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

EXHIBIT 10.19

   THIRD AMENDMENT TO NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC. LOAN AGREEMENT, SECURITY
             AGREEMENT AND 10% CONVERTIBLE, SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE

      THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC. LOAN AGREEMENT,
SECURITY AGREEMENT AND 10% CONVERTIBLE, SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE (the "THIRD
AMENDMENT") is made and entered into as of November 14, 2005, by and among
NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "MAKER") and Toucan
Capital Fund II, L.P. (the "HOLDER"). This Second Amendment amends the Note (as
defined below).

                                    RECITALS

A. Section 17.6 of that certain Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. Loan Agreement,
Security Agreement and 10% Convertible, Secured Promissory Note, in the
principal amount of $500,000.00 amended and restated as of July 30, 2004 and
originally issued on April 26, 2004, by and between the Maker and the Holder in
the form attached to this Third Amendment as Exhibit A and as amended by that
First Amendment to Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. Loan Agreement, Security
Agreement and 10% Convertible, Secured Promissory Note in the form attached to
this Third Amendment as Exhibit B and as further amended by that Second
Amendment to Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. Loan Agreement, Security Agreement
and 10% Convertible, Secured Promissory Note in the form attached to this Third
Amendment as Exhibit C (as so amended, the "NOTE"), states that any provision of
such note may be amended or waived in writing by the Holder and the Maker; and

B. The Maker and the Holder wish to amend the Note as provided below.

                                    AGREEMENT

      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises and for other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Section 1 of the Note is hereby amended to provide that the Maturity Date is
January 17, 2006.

2. All other terms and conditions of the Note shall be unaffected hereby and
remain in full force and effect.

3. This Third Amendment shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the
state of Delaware without giving effect to principles of conflicts of laws of
the State of Delaware or any other state.

                            [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

                                        1
<PAGE>

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this THIRD AMENDMENT
TO NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC. LOAN AGREEMENT, SECURITY AGREEMENT AND 10%
CONVERTIBLE, SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE as of the date first above written.

MAKER:

NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS, INC.,
a Delaware corporation

By: /s/ Alton L. Boynton
    ---------------------
Name: Alton L. Boynton
Title: President

HOLDER:

Toucan Capital Fund II, L.P.

By: /s/ Linda Powers
    ---------------------------------
      Linda Powers, Managing Director

259037 v2/RE


                                        2
TOF Ve

OPEN FILE_ REPORT
PLATE 8 OF 8

Compiled in 1979

1 MILE

SCALE 1:24000
0

=)

7000 FEET

1 KILOMETER

6000

5000

4000

a

dei ini ESE iii cE
eee Bast eae Sit 2: ;
fgtg eee eizs ans E3 F
iat potas at ; F :
B 1: EEfES wi8 2: ze
S wou: ges8 Seed: | Als:
2 ges 2aat, Ce ae Gj, zee i
3 N ie Zoe BES ait Gy zee
a Bae | $52 3- B22 Co)
i N a5 22 eedee giizi pen 27 Bae j
fa aaa Freee ing ae 35: :
231 fails Pree ne See ;
gins Bases eet! aca 23 :
args atiil aiid aie: RE :
gets PEE geiks gb ic ga
€
é

Geological Survey and has not been edited for

conformity with Geological Survey editorial stand-
ards. Opinions and conclusions expressed herein

do not necessarily represent those of the Geo-

logical Survey.

>

UADRANGLE

NEW MEXICO

>

TY

SAN JUAN COUN

PLATE 8

COAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
FOR SUBSURFACE MINING METHODS

BY
DAMES & MOORE
1979

MG GQ

SS

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

(HLYON NOL
“Ss

ONINE

err

‘S

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 1963

L DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL MAP OF THE FLORA VISTA @

COA
#### Jedidiah Burrall *et al versus*Giles Andrews.

*Y*deposition taken by virtue of a commission was sent inclosed in an envelope to the counsel of the parties for whose use it was taken, and was opened by him *\*but an affidavit was made by such counsel, alleging that he opened the envelope without knowing that it inclosed the deposition. It was *held,*that the deposition was admissible, at the discretion of the Court, notwithstanding the rule of court, providing, in such case, that “ all depositions shall be opened and filed with the clerk.”

This was a real action brought by the demandants, as heirs of Abraham Burrall, to recover their distributive shares oi one half of about seventy acres of land in Sheffield.

At the trial before *Morion*J., the demandants produced the deposition of Samuel Austin, junior, who resided in New York. This deposition, which was taken by virtue of a commission issued from this Court, was inclosed in an envelope directed to the Court, and sent to Robert F. Barnard, Esq., the counsel for the demandants, by whom it was opened. Mr. Barnard made affidavit, that he opened the envelope without P-owf ig that it inclosed the deposition. The tenant *552objected to the admission of the deposition, but the objection was overruled. The jury returned a verdict for the demand-ants. If the deposition *“ss admissible, judgment was to be entered on the verdie, , otherwise a new trial was to be granted.

Bishop, for the tenant.

*C. A. Dewey*and Barnard, for the demandants.

Wilde J.

delivered the opinion of the Court. The o ily question submitted on the report of this case is, whethethe deposition of Samuel Austin, junior, was properly admitted, it not having been directed and sent to the Court or the clerk, but to the demandants’ counsel.

In the case of *Goff*v. *Goff,*1 Pick. 475, a deposition sent to the plaintiff’s attorney, and' by him opened, was admitted on the affidavit of the attorney, that it was opened by mistake. A similar affidavit was filed in the present case, and we think that thereupon the deposition was rightly admitted. It is objected, that this deposition was taken under a commissioi and that the rule of court in such cases, requires, that the deposition should be opened by the clerk. But the rule of court directs, that “ all depositions shall be opened and filed with the clerk.” 16 Mass. R. 373. This rule was as applicable in the case of *Goff v. Goff,*as it is in the present case. It is mandatory, but it does not prohibit the admission of a deposition, where by mistake the direction has not been observed. It is still left within the discretion of the Court to admit or reject a deposition, according to circumstances, notwithstanding any such mistake in the direction.

*Judgment on the*verdict.
Appellee ’ s Motion to Dismiss Granted; Appellant ’ s Motion t o Abate Denied;

Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 17 , 2020

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 20

- 00681

- CV

JASON KOWNSLAR , Appellant

V.
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHO RITY OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 270th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- 18307

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an attempted accelerated interlocutory appe al from a n order signed July 3 , 2020. Appellant ’ s notice of appeal was filed September 30, 2020. In an accelerated a

ppeal, the notice of appeal must be filed within 2 0 days after the ord er is signed

. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1 (b).2

Appellant ’ s notice of appeal was not filed timely. A motion to exten d time i s necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed b y Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, but within the 15

- day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion to exten d time. See Verb urgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617

– 18 (1997) (construing predecessor to Rule 26 , former 1986 Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 41 ). Appellant ’ s notice of appeal was not filed within the 15

- day period provided by Texas Rule of App ellate Procedure 26.3

. On October 6, 2020, appellee filed a motion to dismiss for want of juris diction based on the late notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). This court determin ed it was n ecessary for the clerk ’s record to be file before rul ing o n that motion. The clerk ’s record was filed on November 3, 2020. The record confirmed t hat appellant ’s notice of appeal w as not timely filed as stated above

. On November 3 , 2020, appellant filed a motion to abate the appeal “to permit appellant to take the steps necessary to make t he order being appeal ed final. ” Because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, we deny that motion.
A ccordingly, we dismiss the appea l.

PER CURIAM Panel Consists of Justices Bourliot, Zimmerer, and Spain.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6352

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERTO MENDOZA, a/k/a Monkey,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, 

at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cr-00164-RJC-1; 3:16-cv00815-RJC)

Submitted: June 20, 2017 Decided: June 23, 2017

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roberto Mendoza, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Roberto Mendoza seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 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 Mendoza 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 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 23.2115 Takeoff performance. ( a ) The applicant must determine airplane takeoff performance accounting for— ( 1 ) Stall speed safety margins;
( 2 ) Minimum control speeds; and
( 3 ) Climb gradients.
( b ) For single engine airplanes and levels 1, 2, and 3 low-speed multiengine airplanes, takeoff performance includes the determination of ground roll and initial climb distance to 50 feet (15 meters) above the takeoff surface.
( c ) For levels 1, 2, and 3 high-speed multiengine airplanes, and level 4 multiengine airplanes, takeoff performance includes a determination of the following distances after a sudden critical loss of thrust— ( 1 ) An aborted takeoff at critical speed;
( 2 ) Ground roll and initial climb to 35 feet (11 meters) above the takeoff surface; and
( 3 ) Net takeoff flight path.
[Doc. No. FAA-2015-1621, Amdt. 23-64, 81 FR 96689, Dec. 30, 2016, as amended by Doc. No. FAA-2022-1355, Amdt. 23-65, 87 FR 75710, Dec. 9, 2022]
#### Conrad W. Schmid and Wife, Appellants, v. M. E. Gruber, Appellee.

Palm Beach County, Florida.

G. A. Worley, for Appellants.

Currie & Carmichael, for Appellee.

Appeal dismissed on motion of counsel for appellee, October 3rd, 1911.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

March 17, 2021

b0310 

# Order

Clerk March 17, 2021

161200 & (19)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 161200

COA: 351119

Tuscola CC: 17

- 013992

- FH

WILLIAM DOUGLAS

- MITCHELL DEWEY

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 27 , 2020

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The

motion to accept defendant’s factual allegations as true is DENIED.
###### Editorial Note on Part 380

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 380 appear at 84 FR 15940, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 380.4 Enforcement.

In the case of any violation of the provision of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII or of this part, or any other rule, regulations, or order issued under the Statute, the violator may be subject to a proceeding pursuant to the Statute before the Department or a U.S district court, as the case may be, to compel compliance therewith; to civil penalties pursuant to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII, or to criminal penalties pursuant to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. Subtitle VII, or other lawful sanctions.
#### HOLLEY CARBURETOR COMPANY, A CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. J-270.

Decided April 2, 1934]

*Mr. John F. Hughes*for the plaintiff.

*210
      *Mr. Ja/raes A. Oosgrove,*with whom, was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Franh J.*Wideman, for the defendant. *Mrs. Elizabeth B. Davis*was on the brief.

*214Williams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an action to recover manufacturers’ excise tax paid on the manufacture and sale of carburetors known as “ Holley Carburetor Model N.H.”, and collected under the provisions of section 900 (3') of the Kevenue Acts of 1918 and 1921.

*215During the period from January 1, 1920, to December 31, 1923, plaintiff, by monthly payments, paid to the collector at Detroit, Michigan, the sum of $26,652.82 as taxes levied, assessed, and collected under the foregoing sections of the Eevenue Acts of 1918 and 1921.

Claim for refund of all the payments was filed on January 31, 1924, and was rejected by the Commissioner of Internal Eevenue on May 14, 1926. Suit was instituted on May 11, 1928.

The plaintiff has not established the fact that it, and not its purchasers, bore the burden of the tax. In the absence of this showing, the suit having been brought subsequent to April 30, 1928, plaintiff’s right to recover is precluded by the provisions of section 424 of the Revenue Act of 1928 (45 Stat. 791). *United States*v. *Jefferson Electric Mfg.*Co., decided by the Supreme Court February 12, 1934, 291 U.S. 386. See also *American Bosch Magneto Corporation*v. *United*States, *ante,*p. 195.

In view of the fact that the petition will have to be dismissed because of plaintiff’s failure to meet the restrictions imposed by the foregoing provisions of the statute on the refund of excise sales taxes, consideration of the question as to whether the articles sold were, or were not, parts or accessories of automobiles becomes unnecessary.

The petition is dismissed. It is so ordered.

Whaley, *Judge;*Littleton, *Judge;*Green, *Judge;*and Booth, *Chief*Justice, concur.
# EUR-Lex - 31995D0131 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31995D0131

**95/131/EC: Council Decision of 20 February 1995 on the provisional application of certain Agreements between the European Community and certain third countries on trade in textile products **

*
Official Journal L 094 , 26/04/1995 P. 0001 - 0001 *

COUNCIL DECISION of 20 February 1995 on the provisional application of certain Agreements between the European Community and certain third countries on trade in textile products (95/131/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 113 in conjunction with Article 228 (2), first sentence thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas the Commission has negotiated on behalf of the Community bilateral agreements in the form of an exchange of letters to amend the existing bilateral agreements, arrangements and protocols on trade in textile products with certain third countries to take into account the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union, as provided for in Articles 75, 100 and 127 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the Union is founded attached to the 1994 Treaty of Accession;

Whereas these bilateral agreements should be applied on a provisional basis from 1 January 1995, pending the completion of procedures required for their conclusion, subject to reciprocal provisional application by the partner countries,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The bilateral agreements in the form of an exchange of letters to amend the existing bilateral agreements, arrangements and protocols on trade in textile products with certain third countries to take into account the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union between the European Community, of the one part, and the respective third countries of the other part, listed in the Annex to this Decision, shall be applied on a provisional basis from 1 January 1995, pending their formal conclusion, subject to reciprocal application by the partner countries.

Article 2

The texts of the initialled agreements are attached to this Decision.

Done at Brussels, 20 February 1995.

For the Council

The President

E. ALPHANDÉRY

ANNEX

LIST OF COUNTRIES

ARGENTINA

BANGLADESH

BELARUS

BRAZIL

BULGARIA

CHINA

CZECH REPUBLIC

ESTONIA

HONG KONG

HUNGARY

INDIA

INDONESIA

MACAO

MALAYSIA

MONGOLIA

PAKISTAN

PERU

PHILIPPINES

POLAND

ROMANIA

SINGAPORE

SLOVAKIA

SOUTH KOREA

SRI LANKA

UKRAINE

URUGUAY

VIETNAM
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of WT Holdings Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Albert Wong, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date
hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                        |  | 
|Date: November 14, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Albert Wong        
|                        |  |  |  | Albert Wong            
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

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.
<PAGE>

STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
REGARDING FORM 10-K FOR YEAR ENDING
DECEMBER 31, 2002

EXHIBIT 99.2

         I, Stephanie Schmitt, Chief Financial Officer of Specialty Trust, Inc.
(the Company), hereby state, certify and attest in this written statement that:

         (a)      The annual report of the Company filed on form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or Section 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (b)      The information contained in such annual report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

         This Certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.

/s/ Stephanie Schmitt                        Dated this 15th day of March, 2003.
---------------------------------
Name:   Stephanie Schmitt
Title : Chief Financial Officer

                                       93
**SPECIES DATA_POINTS** **AVG_OBS (ug/m3) AVG_MOD (ug/m3)** **MEAN_BIAS (ug/m3) MEAN_ERROR (ug/m3)** **NMB NME** **MFB MFE** **CORR**

PMTOT 26 28.06 23.44 -4.62 10.95 -0.16 0.39 -0.01 0.36 0.54 PMNH4 26 3.93 2.53 -1.41 2.03 -0.36 0.52 -0.23 0.47 0.46 PMNO3 26 11.52 7.38 -4.14 5.79 -0.36 0.50 -0.32 0.49 0.48 PMSO4 26 1.20 1.00 -0.20 0.48 -0.17 0.40 -0.09 0.41 0.35 PMOTHR 26 1.00 3.45 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 1.15 1.15 0.45 PMEC 26 1.27 2.51 1.24 1.24 0.97 0.97 0.72 0.72 0.74 PMOC 26 7.52 4.66 -2.86 3.04 -0.38 0.40 -0.42 0.45 0.57**SPECIES DATA_POINTS** **AVG_OBS (ug/m3) AVG_MOD (ug/m3)** **MEAN_BIAS (ug/m3) MEAN_ERROR (ug/m3)** **NMB NME** **MFB MFE** **CORR**

PMTOT 27 30.49 24.97 -5.52 10.15 -0.18 0.33 0.01 0.38 0.86 PMNH4 27 3.46 2.81 -0.65 1.30 -0.19 0.38 0.05 0.43 0.79 PMNO3 27 10.00 8.40 -1.60 3.70 -0.16 0.37 0.03 0.40 0.78 PMSO4 27 1.08 0.96 -0.12 0.35 -0.11 0.33 -0.10 0.33 0.46 PMOTHR 27 0.62 3.88 3.27 3.27 5.32 5.32 1.45 1.45 0.43 PMEC 27 1.34 2.24 0.90 0.94 0.67 0.70 0.55 0.56 0.78 PMOC 27 9.97 4.72 -5.25 5.25 -0.53 0.53 -0.57 0.57 0.79**SPECIES DATA_POINTS** **AVG_OBS (ug/m3) AVG_MOD (ug/m3)** **MEAN_BIAS (ug/m3) MEAN_ERROR (ug/m3)** **NMB NME** **MFB MFE** **CORR**

PMTOT 15 25.13 20.71 -4.43 9.80 -0.18 0.39 -0.01 0.44 0.71 PMNH4 15 3.16 2.32 -0.84 1.83 -0.27 0.58 -0.09 0.74 0.59 PMNO3 15 9.12 5.91 -3.21 4.59 -0.35 0.50 -0.28 0.71 0.76 PMSO4 15 1.10 1.59 0.48 0.98 0.44 0.89 0.24 0.58 -0.03 PMOTHR 15 0.68 3.67 2.99 2.99 4.43 4.43 1.38 1.38 0.59 PMEC 3 0.73 3.08 2.34 2.34 3.19 3.19 1.19 1.19 0.04 PMOC 3 13.23 6.73 -6.51 6.51 -0.49 0.49 -0.65 0.65 0.53**SPECIES DATA_POINTS** **AVG_OBS (ug/m3) AVG_MOD (ug/m3)** **MEAN_BIAS (ug/m3) MEAN_ERROR (ug/m3)** **NMB NME** **MFB MFE** **CORR**

PMTOT 15 30.60 20.66 -9.94 11.26 -0.32 0.37 -0.25 0.32 0.74 PMNH4 15 3.41 3.02 -0.39 0.98 -0.11 0.29 0.00 0.26 0.82 PMNO3 15 12.06 9.37 -2.69 5.16 -0.22 0.43 -0.03 0.35 0.74 PMSO4 15 1.12 0.78 -0.33 0.40 -0.30 0.36 -0.29 0.35 0.52 PMOTHR 15 0.84 2.50 1.66 1.66 1.98 1.98 1.03 1.03 0.70 PMEC 3 0.73 1.67 0.94 0.94 1.28 1.28 0.83 0.83 0.78 PMOC 3 13.10 3.57 -9.53 9.53 -0.73 0.73 -1.12 1.12 -0.20

*: The correlation coefficient is "R" instead of "R2" *: NMB: normalized mean bias; NME: normalized mean error; MFB: mean fractional bias; MFE: mean fractional error 

## Bakersfield - California Street

**Fresno - First Street**

**Modesto - 14th Street**

**Visalia - North Church Street**