alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ex parte Leroy ROBERTSON.

No. 01-94-0263-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

March 28, 1994.

Paul R. Robertson, Houston, for relator.

Before DUGGAN, O’CONNOR and HEDGES, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The relator, Leroy Robertson, complains of a trial court order holding him in contempt for failure to pay child support and committing him to custody. The order was signed on March 8,1994, after an earlier evidentiary hearing. The order implicates both civil and criminal contempt. *See Ex parte Papageorgiou,*685 S.W.2d 776, 778 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, orig. proceeding). The order states that the relator, as “punishment” for his separate violations of the child support order, “is assessed ... confinement in the county jail ... for ... 40 days in the Harris County jail ...” (criminal contempt). It also states that the relator “shall thereafter be further confined in the county jail of Harris County, Texas, until” he has paid the arrearage (civil contempt). The relator was taken into custody on March 8.

The relator advances one ground for relief — a present “complete inability” to pay his child support arrearage. He argues that he is not currently able to pay, i.e., that, regardless of whether he was able to pay at the time he was adjudged to be in contempt in the trial court, he cannot presently pay and thus purge himself of the contempt.

At the time of this opinion, the relator is still serving the criminal contempt part of his sentence. A relator’s current inability to pay does not affect his obligation to serve the criminal contempt portion of his sentence. *Ex parte Occhipenti,*796 S.W.2d 805, 810 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, orig. proceeding). The relator’s current inability to pay the arrearage is therefore no defense to the criminal contempt.

Because the sentence for criminal contempt is valid, it would be premature for us to address the validity of the civil portion of the order. *Occhipenti,*796 S.W.2d at 810. The last day of the criminal contempt part of the relator’s sentence is April 16. After that day, he may refile his motion for leave to file petition for habeas corpus if the trial court *804continues to confine him under the civil portion of the contempt order. *See id.*We will then consider the civil part of that order.

For now, because the relator is still serving the criminal portion of his sentence, we .overrule the motion for leave to file.
IV 

House Calendar No. 134 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 871 

[Report No. 111–341] 

Directing the Attorney General to transmit to the House of Representatives 

certain documents, records, memos, correspondence, and other communications regarding medical malpractice reform. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 27, 2009 

Mr. SMITH of Texas submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

NOVEMBER 18, 2009 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Directing the Attorney General to transmit to the House 

of Representatives certain documents, records, memos, 

correspondence, and other communications regarding 

medical malpractice reform. 

1 Resolved, That the Attorney General is directed to 

2 transmit to the House of Representatives, not later than 

3 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution, 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 871 RH 

1 copies of any document, record, memo, correspondence, or 

2 other communication— 

3 (1) received from the American Association for 

4 Justice, formerly known as the Association of Trial 

5 Lawyers of America, and any of its members, since 

6 January 20, 2009, that refers or relates to any rec7 ommendation regarding medical malpractice reform; 

8 or 

9 (2) that references the American Association 

10 for Justice, formerly known as the Association of 

11 Trial Lawyers of America, or any of its members, 

12 and refers or relates to any recommendation regard13 ing medical malpractice reform, since January 20, 

14 2009. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS

sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 134 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 871 

[Report No. 111–341] 

RESOLUTION 

Directing the Attorney General to transmit to the 

form. munications regarding medical malpractice rerecords, memos, correspondence, and other comHouse of Representatives certain documents, 

NOVEMBER 18, 2009 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 3 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 235-4 Filed 07/26/18 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 235-4 Filed 07/26/18 Page 2 of 11
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 235-4 Filed 07/26/18 Page 3 of 11
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 235-4 Filed 07/26/18 Page 4 of 11
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 235-4 Filed 07/26/18 Page 5 of 11
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 235-4 Filed 07/26/18 Page 6 of 11
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 235-4 Filed 07/26/18 Page 7 of 11
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 235-4 Filed 07/26/18 Page 8 of 11
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 235-4 Filed 07/26/18 Page 9 of 11
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 235-4 Filed 07/26/18 Page 10 of 11
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 235-4 Filed 07/26/18 Page 11 of 11
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles KYLES, Appellant. Charles KYLES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 61103, 63441.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Oct. 5, 1993.

John A Klosterman, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before GRIMM, P.J., and CARL R. GAERTNER and AHRENS, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

In this jury-tried case, defendant was convicted of burglary in the second degree in violation of § 569.170, RSMo 1986 and was sentenced as a class X offender to ten years imprisonment. Defendant filed a Rule 29.15 motion to vacate the judgment and sentence and an evidentiary hearing was held. The motion court denied postconviction relief. Defendant appeals both the judgment of conviction and the denial of postconviction relief.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgments of the trial court and motion court are affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 32793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16076]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-277-000]


Southern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

June 19, 1996.
    Take notice that on June 14, 1996, Southern Natural Gas Company 
(Southern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective 
July 15, 1996:

First Revised Sheet No. 164
Second Revised Sheet No. 169
Third Revised Sheet No. 275
First Revised Sheet No. 276-279

    Southern proposes to make the following revisions to the capacity 
release procedures of its tariff to respond to shippers' requests: (1) 
To allow releasing shippers to release segments of their capacity to 
themselves instead of only to third parties; (2) to allow releasing 
shippers to post for competitive bid those offers currently not 
required by the Commission's regulations to be posted (i.e., 
prearranged deals for a month or less); (3) to provide for one business 
day to process prearranged, permanent releases of capacity; and (4) to 
change its posting deadlines from business days to calendar days for 
those offers that do not require manual intervention by Southern, at 
the releasing shipper's option. Southern proposes to make these changes 
effective on July 15, 1996.
    Southern states that copies of the filing have been served on all 
shippers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make protest to this filing 
should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR Section 385.211 and 385.214). All such 
motions or protests must be filed as provided in Section 154.210 of the 
Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-16076 Filed 6-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

ASHLEY YVONNE PARKER, )

DOC #S27798, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D16-5238

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed April 3, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Sarasota County; Charles E. Roberts, 

Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Gary R. Gossett, Jr., Special 

Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for 

Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Chelsea S. Alper, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

VILLANTI, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Steven E. PEARSON, Appellant. Steven E. PEARSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. WD 47144, WD 49817.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 30, 1995.

Patricia A. Richter, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and BERREY and SPINDEN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Steven Pearson raises eight points of error in challenging his convictions of robbery in the first degree and armed criminal action and in challenging the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief. We do not find reversible error and affirm the judgments of conviction and denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. Because we do not discern any jurisprudential value in publishing an opinion, we issue this summary order. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
Exhibit 13.1


CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Ispat International N.V.
(the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Mr. Lakshmi N. Mittal, as
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Mr Bhikam C. Agarwal, as Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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 his knowledge:

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

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





/s/      Lakshmi N. Mittal
------------------------------------
Mr. Lakshmi N. Mittal
Chairman of Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of Ispat
International N.V.
March 16, 2004





/s/      Bhikam C. Agarwal
-----------------------------------
Mr. Bhikam C. Agarwal
Chief Financial Officer of Ispat International N.V.
March 16, 2004





     This certification is furnished as an exhibit to the Report and accompanies
the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall
not 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, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Ispat International N.V.
and will be retained by Ispat International N.V. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 53 Filed 04/09/18 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 

Timothy J. Eckstein, 018321 

Joseph N. Roth, 025725 

Sarah P. Lawson, 036436 

OSBORN MALEDON, P.A. 

2929 North Central Avenue, 20th Floor 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2793 

(602) 640-9000 

teckstein@omlaw.com

jroth@omlaw.com

slawson@omlaw.com

Attorneys for James Larkin 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

 

vs. 

James Larkin (2), et al.,

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-PHX-DJH 

MOTION TO EXONERATE BOND 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 46(f), Defendant James Larkin, by and through 

undersigned counsel, moves to exonerate the $1,000,000.00 secured bond posted by 

surety Margaret G. Larkin on April 12, 2018. Doc. 92. The Court issued on August 4, 

2023, an oral order dismissing the superseding indictment as to James Larkin after Mr. 

Larkin passed away on July 31, 2023. Doc. 1675. A defendant’s death exonerates the 

sureties from liability on a bond. United States v. Costello, 47 F.2d 684 (6th Cir. 1931); 

People v. Niccoli, 228 P.2d 827 (Cal. App. 1951). Accordingly, Defendant Larkin 

requests the Court enter an order directing the Clerk of the Court to release the cash bond 

to surety Margaret G. Larkin. 

. . . 

. . . 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1690 Filed 08/09/23 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 

DATED this 9th day of August, 2023. 

OSBORN MALEDON, P.A. 

By s/ Timothy J. Eckstein 

Timothy J. Eckstein 

Joseph N. Roth 

Sarah P. Lawson 

2929 North Central, 20th Floor 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2794 

Attorneys for James Larkin 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1690 Filed 08/09/23 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTIONS 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

ThisCertificate is being delivered pursuant to the requirements of Section 1350of Chapter 63 (Mail Fraud) of Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedures) of theUnited States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

Theundersigned, who are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer ofBehringer Harvard Multifamily REIT I, Inc. (the “Company”), each herebycertify as follows:

 

TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company (the “Report”), whichaccompanies this Certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and allinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Datedthis 14th day of November, 2008.

 
|   | /s/ Robert S. Aisner     |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | Robert  S. Aisner        |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   |                     |
|   | /s/ Gary S. Bresky       |
|   | Gary  S. Bresky          |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

     **18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of NORTHWEST CHARIOTS INCORPORATED (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert Doolan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Date: February 25, 2008

By: */s/ Robert Doolan*

Robert Doolan

Chief Financial Officer, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICTOR H. SANCHEZ-NARABE, AKA 

Victor Lopez, AKA Victor Hiroshim 

Sanchez, AKA Victor Hiroshima Sanchez, 

AKA Victor Narabe Sanchez, AKA Victor 

Hiroshima Sanchez Narabe, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-72702 

Agency No. A072-245-554 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 17, 2022**

Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Victor Sanchez-Narabe, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

AUG 24 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-72702 

immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal, 

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against 

Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo 

questions of law. Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008). We 

deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in denying cancellation of removal, asylum, and 

withholding of removal, where Sanchez-Narabe failed to meet his burden of proof 

to establish that his conviction under California Health & Safety Code (“CHSC”) 

section 11379(a) is not a controlled substance violation constituting an aggravated 

felony or particularly serious crime that renders him ineligible for these forms of 

relief. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(a)(3), 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), (B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii); 

Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141 S. Ct. 754, 766 (2021) (an applicant for relief from 

removal cannot establish eligibility where a conviction record is inconclusive as to 

which elements of a divisible statute formed the offense); Marinelarena v. 

Garland, 6 F.4th 975, 977 (9th Cir. 2021) (an applicant for cancellation of removal 

bears the burden of showing that a conviction is not disqualifying); United States v. 

Barragan, 871 F.3d 689, 715 (9th Cir. 2017) (CHSC § 11379 is divisible); Matter 

of Y-L-, 23 I. & N. Dec. 270, 274 (A.G. 2002), disapproved of on other grounds in

Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1196 (9th Cir. 2003) (aggravated felonies 

involving trafficking in controlled substances are presumptively particularly 
3 15-72702 

serious crimes).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1014 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1014

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 to make technical 
    corrections to a provision relating to project deauthorizations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 11, 2009

Ms. Collins (for herself and Ms. Snowe) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 to make technical 
    corrections to a provision relating to project deauthorizations.

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

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PROJECT DEAUTHORIZATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 3181 of the Water Resources Development 
Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-114; 121 Stat. 1158) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (11) as 
                paragraphs (5), (6), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), and 
                (13), respectively;
                    (B) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
            ``(4) Northeast harbor, maine.--The project for navigation, 
        Northeast Harbor, Maine, authorized by section 2 of the Act of 
        March 2, 1945 (59 Stat. 12).''; and
                    (C) by inserting after paragraph (6) (as 
                redesignated by subparagraph (A)) the following:
            ``(7) Tenants harbor, maine.--The project for navigation, 
        Tenants Harbor, Maine, authorized by the first section of the 
        Act of March 2, 1919 (40 Stat. 1275).''; and
            (2) in subsection (h)--
                    (A) by striking paragraphs (15) and (16); and
                    (B) by redesignating paragraphs (17) through (29) 
                as paragraphs (15) through (27), respectively.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as if included in the Water Resources Development Act of 
2007 (Public Law 110-114; 121 Stat. 1041).
                                 <all>
```
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 

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

6. Andrew Padilla, 

 (Counts 1-51) 

7. Joye Vaught, 

 (Counts 1-51) 

 

 Defendant. 

NO. CR-18-00422-06-PHX-SMB 

 ORDER 

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Joint Reply to 

Response to Motion to Dismiss Due to Government Interference With Right to Counsel and 

Request for Disclosure or, in the Alternative, Motion to Withdraw (Doc. 497), in which the 

Defendants request permission to file a joint reply to the Government’s Response to 

Motion to Dismiss Due to Government Interference With Right to Counsel and Request for 

Disclosure or, in the Alternative, Motion to Withdraw (Doc. 476) in excess of the page 

limitation. Finding good cause appearing, the motion will be granted. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File Joint Reply to Response to 

Motion to Dismiss Due to Government Interference With Right to Counsel and Request for 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 502 Filed 03/19/19 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 

2

Disclosure or, in the Alternative, Motion to Withdraw (Doc. 497) is granted. Defendants 

are granted leave to file their replies jointly. The motion to exceed the page limit in 

their joint reply is denied. 

 Dated this 19th day of March, 2019. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 502 Filed 03/19/19 Page 2 of 2