alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT A

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4211-1 Filed: 10/15/19 Entered: 10/15/19 14:42:05 Page 1

of 2
EXHIBIT A

COMPENSATION BY PROFESSIONAL

FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 2019 THROUGH JULY 31, 2019

Billing Total Total

Professional Position Rate Hours Fees

Brent Williams Managing Director $ 1,195 202.8 $ 242,346.00

Alex Stevenson Managing Director 1,195 42.8 51,146.00

Brendan Murphy Managing Director 1,095 237.8 260,391.00

Sherman Guillema Director 895 2.0 1,790.00

Peter Gnatowski Vice President 795 264.5 210,277.50

Matt Merkel Associate 695 103.3 71,793.50

Erik Ellingson Associate 695 33.7 23,421.50

Naeem Muscatwalla Senior Analyst 495 52.5 25,987.50

Riley Jacobs Analyst 395 177.2 69,994.00

Alex Gebert Analyst 395 199.3 78,723.50

Jane Su Professional Support 250 2.1 525.00

Subtotal 1,318.0 $ 1,036,395.50

Less: 50% Discount for Non-Working Travel Time (9,085.00)

Grand Total $ 1,027,310.50

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4211-1 Filed: 10/15/19 Entered: 10/15/19 14:42:05 Page 2

of 2
Entered on Docket 

February 05, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 303 Filed: 02/05/19 Entered: 02/05/19 14:51:44 Page 1 of 1
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-60039

DESIDERIO CHAVEZ, Petitioner,

versus JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A91-595-800

-------------------- March 6, 2002 Before REAVLEY, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Desiderio Chavez petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) holding that Chavez’s state conviction for felony driving while intoxicated was an aggravated felony warranting his removal from this country. The respondent has moved to dismiss the petition for review and to remand the case to the BIA for reconsideration in light of United States v. Chapa-Garza , 243 F.3d 921, 927 (5th Cir. 2001). Chavez has not replied to the respondent’s motion to remand.No. 01-60039 -2- Chavez’s petition for review is GRANTED. The order of the BIA is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED to the BIA for disposition consistent with Chapa-Garza , 243 F.3d at 927. All other outstanding motions are DENIED.
#### Charles N. Hildreth v. Thomas W. Willets and Others.

— Appeal taken from order dismissed, and order affirmed, with ten dollars-costs and disbursements.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 18, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 22

- 00398

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF P .R.D.S. AND P.S., CH ILDREN
On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 09

- 14454

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Carlyle, and Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Myers Appellant appeals from an order in a suit to modify the parent

- child
relationship. We questioned our jurisdiction over the appeal because the order is
signed by the associate judge and , subject to certain exceptions not applicable here,
has not triggered the deadline for filing the appeal. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 201.016 (b) , (c)

. We ins tructed appellant to file, by July 15, 2022, a letter brief
addressing the jurisdictional issue and cautioned her that failure to comply may
result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. As of today’s date, appellant
has not responded.– 2

–

Because the referring court has not signed the order of the associate judge, the
notice of appeal is premature and we lack jurisdiction . We dismiss the appeal. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a).

220398f.p05 /Lana Myers/ / LANA MYERS JUSTICE– 3

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF P.R.D.S. AND P.S., CHILDREN

No. 05

- 22

- 00398

- CV On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 09

- 14454. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. Justices Carlyle and Goldstein participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

Judgment entered this 18 th day of August
, 2022

.
#### In the Matter of Melissa O., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Respondent. Presentment Agency, Appellant.

Submitted January 8, 1996;

decided January 16, 1996

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, *sua sponte.*The two-Justice dissent is not on a question of law and no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 15 (Monday, January 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 3946]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1319]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-438-CP, 50-439-CP; ASLBP No. 10-896-01-CP-BD01]


Tennessee Valley Authority; Establishment of Atomic Safety and 
Licensing Board

    Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, 
published in the Federal Register, 37 FR 28,710 (1972), and the 
Commission's regulations, see 10 CFR 2.104, 2.105, 2.300, 2.313, 2.318, 
and 2.321, notice is hereby given that an Atomic Safety and Licensing 
Board (Board) is being established to preside over the following 
proceeding:

Tennessee Valley Authority (Bellefonte Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2)

    This proceeding concerns a Petition to Intervene submitted by the 
Blue Ridge Environment Defense League, its chapter Bellefonte 
Efficiency and Sustainability Team, and the Southern Alliance for Clean 
Energy in response to a Federal Register Notice published on March 13, 
2009 (74 FR 10,969) stating that any person adversely affected by the 
Commission's determination to reinstate the construction permits for 
Bellefonte Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, to be located in Jackson 
County, Alabama, may request a hearing. The scope of the hearing 
request ``is limited to whether good cause exists for the reinstatement 
of the [construction permits]'' (ibid.; see also In the Matter of 
Tennessee Valley Authority (Bellefonte Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), 
CLI-10-06, 71 NRC --(slip op. at 6-7, 19 (Jan. 7, 2010))).
    The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges:

    G. Paul Bollwerk III, Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001;
    Dr. Anthony J. Baratta, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001;
    Dr. William W. Sager, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed 
in accordance with the NRC E-filing rule, which the NRC promulgated in 
August 2007 (72 FR 49,139).

     Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of January 2010.
E. Roy Hawkens,
Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. 2010-1319 Filed 1-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Back to Contents

**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

In connection with the periodic report of Glowpoint, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Gerard E. Dorsey, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

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

2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates of and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date:  May 13, 2005

|   | /s/ Gerard E. Dorsey    |
|--------|-------------------------|
|        |                         |
|   | Gerard E. Dorsey        |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 23, 2015

No. 04-15-00441-CR

IN RE Roy Louis SMITHWICK Jr.

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

On July 16, 2015, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has considered 

relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, 

the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The court’s opinion 

will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on July 23, 2015.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 23rd day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
Exhibit



Exhibit 4.5





Amendment No. 1 Unique Fabricating, Inc.
2014 Omnibus Performance Award Plan


Section III(a) of the Unique Fabricating, Inc. 2014 Omnibus Performance Award Plan (the “Plan”) shall be amended to read in its entirety as follows:
“(a) Number of Shares of Common Stock.  Subject to the adjustments provided in Article X of the Plan, the aggregate number of shares of the Common Stock which may be granted for all purposes under the Plan shall be 450,000 shares of Common Stock.  Shares of Common Stock underlying Plan Awards and shares of Common Stock directly awarded hereunder (whether or not on a restricted basis) shall be counted against the limitation set forth in the immediately preceding sentence and may be reused to the extent that the related Plan Award to any individual is settled in cash, expires, is terminated unexercised, or is forfeited.  To the extent that a Stock Appreciation Right related to an Option is exercised, such Option shall be deemed to have been exercised and vice versa.  Common Stock granted to satisfy Plan awards under the Plan may be authorized and unissued shares of the Common Stock, issued shares of such Common Stock held in the Corporation’s treasury or shares of Common Stock acquired on the open market.”
Except as specifically amended the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# TIME AND DATE:

 2 p.m., Wednesday, June 16, 2010.

# PLACE:

 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room.

      ( print page 29996)    

# STATUS:

 Closed.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Enforcement Matters.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

 Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,

Assistant Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2010-13084 Filed 5-26-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
Case 3:19-cv-05257-JD Document 2 Filed 08/22/19 Page 1 of 2 Entered on Docket August 23, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 3:19-cv-05257-JD Document 2 Filed 08/22/19 Page 2 of 2
#### George W. Seaward, as Administrator, etc., of William Z. King, Deceased, Respondent, v. Buell G. Davis, as Executor, etc., of Mary E. King, Deceased, Appellant.

Motion denied on condition that appellant pay |ndent ten dollars costs, perfect his appeal, place the case on the next lar and be ready for argument when reached. Otherwise, motion Id, with ten dollars costs.

Present — Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Jrard and Rich, JJ.
#### George F. Langbein and others, Respondents, v. Charles E. Aaron, Appellant.

Orders affirmed, with ten dollars costs of appeal in one case, and the disbursements in both.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7180
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT PAUL TWEED, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-94-11-V, CA-02-86-5-1-V) Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 14, 2002 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Paul Tweed, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Davis Bell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Robert Paul Tweed seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and construed by the district court as a sucessive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude the district court properly construed Tweed’s action, styled as an “Independent Action,” as a successive § 2255 motion. For the reasons stated by the district court, we conclude that Tweed has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Tweed , Nos. CR-94-11-V; CA-02-86-5-1-V (W.D.N.C. July 31, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 27, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 4356]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1336]


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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 2 p.m.-4 p.m.

PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

STATUS: Closed to the Public.

MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: 
    Compliance Weekly Report--Commission Briefing.
    The staff will brief the Commission on various compliance matters.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: January 19, 2010.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-1336 Filed 1-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
** **

**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of New England Realty Associates Limited Partnership (the “Partnership”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, RonaldBrown, the President and a Director of the Partnership’s General Partner,NewReal, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18.U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuantto §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)            TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)            The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.
|        | /s/ RONALD BROWN                        |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|   | Ronald Brown                            |
|   | Principal Executive Officer             |
|   | (President and Director of              |
|   | the Partnership’s General Partner, |
|   | NewReal, Inc.)                     |

 

August 9, 2006

----
Exhibit 32.4

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Dennis P. Wolf, Chief Financial Officer of Fusion-io, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to
my knowledge:

1) the Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the
year ended June 30, 2011 (the Report) which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: September 2, 2011 |  | /s/ DENNIS P. WOLF     
|                        |  | Dennis P. Wolf         
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RICHARD ALLAN RYAN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 388 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 18th day of March, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
2009 NMD Plan Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement



 Exhibit 10(iii)(A)(11) 
 THE 2009 NON-MANAGEMENT DIRECTORS’ STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
 RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT 
 THE INTERPUBLIC GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), hereby grants to the Participant named below
Restricted Stock Units (“RSUs”). Payment of RSUs may be made in cash and/or shares, based on the value of the corresponding number of shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Shares”). The terms and conditions of this
Award of RSUs (the “Award”) are set forth in this Award Agreement (the “Agreement”), and in the 2009 Non-Management Directors’ Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

 

			
	 Date of Award
  
	  	 Participant’s Name
  

	 Number of RSUs
  
	  	 
	Vesting of RSUs	  	Except as set forth in Sections 8.2, 8.3 and 9.3 of the Plan, RSUs shall vest on the third anniversary of the date of Award.

 The terms of the Plan are incorporated herein by reference. All capitalized terms that are not
defined in this Agreement have the meanings set forth in the Plan. In case of any conflict between this Agreement and the Plan, the terms of the Plan shall control. Please review the rest of this Agreement and the Plan document, and execute the
Agreement where indicated below. 
 THE INTERPUBLIC GROUP OF COMPANIES,
INC. 
 

 
 Fabrizio Alcobe-Fierro 
 Vice President, Global Compensation 
 I have read this Agreement and the Plan, and I understand and agree to their terms and conditions.

  

	
	
	  
	 Participant’s Signature,
 to be provided
electronically



  







 THE 2009 NON-MANAGEMENT DIRECTORS’
STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
 RESTRICTED STOCK
UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT 
 The following terms and conditions supplement the terms of the
Plan: 
  

			
	Payment of RSUs	  	The amount of the payment shall equal the fair market value on the payment date of one Share multiplied by the number of
the Participant’s RSUs. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the fair market value of one Share shall be the closing price of a Share on the last trading day immediately preceding the payment date. [Form of payment for the RSUs may be made
in cash, Shares or a combination.]
	Dividends	  	This Award confers no rights on the Participant as a shareholder of the Company. Accordingly, the Participant is not entitled to any dividends with respect to RSUs.
	Interpretation and Construction	  	This Agreement and the Plan shall be construed and interpreted by the Committee, in its sole discretion. Any interpretation or other determination by the
Committee (including, but not limited to, correction of any defect or omission and reconciliation of any inconsistency in this Agreement or the Plan) shall be binding and conclusive.
	Entire Understanding	  	This Agreement and the terms of the Plan constitute the entire understanding between the Participant and the Company and
its Affiliates regarding this Award. Any prior agreements, commitments, or negotiations concerning this Award are superseded.

  

 -2-
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13692 Filed: 05/03/23 Entered: 05/03/23 10:37:14 Page 1

of 3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13692 Filed: 05/03/23 Entered: 05/03/23 10:37:14 Page 2

of 3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13692 Filed: 05/03/23 Entered: 05/03/23 10:37:14 Page 3

of 3
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERAND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF DUSSAULT APPAREL, INC.

In connection with the accompanyingAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Dussault Apparel, Inc. for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2013, the undersigned, Alberto Barriento,President and Chief Executive Officer, principal accounting officer and principal financial officer, of Dussault Apparel, Inc.,does hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) such AnnualReport on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2013 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information contained in suchAnnual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2013 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Dussault Apparel, Inc.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

WILFREDO SANTIAGO,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 346 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Unpublished 

Memorandum and Order of the 

Superior Court at No. 3639 EDA 

2018 entered on August 20, 2020, 

affirming the PCRA Order of the 

Philadelphia County Court of 

Common Pleas at No. CP-51-CR0902211-1985 entered on 

November 28, 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of January, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED, limited to the issue of whether the Superior Court of Pennsylvania erred in 

holding that Petitioner Santiago waived his ineffective assistance of counsel claim against 

PCRA counsel. The judgment of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the matter is 

REMANDED for reconsideration in light of Commonwealth v. Bradley, 261 A.3d 381 (Pa. 

2021).

Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues.
#### The First National Bank of Huntington, Indiana, Plaintiff, v. Christian F. Pfeifer, Defendant.

Motion for a new trial denied, and judgment ordered for the plaintiff on the verdict.

Opinion by

Barker, J.
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4290    Filed: 10/18/19    Entered: 10/18/19 12:29:56    Page 1 of2

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4290    Filed: 10/18/19    Entered: 10/18/19 12:29:56    Page 2 of2