alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Annual Report of CardioTech International, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Leslie M. Taeger, the 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 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 result of operations of the Company.

|                     |  |  | /s/Leslie M. TaegerLeslie M. Taeger,
Chief financial officer
|-------------------- |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 17, 2005 |  |  |                                                             

---



QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 98 (Friday, May 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 28664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12163]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (10-055)]


Government-Owned Inventions, Available for Licensing

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Inventions for Licensing.

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

SUMMARY: Patent applications on the inventions listed below assigned to 
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in 
the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for 
licensing.

DATES: May 21, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert M. Padilla, Patent Counsel, 
Ames Research Center, Code 202A-4, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000; 
telephone (650) 604-5104; fax (650) 604-2767.
    NASA Case No. ARC-14653-1: Air Traffic Management Evaluation Tool 
(FACET).
    NASA Case No. ARC-16320-1: Model-Based Prognostics for Batteries.
    NASA Case No. ARC-16342-1: Advanced Sensor Technology for Algai 
Biotechnology (ASTAB).
    NASA Case No. ARC-16370-1: A Truss Beam Having Convex-Curved Rods, 
Shear Web Panels, and Self-Aligning Adapters.
    NASA Case No. ARC-16407-1: Content Analysis to Detect High Stress 
in Oral Interviews and Text Documents.

    Dated: May 17, 2010.
Richard W. Sherman,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-12163 Filed 5-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 AMBER RUSSELL PITTS, 2 Petitioner-Appellee, 3 v. No. A-1-CA-36868 4 FEATHER RUSSELL, 5 Respondent-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF GRANT COUNTY 7 Timothy L. Aldrich, District Judge 8 Amber Russell Pitts 9 Buckhorn, NM 10 Pro Se Appellee 11 Feather Russell 12 Cliff, NM 13 Pro Se Appellant 14 MEMORANDUM OPINION 15 HANISEE, Judge. 16 {1} Self-represented Respondent Feather Russell appeals from the district court’s 17 order, entered July 26, 2017, and amended order, entere d on August 3, 2017. [DS PDF 182 3-4; RP 157, 162] This Court issued a notice of proposed disposition, proposing to 1 dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order as no final written order was entered 2 resolving Respondent’s August 3, 2017 motion to reconsider. Respondent purportedly 3 filed a memorandum in opposition to our proposed summary disposition (MIO), 4 which said document was comprised solelyof the November 7, 2017 order from the 5 district court ruling on Respondent’s October 26, 2017 motion to reconsider. This 6 order does not address the August 3, 2017 mo tion for reconsideration, for which a 7 written order is still required. [ SeeRP 164] 8 {2} Accordingly and for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition, 9 we dismiss for lack of a final order. 10 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 11

_______________________________ 12 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge 13

WE CONCUR: 14

15 LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge 16

17 EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge 18
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Darrian De’Anthony Davis-Sanders, 

Appellant

No. 06-14-00189-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 336th District Court of 

Fannin County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CR-12-

24275). Memorandum Opinion delivered by 

Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and 

Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Darrian De’Anthony Davis-Sanders, has adequately indicated 

his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED AUGUST 4, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
EXHIBIT B

Standard Parties Service List

Served via First‐Class Mail

DESCRIPTION NAME A

Debtors

PG&E Corporation & Pacific Pacific Gas and

Electric Company

Attn: Janet Loduca, 77 Beale Street

PO BOX 77000San Francisco CA 94

Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Attn: General Coun

Washington DC 205

Page 1 of 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1839-2 Filed: 05/03/19 Entered: 05/03/19 16:45:38 Pag

of 1
Military & Family Life Consultants

Headquarters USSOCOM has its own full-time Military & 

Family Life Consultant (MFLC) who is here to help with life’s 

challenges. The MFLC is available to HQ USSOCOM personnel 

and their family members to address any of the following 

issues:

 Deployment and reintegration

 Marriage and relationships

 Parenting and family issues

 Communication 

 Stress and anxiety

 Sadness, grief and loss

 Daily life challenges

HQ USSOCOM MFLC: Ruby Hedin

The MFLC offers non-clinical/non-medical counseling for individuals, 

couples, families, staff, and groups. She can help with concerns such as 

bereavement, communication skills, anger management, conflict resolution, 

occupational stress, stress management, family dynamics, child behavior, 

family separation, and relationships. In addition, she is available to provide 

briefings and presentations on all the topics listed in this flyer, as well as 

subjects such as building resilience, marriage enrichment, developing more 

effective coping skills, and SOF-specific needs. 

MFLCs do not create or maintain any documentation on individuals who 

receive help, and services are free. Counseling is solution-focused, with a 12-

session limit mandated by DOD. Counseling is anonymous and confidential with the exception of duty-to-warn 

situations including danger to self or others, child or elder abuse, domestic violence, criminal activity, substance 

dependence, and sexual assault (MFLC’s are not restricted reporters). These matters require referral to 

appropriate agencies.

To ensure easy access and preserve anonymity, Ruby is available to meet in her office or anywhere on or off base 

except your home or car.

Contact Info

Blackberry:

(813) 470-0421

Office:

8206 Hillsborough Loop Dr.

Bldg. 378, Room 306

Does Seeking Help Affect 

Your Security Clearance?

Question 21 of the SF86 Questionnaire for 

National Security Positions, which asks 

about mental health treatment, has been 

revised. The question now makes an 

exception for counseling related to marital, 

family or grief issues, unless related to 

violence by you. It also excludes counseling 

for adjustments from service in a military 

combat environment as grounds for 

answering, “yes.” 

Seeking professional care for these mental 

health issues should not jeopardize an 

individual’s security clearance. Getting the 

support you need can prevent minor issues 

from becoming major problems. We 

encourage you to take advantage of these 

free, confidential services.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1645 Filed: 04/24/19 Entered: 04/24/19 12:07:34 Page 1 of

9
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1645 Filed: 04/24/19 Entered: 04/24/19 12:07:34 Page 2 of

9
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1645 Filed: 04/24/19 Entered: 04/24/19 12:07:34 Page 3 of

9
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1645 Filed: 04/24/19 Entered: 04/24/19 12:07:34 Page 4 of

9
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1645 Filed: 04/24/19 Entered: 04/24/19 12:07:34 Page 5 of

9
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1645 Filed: 04/24/19 Entered: 04/24/19 12:07:34 Page 6 of

9
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1645 Filed: 04/24/19 Entered: 04/24/19 12:07:34 Page 7 of

9
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1645 Filed: 04/24/19 Entered: 04/24/19 12:07:34 Page 8 of

9
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1645 Filed: 04/24/19 Entered: 04/24/19 12:07:34 Page 9 of

9
Exhibit 31.3

I, Mark S. Ordan, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Sunrise Senior Living, Inc.;



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 15, 2012 |  | /s/ Mark S. Ordan      
|                     |  | Mark S. Ordan          
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 475 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include vaccines against 

seasonal influenza within the definition of taxable vaccines. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 4, 2013 

Mr. GERLACH 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 include 

vaccines against seasonal influenza within the definition 

of taxable vaccines. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ADDITION OF VACCINES AGAINST SEASONAL 

4 INFLUENZA TO LIST OF TAXABLE VACCINES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (N) of section 

6 4132(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

7 amended by inserting ‘‘or any other vaccine against sea8 sonal influenza’’ before the period. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 475 IH

1 (1) SALES, ETC.—The amendment made by this 

2 section shall apply to sales and uses on or after the 

3 later of— 

4 (A) the first day of the first month which 

5 begins more than 4 weeks after the date of the 

6 enactment of this Act, or 

7 (B) the date on which the Secretary of 

8 Health and Human Services lists any vaccine 

9 against seasonal influenza (other than any vac10 cine against seasonal influenza listed by the 

11 Secretary prior to the date of the enactment of 

12 this Act) for purposes of compensation for any 

13 vaccine-related injury or death through the Vac14 cine Injury Compensation Trust Fund. 

15 (2) DELIVERIES.—For purposes of paragraph 

16 (1) and section 4131 of the Internal Revenue Code 

17 of 1986, in the case of sales on or before the effec18 tive date described in such paragraph for which de19 livery is made after such date, the delivery date shall 

20 be considered the sale date. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Frances Phillips, * From the 266th District Court

of Erath County,

Trial Court No. CV35697.

Vs. No. 11-20-00203-CV * April 23, 2021

Community Outreach Housing, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal 

should be dismissed for want of prosecution. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this 

appeal are taxed against Frances Phillips.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FREDERICK DAVID PIÑA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 23-55614 

D.C. No. 2:23-cv-02672-MCS-SK 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Mark C. Scarsi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Frederick David Piña appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his action alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Stewart v. U.S. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 2 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-55614 

Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal based on claim preclusion). 

We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Piña’s action on the basis of claim 

preclusion because Piña’s claims alleging improper conduct by State Farm’s 

counsel during Piña’s personal injury litigation involved the same parties and

primary right raised in a prior state court action that resulted in a final judgment on 

the merits. See Gupta v. Thai Airways Int’l, Ltd., 487 F.3d 759, 762 n.3 (9th Cir. 

2007) (explaining that a state court dismissal is final when a party fails to appeal 

within the time allowed); Manufactured Home Cmtys. Inc. v. City of San Jose, 420 

F.3d 1022, 1031 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To determine the preclusive effect of a state 

court judgment federal courts look to state law.”); DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber, 

352 P.3d 378, 386 (Cal. 2015) (setting forth elements of claim preclusion under 

California law).

We reject as meritless Piña’s contentions that the district court acted without 

authority in issuing its decisions, violated federal law, or was biased against Piña.

Piña’s motions to consolidate (Docket Entry Nos. 13, 14 and 15) are denied.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO and CFO**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Oxford ResidentialProperties I Limited Partnership (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly periodended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the "Report"), Steven D. Cordes, as the equivalent of the chiefexecutive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalentof the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of thePartnership.

 

 

 

 

Thiscertification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership forpurposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
Board of Regents’ Meeting Agenda

January 29, 2024 

1. Executive Session

• 2024 Regent Committee Chairmanships and Memberships

• Fiscal Year 2023 Regents’ Self-Assessment

• 2024 Compensation Recommendations

• Chief of Staff Title Change

• Annual Report on Workplace Culture

2. Report of the Chair and Executive Committee

3. Approval of the Consent Agenda

• October 23, 2023, Meeting Minutes

• Appointments and Reappointments to Smithsonian Institution Advisory Boards

• Amendments to the Bylaws of the Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum Council

4. Questions on Written Reports

• Advancement Committee

• Audit and Review Committee

• Compensation and Human Resources Committee

• Facilities Committee

• Finance Committee

• Governance and Nominating Committee

• Investment Committee

• Strategy, Innovation, and Technology Committee

• Smithsonian National Board

• Office of Government Relations

5. Smithsonian Institution Financial Review

• Fiscal Year 2025 Federal Budget Request to Congress

6. Report of the Secretary

7. Luncheon Program: Smithsonian Education Strategy

8. Update on Human Remains Task Force

9. Strategic Plan: Implementation

10. Executive Session

• “Gatekeeper” Reports

Smithsonian Institution | Board of Regents
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 5, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41149 Summary Calendar

MICHAEL O. COLEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus POLUNSKY UNIT FIELD; UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH, MEDICAL DEPARTMENT,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:04-CV-179

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Michael O. Coleman, Texas prisoner # 498392, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim and as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). He argues that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in that they assigned him to work in the fields despite their knowledge that he has insulin dependent diabetes mellitus and very erratic blood glucose levels and that in July 2004, he blacked out while working in the fieldsNo. 05-41149 -2- due to a blood glucose level of 23. Coleman has not shown that the district court erred in holding that, even if his allegations

are accepted as true, he is not entitled to relief because his work assignment was consistent with his medical restrictions. See Jackson v. Cain , 864 F.2d 1235, 1246 (5th Cir . 1989). Coleman’s disagreement with his medical classification does not state a constitutional claim. See Wilson v. Budney, 976 F.2d 957, 958 (5th Cir. 1992). Coleman has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his complaint without giving him an opportunity to amend it. See Ashe v. Corley, 992 F.2d 540, 542 (5th Cir. 1993). Coleman argues for the first time on appeal that his work assignment was made in “retaliation on another issue that [he] cannot prove.” Coleman may not raise a new legal theory for the first time on appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co. , 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). The district court’s dismissal of Coleman’s complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim under § 1915A(b)(1) counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Coleman is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).No. 05-41149 -3- AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
EXHIBIT B12 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1744-13 Filed: 04/29/19 Entered: 04/29/19 13:43:30 Page 1

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1744-13 Filed: 04/29/19 Entered: 04/29/19 13:43:30 Page 2

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1744-13 Filed: 04/29/19 Entered: 04/29/19 13:43:30 Page 3

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1744-13 Filed: 04/29/19 Entered: 04/29/19 13:43:30 Page 4

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1744-13 Filed: 04/29/19 Entered: 04/29/19 13:43:30 Page 5

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1744-13 Filed: 04/29/19 Entered: 04/29/19 13:43:30 Page 6

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1744-13 Filed: 04/29/19 Entered: 04/29/19 13:43:30 Page 7

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1744-13 Filed: 04/29/19 Entered: 04/29/19 13:43:30 Page 8

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1744-13 Filed: 04/29/19 Entered: 04/29/19 13:43:30 Page 9

of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1744-13 Filed: 04/29/19 Entered: 04/29/19 13:43:30 Page

10 of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1744-13 Filed: 04/29/19 Entered: 04/29/19 13:43:30 Page

11 of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1744-13 Filed: 04/29/19 Entered: 04/29/19 13:43:30 Page

12 of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1744-13 Filed: 04/29/19 Entered: 04/29/19 13:43:30 Page

13 of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1744-13 Filed: 04/29/19 Entered: 04/29/19 13:43:30 Page

14 of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1744-13 Filed: 04/29/19 Entered: 04/29/19 13:43:30 Page

15 of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1744-13 Filed: 04/29/19 Entered: 04/29/19 13:43:30 Page

16 of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1744-13 Filed: 04/29/19 Entered: 04/29/19 13:43:30 Page

17 of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1744-13 Filed: 04/29/19 Entered: 04/29/19 13:43:30 Page

18 of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1744-13 Filed: 04/29/19 Entered: 04/29/19 13:43:30 Page

19 of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1744-13 Filed: 04/29/19 Entered: 04/29/19 13:43:30 Page

20 of 21
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1744-13 Filed: 04/29/19 Entered: 04/29/19 13:43:30 Page

21 of 21
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**Consent of Independent RegisteredPublic Accounting Firm**

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (FormsS-8 Nos. 333-117594, 333-106607 and 333-05893, Form SB-2 No. 333-122123, FormS-3 Nos. 333-110779 and 333-72223, and Form S-4 No. 333-102115), of CardioTechInternational, Inc. and in the related Prospectuses of our report dated June11, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of CardioTechInternational, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the yearended March 31, 2007.
|                       | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |   |   |
|-----------------------|---------------------------|--------|--------|
|                  |                      |   |   |
| Boston, Massachusetts |                      |   |   |
| June 21, 2007         |                      |   |   |   |
|                       |                           |        |        |  |  |

 

----
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000574 23-MAY-2019 08:42 AM
#### William Gleason, Respondent, v. John J. Gleason and Others, Appellants, Impleaded with Charles H. Thompson, Executor, etc., of Catherine Hoenes, Deceased, and Others.

Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs.

Ah concurred.