
 Gender and Number.
 Governing Law.
  16




---



##### 



Termination of Plan.
 Captions.
  17
#### Butterworth *against*Soper.

raanuctionot an officer of the militia, who has j.^oawarrant ®°|nc^r ofa'r^imTntfi defeLdínt spSi8‘matter jSstmcatíon.u'nn/ue!116 £eneMa

IN ERROR, on *certiorari*to a justice’s court.

THE defendant in error brought an action of trespass in the ... ', A court .below against the plaintiff in error, and declared, for that he had, without authority, issued a written ordei’, commanding a constable to levy a fine for the delinquency of the son of the plaintiff below, as a soldier in the militia; in pursuance of which order the constable took and sold the cow of the plaintiff. The defendant below pleaded the general issue, and the plaintiff having proved his declaration, the defendant offered to prove that-he issued the warrant for collecting the fine, in pursuance of the sentence of a regimental court martial. The plaintiff objected that this justification was inadmissible under the general issue, and the justice gave judgment for the plaintiff below.

*Per Curiam.*

There is no error, and the judgment must be affirmed. The statute* authorizing such defence under the general issue, does not extend to this case.

Judgment affirmed.

*

 (See *act.for the more easy pleading in certain suits, N. R. L.*155. *sect.*1.
**EXHIBIT 23.2**Consent of Ernst & Young LLP Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm          We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos.333-114166, 333-102988, 333-85160, 333-61866, 333-25661, 333-32159, 333-23085, 333-17501,333-03507, and 333-107755) and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-116624, 333-30558,333-46990, 333-81243, 333-105694, and 333-105693), pertaining to the 1992 Stock Option Plan, the1993 Non-Employee Directors’ Equity Incentive Plan, the 2000 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 2003Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the 2004 Non-Employee Directors’ Equity Incentive Plan of QuestcorPharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated February 18, 2005 (except Note 17, as to which the dateis March 29, 2005, and which is not presented herein), with respect to the 2004 and 2003 financialstatements and schedule of Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005./s/ Ernst & Young LLPPalo Alto, California
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 255 

To amend the Truth in Lending Act to empower the States to set the 

maximum annual percentage rates applicable to consumer credit transactions, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 15, 2009 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself and Mr. DURBIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Truth in Lending Act to empower the States 

to set the maximum annual percentage rates applicable 

to consumer credit transactions, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Empowering States’ 

5 Right To Protect Consumers Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITS ON ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATES. 

7 Chapter 2 of the Truth In Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 

8 1631 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the fol9 lowing: 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•S 255 IS

1 ‘‘SEC. 141. LIMITS ON ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATES. 

2 ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the an3 nual percentage rate applicable to any consumer credit 

4 transaction (other than a residential mortgage trans5 action), including any fees associated with such a trans6 action, may not exceed the maximum rate permitted by 

7 the laws of the State in which the consumer resides.’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.44
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
LICENSING AGREEMENT
 By:
    
    Widmer Brothers Brewing Company, an Oregon corporation (Widmer)
929 N. Russell
Portland, Oregon 97227and:Craft Brands Alliance LLC, an Oregon limited liability company (CBA)
929 N. Russell
Portland, Oregon 97227and:Redhook Ale Brewery Incorporated, a Washington corporation (Redhook)
14300 NE 145th Street
Woodinville, Washington 98072Date:
    
    June 2005
  BACKGROUND
    AGREEMENT
  Expansion of Territory
 -1-




---



##### 



Approvals
 Brand Management Exhibit C
 Royalties
 Region 6 Royalties Through
    
    Region 6 Royalties FollowingVolume
    
    December 31, 2005
    
    December 31, 20050-41,340 PCEs
    
    $0.00 PCE if sales are
less than 41,340 PCE
    
    $0.25 PCE$0.25 if sales are 41,340 PCE or greater41,341-68,900 PCEs
    
    $0.75 PCE
    
    $0.75 PCEOver 68,900 PCEs
    
    $1.00 PCE
    
    $1.00 PCE
  (i)
    
    for purposes of this Section 3.1, Net Sales Price
equals the weighted average gross wholesale price charged by Redhook for
the Widmer Product, minus the weighted-average excise taxes, Margins, and
discounts. Margins are those fees identified as Margins payable by
Redhook to Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (ABI) under its Distribution Agreement
with ABI. The Base Net Sales Price shall be Net Sales Price upon which
increases or decreases are computed. The initial Base Net Sales Price
shall be the Net Sales Price as of December 31, 2004. Whenever an
adjustment is made under this Section 4.2, the Net Sales Price which
triggered the increase or decrease shall be the Base Net Sales Price for
the next adjustment.
 -2-




---



##### 



(ii)
    
    for aggregate increases or decreases in the Net Sales
Price after December 31, 2004, which are greater than a 2% increase or
decrease over the Base Net Sales Price then in effect, the Royalty Rates
will increase or decrease by the same percentage change; provided, however,
that in no event will the Royalty Rates decrease below the amounts set
forth in Section 4.1 above.
  Reports th
 Partial Periods
 Books and Records
 Notices
 -3-




---



##### 



If to Widmer, to:Widmer Brothers Brewing Company929 N. RussellPortland, Oregon 97227Attn: Kurt WidmerFax: 503-281-1496If to CBA, to:Craft Brands Alliance LLC929 N. RussellPortland, Oregon 97227Attn: Terry MichaelsonFax: 503-281-1496If to Redhook, to:Redhook Ale Brewery Incorporated14300 NE 145th StreetWoodinville, Washington 98072Attn: David MickelsonFax: 425-485-0761
  CBAs Consent; Rights Exhibit A
 Other Terms
 Counterparts
 -4-




---



##### 



WIDMER BROTHERS BREWING COMPANY
    
    
    
    REDHOOK ALE BREWERY INCORPORATEDBy:
    
    /s/ Kurt Widmer
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ David J. MickelsonName:
    
    Kurt Widmer
    
    
    
    Name:
    
    David J. MickelsonTitle:
    
    President
    
    
    
    Title:
    
    EVP / CFO / COOCRAFT BRANDS ALLIANCE LLCBy:
    
    /s/ Terry E. MichaelsonName:
    
    Terry E. MichaelsonTitle:
    
    President
 -5-




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO RESTATED OPERATING AGREEMENT OF CBA