alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-3217

___________________________

Dilver Ezequiel Gaytan-Parada

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

 ____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

 ____________

Submitted: March 22, 2023 

Filed: April 10, 2023 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

El Salvadoran citizen Dilver Ezequiel Gaytan-Parada applied for asylum and

withholding of removal. An immigration judge denied his application, and the Board

of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal. He petitions for review. 
We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of Gaytan-Parada’s asylum claim

because he does not meaningfully raise a constitutional or legal challenge to the

agency’s findings that his application was untimely and that he failed to show the

deadline should be excused based on extraordinary circumstances. See 8 U.S.C.

§§ 1158(a)(3) (no court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination on

whether extraordinary circumstances warrant consideration of untimely asylum

application), 1252(a)(2)(D) (exception to jurisdictional bar for constitutional claims

or questions of law); Cambara-Cambara v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 2016)

(concluding this court lacks jurisdiction to review untimeliness of asylum application,

absent a constitutional claim or question of law, and whether an applicant has shown

extraordinary circumstances is a factual finding or discretionary judgment insulated

from review); see also Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir.

2004).

Gaytan-Parada has waived review of his claim for withholding of removal

because he has failed to meaningfully challenge the agency’s reasons for denying it. 

See, e.g., Hassan v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 587, 590 n.1 (8th Cir. 2021). Even if GaytanParada had not waived review, substantial evidence supported the denial of his claim. 

See Mouawad v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 405, 412 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review). 

He did not demonstrate past harm rising to the extreme level of persecution or a clear

probability of future persecution. See Cano v. Barr, 956 F.3d 1034, 1039 (8th Cir.

2020); Lemus-Arita v. Sessions, 854 F.3d 476, 482 (8th Cir. 2017); Garcia-Colindres

v. Holder, 700 F.3d 1153, 1158 (8th Cir. 2012); Samedov v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 704,

708 (8th Cir. 2005). These determinations were dispositive of his claim. See Cano,

956 F.3d at 1040 & n.4. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

-2-
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00052-CV

Texas Department of Public Safety

v.

Kenya J. Trevino Rodriguez

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 8 of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CL-21-0884-H

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and rendered. The 

Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and RENDERS judgment in 

accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 10, 2023
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50809

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GABRIEL FRIAS-PINA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:06-CR-43-ALL

Before KING, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gabriel Frias-Pina (Frias) appeals his 60-month sentence imposed after

his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States following

deportation. For the first time on appeal, Frias argues that the district court

committed error by enhancing his sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii)

based on his prior Texas conviction for aggravated robbery. Our review is

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 18, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-50809

2

limited to plain error. United States v. Gonzalez-Chavez, 432 F.3d 334, 336 (5th

Cir. 2005). 

Under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), a defendant’s base offense level is increased by

16 levels if he was previously deported after a conviction of a crime of violence.

Robbery is an enumerated crime of violence in the application notes to § 2L1.2,

comment. (n.1(B)(iii)). Frias has not shown plain error in the increase of his

offense level based on his prior aggravated robbery conviction. See UnitedStates

v. Santiesteban-Hernandez, 469 F.3d 376, 378, 381 (5th Cir. 2006). 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2

# CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

I, Gregory A. Wells, certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

To the best of my knowledge and
belief, the quarterly report on Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 14, 2003, by NTS-Properties V, a Maryland Limited Partnership (the
Periodic Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Periodic Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of NTS-Properties V, a Maryland Limited Partnership.

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to NTS- Properties V, a Maryland
Limited Partnership and will be retained by NTS-Properties V, a Maryland Limited
Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

/s/ Gregory A. Wells

---

Chief Financial Officer of NTS Capital Corporation,
General Partner of NTS-Properties Associates V,
General Partner of NTS-Properties V, a Maryland Limited Partnership

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          34,426
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,785
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,028
<INVENTORY>                                     30,580
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               138,793
<PP&E>                                         348,902
<DEPRECIATION>                                 205,097
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 294,807
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           88,957
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,513
<OTHER-SE>                                     120,310
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   294,807
<SALES>                                        408,219
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               408,219
<CGS>                                          346,335
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  361,541
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,141
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 45,360
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,950
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,410
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,410
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.04
        

</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO 

EXHIBIT H

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2028-11 Filed: 05/15/19 Entered: 05/15/19 16:58:06 Page 1

of 3
3

[PROPOSED] ORDER ADOPTING NEW CONDITIONS OF PROBATION

Case No. 14-CR-00175-WHA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-CR-00175-WHA

[PROPOSED] ORDER ADOPTING 

NEW CONDITIONS OF 

PROBATION

This order follows the May 7, 2019 sentencing hearing regarding defendant PG&E’s Form 

12 violation. In addition to the conditions of probation already in effect, the Court imposes the 

following new conditions of probation:

• By no later than July 15, 2019, the PG&E Board of Directors, PG&E’s Chief 

Executive Officer and certain other PG&E senior executive leaders, the Monitor, and 

Probation shall visit Paradise and San Bruno to gain a firsthand understanding of the 

harm inflicted on those communities and meet with victims and others stakeholders, 

such as fire-fighting personnel and/or city officials.

• A committee of the PG&E Board of Directors shall assume responsibility for tracking 

progress against PG&E’s Wildfire Safety Improvement Plan, as approved by the 

California Public Utilities Commission, and the new terms of probation imposed on 

April 3 regarding wildfire safety. The committee is to report in writing to the Board 

at least quarterly, and also present orally to the Board at least quarterly, PG&E’s 

progress in meeting the terms of the approved Wildfire Safety Improvement Plan and 

the April 3 terms of probation and, to the extent there are shortfalls, how PG&E will 

address the shortfalls. 

Case 3:14-cr-00175-WHA Document 1071 Filed 05/14/19 Page 1 of 2

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2028-11 Filed: 05/15/19 Entered: 05/15/19 16:58:06 Page 2

of 3
4

[PROPOSED] ORDER ADOPTING NEW CONDITIONS OF PROBATION

Case No. 14-CR-00175-WHA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May _________, 2019

 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14

Case 3:14-cr-00175-WHA Document 1071 Filed 05/14/19 Page 2 of 2

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2028-11 Filed: 05/15/19 Entered: 05/15/19 16:58:06 Page 3

of 3
#### John S. Brown, Appellant, v. Fannie Twist, Respondent

—Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. Opinion by

Barker, J
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0637

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

WALTER JASON PURKHISER,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including January 26, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 20 2023

12/20/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0637
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Patrick Hughes v. Mayor Horatio S. Sandford, Commissioner of Public Works, etc., and Others.

Determination annulled, and relator restored to his position, with fifty dollars costs.—

Brown, P. J.:

This proceeding is a certiorari to review the determination of the respondents dismissing the relator from the position of fireman in the fire department. The respondents were empowered to remove employees for incapacity, neglect of duty or misconduct.” The relator was charged with neglecting to feed or water horses left in his charge from nine o’clock p. m. on July twentieth, to three-thirty p. ar. on July 21, 1898. It appears that at twelve-thirty a. ar., July twenty-first, an alai'm summoned the relator and h:s company to a large fire, and he was on duty there the balance of that night and part of the next day. The only witness called to substantiate the charge was Alexander Grady, the company’s foreman. He knew nothing of the matter himself, but testified that he believed the charge was true. He swore to a conversation with Hughes which, it was claimed, amounted to an admission of the charge of neglect. Hughes denied on the witness stand that he admitted to Grady that the horses were not fed or watered until the aftern,oon of the twenty-first, and it appeared by uncontradicted evidence that they were fed about nine o’clock in the morning, and were watered about eleven o’clock. The charge of neglect was not proved, and the commissioners were not authorized to dismiss the relator. The order must be reversed and the relator restored to his position, with fifty dollars costs.

Pratt and Dykman, JJ., concurred.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2112 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/20/19 15:49:50 Page 1 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2112 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/20/19 15:49:50 Page 2 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2112 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/20/19 15:49:50 Page 3 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2112 Filed: 05/20/19 Entered: 05/20/19 15:49:50 Page 4 of

4
#### WILLIAM S. COOPER and others, Respondents, *v.*JOHN H. HOWE and others, Appellants.

*Coimter-elawn*— *cannot he stricken out as frivolous.*

A counter-claim cannot be stricken out or disregarded as frivolous; the remedy is by demurrer, or by motion to make it more definite and certain.

Appeal from an order of tbe County Court of Monroe county, striking out defendants’ answer as frivolous.

*Thomas P.*O’ *Kelly,*for tbe appellants:

*Horace McGuire,*for tbe respondent.

Talcott, J.:

Tbis is an appeal from tbe order of the County Court of Monroe county, overruling tbe answer of the defendants as frivolous.

The action is upon contract to recover an indebtedness arising upon the sale of goods, wares and merchandise by tbe plaintiffs to tbe defendants. Tbe third answer of tbe defendants sets up what purports to be a counter-claim, in the nature of a set-off. Tbe allegations in regard to tbe alleged counter-claim are very imperfect, and doubtless bad on demurrer, but a counter-claim cannot be stricken out or disregarded as frivolous. If defectively alleged, it is to be met by a demurrer, or by a motion to make it more definite and certain. *(Fettrech*v. McKay, 47 N. Y., 426; *Briggs*v. *Bergen,*23 id., 162.)

Tbe order in tbis case purports to overrule tbe whole answer as frivolous.

We think so much of tbe answer as purported to be set up by way of defense to tbe action was frivolous, but tbe order was too large, in embracing tbe counter-claim.

The order appealed from should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

!MulliN, P. J., and Smith, J., concurred.

Order appealed from reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS 

ANGELES

Notice Parties 

PG&E Corporation

c/o Pacific Gas & Electric Company 

Attn: Janet Loduca, Esq. 

77 Beale Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Keller & Benvenutti LLP

Attn: Tobias S. Keller, Esq. 

 Jane Kim, Esq. 

650 California Street, Suite 1900 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

The Office of the United States Trustee for Region 17

Attn: James L. Snyder, Esq. 

 Timothy Laffredi, Esq. 

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 5th Floor, Suite #05-0153 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Milbank LLP

Attn: Dennis F. Dunne, Esq. 

 Sam A. Khalil, Esq. 

55 Hudson Yards 

New York, NY 10001-2163 

Milbank LLP

Attn: Paul S. Aronzon, Esq. 

 Gregory A. Bray, Esq. 

 Thomas R. Kreller, Esq. 

2029 Century Park East, 33rd Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90067 

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

Attn: Stephen Karotkin, Esq. 

 Jessica Liou, Esq. 

 Matthew Goren, Esq. 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2063-6 Filed: 05/17/19 Entered: 05/17/19 10:00:17 Page 1

of 1
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION, 

- and - 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, 

Reorganized Debtors. 

Bankruptcy Case 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered) 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Liz Santodomingo, do declare and state as follows: 

1. I am employed by Kroll Restructuring Administration LLC (“Kroll”)1, the claims and 

noticing agent for the Reorganized Debtors in the above-referenced chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.

2. On September 15, 2022, at my direction and under my supervision, employees of Kroll 

caused the following document to be served via first class mail on the Notice Parties Service List 

attached hereto as Exhibit A: 

 Notice of Filing of Transcript and Deadlines Related to Restriction and Redaction 

[Docket No. 12954] 

3. I have reviewed the Notices of Electronic Filing (NEF) for the above-listed document, and 

I understand that parties listed in each NEF as having received notice through electronic mail were 

electronically served with that document through the Court’s Electronic Case Filing system. 

4. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, that the 

foregoing is true and correct and that if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify 

thereto. 

1

 Effective March 29, 2022, Prime Clerk LLC changed its name to Kroll Restructuring Administration LLC. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13004 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 14:15:11 Page 1

of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 SRF 64102 

Executed this 21st day of September 2022, at New York, NY. 

/s/ Liz Santodomingo

Liz Santodomingo

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13004 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 14:15:11 Page 2

of 4
Exhibit A 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13004 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 14:15:11 Page 3

of 4
Exhibit A

Notice Parties Service List

Served via First Class Mail

NAME ADDRESS NOTICE NAME ADDRESS 1 ADDRESS 2 CITY STATE ZIP

Brown Rudnick LLP Attn: David J. Molton 7 Times Square New York NY 10036-6548

Duane Morris LLP Attn: Ron Oliner 1 Market Spear Tower Suite 2200 San Francisco CA 94105

William B. Abrams Address on File

In re: PG&E Corporation, et al.

Case No. 19-30088 (DM) Page 1 of 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13004 Filed: 09/26/22 Entered: 09/26/22 14:15:11 Page 4

of 4
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**304 CAF 14-00642**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, SCONIERS, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF MATT J.F., SR., PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BILLIE L.F., RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

FERN S. ADELSTEIN, OLEAN, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

DARRYL R. BLOOM, OLEAN, FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, FREDONIA.

Appeal, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, from an order of the Family Court, Cattaraugus County (Michael L. Nenno, J.), entered March 18, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5. The order directed the parties and their marital child to submit to a genetic marker test.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, petitioner father appeals from an order directing the parties and their marital child to submit to a genetic marker test. While this appeal was pending, respondent mother commenced her own paternity proceeding. Family Court ordered a genetic marker test, to which the father did not object, it was determined that the father is the biological father of the subject child, and an order of filiation was entered. We therefore conclude that this appeal has been rendered moot and that, contrary to the contention of the father, the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply ( see generally Matter of Hearst Corp

. v Clyne , 50 NY2d 707, 714-715).

Entered: March 27, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO 

EXHIBIT A

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1636-1 Filed: 04/23/19 Entered: 04/23/19 17:38:34 Page 1

of 6
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1636-1 Filed: 04/23/19 Entered: 04/23/19 17:38:34 Page 2

of 6
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1636-1 Filed: 04/23/19 Entered: 04/23/19 17:38:34 Page 3

of 6
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1636-1 Filed: 04/23/19 Entered: 04/23/19 17:38:34 Page 4

of 6
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1636-1 Filed: 04/23/19 Entered: 04/23/19 17:38:34 Page 5

of 6
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1636-1 Filed: 04/23/19 Entered: 04/23/19 17:38:34 Page 6

of 6
SPS LOGO
Agreement:     See Schedule of AgreementsDated:
See Attached Schedule
ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE
In accordance with the applicable section in each of
the Pooling
and Servicing
Agreements specified:
i.
a review of the activities of the Servicer during the year ended December 31,
2006
and of performance under this Agreement has been made under
such officers' supervision; and
ii.
to the best of such officers' knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations and no default has occurred under this Agreement throughout such year.
February 24, 2007
/s/ Matthew L. HollingsworthMatthew L. Hollingsworth
Chief Executive Officer Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
Exhibit 35Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp., Depositor, DLJ Mortgage Capital,Inc., Seller, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Servicer andU.S. Bank National Association, Trustee
-
Pooling and Servicing Agreement
-
Home
Equity Mortgage Trust Series 2006-612/1/2006
EXHIBIT C

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1933-3 Filed: 05/08/19 Entered: 05/08/19 15:50:06 Page 1

of 2
EXPENSE SUMMARY 

MARCH 1, 2019 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2019 

EXPENSES AMOUNTS

Computerized Research 0 

Meals 0 

Travel 0 

Transportation 0 

Duplicating $7,968.68 

Transcription Services $3,091.55 

Telephone Conferencing 0 

Messenger $59.00 

Filing Fees 0 

Total Expenses Requested: $11,119.23 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1933-3 Filed: 05/08/19 Entered: 05/08/19 15:50:06 Page 2

of 2
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2336    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 10:51:09    Page 1 of2

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2336    Filed: 06/03/19    Entered: 06/03/19 10:51:09    Page 2 of2