alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7411** 

CHARLES MICHAEL STOKES , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. ANDREW MOORMAN, sued in his individual and official capacities , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the Uni ted States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Beaufort
. Cameron McGowan Currie , District Judge. ( 9:10

- cv - 01711

- CMC )

Submitted : December 21, 2010 Decided: January 4, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Charles Michael Stokes, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Charles M. Stokes appeals the district court ’ s order acceptin g the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Stokes
v. Moorman , N o. 9:10

- cv - 01711

- CMC (D.S.C. Sept. 27, 2010)
. 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.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 15**Consent of Registered Independent Public Accounting FirmThe Supervisory Board of SAP AG:We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos.333-60399, 333-65083, 333-30380, 333-41762, 333-63496, 333-63464 and 333-102564) of SAPAG andsubsidiaries (SAP AG) of our report dated March 10, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balancesheets of SAP AG as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements ofincome, changes in shareholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-yearperiod ended December 31, 2005, and the information contained in the related financial statementschedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2005, annual report on Form 20-F of SAP AG./s/ KPMG DEUTSCHE TREUHAND-GESELLSCHAFT
1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please

2 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 

3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated

4 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does

5 not include the filing date.

6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 WILLIE H. BREWER and

8 ANNA NITA BREWER,

9 Plaintiffs-Appellees,

10 v. NO. 29,688 

11 TADEUSZ NIEMYJSKI,

12 Defendant-Appellant.

13 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY

14 John W. Pope, District Judge

15 Steider & Associates, P.C.

16 Timothy D. Steider

17 Albuquerque, NM

18 for Appellees

19 Tadeusz Niemyjski

20 Meadow Lake, NM

21 for Appellant

22 MEMORANDUM OPINION

23 WECHSLER, Judge.
2

1 Defendant Tadeusz Niemyjski appeals the district court’s judgment ordering

2 him to vacate real property and to pay damages, costs, and attorney fees. On

3 September 1, 2009, this Court filed a notice of proposed summary disposition

4 proposing to affirm the district court. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition

5 to summary disposition, which we have given due consideration. We affirm the

6 district court.

7 Defendant argues that it was error for the district court to allow Plaintiffs Willie

8 H. and Anna Nita Brewer to sue him as individuals rather than as trustees of the

9 Brewer Family Trust. Rule 1-017(A) NMRA provides: “Every action shall be

10 prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest; but [a] trustee of an express trust

11 . . . may sue in that person’s own name without joining the party for whose benefit the

12 action is brought.” 

13 “Interpretation of both a court rule and a statute are questions of law that we

14 review de novo on appeal.” State v. Romero, 2006-NMCA-126, ¶ 5, 140 N.M. 524,

15 143 P.3d 763, aff’d, 2007-NMSC-030, 141 N.M. 733, 160 P.3d 914. “In interpreting

16 a Supreme Court rule of procedure, we look first to the rule’s plain language.” Gates

17 v. State, Taxation & Revenue Dept., 2008-NMCA-023, ¶ 10, 143 N.M. 446, 176 P.3d

18 1178. “If the rule is unambiguous, we give effect to its language and refrain from
3

1 further interpretation.” In re Michael L., 2002-NMCA- 076, ¶ 9, 132 N.M. 479, 50

2 P.3d 574. “[The rules of civil procedure] shall be construed and administered to

3 secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.” Rule 1-

4 001(A) NMRA.

5 We conclude that the language of Rule 1-017(A) is unambiguous, and thus the

6 Brewers, who are trustees of an express trust, could sue in their own names without

7 specifying their capacity as trustees. Accordingly, we affirm the district court.

8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 _______________________________

10 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

11 WE CONCUR:

12 _______________________________

13 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge

14 _______________________________

15 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge
# C_2021349EN.01003101.xml

| 30.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 349/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 349/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2021 — Harrington Padrón v Council

(Case T-32/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Venezuela - Freezing of funds - Lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Retention of the applicant’s name on the lists - Error of assessment)

(2021/C 349/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Katherine Nayarith Harrington Padrón (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Antoniadis, S. Kyriakopoulou and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 10), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ 2018 L 276, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Katherine Nayarith Harrington Padrón to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Katherine Nayarith Harrington Padrón to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.

---
Exhibit 3.1


                            CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION

                                       OF

                                    QFAC, LLC

         This  Certificate  of Formation is being executed as of April 15, 1999,
for the purpose of forming a limited liability  company (the "Limited  Liability
Company")  pursuant to the  Delaware  Limited  Liability  Company Act, 6 Del. C.
ss.ss. 18-101, et seq.

         The  undersigned,  being  duly  authorized  to  execute  and file  this
Certificate of Formation, does hereby certify as follows:

         1.  Name. The name of the Limited Liability Company is QFAC, LLC.

         2.  Registered  Office and  Registered  Agent.  The  Limited  Liability
Company's  registered  office in the State of  Delaware  is  located  at 32 East
Loockerman  Square,  Dover,  Delaware 19901. The registered agent of the Limited
Liability  Company for service of process at such  address is The  Prentice-Hall
Corporation System, Inc.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate
of Formation as of the day and year first above written.


                                             Authorized Signatory:

                                             ___________________________________
                                             Lincoln L. Ornston
# FILED

August 17, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE
R.B. TOBY, * Appellant, * C.C.A.#03C01 -9711-CC-00507 VS. * SEVI ER COUNTY STATE OF TENNESSEE, * Appellee. *

ORDER
The petiti oner, R.B. Toby, proce eding pro se , appeals as of right fro m the Sevier Count

y Criminal

Court’s di smissal of hi s petiti on for post-co nviction relief. The record reflec

ts that t he petiti oner pled gui lty t o two count

s of vehicul ar homicide, one count of vehic ular assault, an d one count o f violating the Hab itual Motor Vehic le Statute on January 13 , 1994. By plea agreement , he receiv ed an aggregate sentence of fi fteen (15) years

in the Depart ment of Correct ion. The sent ence included t

wo concurrent

ten (10) year sentences for each vehicular hom icide conviction, a five (5) year consecutive sentence for t he vehicular assault conv iction, and a concurrent four (4) y

ear sentence for the habitual mo tor vehicle offen der conviction

.

The petitioner did not appeal the sentence bu t filed a petition for pos tconvictio n relief on October 23, 199 6. He allege d that the indictment

s upon which he was convicted were fatally deficient in failin g to state the term of the grand jury and in failing t o adequately

state the

facts surround ing the off ense. In di smissing the petitio n without an evidentiar y hearing, the trial cour t concluded tha t the petition was not time ly filed and t hat the pet itioner’ s claims did not present a ny except ion to the statute o

f limitations.
After full considerati on of the recor d, the bri efs, and the law governi ng the issues present

ed, we are of

the opinio n that the

record support

s the tri al court’ s actionsand that no pr ecedential value woul d be derived f rom the renderi ng of an opini on. The petition was filed ou tside the statute of lim itations, see T.C.A. § 40- 30-202, and t he petitioner’s claim s do not fall unde r any of the exception s to the statute of limitatio ns, see T.C.A. § 40-30 -202(b). It is , therefor e, ORDER ED that the judgm ent of the trial court is affirmed pursua nt to Rule 2 0, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules. Due to the petitio ner’s indi gence, costs sha ll be tax ed to the st

ate.

Gary R. Wade, Judge CONCUR: Joseph M. Tipto n, Judge
David H. Welles, Judge
(55 Misc. Rep. 368.)

#### BAIER v. KELLEY.

(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.

July, 1907.)

Mortgages—Foreclosure—Appointment of Receiver.

Though a receiver clause in a mortgage does not prima facie entitle the mortgagee to the appointment of a receiver, where it appears that the mortgage is a second mortgage, and that the parties In possession refuse to pay the interest and taxes, are receiving the rents, and' there is a doubt ■whether the security is adequate, a receiver will be appointed.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 35, Mortgages, §§ 1374, 1375.]

Action by Anna M. S. Baier against Hannah E. Kelley. Motion for receiver in action to foreclose mortgage. Granted.

Charles Foster, for plaintiff.

Charles S. Clark, for defendant.

DAYTON, J.

The papers fail to show that the property is inadequate to secure plaintiff’s mortgage. `Indeed, I think the contrary is shown. The receivership clause in a mortgage does nót prima facie entitle the mortgagee to the appointment of a receiver. See Thomas v. Davis, 90 App. Div. 1, 85 N. Y. Supp. 661, where the court says:

> “The general rule, as I understand it, is, when a mortgage contains such a provision, and it further appears, as here, that the mortgage sought to be foreclosed is a second mortgage, that the parties in possession refuse to pay the interest and taxes, are receiving the rents, and that there is doubt as to whether the security is adequate, that a receiver will be appointed.”

Motion granted.
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-Q of Synovics Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2009 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Jyotindra Gange,
Principal Executive Officer, 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of
 1934; and                                                                                                                                      
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|(2) | The information contained
 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated
 financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and consolidated
 results of operations of the Company for the periods presented.

|                      |                              | 
|--------------------- | ---------------------------- | 
|Dated: March 17, 2009 |                             
|                      |                              | 
|By:                   | /s/ Jyotindra Gange          | 
|                      |                              | 
|                      | Jyotindra Gange              | 
|                      | Principal Executive
 Officer | 

This certification has been
furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Synovics
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Synovics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

26

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Barnes, Appellant.

[943 NYS2d 753] —

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.), dated March 12, 2010, which, after a hearing, denied his motion to be resentenced pursuant to CPL 440.46 on his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, which sentence was originally imposed, upon his plea of guilty, on May 24, 2002.

*1030Ordered that the order is affirmed.

As correctly conceded by the People, the Supreme Court erroneously concluded that the defendant’s status as a reincarcerated parole violator rendered him ineligible to apply for resentencing pursuant to CPL 440.46 *(see People v Paulin,*17 NY3d 238, 241-242 [2011]). However, in light of the defendant’s extensive criminal history, his history of committing crimes while on parole, and his institutional record which included 11 infractions, the Supreme Court properly determined that, in any event, substantial justice dictated that the defendant’s motion should be denied *(see People v Karim,*85 AD3d 943, 944 [2011]; *People v Dennis,*84 AD3d 834, 835 [2011]; *People v Colon,*77 AD3d 849, 850 [2010]; *People v Winfield,*59 AD3d 747, 747-748 [2009]; *People v Flores,*50 AD3d 1156, 1157 [2008]). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Leventhal and Cohen, JJ., concur.
II 

Calendar No. 143 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 897 

[Report No. 112–63] 

To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to 

clarify that uncertified States and Indian tribes have the authority to 

use certain payments for certain noncoal reclamation projects and acid 

mine remediation programs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 5, 2011 

Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. BENNET, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. 

UDALL of New Mexico, and Mr. LEE) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AUGUST 30 (legislative day, AUGUST 2), 2011 

Reported under authority of the order of the Senate of August 2, 2011, by 

Mr. BINGAMAN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

of 1977 to clarify that uncertified States and Indian 

tribes have the authority to use certain payments for 

certain noncoal reclamation projects and acid mine remediation programs. 

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 897 RS

1 SECTION 1. ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION. 

2 (a) RECLAMATION FEE.—Section 402(g)(6)(A) of 

3 the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

4 (30 U.S.C. 1232(g)(6)(A)) is amended by inserting ‘‘and 

5 section 411(h)(1)’’ after ‘‘paragraphs (1) and (5)’’. 

6 (b) FILLING VOIDS AND SEALING TUNNELS.—Sec7 tion 409(b) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclama8 tion Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1239(b)) is amended by in9 serting ‘‘and section 411(h)(1)’’ after ‘‘section 402(g)’’. 

10 (c) USE OF FUNDS.—Section 411(h)(1)(D)(ii) of the 

11 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 

12 U.S.C. 1240a(h)(1)(D)(ii)) is amended by striking ‘‘sec13 tion 403’’ and inserting ‘‘section 402(g)(6), 403, or 409’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 143 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 897 

[Report No. 112–63] 

A BILL 

To amend the Surface Mining Control and Recgrams. lamation projects and acid mine remediation pro- use certain payments for certain noncoal rec- States and Indian tribes have the authority to lamation Act of 1977 to clarify that uncertified 

AUGUST 30 (legislative day, AUGUST 2), 2011 

Reported without amendment 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6536

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

v. 

LEODITUS A. SMITH, a/k/a Leo, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, 

District Judge. (3:09-cr-00158-6) 

Submitted: May 24, 2012 Decided: May 31, 2012

Before MOTZ and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Leoditus A. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Franklin Adams, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Huntington, West Virginia; 

Gary L. Call, Steven Loew, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Leoditus A. Smith appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction 

of sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Smith, No. 3:09-cr-00158-6

(S.D.W. Va. Feb. 24, 2012). 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. 

AFFIRMED
##### 



Exhibit 14.13 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS To the Board of Directors of
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce (CVRD) We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in (i) the
Registration Statement on Form F-4 (File Nos. 333-109610; 333-109610-01) of
CVRD and Vale Overseas Limited (Vale Overseas); and (ii) the Registration
Statement on Form F-3 (File Nos. 333-110867; 333-10867-01) of CVRD and Vale
Overseas of our report dated January 16, 2004 on the consolidated financial
statements of Companhia Nipo-Brasileira de Pelotização  NIBRASCO which appears
in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of CVRD and Vale Overseas for the year ended
December 31, 2003. June 4, 2004 /s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
#### Sally Hammer, Respondent, v Arthur Hammer, Appellant.

lant. — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Ostrau, J.), entered on January 28,1985, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements and motion to strike appellant’s brief and for other relief denied. No opinion. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Fein, Kassal and Rosenberger, JJ.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T PR YM AS NA ZR ET H V AZ; M O N A LI SA N A PO LI A N D I A S, P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 70646 A ge nc yN os . A 075- 724- 257

A 075- 724- 258 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r13, 2010 ** B efo re: S IL V E R M A N , C A L L A H A N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P ry m a s N a z r e th V a z and M ona l i s aN apol i an D i a s , na t i ve s and c i t i z e ns of Indi a, pet i t i on for r evi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order denyi ng thei r m ot i on t o reopen rem ov alproceedi ng s. O ur j uri sdi ct i on i s gov erned b y8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n , H

e v . G on zales , 501 F . 3d 

# FI LED SEP 24 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 70646 2 1128, 1130- 31 ( 9th C i r . 2007) , and w e de nyi n partand di s m i s s i n partthe pe t i t i on f o rr e v i e w. T he B I A di d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng pe t i t i one r s ’ s e c ond m ot i on t o reopen as unt i m el y and nu m er i ca l l y barre d w here they f i l ed i tov erfour ye ar s a f te rth e B I A ’s f

in a l o r d e ro f

r e m o v a l, se e 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (2), and p et i t i on er s fa i l ed t o est abl i sh changed con di t i on s i n Ind i a t o q ual i fyfor the re gu l at ory e x c e p tio n to th e tim e lim ita tio n an dn u m e r ic a l b ar , se e 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (3)( i i ); se e al so T ou f i gh iv. Mukasey , 5 3 8 F . 3 d9 8 8 , 9 9 6 -9 7 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) (ev i d en ce m u st dem on strat e pri m a f

ac i e e l i gi bi l i ty f

or re l i ef i n o rdert o reopen p roce edi ng s bas ed on changed cou ntrycond i t i on s) . P e t i t i one r s ’ c ont e nt i on tha tthe B I A f a i l e d t o m e ani ngf

ul l yc ons i de rthe e v id e n c e s ub m itte dw ith th e m o tio n to r e o p e n is b e lie db yth e r e c o r d . See L ata v. I NS , 2 0 4 F .3 d1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( r e q u ir in g e rr o rf o rp e titio n e rto p r e v a il o n adu e p r o c e s s c la im ) . F i nal l y, thi s c ou rtl ac ks j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew pet i t i on er s’ cont ent i on that th e irf o rm e rc o u n s e l w a s in e f

f e c tiv e . Se e B a rr o n v . A s h c r o ft , 358 F . 3d 674, 678 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( c ourtl a c ks j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w c ont e nt i ons notr a i s e d be f or e the a g e n c y ) . P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.