alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Unassociated Document


    
      

    

    Exhibit
10-F-3

    


    Third
Amendment to

    Ford
Motor Company

    Restricted
Stock Plan for Non-Employee Directors

    (Effective
as of December 31, 2008)

    


    


    


    A new
Article 19 is added to the Plan to read as follows:

    


    CODE
SECTION 409A

    


    19.           With
respect to shares of Restricted Stock granted pursuant to the Plan that will
have restrictions expire on or after January 1, 2005, such shares of Restricted
Stock are designed and intended to meet the requirements of Section
1.409A-1(b)(5) of the U.S. Treasury Department Regulations so that no such
shares of Restricted Stock are determined to provide, or are treated as
providing, for the deferral of compensation under Section 409A of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended ("Code") such that the shares of Restricted
Stock become subject to the general provisions of Code Section 409A, or the
regulations issued thereunder.  To the extent any such shares of
Restricted Stock ultimately are determined or treated as providing for the
deferral of compensation under Code Section 409A, the Company reserves the right
to take such action, on a uniform and consistent basis, as the Company deems
necessary or desirable to ensure compliance with Code Section 409A, and the
regulations thereunder, or to achieve the goals of the Plan without having
adverse tax consequences under this Plan for any Participant or
beneficiary.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER MURRAY,

PLAINTIFF,

v. CASE NO. 08-14366

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, HONORABLE SEAN F. COX

DEFENDANT.

_____________________________________/

ORDER 

ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §405(g) challenging a final decision of

Defendant Commissioner denying his application for disability insurance benefits under the

Social Security Act. Thereafter, both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which

were referred to Magistrate Judge Donald Scheer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) & (C). 

On June 4, 2009, Magistrate Judge Scheer issued his R&R which recommends that Plaintiff’s

Motion for Summary Judgment be denied. It further recommends that Defendant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment be granted because the final decision of the Commissioner was supported by

substantial evidence. 

Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), a party objecting to the recommended disposition of a

matter by a Magistrate Judge must filed objections to the R&R within ten (10) days after being

served with a copy of the R&R. “The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de

novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate

judge’s disposition to which specific written objection has been made.” Id. 

The time for filing objections to the R&R has expired and the docket reflects that

2:08-cv-14366-SFC-DAS Doc # 16 Filed 06/25/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 395
2

Plaintiff has filed no objections to the R&R.

The Court hereby ADOPTS the June 4, 2009 R&R in its entirety. IT IS ORDERED that

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED and Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint be

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: June 25, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

June 25, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-14366-SFC-DAS Doc # 16 Filed 06/25/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 396
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

STEPHEN E. WALKER , Appellant,

v.

ROBYN WALLACE f/k/a ROBYN WALKER , Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 2073

[ May 26, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Sarah L. Willis , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2021

- DR

- 003146

- XXXX

- NB

.
Stephen E. Walker, Jupiter, pro se.

John F. Schutz of John F. Schutz, P

. L

. , Palm Beach Gardens, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

C ONNER , C.J., D AMOORGIAN and C IKLIN , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MELISSA V. COUTANT and ANDREW T. COUTANT,

Appellants,

v.

RANDALL R. LUCE, WILLIAM L. FOREMAN, LEDA L. SCHRODER,

n/k/a LEDA L. FOREMAN, and KAREN LUCE n/k/a KAREN 

BOOKOUT,

Appellees.

No. 4D17-1051

[ December 13, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Janet Croom, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2008 CA003701.

Melissa V. Coutant, Covington, LA, pro se, and Andrew T. Coutant, 

North Haven, CT, pro se.

No appearance for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Melissa Coutant and Andrew Coutant, challenge the trial 

court’s dismissal of their complaint with prejudice and subsequent denial 

of a rule 1.540 motion in this suit for damages based on allegations of 

malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, defamation, and intentional 

infliction of emotional distress. We affirm on all issues, except one.

As to defendant Karen Luce n/k/a Karen Bookout, we find that the trial 

court erred in summarily denying Andrew Coutant’s rule 1.540(b) motion 

for relief from judgment, which alleged that a notice of voluntary dismissal 

had been mailed to Karen Bookout prior to the court’s order dismissing 

the case with prejudice. See Schleger v. Stebelsky, 957 So. 2d 71, 73 (Fla. 

4th DCA 2007) (“A motion for relief from judgment should not be 

summarily dismissed without an evidentiary hearing unless its allegations 

and accompanying affidavits fail to allege ‘colorable entitlement’ to relief.” 

(citation omitted)); see also Pino v. Bank of New York, 121 So. 3d 23, 40 

(Fla. 2013) (“Under a plain reading of rule 1.420(a)(1), the trial court now 

has no authority or discretion to deny a plaintiff’s service of a notice of 
2

voluntary dismissal, as the dismissal is effective upon service.”). The 

motion’s allegation that the notice was mailed to Karen Bookout asserted 

a colorable entitlement to relief insofar as the voluntary dismissal would 

have been effective upon being mailed. This would have stripped the trial 

court of jurisdiction as to that particular defendant before the court 

entered its order of dismissal with prejudice. Appellants concede that the 

notice was never mailed to the remaining defendants.

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s summary denial of the motion 

to vacate solely as to Karen Bookout and remand for an evidentiary 

hearing. See Schleger, 957 So. 2d at 73.

Affirmed in part; Reverse in part; and Remanded.

WARNER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 130 (Friday, July 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 35200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17077]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP96-587-000]


Koch Gateway Pipeline Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

June 28, 1996.
    Take notice that on June 21, 1996, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company 
(Koch Gateway), P.O. Box 1478, Houston, Texas 77251-1478, filed in 
Docket No. CP96-587-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 
175.211 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 
CFR 157.205, 157.211) for authorization to install a two-inch delivery 
tap and meter station in Jasper County, Texas under Koch Gateway's 
blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-430-000 pursuant to 
Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the 
request that is on file with the Commission and open to public 
inspection.
    Koch Gateway proposes to install a two-inch tap on its 16-inch line 
designated as TPL 64 to provide a new delivery point and meter station 
to serve Entex, Inc. (Entex), which in turn will serve Louisiana 
Pacific Company in Jasper County, Texas. All work will be within Koch 
Gateway's existing right of way. The estimated cost of construction is 
$21,861 and Entex will reimburse Koch Gateway for the actual cost of 
the construction.
    Koch Gateway states that the installation of this delivery point is 
not prohibited by its existing tariff and that it has sufficient 
capacity to accomplish deliveries without detriment or disadvantage to 
other customers. The proposed delivery point will not have an effect on 
Koch Gateway's peak day and annual deliveries and the total volumes 
delivered will not exceed total volumes authorized prior to this 
request.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-17077 Filed 7-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### WORDS & DATA, INC., Appellant, v. AMERICAN CITY BUSINESS JOURNALS, INC., Respondent.

No. WD 47564.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 8, 1994.

James W. Henry, Kansas City, for appellant.

Bernard Rhodes, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and FENNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Words & Data appeals the trial court’s decision in favor of American City Business Journals, Inc. on the grounds that no contract existed between the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Micah Fialka−Feldman,

Plaintiff(s),

v. Case No. 2:08−cv−14922−PJD−VMM

Hon. Patrick J Duggan

Oakland University Board of

Trustees, et al.,

Defendant(s).

NOTICE OF MOTION HEARING

 You are hereby notified to appear before the Honorable Patrick J Duggan at the United

States District Court, Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Detroit,

Michigan. The following motion(s) are scheduled for hearing:

Motion for Summary Judgment − #37

Motion to Substitute Party − #39

Motion for Permanent Injunction − #39

Motion for Summary Judgment − #39

• MOTION HEARING: 12/17/09 at 02:45 PM

Certificate of Service

 I hereby certify that this Notice was electronically filed, and the parties and/or counsel of

record were served.

By: s/ M. Orem 

Case Manager

Dated: November 17, 2009

Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland University Board of Trustees Doc. 4

Dockets.Justia.com
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

On Display, Inc., incorporated under the laws of Delaware.

Oberon Software, Inc., incorporated under the laws of Massachusetts.

DataSage, Inc., incorporated under the laws of Massachusetts.

E5 Merger Sub., Inc, incorporated under the laws of Delaware.

Vignette Holdings, L.L.C., organized under the laws of Delaware.

Vignette International, Inc., incorporated under the laws of Delaware.

Vignette Public Sector & Education, Inc. (formerly known as Vignette Federal
     Corporation), incorporated under the laws of Delaware.

Vignette Europe Limited, organized under the laws of the United Kingdom.

Vignette SARL, organized under the laws of France.

Vignette Deutschland GmbH, organized under the laws of Germany.

Vignette Australia Pty Limited, organized under the laws of Australia.

Vignette Hong Kong Limited, organized under the laws of Hong Kong.

Vignette Asia Pte Ltd., organized under the laws of Singapore.

Vignette Iberica S. L., organized under the laws of Spain.

Vignette Italia SRL, organized under the laws of Italy.

Vignette Nordica AB, organized under the laws of Sweden.

Vignette India, PvT Ltd., organized under the laws of India.

Vignette Software New Zealand Limited, organized under the laws of New Zealand.

Vignette Software Schweiz GmbH, organized under the laws of Switzerland.

Vignette de Mexico, S. de R.L. de C. V., organized under the laws of Mexico.

Vignette do Brasil Ltda., organized under the laws of Brazil.

Vignette de Argentina, organized under the laws of Argentina.

OnDisplay Benelux B.V., organized under the laws of Holland.

Vignette Canada Corporation, organized under the laws of Canada.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-17-0000003

04-SEP-2018

10:19 AM
Exhibit 13.1



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 of
China Southern Airlines Company Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tan Wan Geng, President 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, to the
best of my knowledge, 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.







|Date: April 27, 2017 | By:                | /s/ Tan Wan Geng | 
|-------------------- | ------------------ | ---------------- | 
|                     | Name: Tan Wan Geng
|                     | Title: President  





* This certification accompanies the Report
pursuant to § 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 §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



* A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
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,

v. 

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CR-18-00422-001-PHX-SMB

ORDER 

I hereby recuse myself from any further action in the above-captioned matter.

IT IS ORDERED this case be reassigned, by lot, to another Judge in the District of 

Arizona.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter has been reassigned by random lot 

to the Honorable Diane J. Humetewa. All future pleadings and papers submitted for filing 

shall bear the following complete case number: CR-18-00422-PHX-DJH.

Dated this 29th day of October, 2021.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1367 Filed 10/29/21 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING 

ENGINEERS LOCAL 547 AND PARTICIPATING 

EMPLOYERS HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST 

FUND, and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF 

OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 547, Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-14829 

 

 Plaintiffs, Hon. Patrick J. Duggan 

v 

SHUBH HOTELS DETROIT, LLC, d/b/a SHERATON 

DETROIT RIVERSIDE HOTEL, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

CONSENT ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT OF EXAMINATION OF 

JUDGMENT DEBTOR AND RESTRAINING TRANSFER 

OF CERTAIN PROPERTY SUPPLEMENTARY TO JUDGMENT

THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon the consent of the parties, the Court 

having noted such consent and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, 

NOW THEREFORE, 

IT IS ORDERED that the judgment debtor examination of Christopher Ott, manager of 

defendant, whose address is 2 Washington Blvd., Detroit, Michigan 48226, shall be adjourned 

from May 19, 2009 to Wednesday, May 27, 2009 at 10:30 a.m., at the offices of Erman, 

Teicher, Miller, Zucker & Freedman, P.C., 400 Galleria Officentre, Suite 444, Southfield, 

Michigan 48034. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Christopher Ott shall produce all of the books and 

records set forth in the Order entered by the Court on April 21, 2009 [Docket No. 28], on the 

2:08-cv-14829-PJD-RSW Doc # 51 Filed 05/21/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 98
- 2 -

agreed examination date. Except as modified herein, all of the provisions of the Court’s Order of 

April 21, 2009 remain in full force and effect. 

 s/Patrick J. Duggan

 Patrick J. Duggan 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: May 21, 2009 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on 

May 21, 2009 ,by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Marilyn Orem

 Case Manager 

APPROVED FOR ENTRY: 

ERMAN, TEICHER, MILLER, 

ZUCKER & FREEDMAN, PC BUTZEL LONG PC 

 /s/ Craig E. Zucker /s/ per consent of Cynthia J. Haffey 

CRAIG E. ZUCKER (P39907) CYNTHIA J. HAFFEY (P57352) 

Counsel for Plaintiffs Counsel for Defendant 

400 Galleria Officentre, Ste. 444 150 W. Jefferson Ave., Ste. 100 

Southfield, MI 48034 Detroit, MI 48226 

(248) 827-4100 (313) 983-7434 

F:\funds\shubh hotels\consent order adj jde.doc

2:08-cv-14829-PJD-RSW Doc # 51 Filed 05/21/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 99
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36076-36077]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17394]


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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Application for Incidental Take Permit for Sacramento Mountain 
Thistle; Otero County, NM, et al.

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Receipt of Application for Incidental Take Permit for 
Surveying the Species Listed Below for Otero County, New Mexico; 
Brewster County, Texas (to include Big Bend National Park and the 
Terlingua Creek Area); Cochise County, Arizona (San Bernadino Valley); 
Pima County, Arizona, and Marathon, Texas.

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

APPLICANT: Carolyn O'Malley, Phoenix, Arizona.

SUMMARY: Carolyn O'Malley has applied to the Fish and Wildlife Service 
(Service) for an incidental take permit pursuant to Section 10(A)1(a) 
of the Endangered Species Act, for the purpose of scientific research 
and enhancement of propagation and survival of the species as 
prescribed by Service recovery documents. The applicant has been 
assigned permit number PRT-814841. The requested permit, which is for a 
period of 2 years, would authorize incidental take of the following 
endangered species:

    1. Sacramento Mountain thistle (Cirsium vinaceum)
    2. Nichol's Turk's head cactus (Echinocereus horizonthalonius v. 
nicholii)
    3. Davis' green pitaya (Echinocereus viridflorus v. davisii)
    4. bunched cory cactus (Coryphantha ramillosa)
    5. Terlingua Creek cat's eye (Cryptantha crassipes)
    6. Sacramento prickly poppy (Argemone pleicantha ssp. 
pinnatisecta)
    7. Cochise pincushion cactus (Coryphantha robbinsorum)

[[Page 36077]]

    8. Lloyd's mariposa cactus (Neolloydia mariposensis)

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to review the application may obtain a copy 
by writing to the Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 
87103. The request must be received by the Assistant Regional Director 
within 30 days of the date of this publication. Please refer to permit 
number PRT-814841 when submitting comments.
    Documents and other information submitted with this application are 
available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act 
and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written 
request for a copy of such documents to the above office within 30 days 
of the date of publication of this notice.
Lynn B. Starnes,
Acting Regional Director, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
[FR Doc. 96-17394 Filed 7-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-55-P
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3676 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3676

 To amend title 18, United States Code, clarify the intent of Congress 
          with respect to the Federal carjacking prohibition.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 19, 1996

 Mr. Conyers introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, clarify the intent of Congress 
          with respect to the Federal carjacking prohibition.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Carjacking Correction Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF INTENT OF CONGRESS IN FEDERAL CARJACKING 
              PROHIBITION.

    Section 2119(2) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``(as defined in section 1365 of this title)'' and inserting 
``(which, for the purpose of this section shall have the meaning given 
that term in section 1365 of this title and also include any sexual 
act, as defined in section 2246 of this title)''.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Eugene C. BLAKEY, Appellant.

No. WD 48724.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 28, 1995.

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

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Beal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before FENNER, C.J., P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and BERREY, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal of conviction, after trial by jury, of assault in the first degree, § 565.050, RSMo 1994.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
Exhibit 32  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Diane S. Button, President, Treasurer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officers of Cactus Ventures, Inc., (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:  (1) the amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A, of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009 (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 78 o(d)); and  (2) the information contained in the amended Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: December 28, 2009  /s/ Diane S. Button Diane S. Button President and Chief Executive Officer Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to Cactus Ventures, Inc. and will be retained by Cactus Ventures, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.