alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AV.18

FLIGHT EFIS FL MGT AUTO FL DATA HIS NO

DIRECT COMPTR LONGITUDE VERTICAL LATERAL APP MODE LAND RECDER GCE

Alaskan

Estimated pop 138 48 67 455 288 313 190 26 37 660 5,398

Percent S.E. 18.0 30.7 26.0 9.6 12.3 11.8 15.3 41.6 7.8 34.9 0.9

% With Capability 2.3 0.8 1.1 7.7 4.9 5.3 3.2 0.4 0.6 0.0 91.1

Central

Estimated pop 1,669 476 625 3,946 2,969 3,188 2,625 94 264 2,837 7,138

Percent S.E. 7.5 14.8 12.9 4.3 5.3 5.0 5.7 34.0 5.4 20.1 2.5

% With Capability 13.7 3.9 5.1 32.4 24.4 26.2 21.6 0.8 2.2 0.0 58.6

Eastern

Estimated pop 4,046 1,065 1,376 9,551 7,012 7,566 5,862 167 606 7,015 13,328

Percent S.E. 10.1 21.1 18.4 5.7 7.1 6.8 8.1 54.1 7.1 28.2 4.2

% With Capability 15.8 4.2 5.4 37.3 27.4 29.5 22.9 0.7 2.4 0.0 52.1

Great Lakes

Estimated pop 4,523 1,227 1,641 12,019 8,990 9,393 7,821 128 693 8,221 22,275

Percent S.E. 12.1 24.3 20.9 6.5 8.0 7.7 8.7 76.2 8.4 32.5 3.7

% With Capability 11.9 3.2 4.3 31.7 23.7 24.8 20.6 0.3 1.8 0.0 58.7

New England

Estimated pop 1,179 348 370 2,515 1,810 2,132 1,757 68 142 1,937 4,609

Percent S.E. 6.7 13.1 12.7 4.1 5.2 4.6 5.3 30.1 4.9 20.7 2.4

% With Capability 14.6 4.3 4.6 31.2 22.4 26.4 21.8 0.8 1.8 0.0 57.1

Northwest Mountain

Estimated pop 2,742 745 854 6,608 5,109 5,061 4,283 158 536 5,922 15,448

Percent S.E. 12.5 25.0 23.3 7.3 8.6 8.7 9.6 54.9 7.8 29.6 3.4

% With Capability 11.3 3.1 3.5 27.2 21.1 20.9 17.7 0.7 2.2 0.0 63.7

2000 GENERAL AVIATION AND AIR TAXI ACTIVE AIRCRAFT WITH GUIDANCE AND CONTROL EQUIPMENT

REGION -----------------AUTOPILOT-AXIS CONTROLS-----------------

GUIDANCE AND CONTROL EQUIPMENT

BY REGION OF BASED AIRCRAFT "EXCLUDES COMMUTER AIRCRAFT"

AV - 1
AV.18

FLIGHT EFIS FL MGT AUTO FL DATA HIS NO

DIRECT COMPTR LONGITUDE VERTICAL LATERAL APP MODE LAND RECDER GCE

2000 GENERAL AVIATION AND AIR TAXI ACTIVE AIRCRAFT WITH GUIDANCE AND CONTROL EQUIPMENT

REGION -----------------AUTOPILOT-AXIS CONTROLS-----------------

GUIDANCE AND CONTROL EQUIPMENT

BY REGION OF BASED AIRCRAFT "EXCLUDES COMMUTER AIRCRAFT"

Southern

Estimated pop 5,931 1,630 1,951 14,575 11,309 12,048 8,984 500 988 10,622 20,778

Percent S.E. 11.6 23.6 21.5 6.4 7.7 7.4 9.0 43.2 8.1 30.5 4.6

% With Capability 15.1 4.1 5.0 37.1 28.8 30.7 22.9 1.3 2.5 0.0 52.9

Southwestern

Estimated pop 4,423 1,221 1,744 9,627 7,805 8,193 6,774 161 830 7,917 18,673

Percent S.E. 10.8 21.7 18.0 6.6 7.6 7.3 8.3 60.7 7.5 26.4 3.6

% With Capability 14.0 3.9 5.5 30.5 24.7 25.9 21.4 0.5 2.6 0.0 59.1

Western Pacific

Estimated pop 3,557 833 999 9,918 7,067 8,135 5,791 192 630 7,630 19,712

Percent S.E. 13.3 28.7 26.1 7.0 8.8 8.1 10.0 60.3 8.4 33.1 3.8

% With Capability 10.9 2.5 3.1 30.3 21.6 24.9 17.7 0.6 1.9 0.0 60.3

Total

Estimated pop 28,312 7,722 9,721 69,847 52,793 56,438 44,373 1,545 4,927 53,194 199,118

Percent S.E. 10.8 21.9 19.4 6.1 7.4 7.1 8.3 50.1 7.4 28.0 3.5

% With Capability 13.0 3.5 4.4 31.8 24.1 25.8 20.3 0.7 24.3 2.2 58.5

AV - 2
Darrell L. ARLINE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1021

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 8, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE Terald Jamal CHAMBERS

CR-17-0080

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 13, 2017

Mand. pet. dismissed.
NUMBER 13-22-00136-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

SPITZER INDUSTRIES, INC., CURTIS

KELLY, INC., AND LUIS GALEANO, Appellants,

v.

JESUS MENDOZA CABRERA, AS 

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF 

ISIDRO MENDOZA CABRERA, ISIDRO MENDOZA, 

ESPERANZA CABRERA, AND WENDY ANDRADE, 

AS NEXT FRIEND OF M.A., A MINOR, Appellees.

On appeal from the 107th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras

On April 1, 2022, appellants Spitzer Industries, Inc. (Spitzer), Curtis Kelly, Inc. 

(Kelly) and Luis Galeano filed a petition for permissive interlocutory appeal seeking to 
2

challenge the trial court’s denial of their motion for partial summary judgment in a wrongful 

death case brought by appellees Jesus Mendoza Cabrera, as representative of the estate 

of Isidro Mendoza Cabrera, Isidro Mendoza, Esperanza Cabrera, and Wendy Andrade, 

as next friend of M.A., a minor. Pursuant to our request, appellees filed a response to the 

motion.

To be entitled to a permissive appeal from an interlocutory order that is not 

otherwise appealable, the requesting party must establish to the trial court that (1) the 

order “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for 

difference of opinion” and (2) allowing an immediate appeal “may advance the ultimate 

termination of the litigation.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d); see TEX. R.

CIV. P. 168; TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3. If the trial court grants permission to appeal, as here, 

we may accept the appeal if the appeal is warranted under the foregoing criteria. TEX.

CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(f).

Having reviewed appellants’ petition, the record documents attached thereto, and 

the response, this Court is of the opinion that appellants have not shown their entitlement 

to permissive interlocutory appeal because fact issues remain on what appellants and the 

trial court have identified as a controlling question of law. See Diamond Prods. Int’l, Inc. 

v. Handsel, 142 S.W.3d 491, 494 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (“The 

statute does not contemplate permissive appeals of summary judgments where the facts 

are in dispute.”). Accordingly, the petition for permissive interlocutory appeal is DENIED.

DORI CONTRERAS

Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the

7th day of July, 2022.
Exhibit 32.1

Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of Trailer Bridge, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 31, 2009 |  | /s/ Ralph W. Heim      
|                     |  | Ralph W. Heim          
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer



Page 60
EX PARTE T.G.

(In re: T.G. v. Russell County Department of Human Resources)

2170117

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

October 31, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. denied.
Michael BURCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1069

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 7, 2018

Matthew J. Wells of Law Office of Matthew J. Wells, Tampa, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, KELLY, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 31.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Colin Hendrick, Chief Executive Officer of SmartMetric, Inc. certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of SmartMetric,
Inc.

      2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
quarterly report;

      3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

      4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and have:

      a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made know to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

      b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on our evaluation.

      c) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this
quarterly report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

      5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

      a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

      b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over
financial reporting.


Dated: November 21, 2005


/s/ Colin Hendrick
----------------------------------------
Colin Hendrick, Chief Executive Officer
Jonathan Rashad PETERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1637

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 22, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 25, 2019

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and A. Victoria Wiggins, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant; Jonathan Rashad Peterson, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Lewis, Wetherell, and Winokur, JJ., concur.
Case 3:05-cv-00800 Document 48 Filed 09/02/2005 Page 1 of 4

GW Equity LLC et al v. PBS Global Inc et al Doc. 48

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 3:05-cv-00800 Document 48 Filed 09/02/2005 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:05-cv-00800 Document 48 Filed 09/02/2005 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:05-cv-00800 Document 48 Filed 09/02/2005 Page 4 of 4
# C_2020191EN.01000801.xml

| 8.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 4 February 2020 — K v Finanzamt Linz

(Case C-58/20)

(2020/C 191/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: K

Respondent authority: Finanzamt Linz

Question referred

Must Article 135(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘management of special investment funds’ also covers the tax-related responsibilities entrusted by the management company to a third party, consisting of ensuring that the income received by unit-holders from investment funds is taxed in accordance with the law?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---
Case 3:05-cv-01645-M Document 16 Filed 11/22/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 88
Philip SPEIR v. Randy FITZ-WAINWRIGHT, as Commodore of Fairhope Yacht Club, and Fairhope Yacht Club

2161085

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Language Line Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the
quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffrey C. Grace, 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:



|(iii) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|----- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(iv) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Language Line Holdings, Inc.
|---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: September 13, 2007



|                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael Schmidt                                            
|Michael Schmidt                                                
|Chief Financial Officer, Vice President, Secretary and Director

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being
filed as part of this Report.
Case 3:05-cv-01708-M Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1
Case 3:05-cv-01708-M Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 2 of 10 PageID 2
Case 3:05-cv-01708-M Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 3 of 10 PageID 3
Case 3:05-cv-01708-M Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 4 of 10 PageID 4
Case 3:05-cv-01708-M Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 5 of 10 PageID 5
Case 3:05-cv-01708-M Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 6 of 10 PageID 6
Case 3:05-cv-01708-M Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 7 of 10 PageID 7
Case 3:05-cv-01708-M Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 8 of 10 PageID 8
Case 3:05-cv-01708-M Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 9 of 10 PageID 9
Case 3:05-cv-01708-M Document 1 Filed 08/24/05 Page 10 of 10 PageID 10
Case 3:05-cv-01571-M Document 6 Filed 11/07/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 13
A99A2210.

#### ROACH v. KAPUR.

(524 SE2d 246)

McMurray, Presiding Judge.

This Court granted an interlocutory appeal in this case from the superior court’s order denying appellant-plaintiff mother’s motion to dismiss or transfer appellee-defendant father’s counterclaim for custody of the parties’ minor child. The question presented is whether the father, in this case the noncustodial parent, may counterclaim for change of custody in an action for modification and contempt brought by the mother/custodial parent in the father’s place of residence. Held:

OCGA § 19-9-23 pertinently provides:

> (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Code section, after a court has determined who is to be the legal custodian of a child, any complaint seeking to obtain a change of legal custody of the child shall be brought as a separate action in the county of residence of the legal custodian of the child, (b) A complaint by the legal custodian seeking a change of legal custody or visitation rights shall be brought as a separate action in compliance with Article VI, Section II, Paragraph VI of the Constitution of this state, (c) No complaint specified in subsection (a) or (b) of this Code section shall be made: (1) As a counterclaim or in any other manner in response to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to enforce a child custody order; or (2) In response to any other action or motion seeking to enforce a child custody order.

The record reflects that the mother originally brought her action for contempt and modification in Walker County. The father filed his answer and motion to dismiss asserting, among other things, that proper venue was in Whitfield rather than Walker County. The mother agreed, and the matter was transferred to Whitfield County. Thereafter, the father amended his answer to counterclaim seeking sole legal custody of the child. As in *Jones v. Jones,*256 Ga. 742 (352 SE2d 754), however, the father’s counterclaim seeking a change in custody violated OCGA § 19-9-23 (a): “(1) by failing to bring a separate action to have custody changed, and (2) by failing to bring such *559an action in the county of residence of the legal custodian of the child.” Id. at 743. See also *In the Interest of S. K. R.,*229 Ga. App. 652, 653 (494 SE2d 558) (“[A] petition to change custody must be brought as a *separate*action in the county where the custodial parent resides.”) (emphasis in original). The father’s counterclaim was therefore improper, and the superior court erred in denying the mother’s motion that the counterclaim be dismissed or transferred to Walker County.

Decided October 28, 1999

*Amy A. Petulla,*for appellant.

*Coppedge & Leman, Warren N. Coppedge, Jr., David L. McGuffey,*for appellee.

*Judgment reversed and remanded.*

*Johnson, C. J., and Phipps, J., concur.*
Kathleen TUITE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. ESTATE OF Pamela TUITE, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3918

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 24, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed for failure of appellant to comply with this court's order of March 26, 2019, requiring the filing of an initial brief.

MORRIS, BLACK and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
EXHIBIT 32.4

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 Annual Report of Metals USA, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the
Periodic Report), I, Robert C. McPherson, III, 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:

1. To my knowledge, the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company.



|                      |  |                                                                           
|--------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 12, 2007 |  | /s/ ROBERT C.
MCPHERSON, III                                              
|                      |  | Robert C. McPherson, III Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Act and
is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure statement.

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.
Todd J. MCNALLY, Appellant, v. James FINN, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3138

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 24, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Lester YARBROUGH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3269

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 17, 2019

Lester Yarbrough, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Makar and Winsor, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**Gables Realty Limited Partnership2859 Paces Ferry RoadSuite 1450Atlanta,  Georgia  30339**March 25, 2002

United States Securities and Exchange Commission450 Fifth Street, N.W.Washington,  D.C.  20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen") hasrepresented to Gables Realty Limited Partnership (the "Company") asfollows in connection with its audit of the Company's consolidated financialstatements for the year ended December 31, 2001 and its report dated March 8,2002:

-  that the audit was subject to Andersen's    quality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to    provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance    with professional standards,-  that there was appropriate continuity of    Andersen personnel working on the audit and availability of national office    consultation and-  that availability of personnel at foreign    affiliates of Andersen was not relevant to the audit.
This letter is based solely upon writtenrepresentations dated March 25, 2002 received from Andersen.

Very truly yours,

 

GABLES REALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

By:  /s/ Marvin R. Banks, Jr.Name: Marvin R. Banks, Jr.Title:  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer           of Gables GP, Inc.,general partner of the Company
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7602

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. NAPOLEAN JUSTICE MENSAH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:06-cr-415; 1:07-cv-207) Submitted: March 17, 2008 Decided: July 17, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Napolean Justice Mensah, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Nicole Gibson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Napolean Justice Mensah seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mensah has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED