P|J
N@R:ad̳
k}HLSX/Gރ}_άYmFvA` k\m5{/KyG4{ ?$^Dc)Y[OJh/
PEػd I5JF@FIϑb6{a^g᠒j,DPkRxԍg v x$ycf3L yޜԢ"bT{&'QIW[W&^$O*Gv(V?$ C ƭNB}u'MMBnQl'~p'~\ ~
/r/']=Q]w[Kn_ m]nE s~:fˀ 24HFFgEJ&2"[+ү1h7%!i9ѽSp|F9[C *e8qzJZi5b~nҏ ZМ[F6cezQ?PO-|je`p^l{n%&.#y> ; o~; YppV[9GfK3Z}[7F76ˮq:*)T'pc,ӽ̶2BgOTG%)8,5ճda2ӿ\̞3rOstNtғAu 4Kٿ p em2~K(7ڶ7}~7/h?;WiDnwD#ש#l^weLHOva郎 YSnggvƆ Y/ӳ"itu1[TF~g-6 w;˝Ζ[nXU: ec)iuOƅa^r?Z. =wJ0] ;i!Bpg832RrRa̽>e -b(0f ' K]w <m3e#+ݭ[_7gݗcޝ o xھJ! 4E硖ᏰAϽrvrb}:1=[/\Uuu p DCR0!"FK*ZR+i,-@+)P("*PeF ;ZX[ڜ~ks%M;;{Xq/`W.|s .(gl~m(+Rܗ:z% (̏ށX; z"˹ ~D&1Xk139SJgvx.¸:~wv _,1f8@7xdw7^N,ޣ n\Ϡ* [8BFLVSL6KLZ?QԵK Y(9yy[q'{,P n E]KKO,ky'U`:Ȍh0IpWܯITS{9iP-Fsތ7EĽR^-]VR7Ʌi(x5[:S C/ۤY/S-ևb[HB&\%L ~(Mdx?'^$`_Y `ƨ͖ɶ=S
FGZtǘTXM̷V#
٧- $S gX>p;(^ {}Em8yjvxs*\HVcA%u<9D?~&z sOAnk :O~I,&Աy=>o{=*:Sw Ro=Kn([w> ѿZuTD T D5,_6Yխ}m;- 54 58'M_V >5KIyz0+XBpH6/{ƥQ1O3GY~Ě
9Y=i%Xp0 }rYRtj~sP.N\f嚚\$~8w t |Wgqs~f#(gG1:L,չ l$6Ai^*yOL "^nZ f lč 'dj^6 {L^GS}?_s\h3:Z~+}.&.Co c)8@V"u ?e4[yW1VOR- J{\srUrG\_vGo%~^Fֳ&q5Sfnx1R b3976rWRmO4|* $Y2.mq.3ܢchÒ>dI'BO|# >]麞E:8la/9tX_SX r)Yvm:/{:S :ص7 ~vGYsS},X;`LKYL_vƯ\` zOvav;{ӷ7^m4Ejٓ_y}AkĂEĝ! bHqr"S{gLlS2óITj53$3qUJ\fj^`Nl؆H;LPߥȆʰ̉e=NzѼYЄ{˧iv+ l$&V*ڴb) qH)0_A0W!_8}8dMe"=·n5VT`W51ooo]&2QSY,Sn8o pY!p㛔 #9y?wqoG;.ڬً)*ȦQk(ٲ9@I}|9xq[/7_Ye <[x]9j乔xryoK}60AUDw(#Np~[LmA9 r.֍3Rw=vsB^ss-`m n>t6&` |N(LϰH,SL'~ }Nw/ϱU[1J RAyˋu*r| Ob:?u7`sGq"I |g އo} oy )Q
} ďtǁFMl7I; )2¼JEM@Utu<"+;okXPy fљ |-G 6nx Nk3pz$94uIf'}ׁg_> bܝ#\79oqY Uk4Fh4Fh4Fh4Fh4Fh4Fh4Fh4Fh4F8iƯ>4`0y`*_9K*ك9T BWmLE[vQ>mnglكUet%lفZZ[vb;nڲ˶|Ζ9 O G-개R v 8`edyDaM#bY gV9;V- \K-b&=qi==@=zArruqkrT9!ɶ9ms,czbM=ӫl!|kdiPY5$
5 kCj2Kݻ7J*,'X> ND+ۮR-BcJKկg4V4K;8Y,"왦bF{-]lS _WPR\ޏsn[#Od$-ќH%`&hTtE3ieN+\#
[KlJZ ܓȈh/DrOJR}21_&˫EW0-x(ҶD\ r@$-MDS' m TŤ7+@blVmcŤD7PGJ ;_c>{WPJOu awy)cqe}cq _0c K|Ir7֯7ʴF "+ga\td2Us~ z8'Z188o\\S k7
:ܳ]X.P4(*e@%{-,
eCbjtviI-L&FH#:\*]?0i;t*۱S_$t]5Ogzy{9=.Pvx(%L? P,P3>~oX`_,o Ad^~
Y /K2 =gdf 9PfӘ${U@0
8WE0 'sR߃z;h ϴ/AEb&ګof
ċL$3:Y<S} f5iv
~]^3kj&C!vn8|L{* < 3(Y oY އ}q ,wchob 13]q In5kwKj\SR3#nDh^F=-\N-I+\DX6Bp)E
8X]Zoq12̆ Y(-g5EpKJb Ovd"2:ŗ6 cM c/ Kzq&hyE/AσQ,2@;Лɪ3 C4\/3 -
-
-
ES % (Wɷ/Kϣ)* *tF8Rc@#3 fVZYH5RA75kkj= f * ev@ xf<qg"|.ϰk-= O8 wlF-𒌷d20G;fa Y ;1> `s PrLm*NVƫ x\\T^3ÒKͼ&a&{MF(ey~ nDV 03O4edU0%B_د}k'ڗ:<R(-^$yگvk\h2EuR'ybdߡ (FQS
BWl#m6.Ce] -C8 F2
] NkS$wH7NeLءNTdIHV}=@ : :bGmY ɧGH"]$4g*~# JwnCWTHz[(fyU.YBt9:I<ꑓH@_(OX8ؗ_b}3moP;) PJ7,6قWs|&t_evRGzܨ 6-tWL NJ# 4LQM Mߊs)ژJSb*cz?tL -I̐t%uBWsr\.rqV
P
Q ܫB]
,Q FbڊXʹz"fZ6KhYSk-*B#VA}-Bib#gqHg=܋>heuEdpQ`G֝ѧP{+ E=J mWKV<_YyڵwrBiRznW
{D? 1[hRښ
k!:MFa}4 IUUlzR**U n`KG%ru4
lm`LO?It$(i\֡,͐(.x*Gw`Ɏvh^?ru=|_$|Ўn QlGS]"ݡGgIWþ.;jw
zG4}֙ǵꇟ2ذ^Ԛ=% )Q+&jD)sJ֊ֶY JkRqh/V{{wgdTm/wE,
HeDT Lvmz%"៴G `? ^ޘs6˰lƩ 0_J`,1{=e=%R2`,<ҫUeU /㓎yLqPzac7ft`>p/$=h`<0PEPۜi`i? ? ٕ҇gffl_vuݚÆ(cU0ka (۹m3ܩn>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 2/Type/Page>>
endobj
41 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(03-11627.a1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(Computer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archiv\
ed%20-%20HTML/03-11627.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([6/24/2021 3:19:30 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 182.25 591.75 583.5 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm
(\(discussing security significance of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.33 0 Td
(financial difficulties\). )Tj
8.913 0 Td
(Given the Administrative Judge's findings of fact about)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(Applicant's history of financial difficulties, the Judge had a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
23.896 0 Td
(rational and legally permissible basis for concluding that)Tj
-23.896 -1.125 Td
(Applicant's overall history of financial difficulties raised security co\
ncerns under)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
32.614 0 Td
(Guideline F \(Financial)Tj
-32.614 -1.125 Td
(Considerations\). )Tj
6.833 0 Td
(Moreover, it was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law for the J\
udge to conclude that Applicant)Tj
-6.833 -1.125 Td
(had not presented evidence sufficient to extenuate or mitigate the secur\
ity concerns raised by his history of financial)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(difficulties.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(2. )Tj
(Whether Applicant can be allowed to retain a security clearance at the C\
onfidential level)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 28 661.5 cm
0 0 m
425.473 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 453.4727 662.25 Tm
(. )Tj
(Applicant asks that he be)Tj
-36.456 -1.125 Td
(allowed to have a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
7.275 0 Td
(security clearance at the Confidential level. )Tj
17.575 0 Td
(Applicant asks for relief to which he is not entitled.)Tj
-24.85 -1.125 Td
(Section 3.2 of the Directive specifically)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
16.133 0 Td
(states the following: "An unfavorable clearance decision denies any appl\
ication)Tj
-16.133 -1.125 Td
(for a security clearance and revokes any existing security)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
23.129 0 Td
(clearance, thereby preventing access to classified information)Tj
-23.129 -1.125 Td
(at any level and the retention of any existing security clearance." )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
26.12 0 Td
(See also)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( ISCR)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Case No. 99-0260 \(April 12, 2000\) at p.)Tj
-26.12 -1.125 Td
(4 \(no authority under the Directive to deny a security clearance at one\
level, but then allow the)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
38.069 0 Td
(applicant to retain a)Tj
-38.069 -1.125 Td
(security clearance at a lower level\). )Tj
14.408 0 Td
(Because the Board is affirming the Judge's unfavorable security clearanc\
e decision,)Tj
-14.408 -1.125 Td
(there is no authority for the Board to allow Applicant to have a securit\
y clearance at any level.)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
21.767 -2.125 Td
(Conclusion)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-21.767 -2.125 Td
(The Board affirms the Administrative Judge's security clearance decision\
because Applicant has failed to demonstrate)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(error below, and)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(because Applicant seeks relief to which he is not entitled under the Dir\
ective.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Signed: Emilio Jaksetic)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 477 cm
0 0 m
113.32 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 452.25 Tm
(Emilio Jaksetic)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Chairman, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(Signed: Michael Y. Ra'anan)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 375 cm
0 0 m
134.795 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 350.25 Tm
(Michael Y. Ra'anan)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
T*
(Signed: Jean E. Smallin)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 273 cm
0 0 m
114.656 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 248.25 Tm
(Jean E. Smallin)Tj
T*
(Administrative Judge)Tj
T*
(Member, Appeal Board)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
13 0 obj
<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/StructParents 1/Type/Page>>
endobj
42 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/Artifact <>BDC
/TT0 1 Tf
9 0 0 9 5 779 Tm
(03-11627.a1)Tj
EMC
/Artifact <>BDC
0 -86 TD
(file:///usr.osd.mil/)Tj
7.166 0 Td
(...)Tj
(Computer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archiv\
ed%20-%20HTML/03-11627.a1.html)Tj
49.74 0 Td
([6/24/2021 3:19:30 PM])Tj
EMC
ET
1 g
10 36 591.75 729.75 re
f
/Article <>BDC
EMC
/Article <>BDC
q
10 36 592 730 re
W n
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 755.25 Tm
(contrary to provisions of Executive Order 10865,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
19.939 0 Td
(the Directive, or other applicable federal law. )Tj
18.408 0 Td
(Compliance with state)Tj
ET
Q
BT
0 g
12 0 0 12 16 741.75 Tm
(or local law is not required because security clearance adjudications ar\
e)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
28.903 0 Td
(conducted by the Department of Defense)Tj
-28.903 -1.125 Td
(pursuant to federal law. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
9.691 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 2 \(Supremacy Clause\). )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
25.828 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(ISCR Case No. 00-)Tj
-35.519 -1.125 Td
(0423 \(June 8, 2001\) at p. 3 \(citing Supreme Court decisions\).)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(When an Administrative Judge's factual findings are challenged, the Boar\
d must determine whether "[t]he)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(Administrative Judge's findings of)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.012 0 Td
(fact are supported by such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might \
accept as)Tj
-14.012 -1.125 Td
(adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
23.854 0 Td
(evidence in the same record. )Tj
11.661 0 Td
(In making this review, the)Tj
-35.516 -1.125 Td
(Appeal Board shall give deference to the credibility determinations of t\
he)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
29.684 0 Td
(Administrative Judge." )Tj
9.49 0 Td
(Directive, Additional)Tj
-39.174 -1.125 Td
(Procedural Guidance, Item E3.1.32.1. )Tj
15.356 0 Td
(The Board must consider not only whether there is)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
20.523 0 Td
(record evidence supporting a)Tj
-35.879 -1.125 Td
(Judge's findings, but also whether there is evidence that fairly detract\
s from the weight of the evidence)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
41.278 0 Td
(supporting those)Tj
-41.278 -1.125 Td
(findings, and whether the Judge's findings reflect a reasonable interpre\
tation of the record evidence as a whole.)Tj
T*
(Although a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Judge's credibility determination is not immune from review, the party c\
hallenging a Judge's credibility)Tj
T*
(determination has a heavy burden on)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.995 0 Td
(appeal.)Tj
-14.995 -2.125 Td
(When an appeal issue raises a question of law, the Board's scope of revi\
ew is plenary. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
34.558 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( DISCR Case No. 87-2107)Tj
-34.558 -1.125 Td
(\(September 29, 1992\) at)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.914 0 Td
(pp. 4-5 \(citing federal cases\).)Tj
-9.914 -2.125 Td
(If an appealing party demonstrates factual or legal error, then the Boar\
d must consider the following questions:)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(Is the error harmful or harmless? )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
13.384 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 00-0250 \(July 11, 2001\) at p. 6 \(discussing harmless \
error)Tj
-16.715 -1.125 Td
(doctrine\);)Tj
T*
(Has the nonappealing party made a persuasive argument for how the Admini\
strative Judge's decision can be affirmed on)Tj
0 -1.125 TD
(alternate grounds? )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
7.608 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 99-0454 \(October 17, 2000\) at p. 6 \(citing federal ca\
ses\); and)Tj
-10.939 -2.125 Td
(If the Administrative Judge's decision cannot be affirmed, should the ca\
se be reversed or remanded? )Tj
40.333 0 Td
(\(Directive,)Tj
-40.333 -1.125 Td
(Additional Procedural)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
9.109 0 Td
(Guidance, Items E3.1.33.2 and E3.1.33.3\).)Tj
/TT2 1 Tf
12.116 -2.125 Td
(Appeal Issues)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
-21.225 -2.125 Td
(1. )Tj
(Whether the Administrative Judge's unfavorable security clearance decisi\
on is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to)Tj
ET
0.75 w
q 1 0 0 1 28 348 cm
0 0 m
546.287 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 16 335.25 Tm
(law)Tj
ET
q 1 0 0 1 16 334.5 cm
0 0 m
17.326 0 l
h
S
Q
BT
12 0 0 12 33.3262 335.25 Tm
(. )Tj
(The Administrative)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
8.554 0 Td
(Judge made findings of fact about Applicant's history of financial diffi\
culties, which include)Tj
-9.998 -1.125 Td
(outstanding delinquent child support payments)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
18.97 0 Td
(and a delinquent student loan debt, all totaling more than $50,000. )Tj
26.772 0 Td
(On)Tj
-45.742 -1.125 Td
(appeal, Applicant does not challenge the Judge's findings of fact about)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
28.45 0 Td
(his history of financial difficulties. )Tj
14.108 0 Td
(However,)Tj
-42.558 -1.125 Td
(Applicant does argue: \(a\) the Judge failed to consider Applicant's pas\
t military service, and his)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
38.113 0 Td
(employment with a)Tj
-38.113 -1.125 Td
(shipyard without a security violation; and \(b\) it is unfair and prejud\
icial to hold his history of financial difficulties)Tj
T*
(against)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
3.083 0 Td
(him. )Tj
(The Board construes Applicant's arguments as raising the issue of whethe\
r the Judge's unfavorable security)Tj
-3.083 -1.125 Td
(clearance decision is)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
8.523 0 Td
(arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.)Tj
-8.523 -2.125 Td
(There is a rebuttable presumption that an Administrative Judge considere\
d all the record evidence unless the Judge)Tj
T*
(specifically states)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
7.331 0 Td
(otherwise. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
7.719 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 99-9020 \(June 4, 2001\) at p. 2. )Tj
(That presumption is not rebutted)Tj
-15.05 -1.125 Td
(merely because Applicant can cite to)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
14.993 0 Td
(some record evidence that he believes the Judge should have given more w\
eight)Tj
-14.993 -1.125 Td
(when evaluating Applicant's security eligibility. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
19.398 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(,)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(ISCR Case No. 02-01494 \(May 28, 2003\) at p. 3. )Tj
(Applicant's)Tj
-22.729 -1.125 Td
(appeal argument is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the Judg\
e)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
29.215 0 Td
(considered all the record evidence, both)Tj
-29.215 -1.125 Td
(favorable and unfavorable, in this case.)Tj
0 -2.125 TD
(There is no right to a security clearance. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
16.298 0 Td
(Department of Navy v. Egan)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
11.414 0 Td
(, 484 U.S. 518, 528 \(1988\). )Tj
(Moreover, the federal)Tj
-27.712 -1.125 Td
(government is not)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
7.471 0 Td
(required to wait until an applicant commits a security violation before \
it can make an unfavorable)Tj
-7.471 -1.125 Td
(security clearance decision. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
11.272 0 Td
(Adams v.)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(Laird)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
(, 420 F.2d 230, 238-239 \(D.C. Cir. 1969\), )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
(cert. denied)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
27.832 0 Td
(, 397 U.S. 1039)Tj
-39.104 -1.125 Td
(\(1970\). )Tj
(All that is required is proof of facts and circumstances)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
25.104 0 Td
(that raise security concerns sufficient to preclude a)Tj
-25.104 -1.125 Td
(determination that it is clearly consistent with the national interest t\
o grant or continue a)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
35.462 0 Td
(security clearance for a)Tj
-35.462 -1.125 Td
(particular applicant. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
8.246 0 Td
(See)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
( Directive, Adjudicative Guidelines \(setting forth thirteen different c\
ategories of conduct and)Tj
-8.246 -1.125 Td
(circumstances that raise security concerns\). )Tj
17.604 0 Td
(A history of financial difficulties raises security concerns that can fo\
rm the)Tj
-17.604 -1.125 Td
(basis of an)Tj
/Span<>> BDC
( )Tj
EMC
(unfavorable security clearance decision. )Tj
/TT1 1 Tf
20.824 0 Td
(See, e.g.)Tj
/TT0 1 Tf
3.332 0 Td
(, ISCR Case No. 03-13281 \(October 22, 2004\) at p. 4)Tj
ET
EMC
endstream
endobj
11 0 obj
<>
endobj
43 0 obj
<>
endobj
9 0 obj
<>
endobj
10 0 obj
<>
endobj
45 0 obj
(file:///usr.osd.mil/Home/OSD/OGC/JosephLM/_MyComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/03-11627.a1.html)
endobj
44 0 obj
<>
endobj
46 0 obj
<>
endobj
4 0 obj
<>
endobj
xref
0 47
0000000000 65535 f
0000000016 00000 n
0000000141 00000 n
0000003645 00000 n
0000156261 00000 n
0000003536 00000 n
0000003578 00000 n
0000003711 00000 n
0000003738 00000 n
0000155824 00000 n
0000155865 00000 n
0000155634 00000 n
0000004273 00000 n
0000146611 00000 n
0000142274 00000 n
0000003841 00000 n
0000003887 00000 n
0000003936 00000 n
0000004086 00000 n
0000003990 00000 n
0000004022 00000 n
0000004054 00000 n
0000004495 00000 n
0000010754 00000 n
0000010803 00000 n
0000010839 00000 n
0000011347 00000 n
0000011770 00000 n
0000012139 00000 n
0000088757 00000 n
0000089024 00000 n
0000057287 00000 n
0000057560 00000 n
0000038532 00000 n
0000038813 00000 n
0000012558 00000 n
0000012834 00000 n
0000013254 00000 n
0000039139 00000 n
0000057999 00000 n
0000089638 00000 n
0000142485 00000 n
0000146822 00000 n
0000155719 00000 n
0000156073 00000 n
0000155907 00000 n
0000156208 00000 n
trailer
<<3678701A0CB38A4E8E09CE0177E42A68>]>>
startxref
156434
%%EOF