alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-4.9



 EXHIBIT 4.9 
  






 
 No: 0442 9 
See Reverse
for Certain Abbrevations 
CUSIP 2S74bU 10 9 
Shares 
Number 
DRP 000000 
Common Stock 
Incorporated under the Laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia 
This certificate is transferable in Richmond, Virginia or New York, New York 
This Certifies
that 
SPECIMEN 
Is the Owner of 
Fully Paid and Non-Assessable Shares of the Common Stock without Par Value of 
Dated

Countersigned and Registered: Dominion Resources, Inc., Richmond, VA By

Transfer Agent and Registrar 
Authorized Signature 
Corporate Secretary 
President 







 



 
 Dominion Resources, Inc. 
KEEP THIS CERTIFICATE IN
A SAFE PLACE. IF IT IS LOST, STOLEN OR DESTROYED THE CORPORATION WILL REQUIRE A BOND OF INDEMNITY AS A CONDITION TO THE ISSUANCE OF A REPLACEMENT CERTIFICATE. 
The
following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
JT TEN - as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common 
TEN ENT - as
tenants by the entireties with right of survivorship 
TEN COM - as tenants in common 
UNIF TRNSFRS MIN ACT- Custodian 
(Cust) 
(Minor) 
under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act 
(State) 
TOD SUBJ TO STA TOD RULES- TOD 
(Owner) 
(Beneficiary) 
as transfer on death subject to the Securities Transfer Association Transfer on Death rules and not as POD (payable on death) 
Additional abbreviation may also be used though not in the above list. 
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL
SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE 
PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE 
SIGNATURE 
NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN
UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER. 
THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE
GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM), PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
23 April 2013 *******************************

NSN: 8940-01-613-1448 (RCC) *MONOGRAPH NO: MCW/LRP 16

*******************************

Item: Rotini with Cheese sauce, Chicken, Tomatoes and Asparagus, Cooked, Dehydrated

Document: PCR-R-015, Rotini with Cheese Sauce, Chicken, Tomatoes and Asparagus, Cooked, 

Dehydrated, Packaged in a Brickpack Pouch, Shelf Stable

Approximate Caloric Value Per Serving: 600 Component Classification: Primary

Estimated Shelf Life: 36 months at 80°F

Item Characteristics

Appearance:

Dehydrated: Mixture of rotini pasta, chicken, tomatoes, and asparagus in a white cheese 

sauce that has been dehydrated. Off-white to light tan rotini pasta. Cooked, dehydrated 

off-white to light tan pieces of whole muscle white meat chicken, dark orange to dark 

red tomato pieces, green to olive green exterior with an off white to light tan interior 

asparagus pieces. Dehydrated, off white, free flowing powder cheese sauce.

Rehydrated: Mixture of cooked rotini pasta, cooked chicken, cooked tomatoes, and 

cooked asparagus in a cheese sauce typical of a product that has been frozen and 

reheated. Cooked and rehydrated off white to light tan rotini pasta, light to medium tan 

whole muscle white meat chicken in distinct pieces, dark orange tomato pieces, green to 

olive green exterior and off white to light tan interior asparagus pieces, off white to light 

tan cheese sauce.

Odor:

Dehydrated: Parmesan and Romano cheese.

Rehydrated: Characteristic of frozen and rehydrated pasta, cooked chicken, cooked 

tomatoes, cooked asparagus, garlic, and chicken broth in a Parmesan and Romano 

cheese sauce.

Flavor:

Rehydrated: Characteristic of frozen and rehydrated pasta, cooked chicken, cooked 

tomatoes, cooked asparagus, garlic, and chicken broth in a Parmesan and Romano 

cheese sauce.

Texture:

Dehydrated: No wet or soft spots.

Rehydrated: Slightly soft to slightly firm rotini pasta, moist and tender chicken, tender 

tomato pieces, slightly firm and fibrous asparagus pieces, moderately thin cheese sauce.

Possible Deteriorative Changes 

Appearance: Dehydrated and rehydrated: Darkening, loss of color to sauce, pasta, asparagus, and 

tomatoes.

Odor: Dehydrated and Rehydrated: Cardboard, oxidized, rancid, scorched, burnt, sour.

Flavor: Dehydrated and Rehydrated: Cardboard, oxidized, rancid, scorched, burnt, sour.

Texture:

Dehydrated: Very hard, tacky, crystalline chicken, case hardened pasta. 

Rehydrated: Unrehydrated product, chewy, dry chicken, tomatoes, and asparagus, 

mushy pasta, excess water.
23 April 2013 *******************************

NSN: 8940-01-613-1448 (RCC) *MONOGRAPH NO: MCW/LRP 16

*******************************

Unique Examination/Test Procedures

NA.

Special Notes

Some ingredients such as rice, pasta or bacon may not be freeze dehydrated and will not easily crush to 

powder.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4863 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4863

To establish a pilot program in the Department of State for improvement 
  of government-to-government relations with the Miccosukee Tribe of 
                          Indians of Florida.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 2006

 Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida introduced the following bill; which 
               was referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To establish a pilot program in the Department of State for improvement 
  of government-to-government relations with the Miccosukee Tribe of 
                          Indians of Florida.

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

SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF PILOT PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of State, acting on behalf of the 
Federal Government, shall establish in the Department of State a pilot 
program with the Miccosukee Indian tribe for the purpose of exploring 
the development of more appropriate and effective arrangements for 
managing relations between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
    (b) Transfer of Authorities.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
of law, the authorities and responsibilities vested in any official or 
agency of the Federal Government with respect to managing relations 
between the Federal Government and the Miccosukee Indian tribe are 
hereby vested in the Secretary of State.
    (c) Consultation and Cooperation.--The Secretary of State may 
consult with any official of the Federal Government, and such official 
shall cooperate with the Secretary, with respect to any aspect of the 
management of relations between the Federal Government and Indian 
tribes.
    (d) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Indian.--The term ``Indian'' has the meaning given such 
        term in section 4(d) of the Indian Self-Determination and 
        Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(d)).
            (2) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the 
        meaning given such term in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
        Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e)).
            (3) Miccosukee indian tribe.--The term ``Miccosukee Indian 
        tribe'' means the Miccosukee tribe of Indians in Florida.
                                 <all>
```
No. 09-7882.

#### Syeed Briggs, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1038, 130 S. Ct. 2061,

176 L. Ed. 2d 417,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2786.

March 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 347 Fed. Appx. 750.
No. 11-296.

#### Scott Gustin, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1156, 132 S. Ct. 1092,

181 L. Ed. 2d 977,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 790.

January 17, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 642 F.3d 573.
EXHIBIT 32.1





Certification of Chief Executive Officer


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 of West Bancorporation, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David D. Nelson, Chief Executive Officer and President of West Bancorporation, Inc., 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; and (2) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of West Bancorporation, Inc.








April 28, 2011








/s/ David D. Nelson


David D. Nelson


Chief Executive Officer and President
No. 11-483.

#### Andrew Pullos, Petitioner v. Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC.

565 U.S. 1178, 132 S. Ct. 1143,

181 L. Ed. 2d 1018,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 937,

January 23, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 424 Fed. Appx. 663.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 24, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40205

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SOTERO JUAREZ, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:99-CR-324-7

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

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender, counsel for Sotero Juarez, Jr., 

has moved for leave to withdraw from this appeal and has filed a

brief and supplemental letter brief, as required by Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Juarez has not filed a

response. Our independent review of the brief, supplemental

letter brief, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. 

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 of United  Companies  Corporation
(the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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  operation of the
Company.


Date:    August 12, 2005                By:      /s/ Robert M. Carmichael
                                                 -------------------------------
                                        Name:    Robert M. Carmichael
                                        Title:   President and
                                                 Chief Executive Officer

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document  authentications,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the signature
that  appears  in typed  form  within the  electronic  version  of this  written
statement  required  by  Section  906,  has been  provided  to United  Companies
Corporation and will be retained United  Companies  Corporation and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-49138, 033-22977,33-22977, and 33-89930 on Form S-8 of our reports dated June 15, 2007, relatingto the consolidated financial statements of MAIR Holdings, Inc. andsubsidiaries (the “Company”) (which report expresses an unqualified opinion andincludes explanatory paragraphs relating to the Mesaba Aviation, Inc.(Debtor-in-Possession), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, BankruptcyCourt entering an order confirming the plan of reorganization on April 24,2007, and the Company’s change in its method of accounting for stock-basedcompensation), and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of theCompany for the year ended March 31, 2007.

Minneapolis, MinnesotaJune 15, 2007

----
No. 11-5642.

#### Theodore Shove, et al., Petitioners v. United States District Court Judges, et al.

565 U.S. 1151, 132 S. Ct. 1082,

181 L. Ed. 2d 800,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 473.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 917, 132 S. Ct. 336, 181 L. Ed. 2d 210, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 5891.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
KOGER EQUITY, INC. DOES NOT FILE A CLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET, THEREFORE THESE
NOT PROVIDED. 5-02 (9), 5-02(21)
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          16,955
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,896
<ALLOWANCES>                                       250
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         723,596
<DEPRECIATION>                                 104,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 656,097
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        181,963
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           284
<OTHER-SE>                                     443,978
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   656,097
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               113,989
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,125
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,481
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   224
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,517
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,597
<INCOME-TAX>                                       935
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,662
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    458
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,204
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.94
        

</TABLE>
No. 09-7933.

#### Michael Eugene James, Petitioner v. California.

559 U.S. 946, 130 S. Ct. 1517,

176 L. Ed. 2d 124,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1284.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District, denied.

*125Same case below, 174 Cal. App. 4th 662, 94 Cal. Rptr. 3d 576.
#### State v. Johnson

2016 MT 276N

DA 15-0630

10/25/16

Affirmed & Remanded

Dist. 1 (Lewis and Clark)
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 15 - 00146 - CV

DANIEL SMITH APPELLANT V. DUSTIN SCHWARTZ, TIA SCHWARTZ, AND SCHWAR TZ PROPERTIES, LLC APPELLEES

---------- FROM THE 442ND DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

TRIAL CO URT NO. 15

- 00981

- 431

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant Daniel Smith attempts to appeal from the trial court’s April 28, 2015 order exp unging notices of lis pendens. On April 30, 2015, we notified Appellant of our concern that we may not have jurisdiction over this appeal because the trial court’s “Order Granting Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens” does

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

not appear to be a final judgment or an a ppealable interlocutory order. We further informed Appellant that unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with this court on or before May 11, 2015, a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, the appeal could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. We have received no response. Generally , an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if allowed by statute. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson , 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001). The tr ial court has not signed a final judgment in this case, and we find no statutory authority for an appeal of an interlocutory order expunging notices of lis pendens. See Marks v. Starratt , No. 14

- 09

- 00269

- CV, 2009 WL 1312180, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] May 7, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction because no statute allows an appeal from an interlocutory order cancelling a lis pendens); see also Casmir v. Frontera Energy, LLC , No. 14

- 12

- 00023

- CV, 2012 WL 8015783, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 16, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Marks and dismissing appeal from an order expunging lis pendens); Nwangwu v. Dinkins , No. 14

- 97

- 01100

- CV, 1997 WL 688943, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 6, 1997, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (holding that appellate court had no jurisdiction in appeal from order cancell ing lis pendens but noting it could be subject of mandamus proceeding).3

Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex . R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). PER CURIAM PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ.
DELIVERED: June 11, 2015
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

PCT INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HOLLAND ELECTRONICS, LLC,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________ 

2016-1061

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Arizona in No. 2:12-cv-01797-JAT, Senior 

Judge James A. Teilborg.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

CHRISTOPHER K. LARUS, Robins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, MN, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented 

by ERIC JOHN MAGNUSON, JAMIE R. KURTZ, JOHN K.

HARTING, BRYAN MECHELL. 

SID LEACH, Snell & Wilmer, LLP, Phoenix, AZ, argued 

for defendant-appellant. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is
 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, MOORE, and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

August 16, 2016 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
Exhibit 10.20



 Exhibit 10.20 
 FIRST AMENDMENT 
 TO THE SUNRISE ASSISTED LIVING 

EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
 WHEREAS, Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Sunrise Senior Living Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”); and 

WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to (i) document that the Plan is to be terminated effective December 31,
2009 and (ii) provide for the acceleration of Plan payouts following termination to the extent permitted under Code section 409A; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company has reserved the right in Plan Article 10 to amend and/or terminate the Plan at any time. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended, effective December 31, 2009, as follows: 
 1. Section 10.2 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 
 “10.02 Termination of the Plan. 
  

	 	(a)	The Company may at any time terminate the Plan as to all or any group of Participants. If the Company terminates the Plan, payment of the Deferral Accounts shall not be
accelerated, but shall be made at such time as such Accounts would have otherwise been payable hereunder. 

  

	 	“(b)	The Plan is terminated, effective December 31, 2009 and, notwithstanding subsection (a) above, all Deferral Accounts shall be paid in one lump sum within 90
days following the first date permissible under Treas. Reg. section 1.409A-3(j)(4)(ix) (or other applicable regulations). 

 2. The Plan, as amended herein, is hereby ratified and affirmed in all other respects. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. has caused this First Amendment to be
executed by its duly authorized officer, this 30th day of December, 2009. 
  

			
	SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Julie Pangelinan
	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer



  
 -2-
No. 09-9091.

#### Tyrand James, Petitioner v. United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

559 U.S. 1022, 130 S. Ct. 1942,

176 L. Ed. 2d 392,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2488.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
No. 09-8290.

#### Frankie Cornell Ellis, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 952, 130 S. Ct. 1540,

176 L. Ed. 2d 135,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1271.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 340 Fed. Appx. 891.
109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4911

AN ACT

To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, 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, 
2

•HR 4911 EH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Higher Education Ex3 tension Act of 2006’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS. 

5 Section 2(a) of the Higher Education Extension Act 

6 of 2005 (Public Law 109–81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 note) is 

7 amended by striking ‘‘March 31, 2006’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘June 30, 2006’’. 

9 SEC. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

10 Nothing in this Act, or in the Higher Education Ex11 tension Act of 2005 as amended by this Act, shall be con12 strued to limit or otherwise alter the authorizations of ap13 propriations for, or the durations of, programs contained 

14 in the amendments made by the Higher Education Rec15 onciliation Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–171) to the pro16 visions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Tax17 payer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004.

Passed the House of Representatives March 14, 

2006. 

Attest:

Clerk. 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4911

AN ACT

To temporarily extend the programs under the 

purposes.Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other