alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

Stephen Karotkin (pro hac vice) 

(stephen.karotkin@weil.com) 

Ray C. Schrock, P.C. (pro hac vice) 

(ray.schrock@weil.com) 

Jessica Liou (pro hac vice) 

(jessica.liou@weil.com) 

Matthew Goren (pro hac vice) 

(matthew.goren@weil.com) 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119 

Tel: 212 310 8000 

Fax: 212 310 8007 

KELLER & BENVENUTTI LLP 

Tobias S. Keller (#151445) 

(tkeller@kellerbenvenutti.com) 

Jane Kim (#298192) 

(jkim@kellerbenvenutti.com) 

650 California Street, Suite 1900 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Tel: 415 496 6723 

Fax: 650 636 9251 

Attorneys for Debtors and Debtors in Possession

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP

Paul H. Zumbro (pro hac vice) 

(pzumbro@cravath.com) 

Kevin J. Orsini (pro hac vice) 

(korsini@cravath.com) 

Omid H. Nasab (pro hac vice) 

(onasab@cravath.com) 

825 Eighth Avenue 

New York, NY 10019

Tel: 212 474 1000 

Fax: 212 474 3700 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION,

 - and - 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

Case No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered) 

NOTICE OF FILING OF DEBTORS’ 

JOINT CHAPTER 11 PLAN OF 

REORGANIZATION DATED 

NOVEMBER 4, 2019 

[Relates to Dkt. Nos. 3841, 3966, 4563] 

Debtors.

 Affects PG&E Corporation 

 Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

 Affects both Debtors 

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case, 

No. 19-30088 (DM). 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4564 Filed: 11/04/19 Entered: 11/04/19 14:14:30 Page 1 of

2
.

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 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on September 9, 2019, PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company, as debtors and debtors in possession (collectively, the “Debtors”) in the abovecaptioned chapter 11 cases, filed the Debtors’ Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization [Dkt. No. 3841]. 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, on September 23, 2019, the Debtors filed the 

Debtors’ First Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization [Dkt. No. 3966] (the “September 23 

Plan”). 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, on the date hereof, the Debtors filed the Debtors’ 

Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization Dated November 4, 2019 [Dkt. No. 4563] (the “November 4 

Plan”). 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that attached hereto as Exhibit A is a redline reflecting 

changes between the September 23 Plan and the November 4 Plan. 

Dated: November 4, 2019 

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 

 CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP 

KELLER & BENVENUTTI LLP 

/s/ Thomas B. Rupp 

 Thomas B. Rupp 

Attorneys for Debtors and Debtors in Possession

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4564 Filed: 11/04/19 Entered: 11/04/19 14:14:30 Page 2 of

2
##### 



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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Mark Rapoport, Chief Operating Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company of Landacorp, Inc. (the Company) hereby
certify that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)  The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June
30, 2003, and to which this certification is attached as
Exhibit 32.2 (the
Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|                      |  |                                                                                    
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 12, 2003 |  | /s/  Mark RapoportMark Rapoport
Chief Operating Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas September 13, 2022 No. 04-22-00369-CV Lavelle BROWN , Kathia Viquez and Viquez Realty, LLC,

Appellant/Cross- Appellee,

v. Krista GILMORE Appellee/Cross- Appellant, From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CV00936A Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R The parties have filed a Joint Motion to Abate Consideration of Cross-Appellant’s Appeal, arguing that because this court’s determination of appellant’s issues “will necessarilyimpact the outcome of cross-appellant’s appeal,” this court should abate consideration of crossappellant’s appeal and extend the deadline for cross-appellant’s brief to thirty days following this court’s determination of appellant’s appeal. The parties’ motion is DENIED. What the parties describe is true in all cross-appeals, and this court does not believe that abatement will serve the conservation of judicial resources.

_________________________________ Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 13th day of September, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5108 

To establish the Law School Clinic Certification Program of the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 15, 2014 

Mr. JEFFRIES (for himself and Mr. CHABOT) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To establish the Law School Clinic Certification Program 

of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, 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. USPTO LAW SCHOOL CLINIC CERTIFICATION 

4 PROGRAM. 

5 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Law School Clinic Cer6 tification Program of the United States Patent and Trade7 mark Office, as implemented by the United States Patent 

8 and Trademark Office, is established as a program enti9 tled the ‘‘Law School Clinic Certification Program’’. The 

10 Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5108 IH

1 and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark 

2 Office (in this section referred to as the ‘‘Director’’) may 

3 establish regulations and procedures for application to and 

4 participation in the program, which shall be available to 

5 accredited law schools. The Law School Clinic Certifi6 cation Program shall be in effect for the 10-year period 

7 beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (b) REPORT ON THE PROGRAM.—The Director shall, 

9 not later than the last day of the 2-year period beginning 

10 on the date of the enactment of this Act, submit to the 

11 Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representa12 tives and the Senate a report on the Law School Clinic 

13 Certification Program, describing the number of law 

14 schools and law students participating in the program, the 

15 work done through the program, the benefits of the pro16 gram, and any recommendations of the Director for modi17 fications to the program. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 filing of NewMarket China, Inc.'s (the "Company")
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 (the
"Report"), I, John Verges, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) 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 results of operations
          of the Company.


                                                      /s/ John. Verges
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      John Verges
                                                      Chief Executive Officer

Date: May 21, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 102 (Thursday, May 27, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 29774]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12783]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Initial Review Group Function, Integration, and 
Rehabilitation Sciences Subcommittee; Function, Integration and 
Rehabilitation Sciences Subcommittee.
    Date: June 21, 2010.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Legacy Hotel and Meeting Center, 1775 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Anne Krey, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, 
Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National 
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive 
Blvd., Room 5b01, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6908, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#84e5efb0b5ebc4eaedecaae3ebf2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dfbeb4ebeeb09fb1b6b7f1b8b0a9">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 20, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-12783 Filed 5-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32.1






CERTIFICATION





Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. (“Globe”), that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report of Globe on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2012, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Globe. This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-K. A signed original of this statement has been provided to Globe and will be retained by Globe and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date: March 8, 2013
By:
/s/ Jeff BradleyJeff BradleyChief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer(Principal Executive Officer)Date: March 8, 2013
By:
/s/ Malcolm AppelbaumMalcolm AppelbaumChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
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

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 

Stephen Karotkin (pro hac vice) 

(stephen.karotkin@weil.com) 

Jessica Liou (pro hac vice) 

(jessica.liou@weil.com) 

Matthew Goren (pro hac vice) 

(matthew.goren@weil.com) 

New York, NY 10153-0119 

Tel: (212) 310-8000 

Fax: (212) 310-8007 

KELLER & BENVENUTTI LLP 

Tobias S. Keller (#151445) 

(tkeller@kellerbenvenutti.com) 

Jane Kim (#298192) 

(jkim@kellerbenvenutti.com) 

650 California Street, Suite 1900 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Tel: (415) 496-6723 

Fax: (415) 636-9251 

Proposed Attorneys for Debtors 

and Debtors in Possession 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION, 

 - and - 

Bankruptcy Case No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered) 

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION 

BETWEEN DEBTORS AND OFFICIAL 

COMMITTEE OF TORT CLAIMANTS 

EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO 

MOTIONS TO BE HEARD ON 

FEBRUARY 27, 2019 

[No Hearing Requested]

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, 

 Debtors. 

 Affects PG&E Corporation 

 Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

Affects both Debtors 

* All papers shall be filed in the lead case, 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Signed and Filed: February 20, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

February 20, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 509 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 15:19:59 Page 1 of 2
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

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119

The Court having considered the Stipulation Between Debtors and Official Committee of 

Tort Claimants Extending Time to Respond to Motions Set for Hearing on February 27, 2019 

(“Stipulation”), entered into by PG&E Corporation (“PG&E Corp.”) and Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company (the “Utility”), as debtors and debtors in possession (collectively, the “Debtors”), on 

the one hand, and the Official Committee of Tort Claimants (the “Tort Committee”), on the other 

hand, filed on February 19, 2019; and, pursuant to such stipulation and agreement of the Parties, 

and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The time for the Tort Committee to file and serve any response or opposition 

to the Motions (as defined in the Stipulation) is extended through 4:00 p.m. Pacific Time on 

February 22, 2019. 

 

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT: 

Dated: February 19, 2019

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 

/s/ Cecily A. Dumas

Cecily A. Dumas

Proposed Attorneys for the Official Committee of Tort 

Claimants 

**END OF ORDER** 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 509 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 15:19:59 Page 2 of 2
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

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

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

DEBTORS’ CORPORATE OWNERSHIP STMT

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

Stephen Karotkin (pro hac vice pending) 

(stephen.karotkin@weil.com) 

Jessica Liou (pro hac vice pending) 

(jessica.liou@weil.com) 

Matthew Goren (pro hac vice pending) 

(matthew.goren@weil.com) 

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153-0119 

Tel: 212 310 8000

Fax: 212 310 8007

KELLER & BENVENUTTI LLP

Tobias S. Keller (#151445) 

(tkeller@kellerbenvenutti.com) 

Jane Kim (#298192)

(jkim@kellerbenvenutti.com) 

650 California Street, Suite 1900

San Francisco, CA 94108

Tel: 415 496 6723 

Fax: 650 636 9251 

Proposed Attorneys for Debtors 

and Debtors in Possession 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION,

Debtor.

Tax I.D. No. 94-3234914 

Case Nos. 19 -_____ (___) 

19 -_____ (___) 

Chapter 11 

CORPORATE OWNERSHIP 

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. 

BANKR. P. 1007 AND 7007.1 

Date: 

Time: 

Place: 

In re: 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC

COMPANY,

Debtor.

Tax I.D. No. 94-0742640 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4 Filed: 01/29/19 Entered: 01/29/19 00:24:29 Page 1 of 3
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

DEBTORS’ CORPORATE OWNERSHIP STMT 2

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153-0119

Pursuant to Rules 1007(a)(1) and 7007.1 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, 

PG&E Corporation (“PG&E Corp.”) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the “Utility”), as 

debtors and debtors in possession (collectively, “PG&E” or the “Debtors”) in the above-captioned 

chapter 11 cases, respectfully represent that PG&E Corp., a publicly traded corporation organized 

under the laws of the State of California, owns one-hundred percent (100%) of the common equity 

interests of the Utility, which represents approximately 96% of the Utility’s total outstanding voting 

securities. As of the date hereof, the Debtors are not aware of any corporation that directly or 

indirectly owns ten percent (10%) or more of any class of PG&E Corp.’s equity interests. 

Dated: January 29, 2019 

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

KELLER & BENVENUTTI LLP

By: /s/ Tobias S. Keller

Proposed Attorneys for Debtors and Debtors in 

Possession

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4 Filed: 01/29/19 Entered: 01/29/19 00:24:29 Page 2 of 3
01/29/19

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4 Filed: 01/29/19 Entered: 01/29/19 00:24:29 Page 3 of 3
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-20045

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

IRENE WILSON GLAZE, 

also known as Irene Flakes,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-92-CR-59

 

August 21, 1997

Before WISDOM, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Irene Wilson Glaze, federal prisoner #59783-079, appeals the

district court’s denial of her motion to modify her sentence under

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and other statutes. Glaze also appeals the

denial of her motions for return of forfeited property, discovery,

an evidentiary hearing, and appointment of counsel. We have
2

carefully reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties. We

AFFIRM. 

None of the authorities cited by Glaze in the district court

authorized that court to grant the relief she sought. The district

court did not err by denying relief without ordering discovery,

appointing counsel, or holding an evidentiary hearing. Glaze has

abandoned her challenge to the denial of her motion for return of

forfeited property by failing to address that issue in her

appellate brief. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 223-24 (5th

Cir. 1993). Glaze’s motions in this court for appointment of

appellate counsel and a default judgment are DENIED.

Glaze has filed documents which indicate that she also wishes

to appeal the district court’s denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. §

2255; however, that appeal is not before this court. See Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a).

AFFIRMED.
#### George Franks, Plaintiff, *v.*Bankers Trust Company and Others, Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County,

January 7, 1937.

*Jacques Buitenkart,*for the plaintiff.

*Guggenheimer & Untermeyer,*for the defendant Bankers Trust Company.

Hofstadter, J.

This is a motion to strike a case from the Special Term Calendar of this court. The facts are not in dispute. It appears that after issue was joined by the service of the answer *725of the moving defendant, the plaintiff served and filed a note of issue setting the cause down for trial in accordance with the provisions of rule 150 of the Rules of Civil Practice. On the same day that the note of issue was served, the plaintiff served a notice of intention to amend his cause of action on the trial. Thereafter within the period allowed by law for the service of an amended answer as of course the defendant served such answer. No new note of issue was filed by the plaintiff and the case is presently on the trial calendar.

The defendant contends that the service of its amended pleading destroyed the issue, and that since no new note of issue has been filed the case is improperly on the calendar. This contention is without merit.

It is true that prior to 1935 the service of an amended pleading as of course destroyed the issue to an extent that a new notice of trial had to be served, and a new note of issue filed. *(Pelzer*v. *Perry,*203 App. Div. 58; *Murphy*v. *Lyon,*127 id. 448.)

However, in 1935, rule 151 was rescinded and rule 150 was amended (in addition to other changes not here pertinent) to permit the filing of a note of issue “ at any time after issue is first joined.” The only new matter in this connection was the inclusion of the word *“*first.”

The reason for this change is set forth in the Second Report of the Judicial Council (Legis. Doc. 1936, No. 48), at page 16: “ Old Rules 150 and 151 were rescinded and a new Rule 150 adopted. As stated in the Council’s First Report, the amended Rule conforms to the statutory changes enacted by the 1934 Legislature dispensing with the notice of trial. It also permits a case to be placed upon the calendar when issue is first joined instead of after the time for making amendments as of course has elapsed, thus decreasing the time for placing cases on the calendar by at least twenty days.”

The conclusion is compelling from the new language of the rule that it was intended to eliminate the necessity for the filing of a new note of issue after the service of an amended pleading as of course. The addition of the word *“*first ” to the language used in the former enactment would otherwise have no significance whatsoever. It would be an idle gesture to permit the note of issue to be filed after the service of the original answer, if any subsequent amendment would destroy the issue. The amendment effects what must be considered a desirable change in the existing practice and the court should not adopt a strained construction and thereby defeat the salutary tendency to simplify trial procedure and to do away with ancient and archaic practices which serve no useful purpose.

The motion is accordingly denied.