alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:13-CR-89-TLS 

)

BRANDON D. SIZEMORE )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 51], filed on May 14, 2014. The Defendant has waived objection to the

Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 51] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject to

this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count 1 of the Indictment is hereby

accepted, and the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate

order.

SO ORDERED on June 3, 2014.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
#### YELLOW PINE CO., Respondent, v. ATLANTIC LUMBER CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November Term, 1897.)

Action by the Yellow Pine Company against the Atlantic Lumber Company.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. See 47 N. Y. Supp. 79.
CHRISTINE FALLS OF NEW YORK, INC., et al., petitioners v. ALGONQUIN POWER INCOME FUND, et al.

No. 13-349.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

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

Justice SOTOMAYOR took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Kelvin SETTLE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7162.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CASE NO.: 1:14-CR-52-TLS 

 ) 

TOYA A. DENHAM ) 

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

 This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 53], filed on September 17, 2015. The Defendant has waived 

objection to the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the 

Findings and Recommendation [ECF No. 53] in its entirety and accepts the recommended 

disposition. Subject to this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Criminal Procedure 11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count Three (3) of the 

Indictment is hereby accepted, and the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

 The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate 

order.

SO ORDERED on October 6, 2015. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

 THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2010

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

This Annual Report was produced by talented 

and dedicated staff. To these individuals, we 

would like to offer our sincere thanks and 

appreciation. Special recognition is given to the 

following individuals for their contributions.

• Jannie F. Eaddy

• Barbara Glasby

• David Kornreich

• Robert Nolan

• Patricia Hughes

• Meredith Robinson
F E D E R A L 

D E P O S I T 

I N S U R A N C E 

CORPORATION

550 17th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20429-9990

FDIC-003-2010
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 26028]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12069]



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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Naval Research Advisory Committee; Open Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given that the Naval Research Advisory 
Committee Panel on Life Cycle Cost Reduction will meet on May 16, 17, 
18, and 19, 1995. The meeting will be held at the Office of Naval 
Research, 800 North Quincy Street, Room 915, Arlington, Virginia on May 
16 and 17; and the meeting will be held at the Commander in Chief, U.S. 
Atlantic Fleet, Maintenance Division Conference Room, Norfolk, Virginia 
on May 18 and 19, 1995. The first session will commence at 8:30 a.m. 
and terminate at 5:00 p.m. on May 16; the second session will commence 
at 8:30 a.m. and terminate at 5:30 p.m. on May 17; the third session 
will commence at 8:30 a.m. and terminate at 5:00 p.m. on May 18; and 
the fourth session will commence at 8:30 a.m. and terminate at 2:30 
p.m. on May 19, 1995. All sessions of the meeting will be open to the 
public.

    The purpose of the meeting is to provide the Navy with an 
assessment of the impact of science and technology on life cycle cost 
initiatives of current Department of the Navy systems and projected 
acquisition programs.

    The meeting will include briefings and discussions relating to 
weapons costs; life cycle costs initiatives by the Naval Sea Systems 
Command, Naval Air Systems Command, Naval Supply Systems Command, and 
the Advanced Research Projects Agency; regional maintenance and 
condition based maintenance; and shipyard design and planning.

    This Notice is being published late because of administrative 
delays which constitute an exceptional circumstance, not allowing 
Notice to be published in the Federal Register at least 15 days before 
the date of the meeting.

    For further information concerning this meeting contact:Ms. Diane 
Mason-Muir, Office of Naval Research, Ballston Center Tower One, 800 
North Quincy Street, Arlington, VA 22217-5660,Telephone Number: (703) 
696-4870.

    Dated: May 3, 1995
L. R. McNees,
LCDR, JAGC, USN, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-12069 Filed 5-15-95; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-F
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26030-26031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11954]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket Nos. RP86-10-024, RP87-115-008, and RP88-197-014]


Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Compliance Filing

May 10, 1995.
    Take notice that on May 5, 1995, Williston Basin Interstate 
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin or Company) tendered for filing 
revised tariff sheets to the Company's cancelled Original Volume No. 1-
A of its FERC Gas Tariff which has been superseded by Second Revised 
Volume No. 1 to Williston Basin's FERC Gas Tariff.
    Williston Basin states that the revised tariff sheets are being 
filed in compliance with the Commission's ``Order on Rehearing'' issued 
May 7, 1993 in Docket No. RP86-10-019, ``Order Denying Rehearing'' 
issued June 24, 1993 in Docket Nos. RP88-197-010 and RP88-236-004, and 
``Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration'' issued July 6, 1994 in 
Docket Nos. RP88-197-013 and RP88-236-007, and the United States Court 
of Appeal's judgment in Case No. 93-1431 issued October 18, 1994, which 
denied Williston Basin's Petition for Review.
    Williston Basin states that the revised tariff sheets reflect the 
calculation of Williston Basin's Rate Schedule S-3 rate on the same 
basis as that originally proposed for the locked-in period May 2, 1986 
through September 23, 1988. Williston Basin filed tariff sheets 
reflecting the recalculation of the Rate Schedule S-3 rate for the 
locked-in period September 24, 1988 through May 31, 1989 in its 
compliance filing submitted April 26, 1993 in Docket Nos. RP88-197-008 
and RP88-236-003.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, [[Page 26031]] 825 North 
Capitol Street NE., Washington, DC 20246, in accordance with Rule 211 
of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). 
All such protests should be filed on or before May 17, 1995. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make the protestants parties 
to the proceeding. Copies of the filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11954 Filed 5-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 24, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-23-01089-CV 

MARK SANDERS, Appellant 

V. 

DALLAS COUNTY, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. TX-22-00743 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Reichek, and Justice Garcia 

Opinion by Justice Reichek 

Appellant filed his brief on March 15, 2024. We then notified appellant, who 

is proceeding pro se, that his brief failed to comply with rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules 

of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. We listed numerous defects in the 

brief, including that it did not contain an index of authority indicating the pages of 

the brief where the authorities are cited, or a statement of the case supported by 

record references. Further, the argument section of the brief does not contain any 

citations to the record or to any authorities. We instructed appellant to file an 

amended brief correcting these deficiencies within ten days. In the request, we 
 –2– 

cautioned appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal if appellant failed to file 

an amended brief in compliance with the rules of appellate procedure. To date, 

appellant has failed to do so. 

The purpose of an appellant’s brief is to acquaint the Court with the issues in 

a case and to present argument that will enable us to decide the case. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.9. The right to appellate review extends only to complaints made in 

accordance with our rules of appellate procedure, which require an appellant to 

concisely articulate the issues we are asked to decide, to make clear, concise, and 

specific arguments in support of appellant’s position, to cite appropriate authorities, 

and to specify the pages in the record where each alleged error can be found. See

Tex. R. App. P. 38.1; Lee v. Abbott, No. 05-18-01185-CV, 2019 WL 1970521, at *1 

(Tex. App—Dallas May 3, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.); Bolling v. Farmers Branch 

Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex. App—Dallas 2010, no pet.). Even 

liberally construing appellant’s brief, we conclude it fails to acquaint the Court with 

the issues in the case, does not enable us to decide the case, does not make clear, 

concise, specific arguments, and is in flagrant violation of rule 38. 

Although given the opportunity to correct the brief, appellant did not do so. 

 
 –3– 

Under these circumstances, we strike appellant’s brief and dismiss this appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a); 42.3(b),(c). 

231089F.P05 

 

/Amanda L. Reichek/

AMANDA L. REICHEK 

JUSTICE 
 –4– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

MARK SANDERS, Appellant 

No. 05-23-01089-CV V. 

DALLAS COUNTY, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 44th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. TX-22-00743. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Reichek. Chief Justice Burns and 

Justice Garcia participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered July 24, 2024
Carlos WOODS, petitioner, v. MARYLAND; and Carlos Woods, petitioner, v. Maryland.

No. 12-8389.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00249-JD document 14 filed 08/26/14 page 1 of 5
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00249-JD document 14 filed 08/26/14 page 2 of 5
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00249-JD document 14 filed 08/26/14 page 3 of 5
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00249-JD document 14 filed 08/26/14 page 4 of 5
USDC IN/ND case 1:14-cv-00249-JD document 14 filed 08/26/14 page 5 of 5
Walter JEFFERSON, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 13-6337.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1676 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1676

     To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the 
disclosure to State and local law enforcement agencies of the identity 
of individuals claiming tax benefits through the improper use of Social 
                 Security numbers of other individuals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 18, 2005

  Ms. Hooley introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the 
disclosure to State and local law enforcement agencies of the identity 
of individuals claiming tax benefits through the improper use of Social 
                 Security numbers of other individuals.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``ID Theft Loophole Closure Act''.

SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE TO STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OF 
              IDENTITY OF INDIVIDUALS CLAIMING TAX BENEFIT THROUGH 
              IMPROPER USE OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (m) of section 6103 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to disclosure of taxpayer identity 
information) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(8) Individuals claiming tax benefit using improper 
        social security numbers.--If any State or local law enforcement 
        agency has reasonable cause to believe, based upon information 
        believed to be reliable, that an individual may have violated a 
        law of such State by claiming a tax benefit on any income tax 
        return under this title using a TIN of any person who is not 
        such individual, such individual's spouse, or a dependent (as 
        defined in section 152) of such individual, the Secretary may 
        (upon written request from the head of such agency) disclose 
        the name, TIN, and mailing address of such individual to 
        officers and employees of such agency exclusively for use in 
        locating such individual.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Deborah Ross ADAMS, petitioner, v. MICHIGAN JUDICIAL TENURE COMMISSION.

No. 13-521.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 9, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Michigan denied.
Michael RINALDI, petitioner v. Hector A. RIOS, Jr., Warden.

No. 12-9380.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

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

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Exhibit 10.1 (ak)


 


AMENDMENT NUMBER 6

TO

THE SAUER-DANFOSS EMPLOYEES’

SAVINGS PLAN

(As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 1997)


 


By virtue and
in exercise of the amending power reserved to Sauer-Danfoss (US) Company (the
“Company”) by Section 14.1 of Sauer-Danfoss Employees’ Savings Plan as amended
and restated effective January 1, 1997 (the “Plan”) and pursuant to the
authority delegated to the undersigned officer of the Company by the Employee
Benefits Committee of the Company, the Plan is hereby amends and, effective as
of January 1, 2002, by adding the following sentence to Section 13.5 of the
Plan to follow immediately after paragraph (e) thereof:


 


“The Plan
Benefit Committee may designate certain transactions to be effected through a
telephonic or other electronic medium, in which case notice shall be given, or
an election shall be made, when the required information is properly entered by
the Participant in the telephonic or electronic system, and an application
shall be deemed approved, where necessary, when amounts are disbursed to the
Participant or Beneficiary in accordance with such system.”


 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the Company has authorized the execution on its behalf this Amendment
Number 6, this 24 day of July,
2002.


 


 


	
   

  	
  SAUER
  DANFOSS (US) COMPANY

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Kenneth P. McCuskey

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Kenneth P. McCuskey

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Vice President Finance
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

Prefix (check one) Mr. Ms. Mrs.

Last Name: First Name: Middle Name/Initial

Generation (Sr, Jr, etc):

Firm Name:

Street Address: Suite/Room No.:

City:

EDUCATION:

College: Degree: Year Completed:

Law School: Year Graduated:

Other Post-Graduate Schooling:

Office Telephone No.: Fax No.:

 E-Mail Address: 

v. Cause No.

MOTION FOR ADMISSION TO PRACTICE PRO HAC VICE ON BEHALF OF

Party(s) Represented

State: 

(COURT USE ONLY)

RECEIPT NO. 

Page 1 of 3

Zip:

Tishyevich Dmitriy

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

601 Lexington Avenue

New York

University of California at Berkeley Bachelor of Arts 2006

Harvard Law School 2010

(212) 446-6453 (212) 446-6460

dmitriy.tishyevich@kirkland.com

Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al.

Northwest Regional Surgery Center, LLC, et al

2:15-cv-00253

Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al.

New York 10022

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00253-JD-PRC document 6 filed 07/28/15 page 1 of 4
USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00253-JD-PRC document 6 filed 07/28/15 page 2 of 4
Judge, U. S. District Court

Dated:

SO ORDERED. 

Considered and approved. 

Page 3 of 3

 Revised 06/05/2013

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00253-JD-PRC document 6 filed 07/28/15 page 3 of 4
USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00253-JD-PRC document 6 filed 07/28/15 page 4 of 4
Percival Norman FENTON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9771.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1685

To amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act to make permanent the moratorium 

on certain taxes relating to the Internet and to electronic commerce. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 19, 2005

Mr. COX (for himself, Mr. CANNON, Mr. UPTON, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. SIMMONS, Mr. RADANOVICH, Mr. 

FOSSELLA, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota, Mr. MACK, Mr. 

MCGOVERN, Mr. OTTER, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. PAUL, Mr. HERGER, Mr. 

MILLER of Florida, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. DREIER, Mr. WESTMORELAND, 

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. WELLER, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. 

TERRY, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. KIRK, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. 

GILLMOR, Mr. ADERHOLT, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Miss 

MCMORRIS, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. MCCAUL of Texas, Mr. WALSH, Mr. 

MANZULLO, and Mr. HOSTETTLER) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act to make permanent 

the moratorium on certain taxes relating to the Internet 

and to electronic commerce.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1685 IH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Internet Consumer 

3 Protection Act of 2005’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNET TAX FREEDOM 

5 ACT. 

6 The Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note) 

7 is amended—

8 (1) in section 1101(a) by striking ‘‘during the 

9 period beginning November 1, 2003, and ending No10 vember 1, 2007’’, and 

11 (2) by striking section 1104.

Æ
Felipe Jesus VAZQUEZ, petitioner, v. Rick THALER, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 12-9206.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 22, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
---

EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. § 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Form 10-Q of Colony Bankcorp, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the Date hereof (the Report), Al D. Ross, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Terry L. Hester, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge 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 condition and results of operation of the Company.











August 7, 2009








/s/ Al D. Ross


Al D. Ross, President and


Chief Executive Officer








August 7, 2009








Terry L. Hester


Terry L. Hester, Executive Vice President and


Chief Financial Officer








This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

2007
#### BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff—counter-defendant—Appellee v. Robert GREENE, Defendant—counterclaimant—Appellant.

No. 04-16703.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 8, 2005.

Decided May 4, 2006.

Jeffrey M. Hamerling, Esq., DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, US LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee.

Thomas P. Bleau, Esq., Bleau Fox *&*Fong, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant.

Before: PREGERSON, COWEN,* and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Robert E. Cowen, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM**

On May 1, 2006, we filed a published opinion in *B.P. West Coast Products LLC v. May,*447 F.3d 658 (9th.2006). The issues raised in this matter are substantially adjudicated in that case, and for the reasons set forth therein, the order of the district court in this matter will be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
exv4w3



 




EXHIBIT 4.3



March 15, 2004


Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20549


Re: Brookfield Homes Corporation


Ladies and Gentlemen:


In accordance with Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation S-K, Brookfield Homes
Corporation (the “Registrant”) has not filed herewith any instrument with
respect to long-term debt not being registered where the total number of
securities authorized thereunder does not exceed ten percent (10%) of the total
assets of the Registrant and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. The
Registrant hereby agrees to furnish a copy of any such agreement to the
Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.


Sincerely,


BROOKFIELD HOMES CORPORATION


 


/s/ IAN G. COCKWELL


Ian G. Cockwell

President and Chief Executive Officer