alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SITI MARHAENNY

RAHAYUNINGSIH; et al.,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-70011

Agency Nos. A099-779-854

 A099-779-855

 A099-779-856

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 24, 2011** 

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Siti Marhaenny Rahayuningsih and her family, natives and citizens of

Indonesia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order

dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their

application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

FILED

JUN 07 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-70011

for substantial evidence, Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010),

and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that petitioners failed

to establish past persecution or an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution

on account of a protected ground, because they did not demonstrate that the

persons who attempted to force Rahayuningsih to return her adopted daughter to

the daughter’s biological mother were motivated by more than a personal dispute. 

See id. at 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2010) (the Real ID Act requires a protected ground to

be “one central reason” for the persecution). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum

claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 32.2

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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q of MinnErgy, LLC (the Company) for the
quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Christopher L. Arnold, Principal Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 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 Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Christopher L. ArnoldChristopher L. Arnold, Principal Financial OfficerDated: November 13, 2008
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2760
MAGGIE YVONNE BOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE CHRISTIAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH; THE NEW YORK/WASHINGTON ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH; TRUSTEES OF ST. JAMES CME CHURCH, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-95-2-L) Submitted: November 30, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maggie Yvonne Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Joy Lee Price, CASKIE & FROST, Lynchburg, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief in her employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Boyd v. The Christian Methodist Episcopal Church , No. CA-95- 2-L (W.D. Va. Aug. 8, 1995). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Rules of Procedure   for the Supervisory Board of   Infineon Technologies AG
  § 1   General
   § 2   Chairman and Deputy Chairman
    -1-




---



##### 



§ 3   Convening of Meetings
     § 4   Passing of Resolutions
    -2-




---



##### 



§ 5   Committees
    -3-




---



##### 



§ 6   Executive Committee
        -4-




---



##### 



§ 7   Investment, Finance & Audit Committee
         -5-




---



##### 



§ 8   Matters Requiring Consent
     -6-




---



##### 



§ 9   Efficiency Audit
  § 10   Conflicts of Interest
  § 11   Confidentiality
    -7-




---



##### 



§ 12   Declaration of Intention
  § 13   Effectiveness
   -8-
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PRIMEDIA Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kim R. Payne, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/S/ KIM R. PAYNE                                 
|Kim R. Payne,                                    
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

May 3, 2010

This certification
accompanies each Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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.
Exhibit 32.01

CERTIFICATIONS

(Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned hereby certifies that (i) the foregoing Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed by Bank of the Carolinas
Corporation (the Registrant) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|                   |  |                                                     
|------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 12, 2011 |  | /s/ Stephen R. Talbert                              
|                   |  | Stephen R. Talbert                                  
|                   |  | President and Chief Executive Officer               
|                   | 
|Date: May 12, 2011 |  | /s/ Eric E. Rhodes                                  
|                   |  | Eric E. Rhodes                                      
|                   |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1115, -1246

GEORGE E. KERSEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in

case nos. 1:06-MC-416 and 1:07-MC-302, Judge Emmett G. Sullivan.

ORDER

The court considers whether to grant George E. Kersey an extension of time to

file his brief.

Kersey submitted an informal brief on January 5, 2009. However, the court's

March 4, 2009 order required Kersey to file a brief limited to the issue of the district

court's denial of Kersey's in forma pauperis motion. Thus, Kersey's January 5 brief is

rejected for filing and Kersey is directed to file a replacement brief.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1)	Kersey's January 5 brief is rejected for filing.
Kersey is directed to file a replacement brief within 30 days of the date of

filing of this order or his appeal will be dismissed.

The Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks' brief due date should be

calculated from the date of service of Kersey's replacement brief.

FOR THE COURT

APR 14 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Date

cc:	George E. Kersey

Alan Burch, Esq.

s17

Jan Horbaly FILED Clerk US COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

APR 14 Z009

JRN liunonLY

CLERK

2009-1115, -1246	 2
COURT OF APPEALS

SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO

MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

To the 77th District Court of Limestone County, Greeting:

BEFORE our Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, on April 13,

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Teddie Davenport v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 07-14-00281-CR Trial Court Number: 13,188-A

was determined and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated April 13, 2015, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of said Court of

Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Honorable Justices of our said Court, with the seal thereof

annexed, at the City of Amarillo on July 7, 2015.

Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK

FILE COPY
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Amjad Alqam, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 632]

The defendant’s challenge to the judgment convicting him of a single count of criminal contempt in the first degree *(see*Penal Law § 215.51 [c]), upon his plea of guilty, is barred because the plea encompassed a waiver of the right to appeal, and the waiver was knowingly, voluntary, and intelligently made *(see People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1, 11 [1989]).

There is no merit to the defendant’s challenge to the judgment convicting him of three counts of criminal contempt in the first degree *(see*Penal Law § 215.51 [b], [c]), two counts of endangering the welfare of a child *(see*Penal Law § 260.10), and resisting arrest *(see*Penal Law § 205.30), upon a jury verdict. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(see People v Calabria,*3 NY3d 80, 81-82 [2004]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633, 643 [2006]).

*777The sentences imposed were not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Santucci and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
WebFilings | Exhibit1011-AnnualDirectorCompensation


Exhibit 10.11




Annual Director Compensation
Annual Retainers:	
				
	Each non-employee director:
	$
	40,000
	


	Lead Director
	20,000
	


	Chairperson of the Audit Committee:
	16,000
	


	Other Audit Committee Members:
	9,000
	


	Chairperson of the Compensation Committee:
	12,000
	


	Other Compensation Committee Members:
	6,000
	


	Chairperson of the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee:
	8,000
	


	Other Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee Members:
	6,000
	







All retainers are payable in cash, in four equal installments on the first day of each fiscal quarter. 


Meeting Fees:
Non-employee directors each receive $2,500 for each Board of Directors meeting attended in person and are reimbursed for their expenses in attending such meetings. 


Equity Award:
Annually, each director shall receive a deferred stock award pursuant to the 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan, consisting of the right to receive shares of Rent-A-Center common stock.  The award shall be valued at $85,000 and be fully vested upon issuance.  The shares covered by the award will be issued upon the termination of the director’s service as a member of the Board.
CHIEF JUSTICE

ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

GINA M. BENAVIDES

GREGORY T. PERKES

NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

DORIAN E. RAMIREZ NUECES COUNTY COURTH OUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FL OOR

CORPUS C HRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361

- 888

- 0416 (TEL)

361

- 888

- 0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLO OR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 7853 9

956

- 318

- 2405 (TEL)

956

- 318

- 2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa 

# Court of Appeals

Thirteenth District of Texas

February 05, 2015

Hon. Jim Vollers

Attorney At Law

2201 Westover Road

Austin, TX 78703

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Hon. Keith S. Weiser

Attorney At Law

P. O. Box 1093

Victoria, TX 77902

- 1093

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL * Hon. Robert E. Bell

Distric t Attorney

115 W. Main Street, Rm. 205

Edna, TX 77957

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13

- 13

- 00526

- CR

Tr.Ct.No. 13

- 5

- 9030

Style: Herman Lee Kindred v. The State of Texas

Enclosed please find the opinion and judgment issued by the Court on this date

.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER: ch

Enc.

cc: State Prosecuting Attorney (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)

2 4 th District Court (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)

Hon. Sharon Mathis , Jackson County District Clerk (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)
#### Wilcox *et al. v.*Mims.

Simmons, J. — The exercise of due diligence would have enabled the party and his counsel to know before announcing ready for trial whether interrogatories taken in the cause were in the clerk’s office or not; and hence the discovery while the trial was in progress that they were not there, was not such cause for continuance as would render erroneous a refusal to grant it by the presiding judge in the exercise of his discretion. The request to charge, being partly correct and partly incorrect, was properly refused. The verdict was warranted by the evidence, and there was no error in denying a new trial.

October 22,1894.

Action for damages. Before Judge Sweat. Coffee superior court. April term, 1894.

G. J. Holton & Son, for plaintiffs in error.

E. I). Graham, *contra.*

*Judgment affirmed.*
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 109-1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 6776
Case 3:11-cv-04194-PGS-DEA Document 109-1 Filed 01/23/15 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 6777
A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Hon. Dennis M. Cavanaugh

V. Crim. No. 11—459

BLAS ERNERS ESPINAL-CABRERA,: ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE

a/k/a “Hermano”

This matter having come before the Court on the joint

application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for the

District of New Jersey (by Mary E. Toscano, Assistant U.S.

Attorney), and defendant BLAS ERNERS ESPINAL-CABRERA (by Patrick

J. Brackley), for an order granting a continuance of the

proceedings in the above-captioned matter, and the defendant

being aware that he has the right to have the matter brought to

trial within 70 days of the date of his appearance before a

judicial officer of this court pursuant to Title 18 of the United

States Code, Section 3161 (c) (1), and three continuances having

previously been approved by the Court in this matter, and as the

defendant has consented to such a continuance, and for good and

sufficient cause shown,

IT IS THE FINDING OF THIS COURT that this action should

be continued for the following reasons:

(1) Plea negotiations are currently in progress, and

both the United States and the defendant desire additional time
to negotiate a plea agreement, which would thereby render trial

of this matter unnecessary;

(2) Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section

3161(h) (7) (A), the ends of justice served by granting the

continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial.

IT IS, therefore, on this day of March, 2012,

ORDERED that this action be, and hereby is, continued

for a period of 60 days from March 30, 2012 to May 29, 2012; and

it is further

ORDERED that the period from March 30, 2012 through May

29, 2012 shall be excludable in computing time under the Speedy

Trial Act of 1974.

—----——

HON. DENNIS M. CAVA H

United States 01st t Judge

Form and entry

consented to:

Mary E. Toscano

Assistant U.S. Attorney

(ckle

\oun for defendant BLAS ERNERS ESPINAL-CABRERA

—2—
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Johnson, Appellant.

[855 NYS2d 549]

The defendant’s contention that the police search of his backpack was unlawful in the absence of the necessary exigent circumstances *(see generally People v Gokey,*60 NY2d 309, 312 [1983]) is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Turriago,*90 NY2d 77, 83 [1997]; *People v Lightfoot,*22 AD3d 865, 866 [2005]) and, in any event, is without merit *(see People v Gokey,*60 NY2d 309, 312 [1983]).

The defendant’s challenges to certain remarks of the prosecutor in his opening and closing statements, as well as his elicitation of specified testimony from two witnesses, are also unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Warren,*12 AD3d 708, 708 [2004]). In any event, while some of the prosecutor’s remarks and elicited testimony which are challenged on appeal were improperly inflammatory, they were not individually or cumulatively so prejudicial as to warrant reversal *(see People v Torres,*121 AD2d 663 [1986]). Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not denied meaningful representation based solely on his trial attorney’s failure to object to the challenged remarks and elicited testimony *(see generally People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708 [1998]; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137 [1981]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*44 AD3d 871 [2007]).

The Supreme Court sentenced the defendant to concurrent determinate terms of 20 years imprisonment for each count of robbery in the first degree and 10 years imprisonment on the *558count of robbery in the second degree. Neither the sentencing minutes nor the original order of commitment mentioned the imposition of any period of postrelease supervision. Therefore, as the People correctly concede, the sentence actually imposed never included, and does not now include, any period of postrelease supervision *(see People ex rel. Gerard [Colarusso] v Kralik,*44 AD3d 804 [2007]; *People v Martinez,*40 AD3d 1012 [2007]; *People v Howell,*40 AD3d 882 [2007]). Lifson, J.P., Santucci, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0399

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

vs. 

PAUL DOUGLAS CREASON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

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

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 30, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 24 2024

09/24/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0399
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

OFFICE: TRENTON DATE: June 10, 2015

JUDGE MARY L. COOPER 

COURT REPORTERS: Regina Tell and Carol Farrell

TITLE OF CASE: CV11-3962(MLC) 

HELSINN HEALTHCARE S.A. 

v.

DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, LTD. 

 

APPEARANCES:

Joseph O’Malley, Esq., Eric Dittman, Esq., Isaac Ashkenazi, Esq., and 

Charles Lizza, Esq., for plaintiffs

Gorge Lombardi, Esq., Jovial Wong, Esq., Mayra Tarantino, Esq., Julia Johnson, Esq.,

and Brendan Barker, Esq. for defendant TEVA

Stuart Sender, Esq., Michael Imbacuan, Esq., Howard Wang, Esq., Kenneth Crowell, Esq.

and Constance Huttner, Esq., for defendant DR. REDDY'S LAB

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:

Trial without jury continued before the Honorable Mary L. Cooper.

Keith Candiotti SWORN for plaintiffs.

Ordered trial adjourned until 6/11/15 at 9:30am.

Lunch recess: 12:00pm – 12:45pm

TIME COMMENCED: 9:30am 

TIME ADJOURNED: 5:30pm 

TOTAL TIME: 7 hours, 15 minutes

s/Elizabeth Heffner

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:11-cv-03962-MLC-DEA Document 332 Filed 06/10/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 19889
Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC-MF Document 96 Filed 11/28/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 3946
Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC-MF Document 96 Filed 11/28/11 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 3947
Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC-MF Document 96 Filed 11/28/11 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 3948
Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC-MF Document 96 Filed 11/28/11 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 3949
Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC-MF Document 96 Filed 11/28/11 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 3950
Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC-MF Document 96 Filed 11/28/11 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 3951
Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC-MF Document 96 Filed 11/28/11 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 3952
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 ORDER FOR RETURN OF
vs. DEPOSIT FOR BAIL

: (hew- 4s
JOSE VIDAL 2 RECOG. NEW 3287

Case No.DNJX210MJ004015
3 DNJX211CR000428

It appearing to the Court that the above-named defendant
was held in bail by the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey for his appearance before this Court, and that the sum
of Five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) was deposited in the registry of
this Court as security for the said recognizance; and it further
appearing that the purposes of said recognizance have been fulfilled
and the said recognizance has been duly canceled of record, it is, on
this 27 aay of hye 2012

ORDERED that the sum of Five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) so
deposited as aforesaid be returned to Miguel Vidal 39 Ward st.

Clifton, New Jersey 07011 the surety of said recognizance.

JEROME B. SIMANDLE, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

GROVERSELLERS 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Bonorablo Oeo..R. ahapoartl 

comptra.ler 6r mbuu A8oasntr 

~AMH.n, Tuar 

If0 ,hkg to- aolauw 

ur Uld Aot read 88 fob 

a 6 it eaaotud b y the Lugi8latun a b th8 Sk t6 or Bxa 8 I 

"'s6otlun 1. 86OttOZt 15 Of &W?i1016 3 Of BOUBill X0. 20, &t8, 6fths R6g-r 25668iOn Of th6 47th 

~18z0tU2'6, 18 aa6tid6d h62'6?Jy 60 66 to ruad h62'66ft6r 

88 rOiiOW8: 
IiOn. 000. 8. Shuppsld, Pag6 2 

"u6otioll Ifi. DlapOsitf on Of F668. 

"a r668 a 6b6~%68 E6qUiWd w thf.8 &of 

8Bd ooll#tod argarfloerorag6ntarth6D6- 

r 

-8- ruetad vlthwt dudwt1on m 

6suN~~s~hrwkt6theD6p8Ma6at 6tAtutl.n, 

.%X88,.8?ld l n 8M h f6.8 80 OUllUOt8d 8h8n b6 

.~-98itU&in p" l)titO fnr8W’J in.8 hupd t6 b6 

-88 th@ @W8tW*8 ud 0h8Uf’f6UP’8 fSoUXl66 

FUld.* 

mution II ef WmAot.. 

Your8 .wlyFpp)s 

A8Pmm-ogm 

By (a) oat6 spur 

AwtatBnt 

APPROVED OPIXiIOR CObSHI= 

BY (s) BWB, cm