alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| | Exhibit 15.4
        
        
        
        Gaffney, Cline & Associates, Inc.
        
        1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1000
        Houston, TX 77056
        Telephone: +1 713 850 9955
        www.gaffney-cline.com
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|DKM/gjh/C2048.00/gcah.172.12 | April 19, 2012
|---------------------------- | --------------





Board of Directors

Ecopetrol, S. A.

Edificio Principal

Cr 13 No.36-24

Bogota, Colombia



Consent of Independent Petroleum Engineers





Gentlemen:



As independent reserve engineers for Ecopetrol
S.A., Gaffney, Cline & Associates hereby consents to the references to our firm included in Ecopetrol S.A.’s annual report
on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Annual Report), and to the inclusion of our report entitled “Reserve
Audit for Forty Five Fields in Colombia as well as Ecopetrol’s Participation in SAVIA S.A.” dated February 07, 2012
(our “Report”) as Exhibit 99.2 to the Annual Report, as well as to the incorporation by reference of this consent and
our Report into Ecopetrol S.A.’s registration statement on Form F-3 filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 12, 2010.



Yours sincerely,



GAFFNEY, CLINE & ASSOCIATES, INC.











David K. Morgan

Principal – Petroleum Engineering
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Willie IVY, Appellant.

No. ED 106008

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: October 16, 2018

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: Kevin B. Gau, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101.

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, Evan J. Buchheim Asst. Attorney General, P. O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0899.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J. and Robert G. Dowd, Jr. and Mary K. Hoff, JJ.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM.

Willie Ivy appeals from the judgment entered on his convictions after a jury trial for multiple counts of child sexual abuse, claiming the court erred in denying his motion to sever certain counts from the others. We find no error and affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1377

GEDION TAMRAT, Petitioner,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: November 18, 2009 Decided: December 28, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Allen Garfield, Catherine A. Reynolds, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID GARFIELD, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Susan K. Houser, Senior Litigation Counsel, W. Daniel Shieh, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gedion Tamrat, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for relief from removal. Tamrat challenges the determination that he failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Tamrat fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary

result. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

EDMUND MALKOON,

Appellant,

v.

REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION and TOWN 

OF LAUDERDALE-BY-THE-SEA,

Appellees.

No. 4D21-2075

[February 10, 2022]

Appeal from the State of Florida, Reemployment Assistance Appeals 

Commission, RAAC 21-00736.

Edmund Malkoon, Lauderdale-By-The-Sea, pro se.

Amanda L. Neff of Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission, 

Tallahassee, for appellee Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**867 KA 13-01992**  PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER
JOHN E. SABINS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

CARA A. WALDMAN, FAIRPORT, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
BROOKS T. BAKER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATH (JOHN C. TUNNEY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Joseph W. Latham, J.), rendered June 25, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree.
Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance signed by defendant on August 29, 2016, and by the attorneys for the parties on August 9 and 15, 2016,
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed upon stipulation.

Entered: November 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-22-00267-CR 

 

EX PARTE GILBERT JOSEPH CARRASCO 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

October 5, 2022 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. 

Gilbert Joseph Carrasco, proceeding pro se, filed document or petition through 

which he seeks a “writ of exoneration.” Therein, he mentions being incarcerated for 12 

months, “never” having been “found guilty,” and being “innocent of [the] crime.” To which 

“crime” he alludes is unmentioned, as is whether he remains incarcerated. Yet, he seeks 

damages redressing his incarceration, an expunction of records, and a writ of mandamus. 

To the extent that he is incarcerated and seeks release, we interpret his request 

as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. As such, we lack jurisdiction to consider it for our 

authority extends only to civil cases. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d) (limiting 

original habeas jurisdiction of intermediate appellate courts to civil cases); Ex parte 
2

Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d 586, 588–89 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994, orig. proceeding) (per 

curiam). 

To the extent Carrasco seeks a writ of mandamus, our jurisdiction is again limited. 

Statute permits us to issue such writs only to enforce our jurisdiction, or only “against” 

judges. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b)(1)–(3) (naming the specific judges 

subject to an appellate court’s mandamus jurisdiction). Carrasco mentions no judge 

against or judicial act about which he seeks mandamus. Nor does he mention the 

existence of an appeal before us necessitating mandamus intervention to protect our 

jurisdiction over it. Thus, his allegations fail to trigger our mandamus jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, we dismiss Carrasco’s petition for want of jurisdiction.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7386

THERON JOHNNY MAXTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DOCTOR BEINER; NURSE MITCHELL; BARBARA SKEAN; MICHAEL MOORE, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-98-1560-10-18BD) Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 9, 1999 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theron Johnny Maxton, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Theron Johnny Maxton appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Maxton v. Beiner , No. CA-98-1560-10-18BD (D.S.C. Sept. 2, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-50083 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. BRANDON LEE JAMES, also known as Brandon Lee Orenstein, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:10-CR-267-1

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Brandon Lee James appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed by the district court following his conviction of one count of possession of an unregistered firearm; the sentence was 15 months ab ove th e top of the applicable guidelines range of 84-105 months of imprisonment. Following United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 ( 2 0 0 5), we review sentences for reasonableness in light of the sentencing f a c t ors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir. 2005). In U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 6, 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-50083 Document: 00511624544 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/06/2011No. 11-50083

so doing, we engage in a bifurcated review. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 49-51 (2007); United States v. Delgado-Martinez , 564 F.3d 750, 75 2 ( 5 t h Cir. 2009). We must first ensure that the sentencing court committed no significant procedural error. Gall , 552 U.S. at 51. If there is no procedural error, we review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Id. ; United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez , 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 200 8). Although James argues that the district court erred by taking into account his extensive juvenile criminal history during sentencing, the district court was free to do so. See United States v. Smith , 440 F.3d 704, 708-10 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court was in the best position to evaluate James’s history and characteristics, as well as the need for the sentence imposed to deter him from further criminal conduct and to protect the public from his future crimes, and its decision is entitled to deference. See § 3553(a); Gall , 552 U.S. at 51-52 ; Smith , 440 F.3d at 708-10. Further, the 15-month variance at issue is considerably less than other sentences that this court has affirmed. See Smith , 440 F.3d at 708 n.5, 709-10 (upholding as reasonable variance from guidelines range m axi m u m o f 2 7 m o nth s to 60 months); United States v. Smith , 417 F.3d 4 8 3 , 4 92 (5th Cir. 2005) (upholding departure f r o m gu idelines range maximum of 41 months to 120 months). That we “might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence

was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.” Gall , 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 11-50083 Document: 00511624544 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/06/2011
exv10w31






EXHIBIT 10.31




SECOND AMENDMENT TO SECURITY AGREEMENT




     THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO THIRD PARTY SECURITY AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into as
of January 26, 2010, by and between DANNER, INC., a Wisconsin corporation (“Grantor”) and WELLS
FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (“Bank”).



RECITALS




     WHEREAS, Grantor is the grantor of a Third Party Security Agreement granted in favor of Bank
dated as of April 15, 2004 (as amended, the “Security Agreement”).



     WHEREAS, Grantor is currently indebted to Bank pursuant to the terms and conditions of that
certain Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement between Grantor and Bank dated as of March 1,
2009, as amended from time to time, which is the “Credit Agreement” as that term is used in the
Security Agreement.



     WHEREAS, Bank and Grantor have agreed to certain changes in the terms and conditions set forth
in the Security Agreement and have agreed to amend the Security Agreement to reflect said changes.



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




	1.	 	The final two paragraphs of the Security Agreement are hereby amended to read as follows in
their entirety:
	 
	 	 	Debtor warrants that the address of its chief executive office is 17634 NE Airport Way,
Portland OR 97230, or such other address of which the Debtor notifies the Bank from time to
time.
	 
	 	 	Debtor warrants that the tangible Collateral (except goods in transit or in possession of
repairmen) is or will be located or domiciled at the following additional addresses: 12021
NE Airport Way, Suite B, Portland, OR 97220 (this location is in preparation); 18201 NE
Portal Way, Portland, OR 97230 (this location is in preparation); 12722 NE Airport Way,
Portland, OR 97230; 5352 Performance Way, Whitestown, IN 46075; and 17634 NE Airport Way,
Portland, OR 97230. Debtor sells inventory in the ordinary course of business to LaCrosse
Denmark, which stores it at Niels Ebbesens Vej 19 DK-1911 Frederiksberg, Denmark or at Scan
Global Logistics, True Mollevej 1,8381 Tilst, Denmark, or in transit, and which ships
inventory under customary sale and shipping terms to its customers, and to vendors as
samples, and which disposes of defective or out of date inventory in the ordinary course of
business.





2. In all other respects, the Security Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment to Third Party
Security Agreement between the parties hereto dated as of March 1, 2009, remains in full force and
effect.






1









 








     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the day
and year first written above.



DANNER, INC.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 
	By:  	/s/ Joseph P. Schneider
 	 
	 	Joseph P. Schneider 	 
	 	President/Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 
	 	 
	By:  	/s/ David P. Carlson
 	 
	 	David P. Carlson 	 
	 	Executive Vice President/Chief Financial Officer/Secretary 	 
	 



WELLS FARGO BANK,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 
	By:  	/s/ James R. Bednark
 	 
	 	James R. Bednark 	 
	 	Senior Vice President 	 
	 




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 on Form 10-QSB of Oxford
Technologies Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Jacinta Sit, President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 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, 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.


Date:  August 26, 2004


By: /s/ Jacinta Sit
---------------------------
Jacinta Sit, President and
Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 53 (Friday, March 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 11977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6087]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Biological Sciences; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Advisory Committee for Biological Sciences (1110).
    Date and Time:
     April 29-30, 2009--8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
     May 1, 2009--8:30 a.m.-12 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 
Arlington, VA 22230, Room 375.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Charles Liarakos, Senior Advisor, Biological 
Sciences, Room 605, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, Tel No.: (703) 292-8400.
    Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed above.
    Purpose of Meeting: The Advisory Committee for BIO provides 
advice, recommendations, and oversight concerning major program 
emphases, directions, and goals for the research-related activities 
of the divisions that make up BIO.
    Agenda:
     <bullet> ARRA and FY'09 Budget.
     <bullet> Leading Edge.
     <bullet> COV Reports.
     <bullet> NEON Report.
     <bullet> Experiments in Innovation.

    Dated: March 17, 2009.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-6087 Filed 3-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
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
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 Date: November 09, 2009
    /s/ JAMES HYATTPresident,Chief Executive Officer, and
DirectorDate: November 09, 2009
    /s/ WILLIAM KOZIELWilliam KozielChief Financial Officer
(chief accounting officer)
Treasurer and Secretary
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 of NuVim,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the  quarterly  period  ended  September  30,  2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the "Report"),
I, Richard P. Kundrat, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify pursuant
to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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.


Date: November 14, 2007

/s/ Richard P. Kundrat
-------------------------
Richard P. Kundrat
Chief Financial Officer
MEMORANDUM 

TO: File 

FROM: George Faison 

SUBECT: Presentation to EJ Roundtable 

A presentation was made on January 27, 2010 to the Environmental Justice Rounstable in 

New Orlean, Lousiana to provide an overview of the upcoming proposed rule 

Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are Solid Wastes. The 

presentation focused on the following topics: 

• Background and Purpose of the Rule 

• Overview of the January 2, 2009 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

• Environmental Justice Analyses 

• Next Steps
exv10wtw1






Exhibit 10.T.1




AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE




EL PASO CORPORATION



2005 OMNIBUS INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN



(as amended and restated)



     WHEREAS, El Paso Corporation (the “Company”) maintains the El Paso Corporation 2005 Omnibus
Incentive Compensation Plan, as amended and restated effective May 6, 2009 (the “Plan”); and



     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 19.1 of the Plan, the Board of Directors may amend the Plan, in
whole or in part; and



     WHEREAS, it is hereby intended that the Plan be amended to permit the settlement of stock
appreciation rights in cash and to incorporate minimum vesting restrictions applicable to Other
Stock-Based Awards (as such term is defined in the Plan).



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows:




	 	1.	 	Section 7.2 is amended by revising the second sentence thereof to read as follows:
	 
	 	 	 	“Upon exercise of a stock appreciation right, a Participant shall be
entitled to receive payment from the Company in an amount determined by
multiplying (i) the difference between the Fair Market Value of a share of
Common Stock on the date of exercise of the stock appreciation right over
the price fixed at the date of grant (which price shall not be less than
100% of the Fair Market Value of a share of Common Stock on the date of
grant) times (ii) the number of shares of Common Stock with respect to which
the stock appreciation right is exercised.”
	 
	 	2.	 	Section 7.2 is further amended by replacing the final sentence thereof with the
following:
	 
	 	 	 	“At the discretion of the Plan Administrator, the payment upon stock
appreciation right exercise may be in cash, in shares of Common Stock of
equivalent value, or in some combination thereof.”
	 
	 	3.	 	Section 12.2 is amended by adding the following sentences to the end thereof:
	 
	 	 	 	“Notwithstanding the above, the minimum vesting period for Other Stock-Based
Awards with no performance-based vesting characteristics shall be three (3)
years (vesting may occur ratably each month, quarter or anniversary of the
grant date over such vesting period), and the minimum vesting period for
Other Stock-Based Awards subject to restrictions based upon the achievement
of specific Performance Goals or performance measures shall be one (1) year;
provided, however, that the Plan Administrator may grant a “de minimis”
number of Other Stock-Based Awards that do not comply with the foregoing
minimum vesting




 









 






	standards. For this purpose “de minimis” means five percent (5%) or less of
the maximum number of shares of Common Stock that may be issued under the
Plan pursuant to Section 5.2(b) herein, subject to adjustment under Section 5.3.”





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment has been executed by the undersigned, thereunto duly
authorized, effective as of October 14, 2009.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	EL PASO CORPORATION

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Susan B. Ortenstone
 	 
	 	 	Its Senior Vice President, Human Resources 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 



ATTEST:




	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Marguerite Woung-Chapman
 

Corporate Secretary
	 	 







-2-
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-2478

Lower Tribunal No. 2022-CC-00810-O

_____________________________

TREVOR S. BROWN,

Appellant, 

v.

CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A.,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the County Court for Orange County.

Andrew L. Cameron, Judge.

June 18, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

NARDELLA, WHITE and MIZE, JJ., concur.

Trevor S. Brown, Orlando, pro se. 

Kevin Spinozza, of Pollack & Rosen, P.A., Coral Gables, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED