alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of SmartHeat Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jun Wang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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) 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: October 7, 2011
By:
/s/ Jun WangJun Wang

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)





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





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order entered October 22, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00673-CR

OSCAR AVILA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-71796-M

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant 

has been deprived of the reporter’s record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any 

other reason.

 The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If 

the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeal, it shall 

make a finding to that effect.

 If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall next 

determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs 

for the reporter’s record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the 

trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial 

court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective 

representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds 

appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the 

appeal.
 The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who 

recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay 

in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can 

be filed. 

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a supplemental record, containing the written 

findings of fact, any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY 

DAYS of the date of this order.

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. It shall be 

reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the supplemental record is received, 

whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Registrant, to which this certificate is
attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)); and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
  /s/ F. Stephen Miller, Chairman and CEOF. Stephen Miller, Chairman of the Board ofDirectors and Chief Executive Officer
  (3)
    
    the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Registrant, to which this certificate is
attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)); and(4)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
  /s/ M. Shellie Fugate, Chief Financial OfficerM. Shellie Fugate, Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT A

TO

CERTIFICATION OF ERIC TODDERUD IN SUPPORT OF 

INTERIM FEE APPLICATION OF BERMAN AND TODDERUD 

LLP FOR ALLOWANCE AND PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION 

(FEBRUARY 1, 2019 THROUGH MAY 31, 2019)

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4384-1 Filed: 10/22/19 Entered: 10/22/19 13:47:23 Page 1

of 3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4384-1 Filed: 10/22/19 Entered: 10/22/19 13:47:23 Page 2

of 3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4384-1 Filed: 10/22/19 Entered: 10/22/19 13:47:23 Page 3

of 3
Exhibit 32.1

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


      In  connection   with  the   accompanying   Quarterly   Report  of  Summit
Environmental  Corporation,  Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period
ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Chris Dellinges, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:

      (1) The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.  ss.78m or ss.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.

Dated:  May 14, 2004
                                                     /s/ Chris Dellinges
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Chris Dellinges
                                                     Chief Financial Officer


      The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350) and is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.
EX-33.9
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Wells Fargo Bank, NA
Document Custody
1015 - 10th Avenue SE
Minneapolis, MN 55014


ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA


Corporate Trust Services division of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the
"Company") is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria
set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the Securities and
Exchange Commission. The Company has determined that the servicing criteria are
applicable in regards to the servicing platform as of and for the period as
follows:

Platform: Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting required under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential mortgage-backed
securities and commercial mortgage-backed securities issued on or after January
1, 2006 for which the Company provides document custody services, excluding any
publicly issued transactions issued by any government sponsored entity (the
"Platform").

Applicable Servicing Criteria: The servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(ii), in regard to the activities
performed by the Company with respect to the Platform (the "Applicable Servicing
Criteria"). Management of the Company has determined that all other servicing
criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) are not applicable to the Platform.

Period: As of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2007 (the "Period").

With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the following
assessment of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing Criteria:

1. The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria.

2. The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.
In performing this assessment, the Company used the criteria set forth by the
Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation
AB.

3. Based on such assessment, as of and for the Period, the Company has complied,
in all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report
with respect to the Company's assessment of compliance as of and for the Period.


WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
By: /s/ Shari Gillund
Its: Senior Vice President

Dated: February 29, 2008
### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 00 16 -C R

______________________________ FRANKL I

N J ACKSON, I I , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the 124th J udicial District Court

Gre g g County , Texas Trial Court No. 33443-B

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Moseley2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Fr anklin J ackson, I I , has appea led from his ple a of "tr ue" to the alleg ations contained in the State ' s mo tio n to re vo ke his c omm un ity su pe rv isi on . Jac ks on

was sen tenc e d b y

the tr ia l c ourt

to tw e lve months ' c on fi ne me nt. On appe al, J ackson c ontends that the court violated the prohibition ag ainst crue l and unusual punishment by

disreg arding societal norms and sentenc ing him to inca rce ration rather than utilizi ng
o t h er o p t i o n s , ci t i n g Kennedy

v. Louisiana , _

__ U. S. ___ , 128 S.Ct . 264 1 (20 08 ). He c on te nd s th is violates th e E ig h th A me n dme n t to th e U n it e d St a te s Co n s ti tuti o n an d A rti c le I , Se c ti o n 1 0 of the Texas Consti tution. To prese rve suc h complaint for a ppellate r eview, Jackson must have pr esente d to the trial
co u rt a t i m el y r e q u es t , o b j ec t i o n , o r m o t i o nt h at s t at edt h e s p ec i fi c gr o u n d s fo r t h e d es i re d ru l i n g, or the c omplaint must be appa rent fr om the context. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 3 3. 1( a )( 1) ; Ha r r ison v. Sta te , 187 S.W. 3d 42 9, 43 3 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 05 ); W ill iam s v . S

tate , 1 9 1 S. W. 3 d

2 4 2 , 2 6 2 ( T e x. Ap p. —Aus tin

20 06 , n o p e t.) (c la ims of c ru e l and un

us ua l punis hme nt mus t be pr e se nte d in tim e ly
manner ); Nic ho las v . S

tate , 56 S.W .3d 760, 768 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2001, pet. re f' d) (fa ilure to complain to trial cour t that sentence s were crue l and unusual wa ived claim of e rror for
a pp e llate re vie w) . We have re vi ewed th e recor d o f t he tr ia l pr oc e e din g . N o r e le va nt r e qu e st, objection, or motion was made . And, while this Cou rt h as h eld t hat a motion for ne w trial is an appropr iate way to pr eser

ve this ty pe of cla im for re view ( see W ill iam so n v . S

tate , 175 S.W .3d 522,3

523–24 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, no pet.); De lac ru z v . S tate , 1 6 7 S. W. 3 d

9 0 4 ( T e x. App.—Texarkana

2005, no pet.)), J ackson' s motion for new tria l did not contain an alleg ation that the sentenc e wa s d i sproportionate to the of fense or that it was cr

uel and unusua l. He has not pr e se rv e d s uc h a

n is su e fo r a

pp e a l. Th e re fo re , w e a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ' s ju dg me nt.

Ba iley C. Moseley J ustice Date Submitted: Aug ust 28, 2008 Date D ecide d: Aug ust 29, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3828 Filed: 09/06/19 Entered: 09/06/19 10:57:47 Page 1 of

1
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-18-00421-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV-2018-00916

Before Gabriel, Kerr, and Pittman, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

RENO MANAGEMENT INC. AND ALFONSO FLORES NORIA, GUARANTOR 

JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, Appellants

V.

SMALL BUSINESS TERM LOANS, INC. D/B/A BFS CAPITAL, ASSIGNEE OF 

BOFI FEDERAL BANK, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

We have considered Appellants’ unopposed motion to dismiss their appeal. 

We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Appellants must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d), 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: April 25, 2019
#### Bridget Moran v. Harris Friedman.

Motion to correct order made July sixth granted, without costs.
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

EXHIBIT B 

COMPENSATION BY WORK TASK CODE FOR 

SERVICES RENDERED BY CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP 

FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1, 2019 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2019 

TASK 

CODE DESCRIPTION HOURS AMOUNT 

ADMN Case Administration (Incl. Docket Updates and Case Calendar) 176.80 60,626.50 

ASST Use and Sale of Assets, Including 363 Sales 3.70 3,787.50 

AUTO Automatic Stay 29.50 28,349.50 

BARN Bar Date and Claims Noticing Matter 1.80 1,611.00 

CASE General Case Strategy 469.60 355,062.50 

CASH Financing / Cash Collateral 413.80 416,537.00 

COMM Committee Matters 5,100.10 2,922,983.50 

CRAV Cravath Retention and Fee Application 227.10 138,774.00 

CRED Creditor Inquiries 1.50 1,260.00 

GOVR Corporate Governance and Securities Matters 248.20 252,303.00 

HEAR Hearings and Court Matters 82.30 80,902.50 

INVS Investigations 228.20 176,906.00 

NONB Non-Bankruptcy Litigation 3,125.40 2,401,787.50 

OCMS Other Contested Matters 97.80 97,373.00 

OPRS Business Operations Matters 48.70 43,975.00 

PLAN Plan of Reorganization / Plan Confirmation 176.30 190,798.00 

PUBL Public Relations Strategy 12.80 13,996.00 

REGS Regulatory & Legislative Matters 706.10 474,440.00 

TRVL Non-Working Travel Time 700.90 316,301.75* 

USTM U.S. Trustee Matters / Meetings / Communications / Reports 2.00 3,000.00 

WILD Wildfire Claims Matters 5,743.60 4,078,276.50 

TOTAL 17,596.20 $12,059,050.75** 

* - Non-Working Travel Time billed at 50% discount. 

** - Net of $133,091.00 in voluntary write offs. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4765-2 Filed: 11/15/19 Entered: 11/15/19 14:26:51 Page 1

of 1
A96A0302.

#### GLOVER et al. v. WARE et al.

(474 SE2d 1)

Judge Hilton Fuller.

In this legal malpractice case, the plaintiffs/appellees sought recovery against the defendants/appellants for failure to timely file an amended estate tax return seeking a refund for taxes paid under protest. The jury found for the plaintiffs and awarded compensatory damages.

Appellants assert that the trial court erred in denying their motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We disagree and affirm.

The verdict was not authorized, say the appellants, because the “case within the case” legally could not have been successful as the original disclaimers, for several reasons, were void ab initio and could not be resurrected. Therefore, the failure to file for a refund caused no damages, or so the appellants assert.

The parties raise many issues; it is not necessary or appropriate to address many of them. The Court declines the appellants’ invitation for a “strong” opinion resolving said-to-be unsettled questions of Georgia law. Similarly, a detailed factual statement is unnecessary. *298This case is resolved by basic procedural law.

Decided May 30, 1996

Reconsideration denied July 12, 1996

*Goodman, McGuffey, Aust & Lindsey, William S. Goodman, Kathryn A. Cater,*for appellants.

*Kidd & Vaughan, David N. Schaeffer,*for appellees.

“A directed verdict (and judgment n.o.v.) is not proper unless there is no conflict in the evidence as to any material issue and the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions therefrom, *demands*a certain verdict. OCGA § 9-11-50 (a) (b).” (Emphasis in original.) *Union Camp v. Daley,*188 Ga. App. 756 (374 SE2d 329) (1988).

The evidence does not demand a finding that the disclaimers would have foreclosed the possibility of a tax refund in some amount, either through litigation or negotiation. There was ample expert evidence to support the jury’s finding that some refund would have been obtained. The amount of the verdict was within that authorized by the evidence.

Therefore, the denials of the directed verdict and the motion for j.n.o.v. were proper.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Presiding Judge Walter C. McMillan, Jr. and Judge Arthur W. Fudger concur. All Court of Appeals’ Judges are disqualified.*
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5393 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for required 

Medicare hospice program surveys, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2014 

Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. THOMPSON of California) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, 

and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period 

to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

for required Medicare hospice program surveys, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1 SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hospice Opportunities 

5 for Supporting Patients with Integrity and Care Evalua6 tions (HOSPICE) Act of 2014’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5393 IH

1 SEC. 2. HOSPICE SURVEY REQUIREMENT. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861(dd)(4) of the Social 

3 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(4)) is amended by 

4 adding at the end the following new subparagraph: 

5 ‘‘(c) Any entity that is certified as a hospice program 

6 shall be subject to a standard survey by an appropriate 

7 State or local survey agency, or an approved accreditation 

8 agency, as determined by the Secretary, not less fre9 quently than once every 36 months beginning 6 months 

10 after the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.’’. 

11 (b) FUNDING.—For purposes of carrying out sub12 paragraph (C) of section 1861(dd)(4) of the Social Secu13 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(4)), as added by subsection 

14 (a), there shall be transferred from the Federal Hospital 

15 Insurance Trust Fund under section 1817 of such Act (42 

16 U.S.C. 1395i) $25,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 

17 2014 through 2016, to be made available for such pur18 poses in equal parts for each such fiscal year. 

19 SEC. 3. HOSPICE PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY RECERTIFICATION 

20 TECHNICAL CORRECTION TO APPLY LIMITA21 TION ON LIABILITY OF BENEFICIARY RULES. 

22 Section 1879 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

23 1395pp) is amended by adding at the end the following 

24 new subsection: 

25 ‘‘(I) The provisions of this section shall apply with 

26 respect to a denial of a payment under this title by reason 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5393 IH

1 of section 1814(a)(7)(D)(ii) in the same manner as such 

2 provisions apply with respect to a denial of a payment 

3 under this title by reason of section 1862(a)(1).’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
13.2





Certification
by the Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the annual report of on Form 20-F of JA Solar Holdings Co., Ltd.
(the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, M.
Anthea Chung, as 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), 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.





Date:
June 25, 2009





By:           /s/ M. Anthea
Chung


Name:      M.
Anthea Chung


Title:       
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
23.1








CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








Vanguard
Natural Resources, LLC


Houston,
Texas




We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (No. 333-159911) and Form S-8 (No. 333-152448) of Vanguard Natural
Resources, LLC (the “Company”) of our reports dated March 5, 2010, relating to
the consolidated financial statements, and the effectiveness of the Company’s
internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009.







/s/ BDO
SEIDMAN, LLP




Houston,
Texas


March 5,
2010
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 

1 

DOCS_SF:99205.1 08442/030

Debra Grassgreen

Karl Knight 

1339 Pearl Street, Suite 201 

Napa, CA 94558 

E-mail: dgrassgreen@gmail.com 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CORP., 

Debtor. 

Case No. 19-30088 

Chapter 11 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND 

REQUEST FOR SPECIAL NOTICE 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Debra Grassgreen and Karl Knight (together, the “Parties”), 

individually as creditors of the Debtors’ estates, hereby request, pursuant to Rules 2002, 3017, and 

9007 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, or pursuant to any other applicable rule or 

statute, that notice of all matters which may come before the Court be given to: 

Debra Grassgreen 

Karl Knight 

1339 Pearl Street, Suite 201 

Napa, CA 94558 

E-mail: dgrassgreen@gmail.com 

with a copy to: 

 Thomas J. Brandi, Esq. 

 Law Offices of Thomas J. Brandi 

 345 Pine Street, 3rd Floor 

 San Francisco, CA 94104 

 tjb@brandilaw.com 

 (415). 989.1800 
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 

DOCS_SF:99205.1 08442/030

The foregoing request includes, without limitation, all notices, papers, and disclosure 

statements referred to in Rules 2002, 3017, and 9007 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, 

and also includes notice of any orders, applications, complaints, demands, hearings, motions, 

petitions, pleadings or requests, and any other documents brought before the Court in this case, 

whether formal or informal, whether written or oral, and whether transmitted or conveyed by 

electronic mail, mail, hand delivery, telephone, telegraph, facsimile, or otherwise. 

This notice of appearance and request for special notice is without prejudice to: (1) the 

Parties’ rights, remedies, claims, actions, defenses, setoffs, or recoupments, in law or in equity, 

against the above-captioned debtor and any other entities either in this case or in any other action, all 

of which rights, remedies, claims, actions, defenses, setoffs and recoupments are expressly reserved, 

and (2) any objection which may be made to the jurisdiction of the Court, and shall not be deemed or 

construed to submit the Parties to the jurisdiction of the Court. 

Dated: January 29, 2019 

By: /s/ Debra I. Grassgreen 

Debra I. Grassgreen