alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AUG I 8 2006 

Via fax and First Class mail 

Mr. David Waters 

VP Engineering 

Nova Gaming 

220 N. Main St., Suite 604 

Greenville SC 29601 

Re: Classification, Nova Gaming Bingo system version 4.3.3.30 

Dear Mr. Waters: 

This is in response to your letter of July 5,2006, requesting classification of Nova 

Gaming's Bingo system, version 4.3.3.30. 

This office issued a letter on April 4,2005, opining that the Nova Bingo system version 

4.2.0.12 was Class 11. Subsequently, in the ordinary course of business, Nova added 

features and fixed bugs, and this office opined that subsequent versions 4.2.5.9,4.2.7.50, 

and 4.2.9.50 were also Class I1 because the changes incorporated into those versions left 

the bingo game's features and method of play unchanged. 

Nova is now seeking to place version 4.3.3.30 in tribal casinos. We have reviewed a list 

from Nova of all of the new features and bug fixes incorporated into version 4.3.3.30 that 

were not in the previous version, 4.2.9.50. These features and fixes are: 

Support for two new game skins. 

Enhanced tournament mode. 

Support for interface to Multimedia Games' accounting system. 

The "Ready, Set, Go," implementation, which labels the three touches necessary 

for the game "Ready" (starts the game), "Set" (first daub), and "Go" (second 

daub and claim) and starts the spinning reels and the rest of the entertaining 

display only after the bingo game is complete. 

In addition, we have reviewed a sample you provided of the Ready, Set, Go graphics and 

display. Finally, we have reviewed a June 20,2006, report from BMM test labs, which 

concludes that none of the modifications incorporated into version 4.3.3.30 alters in any 

way the game features and play described in our original April 4 letter. 

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1441 L St. NW, Suite 9100. Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 202.632.7066 W. NlGC.GOV 

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; Phoenix. AZ; St. Paul, MN;Tulsa, OK 
,David Waters . P. 2 

Accordingly, the opinion expressed in our April 4 letter that Nova Bingo system is Class 

I1 applies as well to the Bingo gaming central server file, BGC.EXE, version 4.3.3.30, 

which has an SHA-1 signature of 2482452236666d9db03041462 1 1 Od6835f47b659. 

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Michael Gross, Senior Attorney, 

at 202-632-7003. 

Sincerely, 

c 

Penny J. Coleman 

Acting General Counsel 

cc: Geoffiey Standing Bear, Esq.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Lewis, Appellant.

Submitted April 15, 2013;

decided April 25, 2013

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 74 Trinity Place, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
*Monday, March 31, 1997*

MISCELLANEOUS DISMISSALS

96-740.

#### Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ohio v. Schmidt.

Lucas App. No. L-94-291. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County. Upon consideration of the joint application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal be, and hereby is, granted.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3399 

To remove the limit on the anticipated award price for contracts awarded 

under the procurement program for women-owned small business concerns, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 24, 2010 

Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mrs. GILLIBRAND) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business 

and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To remove the limit on the anticipated award price for contracts awarded under the procurement program for 

women-owned small business concerns, 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 ‘‘Fairness in Women5 Owned Small Business Contracting Act of 2010’’. 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3399 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROCUREMENT PROGRAM FOR WOMEN-OWNED 

2 SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS. 

3 Section 8(m) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

4 637(m)) is amended— 

5 (1) in paragraph (2)— 

6 (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘who 

7 are economically disadvantaged’’; 

8 (B) in subparagraph (C), by striking 

9 ‘‘paragraph (3)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph 

10 (4)’’; 

11 (C) by striking subparagraph (D); and 

12 (D) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) 

13 and (F) as subparagraphs (D) and (E), respec14 tively; and 

15 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

16 ‘‘(7) SOLE SOURCE CONTRACTS.—A contracting 

17 officer may award a sole source contract under this 

18 subsection to a small business concern owned and 

19 controlled by women under the same conditions as a 

20 sole source contract may be awarded to a qualified 

21 HUBZone small business concern under section 

22 31(b)(2)(A).’’. 

23 SEC. 3. STUDY AND REPORT ON REPRESENTATION OF 

24 WOMEN. 

25 Section 29 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 656) 

26 is amended by adding at the end the following: 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3399 IS

1 ‘‘(o) STUDY AND REPORT ON REPRESENTATION OF

2 WOMEN.— 

3 ‘‘(1) STUDY.—The Administrator shall periodi4 cally conduct a study to identify any United States 

5 industry, as defined under the North American In6 dustry Classification System, in which women are 

7 underrepresented. 

8 ‘‘(2) REPORT.—Not later than 5 years after the 

9 date of enactment of this subsection, and every 5 

10 years thereafter, the Administrator shall submit to 

11 the Committee on Small Business and Entrepre12 neurship of the Senate and the Committee on Small 

13 Business of the House of Representatives a report 

14 on the results of each study under paragraph (1) 

15 conducted during the 5-year period ending on the 

16 date of the report.’’. 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-50082 and 333-67688)
pertaining to the Bandag, Incorporated Stock Award Plan and in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-115369) pertaining to the Bandag, Incorporated Stock Grant and Awards
Plan of our reports dated March 15, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Bandag, Incorporated, Bandag, Incorporated Company
managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Bandag,
Incorporated, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
2006.

| | /s/  Ernst & Young LLP
Ernst
& Young LLP
| | ----------------------------------------

Chicago, IL
March 15, 2007
FORM 10-Q--QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(D)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

[X] Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the period ended March 31, 2001

or

[  ]  Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the transition period from ______ to ___________

 

Commission File Number: 33-18089-A

 

HICKORY LENDERS, LTD.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FIRST QUARTER 10Q.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                              23
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,239
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                         44
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,746
<PP&E>                                           4,205
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,411
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,225
<BONDS>                                          1,134
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        497
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         961
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,411
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,595
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,539
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  35
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     29
<INCOME-TAX>                                        11
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 18
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        18
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>NOT SEPARATELY IDENTIFIED IN THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OR
ACCOMPANYING NOTES THERETO.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-80,458-01

EX PARTE WALTER AARON HAMILTON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 2006CR3927-W1 IN THE 226TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM BEXAR COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of four counts of

aggravated sexual assault, one count of aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated kidnapping. 

According to the judgments in the record, he was sentenced to sixty years’ imprisonment on each

count. The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions. Hamilton v. State, 300 S.W.3d 14 1

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009).

This appears to be a clerical mistake. According to the punishment verdicts, Applicant 1

was sentenced to sixty years in the first and sixth counts only. 
2

Applicant contends, among other things, that he received multiple punishments in violation

of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law and

determined that although there was a single instance of penile penetration, Applicant was convicted

of both intentionally and knowingly causing the penetration of the complainant’s sexual organ by

his sexual organ, and intentionally and knowingly causing the complainant’s sexual organ to contact

his sexual organ. 

We find that Applicant received multiple punishments in violation of the Double Jeopardy

Clause. Aekins v. State, 447 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Relief is granted. Count two in

cause number 2006CR3927 in the 226th District Court of Bexar County is set aside. All other relief

is denied.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department ofCriminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: March 18, 2015

Do not publish
NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION 

TRIBAL GAMING REVENUES 

 Number of Revenues Percentage of Mean Median 

Gaming Revenue Range Operations (in thousands) Operations Revenues (in thousands) (in thousands) 

Gaming operation fiscal years ending in 2002 

$100 million and over 41 9,398,962 12% 65% 229,243 166,977 

$50 to $100 million 24 1,698,195 7% 12% 70,758 68,225 

$25 to $50 million 55 1,977,753 17% 14% 35,959 34,291 

$10 to $25 million 61 984,578 18% 7% 16,141 16,092 

$3 to $10 million 59 367,821 18% 3% 6,234 5,894 

Under $3 million 90 69,691 27% 0% 723 448 

Total 330 14,497,000 

Gaming operation fiscal years ending in 2001 

$100 million and over 39 8,398,523 12% 66% 215,347 158,836 

$50 to $100 million 19 1,415,755 6% 11% 74,513 79,083 

$25 to $50 million 43 1,528,611 13% 12% 35,549 34,264 

$10 to $25 million 58 976,546 18% 8% 17,199 16,328 

$3 to $10 million 57 385,654 17% 3% 6,766 7,292 

Under $3 million 113 95,614 34% 1% 846 562 

Total 329 12,821,703 

Gaming operation fiscal years ending in 2000 

$100 million and over 31 6,606,284 10% 60% 213,106 141,684 

$50 to $100 million 24 1,693,510 8% 15% 70,563 73,314 

$25 to $50 million 41 1,360,777 13% 12% 33,190 29,944 

$10 to $25 million 50 856,464 16% 8% 17,129 17,335 

$3 to $10 million 55 350,110 18% 3% 6,366 6,250 

Under $3 million 110 91,545 35% 1% 832 541 

Totals 311 10,958,690 

Gaming operation fiscal years ending in 1999 

$100 million and over 28 5,845,787 9% 60% 208,778 136,897 

$50 to $100 million 19 1,323,995 6% 14% 69,684 70,412 

$25 to $50 million 33 1,193,049 11% 12% 36,153 35,990 

$10 to $25 million 59 1,028,834 19% 10% 17,438 17,562 

$3 to $10 million 54 322,268 17% 3% 5,968 5,764 
Under $3 million 117 86,907 38% 1% 537 365 

Totals 310 9,800,840 

Gaming operation fiscal years ending in 1998 

$100 million and over 23 4,674,895 8% 55% 203,256 127,972 

$50 to $100 million 20 1,354,563 7% 16% 67,728 68,922 

$25 to $50 million 31 1,090,227 10% 13% 35,169 34,639 

$10 to $25 million 56 948,089 19% 11% 16,930 16,287 

$3 to $10 million 55 341,064 19% 4% 6,201 5,746 

Under $3 million 112 86,856 38% 1% 773 503 

Totals 297 8,495,391 

Source: Compiled from gaming operation audit reports received and entered by the NIGC through 6/30/2003.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6759
FREEMAN CARVER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK; JIM CAUBLE, Superintendent, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-96-2-MU) Submitted: September 21, 2000 Decided: September 28, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Freeman Carver, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Freeman Carver seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Carver v. Beck , No. CA-00-96-2-MU (W.D.N.C. May 8, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Margarito Gonzalez ALDANA, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 05-15617.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 5, 2006.

Decided June 14, 2006.

Stephen Shaiken, Esq., Law Office of Stephen Shaiken, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Edward A. Olsen, Esq., USSF — Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: SILER,* and RAWLINSON, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

The facts are known to the parties.

By its own terms, waiver of inadmissibility under § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act was available only for “[ajliens *lawfully admitted for permanent residence*who temporarily proceeded *730abroad voluntarily and not under an order of deportation, and who are returning to a *lawful unrelinquished domicile of seven consecutive years*.... ” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996) (emphasis added). At the time of his no contest plea, Aldana was a temporary resident under the Special Agricultural Workers (“SAW”) program, 8 U.S.C. § 1160 (2000), who had acquired scarcely five months of lawful domicile. Thus, § 212(c) relief was unavailable to Aldana when he entered his plea of no contest.

In determining that § 212(c) relief remains available for certain aliens following its repeal, the Supreme Court did not expand the availability of such relief beyond the former section’s strictures. *See INS v. St. Cyr,*533 U.S. 289, 121 S.Ct. 2271, 150 L.Ed.2d 347 (2001). Rather, the Court explicitly limited the continuing availability of such relief to those aliens who qualified for § 212(c) relief at the time they entered their pleas. *See id.*at 326, 121 S.Ct. 2271 (‘We therefore hold that § 212(c) relief remains available for aliens, like respondent, whose convictions were obtained through plea agreements and who, notwithstanding those convictions, would have been eligible for § 212(c) relief *at the time of their plea*under the law then in effect.” (emphasis added)). *See also United States v. Leon-Paz,*340 F.3d 1003, 1006-07 (9th Cir.2003) (finding § 212(c) relief remained available to an alien who otherwise qualified for such relief at the time he entered his guilty plea to a nonremovable offense which Congress subsequently reclassified as a removable offense). Accordingly, Aldana’s petition is DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mohmude Parks, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 474]

Judgment Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered on or about January 13, 2004, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
Exhibit
23.2
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm
  
 Board of
Directors and Stockholders of
 The
Fairchild Corporation
  We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-38302, 333-97703, 333-82828, 333-16821) on Form S-8 of The Fairchild
Corporation of our report dated August 13, 2007, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheet of The Fairchild Corporation as of September 30,
2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended
September 30, 2006, and related financial statement schedule, which report
appears in the September 30, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of The Fairchild
Corporation.
 
 
 /s/ KPMG
LLP
  McLean,
Virginia
 March 3,
2008
#### Fariha Basalel, Appellant, v Youni Gems Corporation et al., Defendants, and David Aharoni et al., Respondents.

Submitted June 11, 2012;

decided August 30, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the Appellate Division order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the *990Constitution and the stipulation does not qualify as a final judgment within the meaning of CPLR 5602 (a) (1) (ii) to bring up for review the prior nonfinal Appellate Division order because it was entered into without prejudice.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 111 (Thursday, June 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 27793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13611]



[[Page 27793]]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 6, 2009.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Ivan Hurwitz, Bank 
Applications Officer) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:
    1. Tompkins Financial Corporation, Ithaca, New York; to acquire 
6.85 percent of the voting shares of Darien Rowayton Bank, Darien, 
Connecticut.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Steve Foley, Vice President) 
1000 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
    1. CBM Florida Holding Company, Milan, New York; to become a bank 
holding company by acquiring 51 percent of the voting shares of 
Community Bank of Manatee, Bradenton, Florida.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 5, 2009.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-13611 Filed 6-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

Honorable H. D. Garrett County Attorney Rains county Iiaory,~

Texes Dem se:

..~,

ed 14 your latter OS rabla f3ar8ia

0. Yann, upon rhioh you his &spartment.

ndent) arslatant superihgenoy and haa soma aohool e poliotashaving been M abslatant euporlntend**expire** prior to 1945, loited aohool lnsukanoe Siioe,nor doce ho propose to solloit hilain offlae. **A** queetionhas been etherhe may Pagally serve as asslstIMendent and om the agenoy, having in ioroe, oovering sohool builUlngs, to his induotlon into 

### 0frh.w ‘6eessume the assietant superintendent referred to was employ& **by virtue**  of the authority vested in the County Superintep&entunbar Artiole 2700 Revised Civil Statutes, 1926.

### 669

Honorable Ii.D. Garrett,pace 2

Such an assistant oontemplatedunder this **statute was**  **held to**  **be one**  whose duties are to be performed lo oonneotionwith, end under the direotion of the superintendent. Neeper vs. Stewart, 66 S. X. (2d) 812.

The faot that an assistaut owns an **insursnoe egenoy**  throughwhloh the Insurance on aohool property is written prior tohis employmentby the County Superintendent, suohwould note :~ eonetltute the employrent illegalnor prohibit the owner of the agency from legally performing the Unties or his employmentas aesletant County Superintendent.

Under your iaots aubmitteb, it 1s therefore the opinion ofthis department that your question be and It 16 answered in. the aiflnnatlre.